State of the Union ft Ted Nugent

Everyone remember this little gem?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aE_nEoE5kE

Tonight, we have Mr. Ted "if Barack Obama becomes the president in November again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year" Nugent attending with Marco Rubio giving the establishment Republican response and Rand Paul giving the TeaParty response.

I'm not sure if I want to watch this, but I can't help but think that we're going to see something very special tonight!


For extra LOLZ...

Bobby Jindal:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ly7oPRMcDrU

Michele Bachmann:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtQ4nTSfguU

LOLZ...class warfare and Buffet Rule.

edit: Minimum wage to $9...booyah Oh shit! Minimum wage tied to cost of living and Romney name drop!

They deserve a vote.

WTF was with the shake-pull Boehner did at the end when shaking the Presidents hand? Seemed like some passive aggressive BS.

I didn't catch that, but now for Rubio's speech!

edit: The joke is on me. Nugent disappoints, but what do you expect from a draft dodging chicken hawk.

3 or 4 too many Republican ideas. Missed an opportunity to attack Republicans for the massive vacancies that require confirmation, such as federal judges and the directors of the CFPB/ATF. Overall not bad. 7/10.

[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']3 or 4 too many Republican ideas. Missed an opportunity to attack Republicans for the massive vacancies that require confirmation, such as federal judges and the directors of the CFPB/ATF. Overall not bad. 7/10.[/QUOTE]

True. He ended it pretty good though.

Rubio's presentation is pretty good. Too bad his content is so full of shit that I'm surprised he can't smell it. I could've sworn everyone received a copy because what he's saying has absolutely nothing to do with the SOTU.

DID HE JUST DO PRODUCT PLACEMENT FOR POLAND SPRINGS? lolz...kidding, it's hard to talk for 10 minutes straight while being nervous as .

edit: LOLZ...Brian Williams just sighed and is making fun of it. I honestly feel bad for Rubio because he just killed any chances for 2016.

edit2: Rand Paul is talking about Adam Smith...LOLZ

Ohhhh...we are back to the "free stuff" argument.

Hey guys Food Stamps keep you poor.

Holy shit he pulled the "free phone" card!!

Less Taxes and Less regulation is the recipe for growth? Is that not how we got into the current situation?


God the amount of buzz word language in Paul's speech is crazy.

edit: I thought the judicial branch was the protector of the people?

[quote name='cancerman1120']Less Taxes and Less regulation is the recipe for growth? Is that not how we got into the current situation?[/quote]
"No because taxes aren't low enough and there are still too many regulations."

God the amount of buzz word language in Paul's speech is crazy.

edit: I thought the judicial branch was the protector of the people?

Click to expand...

He lost me at Adam Smith.

I'm so sick of "Obama is giving people free cell phones". Hey jackasses, that program was put in effect before he took office, so STFU about it.

I was thinking about the 102 year old black lady's story about waiting for 6 hours to vote. What the kind of bullshit are they pulling down there where you'd make a 102 year old lady wait 6 hours to vote? In my hood, the poll workers would help the elderly jump the line so that they wouldn't have to stand around for an hour and no one would raise a peep and be cool with it. It really kinda pissed me off and still does.

[quote name='Clak']I'm so sick of "Obama is giving people free cell phones". Hey jackasses, that program was put in effect before he took office, so STFU about it.[/QUOTE]


It's crazy that the government is responsible for that program at all. I fault Bush for its growth into cell phones, and Obama for continuing the practice. A cell phone is not a necessity, and saying its for protection while pushing for the so called "assault weapons" ban is hypocritical. Four thugs break into your house and you have only a 10 round magazine to protect your pregnant wife and 6 year old daughter because of regulations imposed by politicians protected by armed bodyguards. Sounds like a reasonable exercise of gubment power to me


How are all those new programs deficit neutral? I'd like to see the math on that....

Subsidized phones are mostly subsidized by the customers of the service providers; not tax dollars. You know that Universal Service Fee on your cellphone bill? That's the subsidy.

You also shouldn't be using a pistol or rifle to defend your home either, but a shotgun. Home invasions of that type are also extremely rare and usually involve people that are looking to harm you, which is even more rare, than burglaries. People want your stuff, not your life. What you're describing is the rambling of paranoid delusions of heroism.

[quote name='dohdough']Subsidized phones are mostly subsidized by the customers of the service providers; not tax dollars. You know that Universal Service Fee on your cellphone bill? That's the subsidy.[/QUOTE]


http://www.phoneservices.us/

http://business.time.com/2012/02/08/how-to-get-the-government-to-cover-your-cell-phone-bills/

"The program came to be after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed, and the FCC created the Universal Service Fund to help “to promote the availability of quality services at just, reasonable, and affordable rates,” among other things. All telecommunications carriers MUST pay into the fund, and many do so by tacking on a fee to each of their customers’ bills. It’s probably added into your monthly wireless bill and your landline bill, if you still have one."

So its a government created program that forces companies to pay for it by adding fees or "taxes" to its customers bills. Tell me again how its not taxpayer money?

[quote name='dohdough']You also shouldn't be using a pistol or rifle to defend your home either, but a shotgun. Home invasions of that type are also extremely rare and usually involve people that are looking to harm you, which is even more rare, than burglaries. People want your stuff, not your life. What you're describing is the rambling of paranoid delusions of heroism.[/QUOTE]


Whoah, first off, you are gonna tell people what they should be using for protection when exercising their Constitutional right? And mass shootings like Sandy Hook are "extremely rare", so why be such a "paranoid delusion"-al person about them? You also have no way of knowing an intruder's intent when they ILLEGALLY enter your home. Expect the best, prepare for the worst. A motto that has served me well in the past. And as far as heroism, protecting your home should be your responsibility as head of the household, not an act of valor.

