COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events - Page 1089

starting strength gym
Page 1089 of 1281 FirstFirst ... 895899891039107910871088108910901091109911391189 ... LastLast
Results 10,881 to 10,890 of 12804

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #10881
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Lakeland, FL
    Posts
    2,986

    Default

    • starting strength seminar june 2021
    • starting strength seminar august 2021
    • starting strength seminar october 2021
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    You don't know anything about "natural selection," and you are afraid. Take the vaccine today. It may calm your fears.
    The folks rushing toward the vaccine amaze me in how gaslit they must be.

    Like the Dr. said in that video from a few days ago: we get vaccines for things that are extremely deadly and that we don't have therapeutics for. Neither of these apply to the Kung-flu. The only thing the vaccine does is help Pfizer shareholders and put people at a risk with a poorly tested medicine you don't need.

  2. #10882
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    459

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gilead View Post
    Nope nothing at all. The funny thing is for some strange multi trillion dollar reason these numbers are not on the decline here in Israel. On the contrary they are finding that the new scaryants are starting to infect children for some unknown reason.
    I find it also so coincidental that we have new varients and even new vaccines for those varients.
    By the way, how many strains of a virus are there? pretty sure it could get up to the 10s of thousands. Isn't it normally that strains or mutations usually get weaker, but for some reason these strains get stronger. Hmmm I wonder why $$$$.
    The sick thing is, the fuckers have stolen our lives. We are already a fucking commodity for their fucking transactions. CUNTS!!!!!!!!!
    The new strains thing is pure bullshit. Don't even waste your time exploring this, it will go away in a month or two.

  3. #10883
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    "Back" is the error, not the buy or sell.
    Your worse than my 3 grade English teacher. OK then we gave up our arms and got some compensation for them and anyway most were old worn out bolt action 303,s and .22 Salzenger rabbit guns. We are only about 35 million here and we don't have an NRA, a 2nd amendment ,we don't have a huge standing armed force and most of the politicians drink beer. We are relying on you folk to get us out of trouble so why do we need an AR-15? A piece of four by two will take care of most home invaders intruders? You lot can take of the big stuff.

  4. #10884
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Jackson, MS
    Posts
    129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank_B View Post
    By the way, Jenni. We went down to a great Mississippi steakhouse about halfway between Memphis and Jackson tonight. Im afraid to say their name and get them in trouble, but it was a packed house. Best steak around! No 25% revenue there!!! I was so proud of them!
    Excellent! I am so glad you enjoyed yourself. I suspect it's one of two great ones up there but like you, I won't name names just in case. Down here, in the city I am seeing more and more people outside walking dogs with masks on so I am thrilled to hear this silliness may be confined to the big city.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholas Laureys View Post
    If it's been done already, can someone share info on who and how the war (WWI) taxation effort came about, and who/how the American people were convinced to keep it as law?
    The modern income tax we know was introduced in 1913. Before that we had done a temporary one for the Civil War but it didn't stick. In 1913, very few had to pay the tax. Less than 1% and tax records were kept private. In 1916, our entry into WWI paved the way for an additional revenue act. The bottom range was raised from 1 to 2% and the top incomes were taxed at 15%. This created a budget that was equal to the total budget for all the years between 1791 and 1916. You can imagine that the increase in money was, already, not something the politicians were gonna look forward to letting go of. In October of that year they did the War Revenue Act which removed a number of exemptions. A taxpayer with an income of only $40,000 was subject to a 16% rate, while one who earned $1.5 million faced a rate of 67%. Then, in 1942 Congress passed a new act that doubled the amount of Americans who now had to pay income tax. One huge factor at the time was patriotism. People rallied and did everything from victory gardens to buying bonds and it was that unity in shared sacrifice and the sense of those who couldn't give their lives gave money that created the public willingness to deal with the income tax. As the war came to a close, the government budget, the war department- had all ballooned to a new level. Even under Republican administrations like Eisenhower, balancing the books was prioritized over cutting taxes. Both parties were resigned to the fact that the war sort of permanently expanded the size of American government and there really was no going back all the way. As you can imagine, this basically translates to they got a taste of the money and how they could dip their grubby little fingers into everyone's pies and they didn't want to go back. They led us in with patriotism and a sense of unity and then just didn't put it back. Much the way many of us suspect this new situation will never get put back. Government never gives back willingly.

    Quote Originally Posted by wal View Post
    Your 2nd amendment only covers basically black powder guns and courts can rule out assault rifles under that definition if pushed is that correct?
    Not true. If they meant it to only cover black powder guns they would have said so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Logan1 View Post
    Would it be correct to assume that your statement is based on the assumption that only those weapons in existence at the time the Bill of Rights were ratified are covered?
    So called assault weapons existed at the time. Even da Vinci had designed a rapid fire weapon in 1481. The Ferguson rifle, used in the Revolution, was a breech loader rather than muzzle and could fire up to 7 rounds per minute. They also had rifles with large magazine capacities. The Girandoni, for example, had a magazine capacity of 19 rounds each of which was more powerful than the muskets of the day.

