When will you head explode holding all that hate and hostility.
The Abbot pardon is a good thing. Self defense.
The White BLM crack had was pointing his AK47 at this guy.
Shooting this nut job is called self defense.


Shooting anyone is self defense is just fine with me.

AS for the rest of you delusional story ..
" More deaths than WW2 and Vietnam combined, more destruction of the economy .."

don't knwo what to say except you are way off the deep end . Get back on your meds please else you will be shooting someone .

He is, but he is clear that he thinks Islam is the worst, most violent misogynistic and intolerant. I say that’s equally true of all religions at different times.

While I do like that he can see when his team goes off the deep end, where that line lies has steadily moved to the right as he aged. I’ve been watching him since before he had a tv show. I live in CA, and I don’t have the issues he complains most about….of course I don’t live in the most expensive, most regulated county in CA like he does. He complained for years about getting permits for his solar system and blamed the liberal government, I got my permits in one day with no issue at all.

My biggest peeve is that, even though he’s been a professional comedian for over 40 years, he still doesn’t understand that a groan/clap is approval for a joke in bad taste or particularly pointed. It bugs the shit out of me when he gets mad his crowd groaned while applauding and laughing.

We actually started HBO to watch him there…but he’s changed so much we often don’t bother anymore. I rarely recognize his panel anymore too. New Rules is definitely the highlight of the show these days.

I think you mean they wouldn't have to pay you the interest. They would have to pay you back the principal. And that would be under specific cases and usually when no contract is involved, also all depends on where you live.

Also, I don't think either Bill's building codes are "new" vs. the usury laws being "existing". Please cite to support.

The irony is that additional laws to stop predatory lending are, in fact, what red tape is made of, by definition. So I found it amusing that he would look at her situation, say that Nancy and team were trying to solve it for her by passing new laws, then go on to complain about all the red tape surrounding this building. That red tape exists because someone else before him saw a problem or safety issue or concern, and put yet another policy or law in place to solve it. In reality, as your posts prove, her problem was not that a predatory lender got involved in her life, but that her business was in bad shape because she had gone off the deep end and was thus losing customers.

I could easily imagine a bit where he showed a stack of papers four inches thick that he had to sign to get a loan, and complain about the processing time, then showcase an SMS based loan that works in another country and funds in one day.

I like Beau and the sense he makes in his talks. BUT, I get this underlying feeling that he's almost at wits end. Like a ticking time bomb. Maybe I'm wrong but he seems to be trying really hard to control himself from going off the deep end.

Woah, buddy -- you're going off the deep end with my argument and beating the poor straw man into a puff of dried grass. I'm not saying that everyone is a darn automaton following the whims of popular culture. I'm merely saying that there is a heavy pressure to do things because of culture. And because of Japanese kawaii culture, she gains a lot of social credit for performing in such a way.

Relax. Just beca

Meh, Newt is off the deep end but I fully support the recording of all police activity. Douche-reporters getting in the way of police activity are a danger to everyone involved.

Wow. Trevor is way off here. Its to bad to see how far off the deep end he has gone. It was Ford undermined the #MeToo movement with her lies. If you are going to accuse somebody of sexual assault, you better have some evidence, of which Ford had none.

Bob, I honestly believe you need to be psychology examined. You have apparently gone off the deep end into full blown delusional political paranoia....or perhaps you really are just a Russian troll.

Please acknowledge that your hero Trump has repeatedly suggested that slander and libel laws are too lax (except when applied to his baseless accusations against others) and that the press should be hobbled and stymied if they speak out against him or reveal what he's trying to hide, as in have their licenses and credentials revoked and be sued into bankruptcy or even charged with treason among other sanctions, but published lies that support him are totally acceptable, even praiseworthy.

Hm, so if businesses don't create jobs, I guess the only other option would be employment by the state... That's the theory that John Galt put to the test in fiction, and Joseph Stalin put to the test in practice. (And we all know how well that went!)

Jeez, 4 years under a Clinton regime seems like such a long time! I suppose the only glimmer of hope would be that, given how pro-cronyism she clearly is, I doubt she really believes what she says here. Maybe what she means is that businesses don't create jobs unless they are cronies. Otherwise, they just have to go out of business. Perhaps having a hypocrite in office may be better than having a fanatic, but who can tell?

Of course, there's always the chance that she actually knows nothing of economics and has no common sense either....

People who spend all their lives in "public service" often have no clue of how businesses actually run or what businesses do or need to function. Such people live in a different world where money "magically" comes out of a (Federal-Reserve-controlled) "printing press" at the push of a button whenever the powers-that-be deem it so. They live in a world where the "customers" are forced by law to pay for "services" they don't want, and follow rules that are not applicable to the rulers themselves.