No phone=no service fee. Problem solved.

As for home defense? LOLZ...Look, if you want bullets going through your walls and possibly killing an innocent person, that's on you. Seems more likely that you don't know jack shit about guns or else you wouldn't have made such a dumb comment. You don't seem to know jack shit about the nature of crime either.

[quote name='dohdough']No phone=no service fee. Problem solved.[/QUOTE]

But...but...its a necessity! I will be unprotected without it!

[quote name='dohdough']As for home defense? LOLZ...Look, if you want bullets going through your walls and possibly killing an innocent person, that's on you. Seems more likely that you don't know jack shit about guns or else you wouldn't have made such a dumb comment. You don't seem to know jack shit about the nature of crime either.[/QUOTE]


So the intruders can have guns that will penetrate my walls and door but I shouldn't? Good logic there, ace. And knowing about the nature of crime???? No, I haven't been the victim of a home invasion.....but I've personally seen the aftermath of a few involving fatalities. I can bet that the dead homeowners wished that they had a gun, any gun.

You're the one that said it wasn't a necessity, not me. I accept that it's part of deal if I have one.

Riiiiiiiight....and the minds and motivations of criminals acts are impossible to understand so we might as well just kill them all.

This is the type of drivel that passes for legitimate debate in the country...ugh

[quote name='egofed']So the intruders can have guns that will penetrate my walls and door[/quote]



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDS81Ibazdk

You evidently seem to think that you're going to have a small army come after you. 4 people armed with military-esque armaments? you have a very peculiar, and unlikely, idea of what a burglary looks like.

It's gonna be one dude with a knife, possibly a handgun - if at all, that is.

Now, as for me personally, I just want a nuclear weapon to defend my homestead. Do you oppose? Well, then, allow me to rebut your opposition in advance:

Whoah, first off, you are gonna tell people what they should be using for protection when exercising their Constitutional right?

Click to expand...

[quote name='dohdough']Subsidized phones are mostly subsidized by the customers of the service providers; not tax dollars. You know that Universal Service Fee on your cellphone bill? That's the subsidy.

You also shouldn't be using a pistol or rifle to defend your home either, but a shotgun. Home invasions of that type are also extremely rare and usually involve people that are looking to harm you, which is even more rare, than burglaries. People want your stuff, not your life. What you're describing is the rambling of paranoid delusions of heroism.[/QUOTE]
Yep, it isn't subsidized by the government at all. It's just a fee to insure that all Americans have access to communications.

[quote name='mykevermin']

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDS81Ibazdk

You evidently seem to think that you're going to have a small army come after you. 4 people armed with military-esque armaments? you have a very peculiar, and unlikely, idea of what a burglary looks like.

It's gonna be one dude with a knife, possibly a handgun - if at all, that is.

Now, as for me personally, I just want a nuclear weapon to defend my homestead. Do you oppose? Well, then, allow me to rebut your opposition in advance:[/QUOTE]
Dammit Myke, stop infringing on my rights. If I want this RPG to defend my home with, then dammit that's mah right. Now if you're quite finished I have some landmines to set up in front of my doors. That'll show those salesmen!

[quote name='dohdough']You're the one that said it wasn't a necessity, not me. I accept that it's part of deal if I have one.

Riiiiiiiight....and the minds and motivations of criminals acts are impossible to understand so we might as well just kill them all.

This is the type of drivel that passes for legitimate debate in the country...ugh[/QUOTE]


I was being sarcastic about the necessity of cell phones. I'll lay it out like Jennifer Aniston in Office Space:

So the gov't forces a tax on phone companies, right?
And most companies pass this on to their customers in the form of a "surcharge", right?
And then that money is used to provide phones to people who can't afford them or swindle the system, right?
My job actually requires that I have a phone because I'm an "alpha" employee, right?
So tell me how this is not a gov't program interfering with commerce and paid for by taxes.

The motivation of a criminal once he enters another person's home is moot at that point. I would be fine with the home owner killing them. That's not my judgement to make. Some responsibility has to be placed on the idiot breaking the law in the first place.

[quote name='mykevermin']

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDS81Ibazdk

You evidently seem to think that you're going to have a small army come after you. 4 people armed with military-esque armaments? you have a very peculiar, and unlikely, idea of what a burglary looks like.

It's gonna be one dude with a knife, possibly a handgun - if at all, that is.

Now, as for me personally, I just want a nuclear weapon to defend my homestead. Do you oppose? Well, then, allow me to rebut your opposition in advance:[/QUOTE]


So when the Korean shop owners faced the mobs of rioters who burned, beat, and killed, they were being paranoid? And its good that you can see into the future and let me know how all future home invasions will be. Can you please free me from this terrible burden of self responsibility and personal decision making by legislating all my Constitutional rights away? It would make life so much more comfortable and.......compliant

[quote name='egofed']legislating all my Constitutional rights away?[/QUOTE]

Show me your constitutional right to magazines of > 10 rounds, I'll show you my constitutional right to nuclear weapons.

As Marlo Stanfield once said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=409Pjtq7jzY

Do you have access to nuclear materials myke? Or the financial resources?

[quote name='perdition(troy']Do you have access to nuclear materials myke? Or the financial resources?[/QUOTE]

are those constitutional prerequisities? no? then how are they relevant?

That's the thing nobody seems to understand. The 2nd amendment only mentions the right to be armed, nowhere does it say what kind of arms. Also does not say you have free access to all arms, just arms in general. So if we want to say you only have access to certain types of arms, there isn't much in the way of making that law. As long as you have access to some kind of arms, you're right to be armed isn't being infringed upon.

We do this already, you can't just go buy any firearm you want. The question is are we restrictive enough on what types of arms people are allowed access to.