444 more FM people have their Constitutional rights violated

[HerdBot]

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/327342/

Another DUI checkpoint and 444 more people who had their rights violated. They were subjected to an illegal search and seizure even though the police had no probable cause.

They flagged 25 people to to step out of the vehicle and embaress them on the side of the road. 80% of the people they flagged and harrassed weren't even drunk.

Sit down and do what the man says or you will go to jail. Next step they are going door to door! (They already do that with the party patrol )

[aces1180]

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/327342/

Another DUI checkpoint and 444 more people who had their rights violated. They were subjected to an illegal search and seizure even though the police had no probable cause.

They flagged 25 people to to step out of the vehicle and embaress them on the side of the road. 80% of the people they flagged and harrassed weren't even drunk.

Sit down and do what the man says or you will go to jail. Next step they are going door to door!

Well, according to the Supreme Court, your rights are not being violated...


...by a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional.

Plus, they work and reduce drunk driving crashes.


The Centers for Disease Control, in a 2002 Traffic Injury Prevention report, found that in general, the number of alcohol related crashes was reduced by 20% in states that implement sobriety checkpoints compared to those that do not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_checkpoint

[TbonZach]

http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/f/e/fe1a0-Not_this_shit_again.jpg

Can someone merge all of these "people had their rights violated" threads into one? We get it. You don't like the roadblocks.

[HerdBot]

Well, according to the Supreme Court, your rights are not being violated...



Plus, they work and reduce drunk driving crashes.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_checkpoint

The Courts apparently don't understand the Constitution either. You can come up with a statistic for anything. They could also reduce accidental drownings in backyard pools by sending police door to door to watch your kids.

[aces1180]

The Courts apparently don't understand the Constitution either. You can come up with a statistic for anything. They could also reduce accidental drownings in backyard pools by sending police door to door to watch your kids.

Well, if you don't like it, don't drive those nights or move to Canada. Is it really hurting you?

[Elite]

The Courts apparently don't understand the Constitution either.

The Internet: Where everyone is a constitutional law scholar.

[HerdBot]

Well, if you don't like it, don't drive those nights or move to Canada. Is it really hurting you?

I don't drink and drive. Canada? Sorry but telling me Im unpatriotic for wanting everyone to lose their rights is a silly notion. A true patriot fights for the constitutional rights. It hurts everyone including you.

Also the supreme court thinks its ok to use the (ironically named) patriot act on american citizens.

We have no rights. Ask the Japanese Americans who went to concentration camps in WWII.

[DjKyRo]

Here we go....

[HerdBot]

The Internet: Where everyone is a constitutional law scholar.

The internet. Where people like you bend over for the government and do whatever they say and smile while getting pounded. Besides the constitution is pretty self explanatory.

[aces1180]

I don't drink and drive. Canada? Sorry but telling me Im unpatriotic for wanting everyone to lose their rights is a silly notion. A true patriot fights for the constitutional rights. It hurts everyone including you.

Also the supreme court thinks its ok to use the (ironically named) patriot act on american citizens.

We have no rights. Ask the Japanese Americans who went to concentration camps in WWII.

When did I say you were unpatriotic? All I am saying if you don't like the way the country is ran, you should either leave or do something about it. My guess is you will do neither and that is your right as an American.

[HerdBot]

When did I say you were unpatriotic? All I am saying if you don't like the way the country is ran, you should either leave or do something about it. My guess is you will do neither and that is your right as an American.

My way of dealing with it is by contacting my idiotic senator and spreading the word and venting in threads like this.

When you said move to Canada I took it the wrong way. Sorry.

[aces1180]

My way of dealing with it is by contacting my idiotic senator and spreading the word and venting in threads like this.

When you said move to Canada I took it the wrong way. Sorry.

That's fair enough...even though I don't agree with your position, I support your right to protest it.

[MAKBison]

I don't drink and drive. Canada? Sorry but telling me Im unpatriotic for wanting everyone to lose their rights is a silly notion. A true patriot fights for the constitutional rights. It hurts everyone including you.

Also the supreme court thinks its ok to use the (ironically named) patriot act on american citizens.

We have no rights. Ask the Japanese Americans who went to concentration camps in WWII.

Well said MLK said something very simular--true patriot fights for the constitutional rights

[Rockbear99]

If even one drunk driver is taken off the road it is a good deal. That could be a minimum of one life saved or even more.

[TheBisonator]

This thread is going 140 mph on the Autobahn now. But will there be a horrific crash??

[HerdBot]

If even one drunk driver is taken off the road it is a good deal. That could be a minimum of one life saved or even more.

No its not. By that reasoning we should eliminate the constitition all together. You could say guns kill so ban them. You could say freedom of speech is dangerous so ban it. How many people kill themselves because
of something someone said?

Fast food kills more people than alcohol. Heart disease is the #1 killer. By your argument we should ban fast food. Anything to save lives, right? We could mandate exercise. We could all wake up to the federal alarm and exercise on the sidewalk together wearing red white and blue. Wait that sounds like the North Korean military.

Ban sex? Hiv?

[gotts]

No its not. By that reasoning we should eliminate the constitition all together. You could say guns kill so ban them. You could say freedom of speech is dangerous so ban it. How many people kill themselves because of something someone said?

Fast food kills more people than alcohol. By your argument we should ban fast food. We could mandate exercise. We could all wake up to the federal alarm and exercise on the sidewalk together wearing red white and blue. Wait that sounds like the North Korean military.

gabe, can you show us on the doll where you were violated?

[HerdBot]

gabe, can you show us on the doll where you were violated?

We don't need a doll to show where the government is touching us! :)

[gotts]

We don't need a doll to show where the government is touching us! :)

Who said anything about touching? You must really be into that foreplay shit...

[HerdBot]

Who said anything about touching? You must really be into that foreplay shit...

I like some weird s**t but nothing that involves brown eyes or going to Texas. Ill leave that to the anti constitution folks who really like Uncle Sam!! (No pun intended )

[bisonaudit]

The internet. Where people like you bend over for the government and do whatever they say and smile while getting pounded. Besides the constitution is pretty self explanatory.

You were doing pretty well with me right up to the "...the consititution is pretty self explanatory." part.

The Constitution is not self explanatory. If it were it never would have been ratified if it were. They wouldn't have been able to get enough people to agree if the language were specific enough to be self explanatory.

What's perfectly obvious to you apparently was not to 6 justices. But it was a sufficiently difficult point of legal/constitutional contention that it made it to the Supreme Court in the first place. It's perfectly obvious to me that corporations and unions are not people let alone citizens and that real campaign finance reform deserves a chance to pass the legislature without the overbearing cloud of a constitutional question weighing on the odds of it ever becoming law. But 5 justices weren't convinced on that point either.

I agree that the whole, "because it's good for you", or "yes, but, it's effective" arguement shouldn't get the government very far on most of these issues.

[duluthbison]

Well if you feel that strongly about it, get yourself pulled over in a checkpoint then fight your case up to the Supreme Court.

But comparing this with the determent of Japanese Americans during WWII isn't exactly comparing apples to apples, they had their freedom taken away for years, while many died while in custody. The average DUI stop takes less than a few minutes and people are pulled over at random. They still have to have reasonable suspicion to pull you off to the side to do a breath test and a roadside.

http://www.madd.org/drunk-driving/campaign/sobriety-checkpoint-faqs.html

This is an instance where the greater good for everyone else on the road trumps this minor inconvenience that you may encounter while driving. Remember, they publish these events days in advance.

[HerdBot]

You were doing pretty well with me right up to the "...the consititution is pretty self explanatory." part.

The Constitution is not self explanatory. If it were it never would have been ratified if it were self explanatory. They wouldn't have been able to get enough people to agree if the language were specific enough to be self explanatory.

What's perfectly obvious to you apparently was not to 6 justices. But it was a sufficiently difficult point of legal/constitutional contention that it made it to the Supreme Court in the first place. It's perfectly obvious to me that corporations and unions are not people let alone citizens and that real campaign finance reform deserves a chance to pass the legislature without the overbearing cloud of a constitutional question weighing on the odds of it ever becoming law. But 5 justices weren't convinced on that point either.

Anyone should see the simplicity of something like "right to bear arms" See I don't take bribes or get appointed by crooked politicians and I don't have an agenda other than protecting my own rights. Its simple. The crooks of the world twist it to meet agendas. And until we hold them accountable it will get worse.

[56BISON73]

Well, if you don't like it, don't drive those nights or move to Canada. Is it really hurting you?

Moving to Canada will only increase your odds of being pulled over. Thats right. They dont need probable cause to pull you over for anything. They can just pull you over.

[HerdBot]

Well if you feel that strongly about it, get yourself pulled over in a checkpoint then fight your case up to the Supreme Court.

But comparing this with the determent of Japanese Americans during WWII isn't exactly comparing apples to apples, they had their freedom taken away for years, while many died while in custody. The average DUI stop takes less than a few minutes and people are pulled over at random. They still have to have reasonable suspicion to pull you off to the side to do a breath test and a roadside.

http://www.madd.org/drunk-driving/campaign/sobriety-checkpoint-faqs.html

This is an instance where the greater good for everyone else on the road trumps this minor inconvenience that you may encounter while driving. Remember, they publish these events days in advance.

In the words of Larry Flynt. Why should I have to go to jail to protect YOUR rights? I don't want to read stats. You can use stats to prove any freedom loss issue. The common good of freedom should override anything, IMO.

[HerdBot]

Moving to Canada will only increase your odds of being pulled over. Thats right. They dont need probable cause to pull you over for anything. They can just pull you over.

Do they need warrants in Canada?

[TILIS-BisonFan]

No its not. By that reasoning we should eliminate the constitition all together. You could say guns kill so ban them. You could say freedom of speech is dangerous so ban it. How many people kill themselves because
of something someone said?

Fast food kills more people than alcohol. Heart disease is the #1 killer. By your argument we should ban fast food. Anything to save lives, right? We could mandate exercise. We could all wake up to the federal alarm and exercise on the sidewalk together wearing red white and blue. Wait that sounds like the North Korean military.

Ban sex? Hiv?

Freedom of speech is dangerous but freedom of speech has its restrictions.
People that eat fast food make that choice.
I do not choose to get hit by a drunk driver.
I choose to drive during a pre announced checkpoint so I will be responsible for anything I do behind the wheel.
I also choose to have sex.

As you state below the right to bear arms seems simple but it isnt and also has restrictions.

In North Dakota drunk driving is more dangerous than guns, and almost anything else.

The Supreme Court didnt think checkpoints were unconstitutional and they know more about it than anyone on this board.

[ndsubison1]

Well, according to the Supreme Court, your rights are not being violated...



Plus, they work and reduce drunk driving crashes.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_checkpoint

you can also find data that says the opposite. but i think we've been down this road before many times on this board

[bisonaudit]

Anyone should see the simplicity of something like "right to bear arms"

The actual text of the second amendment isn't quite that simple...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[ndsubisonx]

If even one drunk driver is taken off the road it is a good deal. That could be a minimum of one life saved or even more.

In that case we should ban football then. People die from playing the sport every year. Also, we should ban natural gas and bic lighters since those kill people too

[56BISON73]

Do they need warrants in Canada?

I dont know. All I know is we got pulled over one time and we asked what the problem was and he said nothing. Just checking on who we were and what we were doing. After the stop we asked the driver--WTF??? He said its routine and they can pull people over when ever they want. We aked about probable cause and he just laughed and said---not in Canada.