(But then, again, Hilary says she was "dead broke" when she left the White House. I guess we should take her word for it.)

Note: Ancient Rome also had its share of crazy Patricians and rulers. This tends to become more commonplace as empires go off the deep end.

I am used to seeing you well reasoned but man you have gone off the deep end on this one. So much inflammatory language in such a small package.

When I said "just about any" kind of firearm should be legally obtainable, I should clarify that I mean guns. Explosive ordinance, anti-vehicle weapons, fully-auto vehicle mounted machine guns, etc. is where I see the line between reasonable and unreasonable.

My problem with getting into regulating "assault weapons" is that I see it as a very real slippery-slope hazard -- unlike restrictions like waiting periods, registration, legal obligations to keep guns locked in cabinets when not in use, etc. etc.

Here's an example: my gun-nut friends had in their extensive arsenal 2 rifles, an AR-15 and a Ruger Mini-14. The AR-15 is basically equivalent to a military M-16, except the one they had didn't have selectors for 3-shot burst or full-auto (semi-auto only). The Mini-14 was designed around the M-14, which was the military standard-issue rifle until being replaced by the M-16.

Trying to get the government to regulate those firearms seems like a nightmare to me. Is just the AR-15 (M-16) an "assault weapon"? Are they both? I've fired both and I don't think that there is any reasonable way to say that the AR-15 is "over the line" of what a civilian owner should have with the Mini-14 being "ok". The Mini-14 is a fantastic farm/hunter rifle; safe, reliable, and easy to handle -- but in the event of somebody going off the deep end and shooting people up, it is going to be just as deadly/tragic as if they had an M-16.

Basically I think that the right-wing types have a pretty legitimate beef when they say that gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained weapons, and that therefore most heavy restrictions just affect legitimate, responsible gun owners while doing very little to keep guns out of the hands that you really want them out of. I should look for data about gun crime rates comparing legally purchased guns versus black market sources, and gun-related injury and death rates between gun-nut havens like Texas and my neck of the woods in Kansas compared to more liberal urban areas.

Finally, I guess that I should make it clear that I'm OK with restrictions that require you to prove that you are a responsible owner to have any firearm. Waiting periods, background checks, loss of privileges to anyone with a criminal record, having to register and periodically present your firearms to prove that you aren't re-selling them, etc. I consider all that kind of stuff reasonable limitations on our right/privilege to own firearms. But getting into trying to figure out what does or does not classify as an "assault weapon" goes the wrong direction in my opinion.

I'm pretty pro-gun. I grew up in Kansas in a home with a .22 rifle, and had many friends that had a much more extensive arsenal in their homes. One "gun nut" friend had somewhere around 10 high-powered rifles, roughly the same number of shotguns, 3-4 pistols, and even an AR-15 (civilian version of M-16) with extensive clips, flash suppressors, etc. purchased before the "assault weapons ban". That family was very responsible with their guns -- all locked in gun cabinets, fully unloaded, separate from ammo whenever not in use, sons all trained to use them responsibly, etc. I think a family/individual should have the right to do all that stuff. For defense, for hunting, as a farm "tool" (a firearm can be invaluable for protecting livestock, eliminating varmints and pests, etc.), for "home defense" (the least practical/intelligent use of firearms by a civilian IMHO), or even just for entertainment / target shooting -- whatever your reasons I think you should be able to legally purchase just about any kind of firearm.

That being said, the NRA goes completely off the deep end with some of the things it opposes. The Brady Bill, waiting periods, background checks, etc.? I'm fine with those "limitations", and I think that the NRA loses legitimacy putting up a fight against very reasonable measures like those. I understand the threat of slippery-slope issues, but waiting periods and background checks aren't going to bring the whole system down and definitely would do more good than harm.

All that being said, while I somewhat disagree with Jim Carrey's message in the "Cold Dead Hands" video, I liked it and could appreciate it as a good piece of satire expressing his point of view. The Fox News blowhards need to "Lighten up, Francis".

Sure Fox went off the deep end. But the real gun nuts are Liberals.

Wow... Trump's finally gone off the deep end. He's moved from being simply an ignoramus, to being certifiable

lol fuck the farm I'd be off to deep countryside and find a good lake or river where its unlikely desperate people would find me and I can live of wild life and general plant life. The sea is another option so much easy to find food on the coast line. Probably be the case in this scanroe that small coastal communities would be the strongest as they would already have the community , food and resources to sustain themselves with virtually no change.



this documentary is really cool as well !