RobertNashville
-
Posts
6,650 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
44 -
Feedback
100%
Content Type
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Posts posted by RobertNashville
-
-
She probably dyes her eyebrows :lol:
P.S. Did anyone imagine her shooting the AR?! What a sight that must be!I can imagine all sorts of things but the AR really didn't come into it.
-
2
-
-
First of all, you usually can't tell if they're a blonde from a picture. Reminds me of the old joke... What do you get when you turn a blonde upside down? A brunette.
I have tested this theory many times, BTW.
So..........not only are you an old fart but a perverted one at that! LOL
-
That's just profoundly sad. Thank God the child wasn't killed as well.
-
3
-
-
Forcibly removed???
Well, your local school system may not be sending a SWAT team around every morning to collect your children at gunpoint but if you don't send then "voluntarily" (sort of like our "voluntarily federal income tax) I believe criminal charges will soon follow and in fact, you children at that point may well be "forcibly removed" from the home and maybe for good. That sound's pretty "forcible" to me :shrug: and all because the almighty federal government knows what your children need to learn better than YOU do.
And what do we get for all the effort and thousands (total expenditures for public elementary and secondary schools in the United States amounted to $638 billion in 2009-10, or about $12,743 per public school student.*) of dollars per student spent every year???
We get High School "graduates" that know nothing of geography, history, literature, art, music, how our government is actually supposed to work, how to do basic math (if they don't have a smart phone handy with a calculator app).
We get kids who don't know how to think...who likely have never had an original thought in their head or if they did, had it drummed out of them by a corrupt system that teaches only compliance, political correctness and tolerance (unless of course you happen to be a Christian and/or Caucasian - you can screw with those kids all you want; no worries).
You get kids who will likely never pick up a book for the rest of their lives and just read it for the shear enjoyment of it or to actually learn something.
You get good little comrades rather than citizens.
The children are our future and our future is VERY BLEAK.
* source:
-
4
-
-
They're tryin' ta take mah porn!
And if the FCC starts regulating ISPs as public utilities/common carriers they just might do so or ban anything else they find objectionable (like...oh...firearm related forums) and there would be NOTHING to stop them. After all, it would be to protect the children since we all know that parents don't monitor what their kids do online.
-
I hate big government... we should focus on the root cause of the problem and do away with the last mile monopolies and duopolies... but until then, Comcast and AT&T are given access that is exclusive and as a competitor I'm unable to get the same access... As such they're not part of a free market... Others are not allowed to move in and compete with them for last mile of service... and until that is fixed, they need to be regulated to the common carrier standard, and their Internet services should be price controlled to 3% profit margins like virtually all other public utilities.
These companies have already been caught abusing and lying to customers... It's not hypothetical question, Comcast was caught manipulating traffic in such a way that if you or I did it, we'd be subject to a felony charge under federal law.
And if there hadn't been government allowed monopolies at least a 1/3 or perhaps even 1/2 of the country wouldn't have electricity, running water, natural gas, or telephone. But then again, we are talking about internet service, not telephone, water or cable TV.
It's funny or maybe just sad...no one wants the government involved in their lives until somebody does something (or in this case might do something) they don't like.
-
Look guys; if you like government regulations fine...I don't.
ISPs are NOT monopolies. You want to consider them as such; fine but they still aren't.
The free market (and yes, there is a free market operating where ISPs are concerned) can work this out; not than anyone here seems to be willing to let that happen. I expect this kind of response on a typical public forum like Facebook...it's a little surprising (and discouraging) to see it here on a firearm forum typically dripping with small-government/individual freedom rhetoric.
The title of this thread might be more descriptive if it said "Free Enterprise Capitalism Going, Going, Gone"
-
Your grocery store example would be a monopoly. The only one within 100 miles? I didn't say they had to carry what I wanted, I said they should be required to carry certain items. What I meant by that was the common items everyone uses like milk and butter etc. The things most people don't have means for getting themselves but really need.