    I would further ask that any of you who wish to assert the silly assumption that they only meant for the right to bear arms to apply to weapons such as black powder guns read some of the writings of the Founding Fathers. I'd like to see the quotes that make you think this. Frankly, I find the words "shall not be infringed" to be quite clear. These were not careless men who slapped down shit on a sheet of paper and called it a day. Jefferson was quite clear when he said, "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms". It is our right and duty to be both armed and disciplined and we have neglected that duty dreadfully.

  5. #10885
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    867

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wal View Post
    Your worse than my 3 grade English teacher. OK then we gave up our arms and got some compensation for them and anyway most were old worn out bolt action 303,s and .22 Salzenger rabbit guns. We are only about 35 million here and we don't have an NRA, a 2nd amendment ,we don't have a huge standing armed force and most of the politicians drink beer. We are relying on you folk to get us out of trouble so why do we need an AR-15? A piece of four by two will take care of most home invaders intruders? You lot can take of the big stuff.
    Yes, but of course the home invaders will not have sold their weapons and will know that you have, the good law-abiding, safety conscious citizen that you are.

  6. #10886
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    45,244

    Default

    The UK has a Nazi problem: UK COVID Cops Arrest Man For Handing Out Free Soup – Summit News

    Shameful bastards. JBTs.

  7. #10887
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RJPinAZ View Post
    Yes, but of course the home invaders will not have sold their weapons and will know that you have, the good law-abiding, safety conscious citizen that you are.
    Who needs powder burners? I recently learned about 50 cal airguns, one application of which is deer hunting.

  8. #10888
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenni View Post

    I would further ask that any of you who wish to assert the silly assumption that they only meant for the right to bear arms to apply to weapons such as black powder guns read some of the writings of the Founding Fathers. I'd like to see the quotes that make you think this. Frankly, I find the words "shall not be infringed" to be quite clear. These were not careless men who slapped down shit on a sheet of paper and called it a day. Jefferson was quite clear when he said, "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms". It is our right and duty to be both armed and disciplined and we have neglected that duty dreadfully.
    Not only are you using a line written by Jefferson that never made it into the final draft of the VA constitution it was written for, you aren't even using the later draft that explicitly does impose limits on bearing arms. "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]". So does that mean you're fine with only having access to arms on your property or housing since Jefferson wrote it?

    And of all the founder's you go and choose Jefferson, under who's thinking the 2nd amendment, if not all of them, would have likely either expired of been rewritten in the last hundred years.

    "On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal."

  9. #10889
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    707

    Default

    Prolly won't see this elsewhere, so here ya go...

    They arrested one of the domestic terrorists who stormed the Capital carrying a Confederate Flag. Guess what?
    Gab: He's a registered Democrat and Biden supporter

    And, about the Burma "coup":
    Foreshadowing in Myanmar?

    I guess our military is too busy policing the world to give us a hand with our little election theft problem. You know...those darned Iranians are a real threat with their big Navy and stuff.

  10. #10890
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    84

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Logan1: Would it be correct to assume that your statement is based on the assumption that only those weapons in existence at the time the Bill of Rights were ratified are covered?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenni View Post
    Not true. If they meant it to only cover black powder guns they would have said so.

    So called assault weapons existed at the time. Even da Vinci had designed a rapid fire weapon in 1481. The Ferguson rifle, used in the Revolution, was a breech loader rather than muzzle and could fire up to 7 rounds per minute. They also had rifles with large magazine capacities. The Girandoni, for example, had a magazine capacity of 19 rounds each of which was more powerful than the muskets of the day.

    I would further ask that any of you who wish to assert the silly assumption that they only meant for the right to bear arms to apply to weapons such as black powder guns read some of the writings of the Founding Fathers. I'd like to see the quotes that make you think this. Frankly, I find the words "shall not be infringed" to be quite clear. These were not careless men who slapped down shit on a sheet of paper and called it a day. Jefferson was quite clear when he said, "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms". It is our right and duty to be both armed and disciplined and we have neglected that duty dreadfully.
    I agree with you. Since some people seem to believe the 2nd Amendment is quite limited, even thought the words "shall not be infringed" are quite encompassing, I wanted to show how different life would be if the Bill of Rights only applied to things in common use at the time. Although radio, television and the internet didn't exist then and modern surveillance methods are substantial more intrusive than in the late 18th century, I have never heard any sane person argue that the 1st and 4th Amendments only apply to 18th century technology.

    I knew about DaVinci's design and the Ferguson rifle, but didn't know the Girandoni was developed that early. Thank you for sharing that.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •