User Profile: sasquatch08

sasquatch08

Member Since: November 09, 2010

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [3] December 18, 2014 at 12:21am

    One of the funniest movies ever made. Crude, but hilarious!

    Just thinking of it makes my DVD player “ronrey”.

  • [1] December 18, 2014 at 12:17am

    A perfect example of why you can’t let Iran go nuclear.

    At this point what are we really going to do about ANYTHING the Norks pull? Nothing, because we’re afraid they might nuke Japan or Australia.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] December 18, 2014 at 12:11am

    *** el-famous…. Neil Patrick Harris?

    Responses (1) +
  • December 17, 2014 at 5:13pm

    Beat me to it.

  • [1] December 17, 2014 at 3:44pm

    “The World Would Be a Better Place If We All Stopped Taking Pictures of Ourselves”

    Could have left it there. No need for the attached article.

  • [14] December 17, 2014 at 3:37pm

    I laugh when I about “bear mace”. My cousin and her husband live in Fairbanks and are avid hunters/fishermen.

    They were fishing from kayaks when a Grizzly came out into the river wanting the salmon they had already caught. My cousin’s husband sprays the bear with bear mace and the mace gets everywhere thanks to the wind.

    Long story short, they bail out of the kayaks and come back for them the next day. One kayak is beached but covered in bear mace residue and the bears are literally licking it in between scarfing down salmon. Wouldn’t have believed it without video. It’s hot sauce to them, not effective.

    First thing they do when they get back to Fairbanks? Head to the gun store and pick up a 8″ .500S&W and an Alaska Holster because it’s easier to tote around in/on a kayak/four wheeler/dirtbike than a 12 gauge or rifle.

    Screw mace, use big bullets. Aggressive deer slugs, .45-70 Gov’t, in pistols nothing smaller than .44 mag. Bullets stop them dead and don’t come back at you if the wind is wrong.

  • December 17, 2014 at 3:28pm

    Gas under $3/gallon, we can’t have that now can we Mr. Cuomo? *strokes cat* Mwahahahahaha!

    Responses (1) +
  • [4] December 17, 2014 at 1:47pm

    This reminds me of something I heard last week. Friday I had to spend nearly seven hours driving around and at one point got tired of commercials on the radio so I flipped over to “Progress” on SeriusXM thinking I could see what the opposition was saying during the ads.

    The third guest was the one that really stood out to me. I don’t remember his name, but I remember what he said. He was your typical angry black guy yelling about whitey and how the snowman is holding the black community back. When he really got going though he started talking about “reparations”. He said that blacks should never accept any thing as “reparations” because he was a lawyer so he knew that if a guy damaged his car and the judge ordered the guy to pay $5000 once he had the $5000 in his hand he couldn’t complain any more. He went to say that this is why no reparations of any kind can be accepted, because then blacks can’t bash whites for slavery any more.

    If you listened to the whole thing it was a defense of being a thug. You’re a thug because whitey made you that way and you should never accept anything at all that might change that because then you have to stop being a thug and blaming whitey.

    Insane! It’s no wonder the black community is in shambles when lunatics like this guy are the “leaders”.

  • [-1] December 16, 2014 at 9:31pm

    I hate to burst your bubble, but the result of this ruling with be nothing.

    First, Obama has repeatedly ignored court rulings that didn’t go his way before (NLRB appointments anyone?).

    Second, this guy isn’t going to get impeached and even if he did he certainly wouldn’t get convicted. Actually removing him from office would require 67 votes in the Senate, a number that couldn’t be reached if there was anything short of a video of him molesting a 6 year old girl while drowning a puppy, murdering an elderly person and smoking crack. Even that might not do it.

    Due to the fact that the world will end before the Senate convicts him, the House won’t bother moving forward with articles of impeachment, and why should they? It stirs up an enormous political hornet’s nest an imperils the chances of making sure a Democrat doesn’t get elected to the Presidency in 2016. We’re stuck with Obama until 2016, just accept it.

    I don’t care who you are on the “right” side of the aisle, this country can’t handle another d!psh%t Democrat in the highest office in the land without going under. I’ll take Jeb Bush long before Hillary Clinton or *shudder* Liz Warren and anyone who disagrees with me about that on “conservative” grounds is bat crap crazy.

    There’s no point in picking a fight you can’t win when it decreases your chances of winning one that you can win. Period.

  • December 16, 2014 at 6:01pm

    @foo:

    To me the really scary thing is the thing that liberal deny is a problem: debt, deficit and unfunded liabilities.

    While Congress can’t bind another Congress, so stupidity can always rear it’s ugly head, the national debt is not insurmountable. With a Congress/President that had some basic knowledge of business and math we could dig out of $17T (I haven’t run the numbers for $18T, but they won’t be hugely different) in a decade or decade in a half with sustained 4% growth. That’s actually doable.