[ndsubison1]

The actual text of the second amendment isn't quite that simple...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Everybody has a right to a bears arm is what they really meant

http://community.klipsch.com/forums/storage/9/1219009/Bear%20Arms%20a%20Right.jpg

[Twentysix]

No its not. By that reasoning we should eliminate the constitition all together. You could say guns kill so ban them. You could say freedom of speech is dangerous so ban it. How many people kill themselves because
of something someone said?

Fast food kills more people than alcohol. Heart disease is the #1 killer. By your argument we should ban fast food. Anything to save lives, right? We could mandate exercise. We could all wake up to the federal alarm and exercise on the sidewalk together wearing red white and blue. Wait that sounds like the North Korean military.

Ban sex? Hiv?

But your counter argument to that is that guns can also save people and can be used for hunting sport and protection. In what instance do drunk drivers save people.

Im interested now.

Your being a thickheaded person atm.

If someone drinks and drives and kills themselves thats their own fault, and their own choice.

When somene drinks and drives and kills someone else its a whole other story.

[TheBisonator]

I dont know. All I know is we got pulled over one time and we asked what the problem was and he said nothing. Just checking on who we were and what we were doing. After the stop we asked the driver--WTF??? He said its routine and they can pull people over when ever they want. We aked about probable cause and he just laughed and said---not in Canada.

Um, yeah, it's called "You're not a Canadian citizen and are only there visiting." Think your American license plate tipped off an officer on a power trip??

The police in the US have the same jurisdiction over non-American tourists.

[DjKyRo]

:facepalm:

[56BISON73]

Um, yeah, it's called "You're not a Canadian citizen and are only there visiting." Think your American license plate tipped off an officer on a power trip??

The police in the US have the same jurisdiction over non-American tourists.

The van had Ontario plates. The driver was Canadian. So no he didnt know where we were from.

[Twentysix]

The van had Ontario plates. The driver was Canadian. So no he didnt know where we were from.

Did you look arab? An arab driving a van in the US with US plates would probably get pulled over with no reason beyond racial profiling.

[gotts]

Do they need warrants in Canada?

No, but I'll bet you'll need plenty of lube.

[Twentysix]

No, but I'll bet you'll need plenty of lube.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/104262/steve-the-newfoundlander-the-sodomy-ban <---the one I originally ment to post.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154352/french-canada

[56BISON73]

Did you look arab? An arab driving a van in the US with US plates would probably get pulled over with no reason beyond racial profiling.

We were in Canada. May be he was looking for all those Canadian Mexicans that keep trying to slip out of the country.

[gotts]

We were in Canada. May be he was looking for all those Canadian Mexicans that keep trying to slip out of the country.

They had an early inclination of your sausage smuggling ideas...

Rumor has it you got off by simply showing them the bison horns.

[Twentysix]

We were in Canada. May be he was looking for all those Canadian Mexicans that keep trying to slip out of the country.

Canadian mexicans? You mean people from the part of the US known as the South? I had heard of them being called sweedish mexcians, but never canadian mexicans. I guess that just means the situation is getting worse.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-29-2011/swede-dreams---made-in-america


If you guys unionize here IKEA could ship down to South Carolina. And those people work for pork rinds and horse vagina's....horse vagina's.

[imabison]

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/327342/

Another DUI checkpoint and 444 more people who had their rights violated. They were subjected to an illegal search and seizure even though the police had no probable cause.

They flagged 25 people to to step out of the vehicle and embaress them on the side of the road. 80% of the people they flagged and harrassed weren't even drunk.

Sit down and do what the man says or you will go to jail. Next step they are going door to door! (They already do that with the party patrol )

KFGO had a representative the Fargo PD on tonight stating that it was an oversight that there was no public notice of this checkpoint. I think I remember in the 1st one this month it was mentioned there would be another. Anyway they said the "hoped" it would not happen again the failure to advise the public.

[TbonZach]

Boy, this thread escalated quickly. I mean it really got out of hand fast. It jumped up a notch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQYO_5SvtnY

[Twentysix]

Boy, this thread escalated quickly. I mean it really got out of hand fast. It jumped up a notch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQYO_5SvtnY

Political threads on the internet are like cat nip for prawns. You don't have to argue in person.

[HerdBot]

Freedom of speech is dangerous but freedom of speech has its restrictions.
People that eat fast food make that choice.
I do not choose to get hit by a drunk driver.
I choose to drive during a pre announced checkpoint so I will be responsible for anything I do behind the wheel.
I also choose to have sex.

As you state below the right to bear arms seems simple but it isnt and also has restrictions.

In North Dakota drunk driving is more dangerous than guns, and almost anything else.

The Supreme Court didnt think checkpoints were unconstitutional and they know more about it than anyone on this board.

The Supreme Court is corrupt. True you don't choose whether or not you get killed by a drunk driver but you rarely have control over your death. People are going to die no matter what. Taking away the innocents rights to protect everyone is backwards idiotic concept. How about we make it a bigger crime instead of creating a mini police state?

You can't control death. You can choose to drink and drive. You know the consequences. You can also choose to not drive at midnight on a friday night. Would you walk down a dark alley near a bar at 2 am and be shocked that you get in a fight? You can't control non alcohol related auto deaths either. What about the person who sucks at driving? or the tired driver? or the guy who is sleepy or took a drowsy allergy pill? It's life. I could walk outside and slip on a dog turd and splatter my brains all over the sidewalk. Are we going to ban dog shit since I was stupid and didn't look where I was walking?

[aces1180]

The Supreme Court is corrupt. True you don't choose whether or not you get killed by a drunk driver but you rarely have control over your death. People are going to die no

If you wife or child was killed by a drunk driver, would you say that?

[HerdBot]

If you wife or child was killed by a drunk driver, would you say that?

(hit reply on my phone by accident and forgot to complete my post above by the time you replied so I hope this maks sense)

I wouldn't be any more upset if they were killed by a raging lunitc who started shooting in a mall or if my neighbors dog killed them. I'm more concerned with justice being served and people learning from a poor choices. If they guy gets a year in jail I would be livid but thats a different issue altogether) I would not be calling for a police state. I've had family members die from accidents. A relative accidentally shot himself hunting. I had no anger toward guns. I'm more passionate about teaching how to safely handle guns. *not really close family not sure how I would feel if its my own child**

[gotts]

(hit reply on my phone by accident and forgot to complete my post above by the time you replied so I hope this maks sense)

I wouldn't be any more upset if they were killed by a raging lunitc who started shooting in a mall or if my neighbors dog killed them. I'm more concerned with justice being served and people learning from a poor choices. If they guy gets a year in jail I would be livid but thats a different issue altogether) I would not be calling for a police state. I've had family members die from accidents. *not real close family though so not sure how i would feel if it was my child*

I really wanted to call a preemptive bullshit for gabe on aces post, kind of regretting not doing so.

Anyways, I call bullshit.

You absolutely cannot say you'd react a certain way on something that hasn't happened, in a capacity like the aforementioned, anyways.

[HerdBot]

I really wanted to call a preemptive bullshit for gabe on aces post, kind of regretting not doing so.

Anyways, I call bullshit.

You absolutely cannot say you'd react a certain way on something that hasn't happened, in a capacity like the aforementioned, anyways.

Exactly which is why its a bs question to ask. A bs? gets a bs response. Thats why I edited the response to explain the death in detail. I don't think he intended it that way since he replied to incomplete post as you can see.

[MN_BISON]

Canadian mexicans? You mean people from the part of the US known as the South? I had heard of them being called sweedish mexcians, but never canadian mexicans. I guess that just means the situation is getting worse.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-29-2011/swede-dreams---made-in-america

Go to Gretna, Manitoba and you'll run into some Canadian Mexicans, I'm not kidding either. Blonde hair and blue eyes to boot.

[TILIS-BisonFan]

The Supreme Court is corrupt. True you don't choose whether or not you get killed by a drunk driver but you rarely have control over your death. People are going to die no matter what. Taking away the innocents rights to protect everyone is backwards idiotic concept. How about we make it a bigger crime instead of creating a mini police state?

You can't control death. You can choose to drink and drive. You know the consequences. You can also choose to not drive at midnight on a friday night. Would you walk down a dark alley near a bar at 2 am and be shocked that you get in a fight? You can't control non alcohol related auto deaths either. What about the person who sucks at driving? or the tired driver? or the guy who is sleepy or took a drowsy allergy pill? It's life. I could walk outside and slip on a dog turd and splatter my brains all over the sidewalk. Are we going to ban dog shit since I was stupid and didn't look where I was walking?

You dont have control over your death specifically but your everyday decisions you make in the long term can greatly increase the average persons lifespan.

If i walk down an alley at 2 am i made the decision to increase my chances of getting in a fight although i have never walked down an alley and gotten in a fight. I also decrease the odds of this happening by not making it a common practice or responding to other drunks in the alley looking for a fight.

I would like to think that it is scientifically impossible to slip on a dog turd and "splatter your brains" although i do not know off hand the strength of the human skull. For all probability reasons its almost impossible.

What im getting at and what you cannot seem to grasp is you can minimize the odds of almost anything negative happening over the long run. Its called having common sense. Drunk driving is not one of them. Stop thinking of this on the micro level.

Yes people will die but if you think its random that a crack addict has a lower lifespan than a North Dakotan stop being so delusional.

I couldnt care less about your claim of the Supreme Court being corrupt. You have made clearly your opinions in this so its hard to take the above claim seriously.

[TILIS-BisonFan]

(hit reply on my phone by accident and forgot to complete my post above by the time you replied so I hope this maks sense)

I wouldn't be any more upset if they were killed by a raging lunitc who started shooting in a mall or if my neighbors dog killed them. I'm more concerned with justice being served and people learning from a poor choices. If they guy gets a year in jail I would be livid but thats a different issue altogether) I would not be calling for a police state. I've had family members die from accidents. A relative accidentally shot himself hunting. I had no anger toward guns. I'm more passionate about teaching how to safely handle guns. *not really close family not sure how I would feel if its my own child**

Bullshit. someone voluntarily hunting and accidentally getting shot does not equal Drunk driving? DUCY

[Notorious]

Much of the Constitution is over 200 years old. While it certainly still serves as a foundation for the core beliefs of America, I kind of laugh when people continually "run to the Constitution" for justification. There aren't many documents that old that are still relevant anywhere in the World sans* religious documents. As the our Country changes, so must the princpals by which we live. I'm all for less government, but more for public safety over individual freedom in this case.


*Like CAS41's slacks from the Arnold Pamler JCPenny Collection...sans("without")-a-belt"

[bisonmike2]

Everybody has a right to a bears arm is what they really meant

http://community.klipsch.com/forums/storage/9/1219009/Bear%20Arms%20a%20Right.jpg

I always thought the 2nd amendment was a little ridiculous.

http://www.blurtdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/right-to-bear-arms.jpg

[TbonZach]

I always thought the 2nd amendment was a little ridiculous.

http://www.blurtdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/right-to-bear-arms.jpg

And if you're dyslexic then it's really messed up.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_E52Q-GbXUbg/ScKRz_aub0I/AAAAAAAAAIc/3wcTQEYg2XM/s400/Armed+Bear.jpg

[BadlandsBison]

Much of the Constitution is over 200 years old. While it certainly still serves as a foundation for the core beliefs of America, I kind of laugh when people continually "run to the Constitution" for justification. There aren't many documents that old that are still relevant anywhere in the World sans* religious documents. As the our Country changes, so must the princpals by which we live. I'm all for less government, but more for public safety over individual freedom in this case.