One grocery store within 100 miles of where a person lives is not a monopoly. That one grocery would only truly be a monopoly if it was protected from competition by barriers that prevent other people/companies opening up other grocery stores and if there were no other options for obtaining the product/service they provide.
There are no barriers to entry by other grocery stores in my example and, while inconvenient at 101 or more miles away, people in this town with only one grocery are free to travel to other towns that has other grocery stores. If you still believe that this situation of one grocery store within 100 miles of your town means that the government should then control that grocery and dictate what it must/can sell and at what price that's your opinion but it isn't mine. Moreover, if the government did as you suggested, it’s quite possible and perhaps even likely, that that one grocery store would go out of business leaving none at all.
I'm done here though if all this is going to be is me replying to you and you not addressing anything I have said.
Last time,
1. Would this be ok with your phone company (or any other service) if they would only let you call their customers?
2. How many people do you know that this would be a good change for?
1. Sure…I’d just do business with another phone company that didn’t have that policy and if enough people felt as I did the original phone company would either be forced to change the way they do business or they would likely go out of business.
2. Difficult to say given that this is a hypothetical phone company…it might be good for some…might not be but whether it is or isn’t I’m not going to suggest that government regulation is the answer to my or their inconvenience.
If the government only allows 1 grocery store within 100 miles of where you live, you don't think the government should be allowed to place conditions on that government imposed monopoly?
I might think so if the government was allowing only one grocery story to exist but that is not at all what I said in my example. There is no government imposed requirements/barriers in my example; just that there happens to be only one.
-
We should believe in it when there is a free market. If no free market exists then no. This isn't a matter of one person being personally inconvenienced. This is about the entire country. How many people do you know that have internet and only visit one site? Those would be the only people that benefit from nixing neutrality. I only pay about 35 for internet. Even if the packages were only 10 a pop I could only visit a fraction of the sites I normally visit AND on top of that, like cable, I would be paying for stuff I don't want to get the stuff I do want. Without a free market and the ability to choose which company offers what I want or meets my needs it is a monopoly and needs to be regulated.
Lets not forget that this would kill the online gaming industry given that every game connects to a different IP address and sometimes multiple IPs. How about satellite boxes? Can't connect to get the PPV or online features because they are the ISPs competition and are blocked. How about in markets where you do have 2 options they are just blocking web sites that advertise the other ISPs and the other ISPs website itself?I gave you a perfect "free market" in my grocery store example yet because it might inconvenience you if the store didn't carry what you wanted when you wanted you jumped immediately to wanting government controls ignoring all other possible ways to address your grocery store desert. ;)
-
...Yes if there were only one grocery store within 100 miles I wholeheartedly believe should have to carry certain goods and not be able to gouge.
Since there is more than 1 grocery store, I feel they can carry and sell whatever they want at whatever prices they see fit. That is given that they don't break any antitrust laws and work together to gouge....So...we should only believe in free enterprise and constitutionally limited government until we are personally inconvenienced by those principles?
-
Take a look at the national broadband carriers. Do you notice anything about them? Comcast, Warner, Verizon, etc. These companies are more than just ISPs. They are also the largest in the country.
My military job is PSYOP, here is a generic mission statement: Psychological operations are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.
Take out foreign and you get what is essentially marketing and public relations. These monopolies can influence our entire nation and block competing views.
I've worked in finance and IT for nearly 40 years...I hold multiple degrees in those disciplines...I actually do know a little bit about the issues and I do not agree with your position even though this decision may negatively impact me as well.
You have your view, I have mine...have a nice day.
-
Hey Robert, how many ISP options, that offer broadband speed, do you have where you are? And you live in a relatively large market. Try thinking of it like this: Your cellphone provider. They decide they are only going to give you good service if you are calling one of their numbers, otherwise it is going to be a choppy call that drops all too often. Or worst case they block it all together. Is that ok? Well that is exactly what getting rid of neutrality would do.