    The real problem lies with the fact that we have $90T+ in unfunded liabilities that come due in the next 20 years. Combine that with the debt and you have a huge problem.

    Considering that the gov’t expect to take in $5.7T this year in taxes and fees that means without significant growth we have to relegate 87% of gov’t revenues to our bills in order to be on track to pay our debts over the next two decades. Even if you assume some growth it’s never getting under 60-70% of revenue.

    That means there’s two options: massively increase taxes and destroy the economy (ultimately meaning you can’t pay anyway) or stiff people what they’re owed.

    Long story short: even if you include the $3.7T other gov’ts take in the only way to pay what we owe is to massively cut what the government does, like shut down well over half of it.

  • [5] December 16, 2014 at 5:46pm

    @Sarge:

    Are you sure about that in relation to the MRAP? The Bradley had aluminum armor (never understood that, the Brits found out how bad of an idea aluminum armor is in the Falklands when one of their ships got hit by an Exocet missile) but I have never seen anything that suggests the MRAP designers made that same mistake.

    The first gen MRAPs had problems with their armor being defeated by EFP’s not bullets, so their armor was significantly upgraded with the MRAP II.

    I’ve never seen anything that suggests that a weapons platform like a PKM using 7.62x54R AP/API is any sort of threat to this vehicle other than maybe the tires.

  • [3] December 16, 2014 at 3:47pm

    @foo:

    I was wondering if your keys got stuck!

    In all seriousness though, it’s easy to make a mistake with the huge numbers you have to type out to indicate the idiocy and incompetence of this Administration. The real truth is there is a very, very, very, very long way to go on the economy and honestly I don’t think it will happen under Obama.

    Even if everything was to really swing in the right direction, after what he’s done to businesses, they still wouldn’t hire anyone at a reasonable salary because they’d be afraid he’d come back to step on them again via EO.

  • [11] December 16, 2014 at 3:27pm

    @Cav:
    I’ve never seen an MRAP up close and personal, but I would highly doubt the armor on it could be defeated by most steel cored ammo.

    Two reasons:

    First, the military wouldn’t have much use for it if if was easily shot up by common weapons fielded in Iraq and Afghanistan like the PKM or Eastern Bloc sniper rifles when using 7.62x54R AP/API ammo. If this was the case this very expensive vehicle would be Swiss Cheese after an encounter with a couple Haji MG’s.

    Secondly, the military upgraded the issued IBA from SAPI inserts to ESAPI specifically to deal with the threats posed by 7.62x54R AP. Steel core ammo can defeat level III plates, but level IV can handle a single round of 7.62×63 (30.06)AP/APM2 while ESAPI can handle two direct hits, stopping the second round 60% of the time. (Long story short ESAPI is a bit tougher than Level IV).

    I rather doubt that the military would pick an “ambush protected” vehicle that doesn’t have as good an armor rating as the IBA your average grunt is wearing.

    Now, if we’re talking about something like .50BMG steel core, that’s a different story entirely.

  • [3] December 16, 2014 at 8:23am

    That’s exactly the attitude the cops have when they steal cash from people and split it with the feds under “equitable sharing”. Maybe you’re on your way to buy a restaurant like that Chinese guy in Georgia, nah, no one carries large amounts of cash for legal purposes. That $80K is ours now.

    There’s nothing illegal about carrying cash, even in large amounts. People actually do it on a surprisingly regular basis. All anger should be directed at the armed robber, none at the victims.

  • [13] December 15, 2014 at 9:03pm

    I thought it was one of the guns my wife has the “pink” framed LC9.

  • [2] December 15, 2014 at 3:18pm

    I don’t understand why people still have Facebook. I gave it up 5 years ago and have never looked back.

    I don’t want to know what people are doing every second of every day or see what you’re eating.

  • [1] December 15, 2014 at 3:16pm

    Johnnyb is one of the worse YouTube channels on guns ever made. The guy is a nut.

  • [10] December 15, 2014 at 3:11pm

    Either that or States need to move to the Alaska/Vermont type model where if you can legally purchase a gun you can carry it concealed without a license.

  • [2] December 15, 2014 at 1:29pm

    @DesertRose:

    How does McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), have anything to do with freedom of religion?

  • [19] December 15, 2014 at 1:22pm

    They don’t care as much as you might think.

    Most cities have an insurance policy for this. The rate might go up, but when you win that settlement the people paying are the insurance companies that wrote the policy. When the rates rise, so do the taxes.

    That’s why this has become common; the city isn’t actually on the hook for what the cops do and neither is the department. The insurance companies and ultimately the people who live there are the ones that pay.

123 To page: Go