*Like CAS41's slacks from the Arnold Pamler JCPenny Collection...sans("without")-a-belt"

Would you say that to John Wayne's face?

[skolbrother]

FYI, you are twice as likely to get in accident texting and driving as you are drinking and driving. The scary part is the people who are drunk, texting & driving!

[bisonaudit]

Much of the Constitution is over 200 years old. While it certainly still serves as a foundation for the core beliefs of America, I kind of laugh when people continually "run to the Constitution" for justification. There aren't many documents that old that are still relevant anywhere in the World sans* religious documents. As the our Country changes, so must the princpals by which we live. I'm all for less government, but more for public safety over individual freedom in this case.


*Like CAS41's slacks from the Arnold Pamler JCPenny Collection...sans("without")-a-belt"

Almost every religious document is older. Personally I don't think that any of them are more relevant than the constitution.

Anyone who's looking to the constitution for answers to difficult questions is looking in the wrong place. It's not the teacher's edition of a text book. It's an architect's conceptual sketch for the arena in which difficult questions are debated. The document is what we make of it.

[bisonmike2]

And if you're dyslexic then it's really messed up.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_E52Q-GbXUbg/ScKRz_aub0I/AAAAAAAAAIc/3wcTQEYg2XM/s400/Armed+Bear.jpg

Russian's already did that.

http://www.deviantart.com/download/171738899/Russian_Bear_Cavalry_by_Vertigo322.jpg

[stevdock]

I don't understand how these actually catch someone. I mean you've got to be absolutely stupid to go through one of these if you've had anything to drink. And from my understanding they have to provide a turn around zone. Yes I get that could show guilt, but that's not necessarily the case. Plus it's been stated on here that when those checkpoints go up it is quickly spread around the bars anyways. So like I said you've got to be stupid to get caught in one of these.

[bisonaudit]

I don't understand how these actually catch someone. I mean you've got to be absolutely stupid to go through one of these if you've had anything to drink. And from my understanding they have to provide a turn around zone. Yes I get that could show guilt, but that's not necessarily the case. Plus it's been stated on here that when those checkpoints go up it is quickly spread around the bars anyways. So like I said you've got to be stupid to get caught in one of these.

Criminals are dumb.

[HerdBot]

Bullshit. someone voluntarily hunting and accidentally getting shot does not equal Drunk driving? DUCY

Lets say I accidentally shot him! Ban guns? I could give you a hundred other examples but it doesn't matter because you clearly think the government setting up military style checkpoints and regulating everything is the solution. I mean, you can't save every life in the world.


Ill just say this to everyone who is doesn't really care about your rights....

One day you drive through a check point, sobor as can be. The police have added drug sniffing dogs to the check point. Suddenly the dog starts barking at your car and the cop asks if he can search your car because "what do you have to hide?" You don't do drugs so what's to worry about? They find a bag of weed or meth. Your sons friend was in the car and it fell out of his pocket and it was stuck between the seats . They arrest you on the spot. Since it happenned on a Friday, you can't see a judge until Monday so you spend the next 3 days in jail. You are convicted felon and lose your job over it. You were already behind on bills so now your on the verge of bankruptcy and losing your house. All because of a checkpoint.

Or...

One day if the economy collapses and its anarchy in the streets and mobs of people are going door to door looting, and your trying to protect your family with a knife because you don't have the right to bear arms... and felons can't own guns.

Or someday if WWIII happens against China and your wife and kids who are part Asian find themselves in a concentration camp because of it, much like Japanese camps in WWII...

Or if the cops start going door to door someday to do random check ups because "if you're not guilty what's to worry about? "

Or if you write a letter to the editor ripping the government for putting your family in a concentration camp over a war you disagree with, so they arrest you...

Don't whine to me. It all starts with little details like this.

[HerdBot]

I don't understand how these actually catch someone. I mean you've got to be absolutely stupid to go through one of these if you've had anything to drink. And from my understanding they have to provide a turn around zone. Yes I get that could show guilt, but that's not necessarily the case. Plus it's been stated on here that when those checkpoints go up it is quickly spread around the bars anyways. So like I said you've got to be stupid to get caught in one of these.

They trick you. They make it look like an accident scene and they force you to take a detour that's a trap. You can turn blocks away but its usually too late. They don't post signs that say "drunk? Turn around. " And when they forget to notify the media your screwed.

[rutlandbison]

The Supreme Court is corrupt. True you don't choose whether or not you get killed by a drunk driver but you rarely have control over your death. People are going to die no matter what. Taking away the innocents rights to protect everyone is backwards idiotic concept. How about we make it a bigger crime instead of creating a mini police state?

You can't control death. You can choose to drink and drive. You know the consequences. You can also choose to not drive at midnight on a friday night. Would you walk down a dark alley near a bar at 2 am and be shocked that you get in a fight? You can't control non alcohol related auto deaths either. What about the person who sucks at driving? or the tired driver? or the guy who is sleepy or took a drowsy allergy pill? It's life. I could walk outside and slip on a dog turd and splatter my brains all over the sidewalk. Are we going to ban dog shit since I was stupid and didn't look where I was walking?
Or somebody trying to give a hand jibber?

[SDbison]

I don't drink and drive. Canada? Sorry but telling me Im unpatriotic for wanting everyone to lose their rights is a silly notion. A true patriot fights for the constitutional rights. It hurts everyone including you.

Also the supreme court thinks its ok to use the (ironically named) patriot act on american citizens.

We have no rights. Ask the Japanese Americans who went to concentration camps in WWII.
Gabe, don't bother arguing with the Libtards........they don't understand anything unless some fruitcake like Al Gore dreams it up. Of course, America is just prospering under their vision of more goverment control and takeover of everything.

[TILIS-BisonFan]

Lets say I accidentally shot him! Ban guns? I could give you a hundred other examples but it doesn't matter because you clearly think the government setting up military style checkpoints and regulating everything is the solution. I mean, you can't save every life in the world.



It still isnt the same DUCY? (hint he chose to hunt with you)

We can all find the most extreme circumstances which you are doing but what good as a whole society does that do? What good is preventing dogs from pooping outside because 1 of 1,000,000 people get hurt by this annually. (thinking macro instead of micro)

Also like i said earlier drunk driveing is one of the biggest causes of accidental deaths in our state. Preventing this is way more reasonable than worrying about possibly having a telophone pole randomly fall down and electrocute me. Waking up has dangers. Its all about minimizing them. You are so off base with reality in this thread its unreal.

[HerdBot]

Gabe, don't bother arguing with the Libtards........they don't understand anything unless some fruitcake like Al Gore dreams it up. Of course, America is just prospering under their vision of more goverment control and takeover of everything.

Yeah and Michael Moore is a God too! He convinced them Obama care is good too and Capitalism is bad.

[HerdBot]

Hey every one. Thanks for the interesting discussion. We will have to agree to disagree. Its getting closer to kickoff! :)

[duluthbison]

They trick you. They make it look like an accident scene and they force you to take a detour that's a trap. You can turn blocks away but its usually too late. They don't post signs that say "drunk? Turn around. " And when they forget to notify the media your screwed.

Promise that these aren't statistics....:)
http://www.ci.fargo.nd.us/CityInfo/Departments/Police/CitizenResources/FrequentlyAskedQuestions/Sobrietycheckpoints/


Is it illegal to make a turn to avoid the checkpoint?
Some judges have interpreted North Dakota law to suggest a motorist must be given an opportunity to avoid a checkpoint if they so choose. Therefore, a "Sobriety Checkpoint Ahead" sign is posted in the area immediately ahead of the checkpoint. This allows a motorist to make a legal turn and avoid passing through the checkpoint.

[ISXBISON]

Hey every one. Thanks for the interesting discussion. We will have to agree to disagree. Its getting closer to kickoff! :)

If you would like to debate it with Chief Ternes--he'll be taking calls tomorrow from 1-2 on KFGO.

[bisonmike2]

Lets say I accidentally shot him! Ban guns? I could give you a hundred other examples but it doesn't matter because you clearly think the government setting up military style checkpoints and regulating everything is the solution. I mean, you can't save every life in the world.


Ill just say this to everyone who is doesn't really care about your rights....

One day you drive through a check point, sobor as can be. The police have added drug sniffing dogs to the check point. Suddenly the dog starts barking at your car and the cop asks if he can search your car because "what do you have to hide?" You don't do drugs so what's to worry about? They find a bag of weed or meth. Your sons friend was in the car and it fell out of his pocket and it was stuck between the seats . They arrest you on the spot. Since it happenned on a Friday, you can't see a judge until Monday so you spend the next 3 days in jail. You are convicted felon and lose your job over it. You were already behind on bills so now your on the verge of bankruptcy and losing your house. All because of a checkpoint.

Solution: beat your kids ass when you get out for planting meth in the car. Now you'll get to go back to jail and you won't have to worry about not having a home to live in.

Or...

One day if the economy collapses and its anarchy in the streets and mobs of people are going door to door looting, and your trying to protect your family with a knife because you don't have the right to bear arms... and felons can't own guns. I think you've seen too many movies. Also, felons can't own guns, but if your a felon, who the hell cares. If an apocalypse is breaking out, you bet your ass I'm finding a gun and I'm not going to run it by my probation officer.

Or someday if WWIII happens against China and your wife and kids who are part Asian find themselves in a concentration camp because of it, much like Japanese camps in WWII... China's got plenty of their own issues to worry about before they go waging war against us. Now the Canadians, we better keep an eye on those bastards.

Or if the cops start going door to door someday to do random check ups because "if you're not guilty what's to worry about? " They already do this but they don't even knock. It's called the PATRIOT ACT

Or if you write a letter to the editor ripping the government for putting your family in a concentration camp over a war you disagree with, so they arrest you...If your writing letters now days, you're probably crazy and need to be incarcerated anyway. Isn't it 37 cents a stamp? Plus you either have to write it out or at least use a printer. Just send an email. Much faster and loads cheaper.

Don't whine to me. It all starts with little details like this.

I just threw in my .02.

[HerdBot]

I just threw in my .02.

Funny responses but..

An economic collapse is possible. Shit it could happen next month if we default. We're talking the great depression minus a strong government and manufacturing sector.

[HerdBot]

If you would like to debate it with Chief Ternes--he'll be taking calls tomorrow from 1-2 on KFGO.

A good question would be "who should be held accountable for not disclosing the check points as required by law" and "what is fair punishment for breaking a law that infringes on people's constitutional rights? "

And then I get into cost and effectiveness.

[ndsubison1]

FYI, you are twice as likely to get in accident texting and driving as you are drinking and driving. The scary part is the people who are drunk, texting & driving!

what about sexting and driving?

[EndZoneQB]

Gabe, don't bother arguing with the Libtards........they don't understand anything unless some fruitcake like Al Gore dreams it up. Of course, America is just prospering under their vision of more goverment control and takeover of everything.

You can't bunch us all together SD. I generally vote liberal/democrat(I consider myself a centrist, tho), but checkpoints rub me the wrong way too. I'm for a large state government and a small federal government...and not having funding tied to individual laws to force every state to abide by the fed's "guidelines".

And just for the record, Al Gore is slightly crazy, but John Kerry scared me more.

[bisonmike2]

Funny responses but..

An economic collapse is possible. Shit it could happen next month if we default. We're talking the great depression minus a strong government and manufacturing sector.