This isn't a matter of ISPs MAY do this, if they are allowed they WILL be because it will line their pockets. Just look at how they have done it to cable, Used to be you payed a flat rate for all the channels but once they figured out they could block channels using a box they broke it up into packages. They will do the same with the internet if allowed to do so. IE The Social Media package for 19.99 and includes Facebook, Google Plus, MySpace etc. The entertainment package for 29.99 that includes YouTube, Netflix, Amazon Video etc. The Home Shopping package for 9.99 that includes Amazon, Ebay etc etc etc Then on top of the packages you will be paying for data to visit lesser known sites, like TGO. Or all the gun sites we frequent and shop on.
I would agree with you if I had 5-10 choices on who my broadband ISP would be. But fact of the matter is you only have 1-2 choices for broadband speed. This is due to the cable companies owning the cable lines and phone companies owning the phone lines. That is not what I would call an open market and therefor I want heavy regulation.So what you are saying is that if a business runs its business in a way you don't like the federal government should come in an dictate that business' business model?
If there were only one grocery store in your town...within 100 miles of your home...should the government dictate what products they must carry and how much they can charge for them? Unlike something as basic and necessary to life as food, when it comes to the internet, we are talking about a service that no one MUST have.If Comcast or Charter or AT&T or Verizon or whoever decides to structure their business in ways that some people don't like (and I guarantee others will like) it is not or at least should not be within the purview of the federal government to step in and dictate business models to those businesses.
-
I'm not insulting you. I am letting you know that you don't understand the topic at hand.
It's been my experience that most people, when they call someone "ignorant" don't use it in its proper form but merely as a substitute for the clearly insulting word "stupid".
I'm not at all "ignorant" of the issue and in fact, I have a very good and comprehensive understanding of the topic...we simply don't agree (and we clearly aren't going to agree) on the real issues or their broader implications.
-
You continue to demonstrate your ignorance of this issue...
I see no reason for you to insult me.
So this decision, MAYBE will impact you or other Comcast customers negatively. Is that sufficient reason for the government to dictate to an ISP...to ALL ISPs how it/they must operate?I don't think so. Three are many times that certain businesses make decisions about what they offer and how that I don't happen to like...that doesn't mean I want the government to swoop in and tell them how to operate their business.
This is a very simple issue for me...people either believe that businesses should be able to conduct their business freely or have their business models dictated to them by the federal government. I happen to believe that businesses should be free to design their own business models and either succeed or fail on those decisions.
Have a nice day. -
I'm planning to take Emergency Action Medical from Tactical Response and also the course from The Patriot Nurse but I'd be interested in what you are describing as well.
Medical and defensive shotgun are the two areas I've decided to take training in this year!
-
2
-
-
It will be a huge success, just like that one about fracking for natural gas. Nothing to worry about. Just more liberal elites saying
nothing to no audience.
There was a move about fracking for natural gas???
-
Humm...this guy most not be very bright.
If I were a convicted felon who owned or handled firearms I don't think I'd let myself be part of a national TV series...but hey...that's just me! LOL
-
1
-
-
I wish I knew how I could possibly care less about this...let them spend their money on their little movie.
-
Those two sentences have nothing to do with one another. Net Neutrality is about quality of service delivered, not quantity of bandwidth. Here's a better example using real work possibilities.
Let's say you have Comcast internet. RIght now, if you have Hulu and Netflix, they get the same priority from Comcast when you request one starts sending you information. Comcast can't discriminate one over the other. Now let's toss the concept of Net Neutrality out the window. Oh hey, Comcast owns a 1/3 stake in Hulu. They have a vested interest in Hulu doing better than Netflix. If they choose to do so they could set up a rule that says a request to Hulu gets higher priority (meaning more bandwidth, better response time,) and Netflix gets reduced priority. The end result is a customer who says "Man, Hulu works great, but when I try to watch Netflix streaming video it keeps pausing and buffering. This sucks. Guess I'll go watch some Hulu."
It is about bandwidth and who gets it and who pays for it.
Comcast and other ISPs should be free to establish the business models they believe are best for THEM without the federal government dictating it to them...if that means that Comcast give Hulu priority over Netflix or Amazon video so be it; customers will then make the decisions that are best for them which may mean leaving Comcast or going back to DirectTV or Dish or whatever.