Which is why the republicans are so determined to not pass a debt limit increase. They want to see economic collapse just so they can blame it on Obama.

[bisonaudit]

Which is why the republicans are so determined to not pass a debt limit increase. They want to see economic collapse just so they can blame it on Obama.

Well when Obama says, "the economy is going to blow up if you don't pass this." They don't pass it. And then the economy blows up. I think they're going to have a difficult time blaming it on Obama.

Not that that will prevent them from trying. Or prevent some from believing.

[ndsubison1]

Which is why the republicans are so determined to not pass a debt limit increase. They want to see economic collapse just so they can blame it on Obama.

i thought spending was the problem though :confused:

[bisonmike2]

i thought spending was the problem though :confused:

Nope. It's a democrat in the White House.

[HerdBot]

Which is why the republicans are so determined to not pass a debt limit increase. They want to see economic collapse just so they can blame it on Obama.

Because there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. They take orders from the big businesses. They throw in a few social issues to give the illusion we have a choice. Its like the WWF. On screen they are enemies. Behind the scenes they are laughing all the way to the bank.

Does anyone think that a normal person would spend more on military than the next 17 countries combined, 16 being our allies, when were on the verge of collapse and not pay social security to people who have paid for their benefits.

Wars? Bush had a bad Rep. Under Obama were still in Iraq and added a new one. Spending? Bush had a bail out. So did Obama. Its exactly the same. The only way things will ever change is to not vote for a Republican or Democrats. Don't buy into " a vote for a 3rd party is a vote for a Democrats or Republican. Its all BS.

[Bisonguy]

what about sexting and driving?


What about drunk sexting and driving? :confused:

[bisonmike2]

Because there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. They take orders from the big businesses. They throw in a few social issues to give the illusion we have a choice. Its like the WWF. On screen they are enemies. Behind the scenes they are laughing all the way to the bank.

Does anyone think that a normal person would spend more on military than the next 17 countries combined, 16 being our allies, when were on the verge of collapse and not pay social security to people who have paid for their benefits.

Wars? Bush had a bad Rep. Under Obama were still in Iraq and added a new one. Spending? Bush had a bail out. So did Obama. Its exactly the same. The only way things will ever change is to not vote for a Republican or Democrats. Don't buy into " a vote for a 3rd party is a vote for a Democrats or Republican. Its all BS.

My post wasn't meant to be pro-dem or anti-republican, I just call it like I see it. The dems have compromised, they are offering 4 trillion in spending cuts but they also see the need for increased revenue. The republicans are blocking everything and refusing to budge one inch. I've said it with the MN state issues too but it's true on every level. Compromise is the only way we're going to get out of this mess. Partisan bickering and bitching will not help anyone. I see one party way more than the other refusing to compromise, that's the republicans. The party of NO.

[HerdBot]

What about drunk sexting and driving? :confused:

Don't forget having sex while driving. Quick show of hands. How manu have had sex while driving? 69.3% of men have been engaged in a sexual act while driving. I'm sure there has been a fair share of deaths due to blow jobs. Its tough to concentrate on the road while getting head. They need to start a public service campaign encouraging people to not have sex while driving. Should make for some interesting tv or radio ads!

[gotts]

Don't forget having sex while driving. Quick show of hands. How manu have had sex while driving? 69.3% of men have been engaged in a sexual act while driving. I'm sure there has been a fair share of deaths due to blow jobs. Its tough to concentrate on the road while getting head. They need to start a public service campaign encouraging people to not have sex while driving. Should make for some interesting tv or radio ads!

Hush. That's enough out of you Mr. 30.7%.

[HerdBot]

Hush. That's enough out of you Mr. 30.7%.

The thread had already gotten weird enough so I thought I would step it up a notch.

[4mcruenomore]

Dang, I love BV in the offseason.

[HerdBot]

My post wasn't meant to be pro-dem or anti-republican, I just call it like I see it. The dems have compromised, they are offering 4 trillion in spending cuts but they also see the need for increased revenue. The republicans are blocking everything and refusing to budge one inch. I've said it with the MN state issues too but it's true on every level. Compromise is the only way we're going to get out of this mess. Partisan bickering and bitching will not help anyone. I see one party way more than the other refusing to compromise, that's the republicans. The party of NO.

Maybe we just need to take a step back and go bankrupt or make historical cuts in spending. Cut military spending by half. Cut spending by 75%. Then we will suffer for a few years but we can rebuild the country from the ground up free of big business and corrupt politics. If they dont have money they cant be as corrupt. People will realize they can keep their money instead of giving most of it to the government. The only federal benefit I enjoy is the highway system and a military that fights wars I don't support. I visit a federal park once in a blue moon. Kids go to private schools. Thats quite the cost for as much as I pay in taxes.

Let the states handle the money. We survived as a nation from the end of the civil war to 1919 without a federal income tax and we did just fine. Seems like whenever the government has revenue they look for countries to bomb and spend it all. The private industries have been creating wars far centuries. Take away the money and we wont see as many wars or fabricated false flag wars.

This country reminds me of the family who makes $500k per year but is broke because they own 5 cars, a giant house, a bigger lake house, a boat, send their kids to private schools, eat out every night, and donate a ton of money to charity but they are living paycheck to paycheck. Its irresponsible and ridiculous they're broke.

We don't need to spend more on military than the next 17 countries combined, when 16 are allies. We don't need to give immigrants free college education. We don't need grants for college. We don't need social programs that encourage people to spend their entire life on welfare. We dont need federal healthcare. We dont need NASA. We don't need half the shit we have. We have so much money, the dude with the question marks all over him is selling a book how to get free money from the government.

All I want is highways, clean water, safe food, and a modest military that is managed like a well run private business.

[Twentysix]

Dang, I love BV in the offseason.

You should try 4chan.

http://images.4chan.org/an/src/1311133030143.jpg

[4mcruenomore]

Politics, Religion, Race, are just too stressful and everyone has some idiotic opinion. BV is suppose to be for fun, where are the mods on this thread?

[Twentysix]

Politics, Religion, Race, are just too stressful and everyone has some idiotic opinion. BV is suppose to be for fun, where are the mods on this thread?

:judges: :judges: :judges: :judges:
[purple text]
http://images.4chan.org/sci/src/1311130649335.jpg
[/purple text]

[ndsubison1]

a lot of useful info in this thread

[DjKyRo]

http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/b/b2/Seriousbusiness2.jpg

[TILIS-BisonFan]

If you want to talk about rights violated bring up online gaming not sobriety checkpoints

[bisonaudit]

Agree on internet gaming, TILIS.

Gabe, we were in Afganistan before we were in Iraq under Bush. See Tilman, Pat. And we never left. We just neglected it for 6 years while we were busy fucking up Iraq and giving Iran all kinds of room to operate across the entire middle east. That doesn't make you wrong about it being Obama's war now though. Many in his own party, including the Vice President, wanted out faster.

I heard Larry Summers describe the consequences of a debt default as "post Leman Brothers on steroids." That's underselling it. Steroids increase performance my a small percentage. A debt default could be an order of magnitude more catastrophic than Leman. The distance between these outcomes is not Fargo to Casselton, it's Fargo to Bismarck.

We don't have to default in order to solve our problems. Defaulting will only make it worse. What do people who seriously think this is an option think will happen to the size of governement relative to the rest of the economy when GDP shrinks by 20 or 30%? A default equals more government not less.

[HerdBot]

Agree on internet gaming, TILIS.

Gabe, we were in Afganistan before we were in Iraq under Bush. See Tilman, Pat. And we never left. We just neglected it for 6 years while we were busy fucking up Iraq and giving Iran all kinds of room to operate across the entire middle east. That doesn't make you wrong about it being Obama's war now though. Many in his own party, including the Vice President, wanted out faster.

I heard Larry Summers describe the consequences of a debt default as "post Leman Brothers on steroids." That's underselling it. Steroids increase performance my a small percentage. A debt default could be an order of magnitude more catastrophic than Leman. The distance between these outcomes is not Fargo to Casselton, it's Fargo to Bismarck.

We don't have to default in order to solve our problems. Defaulting will only make it worse. What do people who seriously think this is an option think will happen to the size of governement relative to the rest of the economy when GDP shrinks by 20 or 30%? A default equals more government not less.

If your credit cards are maxed out, how do you fix it? You cut expenses dramaticlly and increase your pay. You don't go out and apply for another credit card.

Only the government thinks that way. They need to make some tough choices TODAY and that means cutting everything that is non essential before the payment is due. Cancel the cell phones, cable, and sell the Caddy and bug a piece of shit car. (Use rabbit ears and a home phone or pay as you go) But they will never do that because they are owned by the world banks who want to own the US. They've got us by the balls. People will lose jobs. You have to take a step backwards before you move forward.

[coldspot]

If your credit cards are maxed out, how do you fix it? You cut expenses dramaticlly and increase your pay. You don't go out and apply for another credit card.

Only the government thinks that way. They need to make some tough choices TODAY and that means cutting everything that is non essential before the payment is due. Cancel the cell phones, cable, and sell the Caddy and bug a piece of shit car. (Use rabbit ears and a home phone or pay as you go) But they will never do that because they are owned by the world banks who want to own the US. They've got us by the balls. People will lose jobs. You have to take a step backwards before you move forward.

I wouldn't be so sure on that.

[bisonaudit]

If your credit cards are maxed out, how do you fix it? You cut expenses dramaticlly and increase your pay. You don't go out and apply for another credit card.

Only the government thinks that way. They need to make some tough choices TODAY and that means cutting everything that is non essential before the payment is due. Cancel the cell phones, cable, and sell the Caddy and bug a piece of shit car. (Use rabbit ears and a home phone or pay as you go) But they will never do that because they are owned by the world banks who want to own the US. They've got us by the balls. People will lose jobs. You have to take a step backwards before you move forward.

No one is saying we don't cut spending. The gang of 6 is back, has support from the White House and bipartisan support in the Senate. Their proposal is $3 in cuts for every $1 in revenue.

But we can't stop paying our bills. This debt ceiling thing isn't a decision point on how much to spend on what. Those decisions have already been made. The money is spent. The debt ceiling equals getting the invoice in the mail.

I'm going to paraphrase Larry Summers on Charlie Rose last week. The analogy between household finance and government finance isn't very good but to the extent it does work it works like this. You and your college freshman son can argue all day long about the whether's and hows of his Visa bill, who's going to take responsibility for it, how it's going to get fixed and what to do to make sure it never happens again. But while that fight is going on, you've still got to pay Visa.

If the US defaults it will be a global financial disaster. Interest rates for every kind of borrowing the world over are pegged to US Treasuries. It's the turtle on the bottom of the cosmic stack.

[HerdBot]

I wouldn't be so sure on that.

Public attitudes reflect leadership . Of course the idiot public continues to vote for Republicans and Democrats so its their fault too. They get hung up on social issues like gay marriage, abortion, and family values and ignore the big picture. The fact were broke. And when they elect the party that says they will stand with them on social issues, they don't do it. Why? Once they take a stand, the public will realize they are exactly the same party.

[Bison bison]

In the event that the debt ceiling is not raised, the Secretary of the Treasury will have to decide what bills get paid. He alone will decide if the U.S. defaults.

[Bison"FANatic"]

In the event that the debt ceiling is not raised, the Secretary of the Treasury will have to decide what bills get paid. He alone will decide if the U.S. defaults.
+++++++++

and he will pay our obligations so we don't default. Now don't take this that I don't think something needs to get worked out but it is not like come August our revenue in going to stop coming in. Just some tough choices on how we end up spending that money.

The simple truth is we borrow .40cents of every dollar we spend and that is not sustainable.

A budget needs to be passed that stops this insanity. It is going to hurt but it will make the country stronger in the long run.

[bisonaudit]

In the event that the debt ceiling is not raised, the Secretary of the Treasury will have to decide what bills get paid. He alone will decide if the U.S. defaults.

I couldn't disagree more. If the debt ceiling isn't increased, that's not on the Treasury Secretary. He's been obligated BY congress to spend money on particular programs and then not given the legal capacity to borrow BY congress in order to fullfill those obligations.

If this happens, it doesn't matter if he starts picking winners and losers. If you're holding US Treasuries (THE cosmic turtle) and you see military personnel, senior citizens, and or government contractors not getting paid, you're going to re-evaluate the content of your portfolio. Interest rates for everything will increase, quite possibly dramatically, over night. Asset prices will fall. Bank balance sheets, most of which are still a mess from the housing extend and pretend will get hammered again, credit markets will freeze, and the global economy will tank. Cosmic turtles are serious business.

[Bison"FANatic"]

I couldn't disagree more. If the debt ceiling isn't increased, that's not on the Treasury Secretary. He's been obligated BY congress to spend money on particular programs and then not given the legal capacity to borrow BY congress in order to fullfill those obligations.

If this happens, it doesn't matter if he starts picking winners and losers. If you're holding US Treasuries (THE cosmic turtle) and you see military personnel, senior citizens, and or government contractors not getting paid, you're going to re-evaluate the content of your portfolio. Interest rates for everything will increase, quite possibly dramatically, over night. Asset prices will fall. Bank balance sheets, most of which are still a mess from the housing extend and pretend will get hammered again, credit markets will freeze, and the global economy will tank. Cosmic turtles are serious business.

Now don't go saying that the whole government would come to a stop. That just is not going to happen. It was offered to continue military pay and social security benefits and other programs and pay the debt obligations. It is our President who is trying to scare everyone stating that the "world would come to an end and the elderly wouldn't get there payments."

[Bison bison]

I couldn't disagree more.

Disagree? Those are facts.

[bisonaudit]

Now don't go saying that the whole government would come to a stop. That just is not going to happen. It was offered to continue military pay and social security benefits and other programs and pay the debt obligations. It is our President who is trying to scare everyone stating that the "world would come to an end and the elderly wouldn't get there payments."

I didn't say that the government would come to a hault. If you look several post back, I said the government would get bigger. What's going to come to a hault is the economy. Stop seeing what you want to see and start reading what I actually posted.

NDB2, the only thing in the post I disputed was where the blame should get placed. There was nothing wrong with the facts as far as they went. The additional fact is that, it's not relevant who the Treasury Secretary decides to write a check to and who he doesn't. The markets will kill us for not raising the debt ceiling and it will send the world economy into a tail spin.

If you lent $90,000 to a guy who makes $100,000 a year and then found out that, even though he was continuing to pay you back, he was selectively defaulting on his other obligations, what would you do the next time that loan came up for renewal? You'd lend him less and/or demand a higher return. About $40 billion of US debt matures and is refinanced every day.

[Bison"FANatic"]

actually you said "you see military personnel, senior citizens, and or government contractors not getting paid"

But we are never going to agree on anything, Way different philosophies on government and on what is best for a business climate. Sometimes it just gets to the point where our leaders need to just stand up and say enough is enough and the status quo needs to be changed. We will overspend by about 1.6 trillion this year and the "big deal" saves 4 trillion over a decade. So if we keep up the status quo with current spending instead of being another 16 Trillion further in debt we will only be another 12 Trillion. WHOOO HOOOO. Thats fixing the problem. Somebody needs to have the balls in this country to step up and fix this fiasco and they are going to have to be huge balls because it is going to take huge changes.

[ndsubison1]

Agree on internet gaming, TILIS.

Gabe, we were in Afganistan before we were in Iraq under Bush. See Tilman, Pat. And we never left. We just neglected it for 6 years while we were busy fucking up Iraq and giving Iran all kinds of room to operate across the entire middle east. That doesn't make you wrong about it being Obama's war now though. Many in his own party, including the Vice President, wanted out faster.

I heard Larry Summers describe the consequences of a debt default as "post Leman Brothers on steroids." That's underselling it. Steroids increase performance my a small percentage. A debt default could be an order of magnitude more catastrophic than Leman. The distance between these outcomes is not Fargo to Casselton, it's Fargo to Bismarck.

We don't have to default in order to solve our problems. Defaulting will only make it worse. What do people who seriously think this is an option think will happen to the size of governement relative to the rest of the economy when GDP shrinks by 20 or 30%? A default equals more government not less.

is there really a debt ceiling when we've raised it 74 times before obama was even born? :hide:

[Notorious]

Somebody needs to have the balls in this country to step up and fix this fiasco and they are going to have to be huge balls because it is going to take huge changes.

This ^^^^ = political suicide.

[bisonmike2]

is there really a debt ceiling when we've raised it 74 times before obama was even born? :hide:

exactly. it's just a technicality, but it's huge. It's been done before but now, some people (cough, republicans, cough) are making it an ideological line in the sand. So essentially what we have is the party that bought us the Bush tax cuts, the Iraq War, the prescription drug benefits and huge increases in discretionary spending all at a time when the economy was struggling for other reasons is now lecturing others about fiscal responsibility. It's like me taking parenting advice from Casey Anthony.

[Bison bison]

is there really a debt ceiling when we've raised it 74 times before obama was even born IN KENYA? :hide:

Fixed for Accuracy.

[bisonaudit]

actually you said "you see military personnel, senior citizens, and or government contractors not getting paid"

But we are never going to agree on anything, Way different philosophies on government and on what is best for a business climate. Sometimes it just gets to the point where our leaders need to just stand up and say enough is enough and the status quo needs to be changed. We will overspend by about 1.6 trillion this year and the "big deal" saves 4 trillion over a decade. So if we keep up the status quo with current spending instead of being another 16 Trillion further in debt we will only be another 12 Trillion. WHOOO HOOOO. Thats fixing the problem. Somebody needs to have the balls in this country to step up and fix this fiasco and they are going to have to be huge balls because it is going to take huge changes.

The point was, and I think it was clear from the post, that if the debt limit isn't raised, someone isn't going to get paid, and it doesn't matter who that someone is, the debt markets will react violently.

Sure, there's going to need to be additional action, but what matters is the size of the debt compared to GDP so if you kill the economy in an effort to solve your debt problem you just end up with a bigger debt problem. We don't need to even get to a point where we're running surpluses, necessarily, but we do need to get to a point where GDP is growing faster than the debt.

What needs to be understood is that not raising the debt limit won't decrease our fiscal inbalance, it'll make it worse. When your teenage daughter's $400 cell phone bill comes in the mail you can't just tear it up, throw it in the trash, and pretend that you don't owe Verizon the money. You can use that experience to change your daughter's behavior but you can't use it as an excuse to welch on the debt.

[Bison"FANatic"]

The point was, and I think it was clear from the post, that if the debt limit isn't raised, someone isn't going to get paid, and it doesn't matter who that someone is, the debt markets will react violently.

Sure, there's going to need to be additional action, but what matters is the size of the debt compared to GDP so if you kill the economy in an effort to solve your debt problem you just end up with a bigger debt problem. We don't need to even get to a point where we're running surpluses, necessarily, but we do need to get to a point where GDP is growing faster than the debt.

What needs to be understood is that not raising the debt limit won't decrease our fiscal inbalance, it'll make it worse. When your teen age daughter's $400 cell phone bill comes in the mail you can't just tear it up, throw it in the trash, and pretend that you don't owe Verizon the money. You can use that experience to change your daughter's behavior but you can't use it as an excuse to welch on the debt.

Nobody is saying not pay our bill is what we are going to do but what the republicans are saying is if we don't get get our spending under control we are going to get to a time that our debt is going to get to the point where we have a hard time servicing it. Sometimes people just need to be smacked upside the head with a crisis before they will change. The republicans are trying do that. We can take care of it now when it is a smaller problem or we can push it off and do it 10 20 or 50 years when it will be a larger problem.

I would rather my daughter and her children have a stable country in 50 years than have people including me not have to make sacrifices now in benefits and other government programs spending. That is why I disagree with the republicans and democrats that certain programs or areas of spending are untouchable. Every area, department and branch of government needs to be on the table and until we touch Defense, Medicare and Social Security it is not taking care of the problem.

[HerdBot]

The point was, and I think it was clear from the post, that if the debt limit isn't raised, someone isn't going to get paid, and it doesn't matter who that someone is, the debt markets will react violently.

Sure, there's going to need to be additional action, but what matters is the size of the debt compared to GDP so if you kill the economy in an effort to solve your debt problem you just end up with a bigger debt problem. We don't need to even get to a point where we're running surpluses, necessarily, but we do need to get to a point where GDP is growing faster than the debt.

What needs to be understood is that not raising the debt limit won't decrease our fiscal inbalance, it'll make it worse. When your teenage daughter's $400 cell phone bill comes in the mail you can't just tear it up, throw it in the trash, and pretend that you don't owe Verizon the money. You can use that experience to change your daughter's behavior but you can't use it as an excuse to welch on the debt.

Maybe they need to increase it with a written agreement to decrease it next year. Thats what a normal rational person would do. The. For the next year they can cut cut cut so they don't need the extra credit.

[HerdBot]

Nobody is saying not pay our bill is what we are going to do but what the republicans are saying is if we don't get get our spending under control we are going to get to a time that our debt is going to get to the point where we have a hard time servicing it. Sometimes people just need to be smacked upside the head with a crisis before they will change. The republicans are trying do that. We can take care of it now when it is a smaller problem or we can push it off and do it 10 20 or 50 years when it will be a larger problem.

I would rather my daughter and her children have a stable country in 50 years than have people including me not have to make sacrifices now in benefits and other government programs spending. That is why I disagree with the republicans and democrats that certain programs or areas of spending are untouchable. Every area, department and branch of government needs to be on the table and until we touch Defense, Medicare and Social Security it is not taking care of the problem.

I think your like me... Libertarian but don't realize it.

[bisonaudit]

Nobody is saying not pay our bill is what we are going to do but what the republicans are saying is if we don't get get our spending under control we are going to get to a time that our debt is going to get to the point where we have a hard time servicing it. Sometimes people just need to be smacked upside the head with a crisis before they will change. The republicans are trying do that. We can take care of it now when it is a smaller problem or we can push it off and do it 10 20 or 50 years when it will be a larger problem.

I would rather my daughter and her children have a stable country in 50 years than have people including me not have to make sacrifices now in benefits and other government programs spending. That is why I disagree with the republicans and democrats that certain programs or areas of spending are untouchable. Every area, department and branch of government needs to be on the table and until we touch Defense, Medicare and Social Security it is not taking care of the problem.

Then I'd humbly submit that you should favor leveraging the debt ceiling in order to get the largest budget reduction deal that is politically possible, but ultimately acknowledge that not passing in increase to the debt ceiling would be economic suicide.

I think there are many on the right who don't hold this position and are willing to not increase the debt limit unless they get absolutely everything that they want.

Seperate from the debt limit. There are many on the right who don't want to see any cuts to defense and there are many on the left who don't want to see Medicare touched. They're all wrong. The President has been advocating for defense spending cuts for his entire term (The Secretary of Defense has submitted three seperate budgets with $0 for the second engine for the strike figher. Congress has reinserted the funding 3 times.) and has faced significant pressure from his own party for putting entitlement reform on the table in an effort to get the biggest deal possible.

[bisonaudit]

Breaking News:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/07/20/casino_stiffed_by_cancelled_tea_party_convention_w ants_its_money.html

We're so humped.

[steelbison]

My post wasn't meant to be pro-dem or anti-republican, I just call it like I see it. The dems have compromised, they are offering 4 trillion in spending cuts but they also see the need for increased revenue. The republicans are blocking everything and refusing to budge one inch. I've said it with the MN state issues too but it's true on every level. Compromise is the only way we're going to get out of this mess. Partisan bickering and bitching will not help anyone. I see one party way more than the other refusing to compromise, that's the republicans. The party of NO.


MIke, serious question, why do we need an increase in revenue?

If we cut spending the way we should why would we need more money?


The government wastes way too much already. Why in the hell should we give them more?

Explain it to me..

[bisonaudit]

MIke, serious question, why do we need an increase in revenue?

If we cut spending the way we should why would we need more money?


The government wastes way too much already. Why in the hell should we give them more?

Explain it to me..

I'm not MIke but I'll take a stab:

Historical average tax receipts are around 18% of GDP and expenditures are around 20%, post WWII. Right now tax receipts are around 15% of GDP and expenditures are around 23%.

I think it's obvious that if you want to get serious about fixing the deficit you need both spending cuts and revenue enhancements.

See http://www.bisonville.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24054&page=9
for more.

[Civil06]

I'm not MIke but I'll take a stab:

Historical average tax receipts are around 18% of GDP and expenditures are around 20%, post WWII. Right now tax receipts are around 15% of GDP and expenditures are around 23%.

I think it's obvious that if you want to get serious about fixing the deficit you need both spending cuts and revenue enhancements.

See http://www.bisonville.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24054&page=9
for more.

I'm in favor of the unemployment rate falling, thus creating more taxpayers, thus increasing revenue. That needs to be the focus - and it shouldn't be on the feds to do the hiring.

[bisonaudit]

I'm in favor of the unemployment rate falling, thus creating more taxpayers, thus increasing revenue. That needs to be the focus - and it shouldn't be on the feds to do the hiring.

So your proposed solution is to somehow compel private businesses to hire people that it makes no business sense for them to hire? I'd like to hear more about your plan. Does it involve intimidating them into hiring unnecessary employees with a haka?

[bisonmike2]

MIke, serious question, why do we need an increase in revenue?

If we cut spending the way we should why would we need more money?


The government wastes way too much already. Why in the hell should we give them more?

Explain it to me..

Bisonaudit is way smarter than me. He pulled out numbers. My basic, no numbers, common sense approach is that, yes, spending needs to be cut. But do we make drastic cuts to entitlement programs when a larger number of are dependent on them? I don't think we can or we should. We have more older people now in this country than ever before. Should we tell them, "Thanks for working all these years and contributing to ss and medicare. By the way, we're cutting your benefits because we need to go bomb some more brown people." I don't think the road to American prosperity begins with slashing social security, medicare and education. Let's get a handle on this spending and bring it down over time. We need the additional revenue simply because the population is getting larger and older.

Also the wealth disparity between the rich and the poor is at an all time high. You can find the numbers yourself if you really want to know more. In short, the rich can afford it.

[Bison bison]

In short, the rich can afford it.

What a pile of horsesh#t.

Right now more than half the people in this country don't pay anything.

IMO nearly everyone from Joe the Plumber to Warren Buffet should be paying more.

[bisonaudit]

Bisonaudit is way smarter than me. He pulled out numbers. My basic, no numbers, common sense approach is that, yes, spending needs to be cut. But do we make drastic cuts to entitlement programs when a larger number of are dependent on them? I don't think we can or we should. We have more older people now in this country than ever before. Should we tell them, "Thanks for working all these years and contributing to ss and medicare. By the way, we're cutting your benefits because we need to go bomb some more brown people." I don't think the road to American prosperity begins with slashing social security, medicare and education. Let's get a handle on this spending and bring it down over time. We need the additional revenue simply because the population is getting larger and older.

Also the wealth disparity between the rich and the poor is at an all time high. You can find the numbers yourself if you really want to know more. In short, the rich can afford it.

This take

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gops-fuzzy-math/2011/07/20/gIQANu3hPI_story.html

dovetails nicely with some of your points.

[bisonaudit]

What a pile of horsesh#t.

Right now more than half the people in this country don't pay anything.

IMO nearly everyone from Joe the Plumber to Warren Buffet should be paying more.

That's misleading. A lot of people don't pay income tax but everyone who works pays payroll taxes.

Warren Buffet agrees that he should be paying more but not his secretary. He's issued a $1 million dollar open bet to every member of the Forbes 400 Richest Americans.

"I’ll bet a million dollars against any member of the Forbes 400 who challenges me that the average (federal tax rate including income and payroll taxes) for the Forbes 400 will be less than the average of their receptionists."

No takers so far.

[ndsubison1]

Bisonaudit is way smarter than me. He pulled out numbers. My basic, no numbers, common sense approach is that, yes, spending needs to be cut. But do we make drastic cuts to entitlement programs when a larger number of are dependent on them? I don't think we can or we should. We have more older people now in this country than ever before. Should we tell them, "Thanks for working all these years and contributing to ss and medicare. By the way, we're cutting your benefits because we need to go bomb some more brown people." I don't think the road to American prosperity begins with slashing social security, medicare and education. Let's get a handle on this spending and bring it down over time. We need the additional revenue simply because the population is getting larger and older.

Also the wealth disparity between the rich and the poor is at an all time high. You can find the numbers yourself if you really want to know more. In short, the rich can afford it.

yes slash it because we cant afford it

[bisonmike2]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/07/20/2011-07-20_gop_will_nix_bipartisan_gang_of_six_debt_propos al_because_obama_took_credit_for_.html

further proof that republicans could care less about doing what right for the country and that they only want to get Obama out of office no matter what the cost.

[Bison bison]

That's misleading. A lot of people don't pay income tax but everyone who works pays payroll taxes.



And that is misleading because payroll taxes are insurance premiums- for unemployment, disability, medicare, and old-age benefits.

[bisonmike2]

What a pile of horsesh#t.

Right now more than half the people in this country don't pay anything.

IMO nearly everyone from Joe the Plumber to Warren Buffet should be paying more.

it's been covered. Paying no income tax does not equal paying no taxes at all.

[Bison bison]

But if they aren't paying federal income tax they are not paying for national defense, medicaid, food stamps, discretionary spending, or interest - you know the 70% of federal expenditures that aren't covered by the payroll tax.

Half the people in this country have NO skin in the game. And most of them are pointing at the 2% in the room who are 'rich' - never mind that the rich pay half the taxes and employ the people who pay NOTHING in income tax.

[HerdBot]

What a pile of horsesh#t.

Right now more than half the people in this country don't pay anything.

IMO nearly everyone from Joe the Plumber to Warren Buffet should be paying more.

Everyone, including the rich and middle class, pay too much in taxes. You've got sales tax, gas tax, state tax, federal tax, social security and Medicare tax,, property tax, sin taxes, death taxes, capital gains taxes, and fees for everything from taking a shit to registering your vehicle. Your home phone has nearly $14 in tax. You cell phone is approaching it. We as citizens are royalty getting screwed and they have the nerve to not pay social security. I don't want to pay a nickel more. When. You considered everything on all levels, over 60% of income goes to the government. Its crap. Sounds like we all already socialist.

[Bison bison]

Everyone, including the rich and middle class, pay too much in taxes. You've got sales tax, gas tax, state tax, federal tax, social security and Medicare tax,, property tax, sin taxes, death taxes, capital gains taxes, and fees for everything from taking a shit to registering your vehicle. Your home phone has nearly $14 in tax. You cell phone is approaching it. We as citizens are royalty getting screwed and they have the nerve to not pay social security. I don't want to pay a nickel more. When. You considered everything on all levels, over 60% of income goes to the government. Its crap. Sounds like we all already socialist.

First off, even now total government spending is 41% of GDP.

Please let me know what you'd cut. You need to cut at least 40% of federal spending today to balance the budget. If you're going to decrease taxes, then add the needed additional cuts as well.

[Twentysix]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/congress-continues-debate-over-whether-or-not-nati,20977/


"It is a question that, I think, is worthy of serious consideration: Should we take steps to avoid a crippling, decades-long depression that would lead to disastrous consequences on a worldwide scale? Or should we not do that?" asked House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA)


At press time, President Obama said he personally believed the country should not be economically ruined.

lmao.

[bisonaudit]

And that is misleading because payroll taxes are insurance premiums- for unemployment, disability, medicare, and old-age benefits.

When the government compels my employer to remove that money from my check every two weeks it sure feels like a tax to me.

[bisonaudit]

First off, even now total government spending is 41% of GDP.

Please let me know what you'd cut. You need to cut at least 40% of federal spending today to balance the budget. If you're going to decrease taxes, then add the needed additional cuts as well.

That number has your "insurance" programs in it too. How can those be gov't expenditures but the money collected to pay them not be taxes?

I do agree that if you cut taxes it's only going to require more spending cuts. I just disagree with your solution for raising additional revenues. The tax system we've got is already essentially flat. http://www.slate.com/id/2077294/

It needs to become simplier and more progressive, not less progressive. One way to do both is to eliminate virtually all of the loopholes and deductions which disproportionately benefit high income earners.

[North Side]

http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/f/e/fe1a0-Not_this_shit_again.jpg

Can someone merge all of these "people had their rights violated" threads into one? We get it. You don't like the roadblocks.

agreed this is just getting old :facepalm:

[HerdBot]

First off, even now total government spending is 41% of GDP.

Please let me know what you'd cut. You need to cut at least 40% of federal spending today to balance the budget. If you're going to decrease taxes, then add the needed additional cuts as well.

Military is #1. The budget is 700 billion with a B. With the wars, its over a trillion with a T. With spending like that were ucked with an F. We spend more than the next 17 countries combined and 16 are allies. News flash the Cold War is over. WWII is over. I'm for a strong military but its the root of our problem. First cut wars. Its the biggest expense. 2nd cut the military budget. Don't we have NATO to help us?

The government claims its 20% of our spending and that doesn't include the wars. I've seen reports it accounts for up to 50% when you factor in benefits and loans for old wars.

Cut many federal agencies like department of education, Fema, and energy. We survived for centuries without them. Most of them were formed in the late 70s. The results have been terrible. Our kids are dumber, gas is at an all time high, and we saw how useless fema was. That would save 200 billion right there. Put the control back to the states.

What else can we cut? Everything from foreign aid from welfare and college grants for immigrants. We need aid. We simply can't afford it. Sorry.

We need major cuts. I'm talking to the levels of the 1950s.

[HerdBot]

This ^^^^ = political suicide.

Thats why we need to ban career politicians. Every decision is to get reelected. That means spending all the money and more.

[onbison09]

Military is #1. The budget is 700 billion with a B. With the wars, its over a trillion with a T. With spending like that were ucked with an F. We spend more than the next 17 countries combined and 16 are allies. News flash the Cold War is over. WWII is over. I'm for a strong military but its the root of our problem. First cut wars. Its the biggest expense. 2nd cut the military budget. Don't we have NATO to help us?

The government claims its 20% of our spending and that doesn't include the wars. I've seen reports it accounts for up to 50% when you factor in benefits and loans for old wars.

Cut many federal agencies like department of education, Fema, and energy. We survived for centuries without them. Most of them were formed in the late 70s. The results have been terrible. Our kids are dumber, gas is at an all time high, and we saw how useless fema was. That would save 200 billion right there. Put the control back to the states.

What else can we cut? Everything from foreign aid from welfare and college grants for immigrants. We need aid. We simply can't afford it. Sorry.

We need major cuts. I'm talking to the levels of the 1950s.

Ask Bob Gates about NATO.

[Hammersmith]

I like pie.

(seems to work at SDSUFans)

[HerdBot]

it's been covered. Paying no income tax does not equal paying no taxes at all.

The rich pay much of the federal income tax. But the reason the rest of us don't page as much is because they pay shitty wages.

My wife and I pay 7% less in taxes than my millionaire boss. And since he's only taxed on social security its even closer. I pay 28%. He pays 35%. They think if you make over 100k, your rich. Thats not rich when someone like me pays 1/3 of my income to uncle Sam. Were both getting screwed.

But, the poor and middle class pay a majority of sales tax and state tax. Thats a fact.

The rich have gotten so rich that they pay more tax but they also have all the money.

[Bison bison]

Military is #1. The budget is 700 billion with a B. With the wars, its over a trillion with a T. With spending like that were ucked with an F. We spend more than the next 17 countries combined and 16 are allies. News flash the Cold War is over. WWII is over. I'm for a strong military but its the root of our problem. First cut wars. Its the biggest expense. 2nd cut the military budget. Don't we have NATO to help us?

The government claims its 20% of our spending and that doesn't include the wars. I've seen reports it accounts for up to 50% when you factor in benefits and loans for old wars.

Cut many federal agencies like department of education, Fema, and energy. We survived for centuries without them. Most of them were formed in the late 70s. The results have been terrible. Our kids are dumber, gas is at an all time high, and we saw how useless fema was. That would save 200 billion right there. Put the control back to the states.

What else can we cut? Everything from foreign aid from welfare and college grants for immigrants. We need aid. We simply can't afford it. Sorry.

We need major cuts. I'm talking to the levels of the 1950s.

Sounds great!

So if we ZERO OUT the Department of Defense and discretionary spending we're up to 39%, I'll round it up out of the kindness of my heart and call it 40.

I can't wait for the Chinese to dominate the Pacific, Iran the Middle East, and Russia to reassert its influence over Europe -- BRILLIANT!

But there will be fun here at home - hunger on a massive scale and dramatic declines in measures of health just to start!

Maybe we can convince all of the downtrodden to refer to their camps as Bisonvilles!

[BadlandsBison]

Sounds great!

So if we ZERO OUT the Department of Defense and discretionary spending we're up to 39%, I'll round it up out of the kindness of my heart and call it 40.

I can't wait for the Chinese to dominate the Pacific, Iran the Middle East, and Russia to reassert its influence over Europe -- BRILLIANT!

But there will be fun here at home - hunger on a massive scale and dramatic declines in measures of health just to start!

Maybe we can convince all of the downtrodden to refer to their camps as Bisonvilles!

Just a random idea that has little to do with this. Maybe China and Russia have too close a proximity to ignore eachother or get along in the long run.

[HerdBot]

Sounds great!

So if we ZERO OUT the Department of Defense and discretionary spending we're up to 39%, I'll round it up out of the kindness of my heart and call it 40.

I can't wait for the Chinese to dominate the Pacific, Iran the Middle East, and Russia to reassert its influence over Europe -- BRILLIANT!

But there will be fun here at home - hunger on a massive scale and dramatic declines in measures of health just to start!

Maybe we can convince all of the downtrodden to refer to their camps as Bisonvilles!

I don't buy into the propaganda. We have no big threats anymore. The world is possibly the safest its been since before WWI. The war on terror is against rogue extremists, not countries. China's economy exists only because of us. That alone is good enough but we have the firepower to destroy them right now. Its a big country but they hace less than 300k active troops. Russia is finally prospering because they don't spend all of their money on military. The only thing a military build up encourages is for other countries to follow suit. We could spend money wiser, cut spending by 40%, and easily have the strongest military in the world. By not using all the resources in the middle east, we would have more flexibility. How about we put the military on the borders instead.

We will never be attacked because we are loaded with guns. Guns for private citizens is what keeps us free. The US has 90 guns per 100 citizens. China has 3 for every 100 citizens. The rest of the world is 1 in 10. We own 2/3 of the worlds guns.Not only that, our police is the most heavily armed in the world plus we have the National Guard . Nobody will ever invade is. If you thinks the troops struggle in Iraq fighting citizens who are armed less than us, imagine what it would be like fighting Americans who love to blow shit up. I love my guns with a passion. My favorite is my 44 Magnum. Try invading my country and I will fuck you up. As will my dad with his giant hunting arsenal. We would sit in the house, crack a window, put on ear protection and peg those fuckers from a block away. Theh wouldnt know where it came from. But they would never attack because they know that.

[TbonZach]

We will never be attacked because we are loaded with guns. Guns for private citizens is what keeps us free. The US has 90 guns per 100 citizens. China has 3 for every 100 citizens. The rest of the world is 1 in 10. We own 2/3 of the worlds guns.Not only that, our police is the most heavily armed in the world plus we have the National Guard . Nobody will ever invade is. If you thinks the troops struggle in Iraq fighting citizens who are armed less than us, imagine what it would be like fighting Americans who love to blow shit up. I love my guns with a passion. My favorite is my 44 Magnum. Try invading my country and I will fuck you up. As will my dad with his giant hunting arsenal. We would sit in the house, crack a window, put on ear protection and peg those fuckers from a block away. Theh wouldnt know where it came from. But they would never attack because they know that.

And people wonder why so many in the world hate Americans....

On a side note: how the hell did this thread go from talking about checkpoints to world affairs?

[Twentysix]

I don't buy into the propaganda. We have no big threats anymore. The world is possibly the safest its been since before WWI. The war on terror is against rogue extremists, not countries. China's economy exists only because of us. That alone is good enough but we have the firepower to destroy them right now. Its a big country but they hace less than 300k active troops. Russia is finally prospering because they don't spend all of their money on military. The only thing a military build up encourages is for other countries to follow suit. We could spend money wiser, cut spending by 40%, and easily have the strongest military in the world. By not using all the resources in the middle east, we would have more flexibility. How about we put the military on the borders instead.

We will never be attacked because we are loaded with guns. Guns for private citizens is what keeps us free. The US has 90 guns per 100 citizens. China has 3 for every 100 citizens. The rest of the world is 1 in 10. We own 2/3 of the worlds guns.Not only that, our police is the most heavily armed in the world plus we have the National Guard . Nobody will ever invade is. If you thinks the troops struggle in Iraq fighting citizens who are armed less than us, imagine what it would be like fighting Americans who love to blow shit up. I love my guns with a passion. My favorite is my 44 Magnum. Try invading my country and I will fuck you up. As will my dad with his giant hunting arsenal. We would sit in the house, crack a window, put on ear protection and peg those fuckers from a block away. Theh wouldnt know where it came from. But they would never attack because they know that.

Not gonna lie I lol'd at the end.

[HerdBot]

And people wonder why so many in the world hate Americans....

On a side note: how the hell did this thread go from talking about checkpoints to world affairs?

Self defense my friend. I would rather them fear the people as a deterrant. Would you rather me walk out of my house like a pansy in bunny slippers waiving a white flag or fight for our freedom? I would never go to another country to kill people but once you step onto our soil I go medieval on they ass.

[HerdBot]

Not gonna lie I lol'd at the end.

Hell yeah!! North Dakotans love their guns. No commnie bastard will ever take over Fargo!

[EndZoneQB]

I think it's obvious that if you want to get serious about fixing the deficit you need both spending cuts and revenue enhancements.



1. Legalizing marijuana - which works two fold. Cuts spending for the "war on drugs" which = prison costs, stings, etc etc etc while ALSO bringing in new revenue.

2. Expanded gambling...and opening up online gambling again.

3. Cut defense spending. We never unarmed after our wars...just kept occupation. It's not healthy.

I realize it's not going to single-handedly going to fix everything, but it's a good start.

[ndsubison1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SrVB2-iTdw

[Bison bison]

Self defense my friend. I would rather them fear the people as a deterrant. Would you rather me walk out of my house like a pansy in bunny slippers waiving a white flag or fight for our freedom? I would never go to another country to kill people but once you step onto our soil I go medieval on they ass.

20-1 says you shit your pants and fall to the ground begging for mercy.

[BisoninNWMN]

I don't buy into the propaganda. We have no big threats anymore. The world is possibly the safest its been since before WWI. The war on terror is against rogue extremists, not countries. China's economy exists only because of us. That alone is good enough but we have the firepower to destroy them right now. Its a big country but they hace less than 300k active troops. Russia is finally prospering because they don't spend all of their money on military. The only thing a military build up encourages is for other countries to follow suit. We could spend money wiser, cut spending by 40%, and easily have the strongest military in the world. By not using all the resources in the middle east, we would have more flexibility. How about we put the military on the borders instead.

We will never be attacked because we are loaded with guns. Guns for private citizens is what keeps us free. The US has 90 guns per 100 citizens. China has 3 for every 100 citizens. The rest of the world is 1 in 10. We own 2/3 of the worlds guns.Not only that, our police is the most heavily armed in the world plus we have the National Guard . Nobody will ever invade is. If you thinks the troops struggle in Iraq fighting citizens who are armed less than us, imagine what it would be like fighting Americans who love to blow shit up. I love my guns with a passion. My favorite is my 44 Magnum. Try invading my country and I will fuck you up. As will my dad with his giant hunting arsenal. We would sit in the house, crack a window, put on ear protection and peg those fuckers from a block away. Theh wouldnt know where it came from. But they would never attack because they know that.





China will challenge us in the near future. They want Taiwan and will try to take it by force. The only thing standing the the way of that now is our navy and their quick strike capability. They also try to steal any technology out there that will help them in the military build-up. Yes, we are trading partners but they are not our friends.

That 300K figure is wrong. They have the world's largest standing army. They are also building their 1st aircraft carrier. And supposedly have a fighter jet that rivals the Raptor.

The US has 11 aircraft carrier battle groups which enables us to project our "influence" anywhere at anytime around the world. China has a ways to go to become anything like the US military but they are on their way to doing it.

We will butt heads with the Chinese in the future.

[HerdBot]

20-1 says you shit your pants and fall to the ground begging for mercy.

No way dude. I'm a sniper from a block away. Its just like shooting a deer except this deer is going to kill you, your family, and eat your dog. The only one shitting their pants are the commnies I take out. After they see 4 or 5 guys go down and have no clue where it came from, they will sit down, suck their thumbs, and cry like little girls wondering what they got themselves into. Then another neighbor takes him out from a tree stand.

[onbison09]

1. Legalizing marijuana - which works two fold. Cuts spending for the "war on drugs" which = prison costs, stings, etc etc etc while ALSO bringing in new revenue.

2. Expanded gambling...and opening up online gambling again.

3. Cut defense spending. We never unarmed after our wars...just kept occupation. It's not healthy.

I realize it's not going to single-handedly going to fix everything, but it's a good start.
The problem is there's too many people that want to keep the status quo. Sound familiar?

[HerdBot]

China will challenge us in the near future. They want Taiwan and will try to take it by force. The only thing standing the the way of that now is our navy and their quick strike capability. They also try to steal any technology out there that will help them in the military build-up. Yes, we are trading partners but they are not our friends.

That 300K figure is wrong. They have the world's largest standing army. They are also building their 1st aircraft carrier. And supposedly have a fighter jet that rivals the Raptor.

The US has 11 aircraft carrier battle groups which enables us to project our "influence" anywhere at anytime around the world. China has a ways to go to become anything like the US military but they are on their way to doing it.

We will butt heads with the Chinese in the future.

If they want to take over Taiwan, why is that our problem? Unless they are bombing the US I don't think its worth getting involved. Were not the world police. Besides everything I've read says their WWII era military is not mobile enough to defeat Taiwan.

Quantity not quality.

China has 4.5 million troops (in reserve included) who are forced to join and are not trained as well as us and could not beat our military from WWII. Were 50 years ahead of them. The media leaks BS reports by the neo con run media to scarce us into spending all our money so the big businesses (like GE) can profit from a war.

We having. 3.5 million troops who volunteered, and are better armed and trained than China. We have weapons so far ahead of China on every level.


Without even touching the army, we could wipe out 90% of the country in a week with cruise missles and stealths attacks alone.

They have 1 aircraft carrier (coming soon) that would be destroyed by the time it gets within 1000 miles from the coast. They could possibly hit us with a cruise missle but our response would be ridiculous. We have bases all over the world and missles pointed at them now. They can't even reach us without a aircraft carrier.

Just to give you an idea how much bigger our military is. And that doesn't take into account that China's weapons are the severely outdated Soviet stuff from tbe 1950s to 1970s. Its the same stuff Iraq had in Desert storm except we've advanced since then.

Jets
USA - 18,000
CHINA - 4000 (#2 in the world)

Hellicoptors
USA - 6400
China - 1300

Navy Ships
USA - 2400
CHINA - 500

Aircraft Carriers
USA - 11
China - 0 working on 1

Submarines
USA 85
China -55

Destroyers
USA - 59
China - 26

Total Land based weapons (tanks, Bradley's, armored vehicles, rocket launchers)
USA - 56,000
China - 22,000

Logistic transport vehicles (one of the most important part of the military)
USA - 267,000
China - 6,000

Tanks
USA - 10,000
China - 7500

Anti tank
USA - 8000
China - 1250

Anti aircraft
USA -2100 (they have 4000 jets)
China - 750 (we have 18,000 jets)

Nuclear weapons
USA 10,000
China 400

The only advantage they have is the volume of people. They don't have the vehicle's to move them so basically they just sit there unprotected and get killed.

[BlueBisonRock]

No way dude. I'm a sniper from a block away. Its just like shooting a deer except this deer is going to kill you, your family, and eat your dog. The only one shitting their pants are the commnies I take out. After they see 4 or 5 guys go down and have no clue where it came from, they will sit down, suck their thumbs, and cry like little girls wondering what they got themselves into. Then another neighbor takes him out from a tree stand.

This is not intended to insigate a crap on Gabe session, but rather take a pragmatic look at this particular comment and the 'cut the military spend' inference you are sharing.

Sniper from a block away ...... You best move that distance out by a significant factor. Snipers need to hit the mark at 800 yards or more. Even then, hitting the target without giving up your position takes significant knowledge and training.

I can believe you have dropped a deer, but have to question that you have dropped a person - even one who may have been focused on bringing harm to you and / or your family. This action would also require knowledge, training, and a hardening of the shooter's psyche. Demonstrating any emotion in this setting would kill you and likely hurt your family.

Here is the irony. The organization you want to cut is the organization that brings the knowledge, training, and hardening to the soldier. These are the individuals that will keep you from killing yourself and putting your family at significant risk. Given a choice Gabe, I would rather put myself in the hands these trained professionals who know how to deal with these situations than in the area of an untrained loose cannon who believes he knows how close contact fighting should be executed. This includes veterans of the military who were trained for close quarter's combat.

There are a number of issues and sources of contention presented in this thread that are outside of BV's scope. Although I have many opinions on those issues, I strongly recommend this thread be closed and we regain our focus on NDSU and Bison athletics.

-- And yes Gabe, even though we have a disagreement here, I will still welcome buying you a beer and sharing opinions.

[HerdBot]

This is not intended to insigate a crap on Gabe session, but rather take a pragmatic look at this particular comment and the 'cut the military spend' inference you are sharing.

Sniper from a block away ...... You best move that distance out by a significant factor. Snipers need to hit the mark at 800 yards or more. Even then, hitting the target without giving up your position takes significant knowledge and training.

I can believe you have dropped a deer, but have to question that you have dropped a person - even one who may have been focused on bringing harm to you and / or your family. This action would also require knowledge, training, and a hardening of the shooter's psyche. Demonstrating any emotion in this setting would kill you and likely hurt your family.

Here is the irony. The organization you want to cut is the organization that brings the knowledge, training, and hardening to the soldier. These are the individuals that will keep you from killing yourself and putting your family at significant risk. Given a choice Gabe, I would rather put myself in the hands these trained professionals who know how to deal with these situations than in the area of an untrained loose cannon who believes he knows how close contact fighting should be executed. This includes veterans of the military who were trained for close quarter's combat.

There are a number of issues and sources of contention presented in this thread that are outside of BV's scope. Although I have many opinions on those issues, I strongly recommend this thread be closed and we regain our focus on NDSU and Bison athletics.

-- And yes Gabe, even though we have a disagreement here, I will still welcome buying you a beer and sharing opinions.

My point was never to eliminate the military. Just cut the spending. We have no threats. China has WW2 era stuff. Me having to shoot a Chinese army guy wouldn't matter because they could never get across our border. My point was that if somehow, China was able to do the impossible and defeat our military, they would have to contend with the largest armed military in the world, the American hunters. 5 million strong. I don't claim to be a fighting expert but if I had to protect myself I guarantee you I could do it. Would I be as skilled as a sniper? Hell no. But if invaders are in my neighborhood were not talking normal circumstances. The simple fact that Americans are armed and somewhat skilled, especially the hunters, no body could ever take over the country and win. I'm sure I could learn how to be a sniper 101 by doing a Google search :) if I was ever in the situation and I have relatives who know this stuff anyway ...

Fun discussion if you ask me!

[TbonZach]

....I strongly recommend this thread be closed and we regain our focus on NDSU and Bison athletics....

^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^

++++++++++++

[IzzyFlexion]

There are a number of issues and sources of contention presented in this thread that are outside of BV's scope. Although I have many opinions on those issues, I strongly recommend this thread be closed and we regain our focus on NDSU and Bison athletics. -- And yes Gabe, even though we have a disagreement here, I will still welcome buying you a beer and sharing opinions.

How about chicks and boobs?
Can we still do that?

[MNLonghorn10]

Where are the boobs

[IzzyFlexion]

Where are the boobs

Uhhhhh, here ya go. http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/beavis-and-butt-head.jpg


http://myg.me/u/2010/08/gigantic-boobs.jpg

Sidenote: anyone who plays the "can we please stay on topic" card as a reaction of this post can suck it.

[Notorious]

Uhhhhh, here ya go. http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/beavis-and-butt-head.jpg


http://myg.me/u/2010/08/gigantic-boobs.jpg

Sidenote: anyone who plays the "can we please stay on topic" card as a reaction of this post can suck it.

almost too early in the morning for that....almost ;)

[GradBison]

If they want to take over Taiwan, why is that our problem? Unless they are bombing the US I don't think its worth getting involved. Were not the world police. Besides everything I've read says their WWII era military is not mobile enough to defeat Taiwan.

Quantity not quality.

China has 4.5 million troops (in reserve included) who are forced to join and are not trained as well as us and could not beat our military from WWII. Were 50 years ahead of them. The media leaks BS reports by the neo con run media to scarce us into spending all our money so the big businesses (like GE) can profit from a war.

We having. 3.5 million troops who volunteered, and are better armed and trained than China. We have weapons so far ahead of China on every level.


Without even touching the army, we could wipe out 90% of the country in a week with cruise missles and stealths attacks alone.

They have 1 aircraft carrier (coming soon) that would be destroyed by the time it gets within 1000 miles from the coast. They could possibly hit us with a cruise missle but our response would be ridiculous. We have bases all over the world and missles pointed at them now. They can't even reach us without a aircraft carrier.

Just to give you an idea how much bigger our military is. And that doesn't take into account that China's weapons are the severely outdated Soviet stuff from tbe 1950s to 1970s. Its the same stuff Iraq had in Desert storm except we've advanced since then.

Jets
USA - 18,000
CHINA - 4000 (#2 in the world)

Hellicoptors
USA - 6400
China - 1300

Navy Ships
USA - 2400
CHINA - 500

Aircraft Carriers
USA - 11
China - 0 working on 1

Submarines
USA 85
China -55

Destroyers
USA - 59
China - 26

Total Land based weapons (tanks, Bradley's, armored vehicles, rocket launchers)
USA - 56,000
China - 22,000

Logistic transport vehicles (one of the most important part of the military)
USA - 267,000
China - 6,000

Tanks
USA - 10,000
China - 7500

Anti tank
USA - 8000
China - 1250

Anti aircraft
USA -2100 (they have 4000 jets)
China - 750 (we have 18,000 jets)

Nuclear weapons
USA 10,000
China 400

The only advantage they have is the volume of people. They don't have the vehicle's to move them so basically they just sit there unprotected and get killed.

You obviously have not seen this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b60OZhrTB6o

[bisonmike2]

My last post in this thread then I'm done. It's obvious my superior intellect just cannot be absorbed by some. :)

http://www.rjmatson.com/images/cartoons/STL1384.jpg

[VanClubPres]

Fargo PD. on wDAy right now.

[ndsubison1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6Xa_aL83PU&feature=related

[Bison bison]

My last post in this thread then I'm done. It's obvious my superior intellect just cannot be absorbed by some. :)

http://www.rjmatson.com/images/cartoons/STL1384.jpg

Yeah. It's that simple.

Republicans sell out the elderly to help the rich.

Thanks for contributing.

[Twentysix]

You obviously have not seen this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b60OZhrTB6o

"But, will it blend?"

[Bisonguy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6Xa_aL83PU&feature=related


Versus this- http://youtu.be/j7EdhnReYH0

They don't stand a chance.

[GradBison]

Versus this- http://youtu.be/j7EdhnReYH0

They don't stand a chance.

No way! That 2 x 4 should've been sawed not hacked like that.
Although the thrown shovels were pretty cool, all you need to do is look at the vigour of the chinese user to be scared, very scared. :hide:

[GradBison]

"But, will it blend?"

Nope, and version 2 comes with a built in blender. :nod:

[IzzyFlexion]

No way! That 2 x 4 should've been sawed not hacked like that.
Although the thrown shovels were pretty cool, all you need to do is look at the vigour of the chinese user to be scared, very scared. :hide:

That's nothing.
My TV remote can blast a 9 square inch hole through a piece of 3/4" drywall in a single throw........but strangely, only when the Bison play on red turf.

[Twentysix]

Nope, and version 2 comes with a built in blender. :nod:

You mean I can make a pineapple and bamboo smoothy after digging the trench I am going to die in?

Fantastic!