-
I would much rather spend the money on ammo.
I know how to count my rounds and if I'm in a self-defense situation I'm not going to be counting or care because I know how to keep shooting until the bad guy is no longer a threat and I also know how to reload if the slide locks back on empty and/or a tactical re-load if necessary.
-
1
-
-
Watch out, it's starting anew - political pundits telling you just how equally bad both Republicans and Democrats in Congress are. DON'T believe it. That's just what the Democratic leadership would like voters to believe. If we believe that they are no worse than Republicans, it gives Democrat politicians an equal/better chance at winning mid-term elections . We (US voters) had better take Harry Reid and his cronies out of power in the Senate, as well as, maintain Republican control of the House. We the people need to undo and reverse the course set out by the current bunch of socialist/communists in power today. Not saying that there aren't corrupt Republicans, but at this point in time, the Democrats are more/most dangerous.
Sorry Mr. BenGunn but the overwhelming majority of Republicans ARE just as bad as the vast majority of Democrats. In fact, it many ways they are WORSE because they PRETEND to be Constitutional conservatives when they are nothing of the kind...at least with most Democrats you know what you are getting!
It's TIME TO DEFUND THE RNC and concentrate on electing PEOPLE that have morals, values, and principles that they won't lose within 12 months of being in office...PEOPLE who believe that the Constitution actually means what it says and says what it means...PEOPLE who will do WHAT IS RIGHT rather than what is politically expedient to get them re-elected...PEOPLE WHO WILL GO HOME after a term or two in office.In case you missed it, please note that I didn't say one word about those people being part of any particular political party and that was NOT an oversight on my part!
-
4
-
-
This may come as a shock to some but this isn't the 1780's or the 1860's...what was common or customary or acceptable "back then" really doesn't have much to do with what’s common/customary/acceptable today - the fact that going armed openly may once have been common really doesn’t matter...it isn't common anymore.
Today, people, in general, are not as accepting of seeing civilians carrying arms and every mass shooting incident…every incident where some civilian goes crazy and shoots someone for no good reason (such as the retired LEO who killed a man for texting in a movie theatre)…every incident of road rage where someone winds up shot just because someone cut someone else off in traffic only serves to reinforce the idea that “guns are bad and therefore, anyone who carries one must also be badâ€. Depending on where you are, carrying openly and making it obvious that you are armed is going to bother people…some people will be bothered enough that they may well overact and call 9-1-1.
Moving on, when we talk about our "rights" and especially those that are enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, I would submit that we need to be mindful of not just what the Constitution says but also what it chooses not to say. In the case of the second amendment, nowhere does it stipulate "how" one is to bear arms or that one must bear arms at all; only that they have a natural/god-given right to do so. As such, I find all this discussion about open vs. concealed carry to be a bit beside the point in terms of “rightsâ€â€¦you HAVE a right to bear arms; you DO NOT HAVE a right to bear arms openly any more than you have a right to bear arms concealed.
I suggest that the “how†you bear arms is appropriately under the prevue of the State you are in. If TN wants to allow both, so be it…if TN decided to require only concealed carry I believe that they have the constitutional power, under the second amendment to do so…that stipulating a method of carry in no way takes away your right to carry.
Since we can legally carry openly or concealed in Tennessee, we have a responsibility to ALL armed citizens to carry in a way that does not ultimately cause problems for other armed citizens. If you chose to carry openly and it never causes a problem; great. If you chose to carry openly and it ever causes a problem then it is YOU that is harming our ability to exercise our right to bear arms.
-
2
-
-
-
I actually think it should be legal everywhere. But like it or not, there are social mores and how we get from here to there is quite important.
I'd actually like to NEVER NEED TO CARRY A WEAPON of any kind or anywhere. Sadly; that is extremely unlikely to ever be the case and in fact, we are heading at near light-speed in the opposite direction. :(
-
2
-
Net Neutrality Going Going Gone? (Sir Robert's Free Enterprise Capitalism Going, Going, Gone?)
in General Chat
Posted · Edited by RobertNashville
Television is not and has never been a regulated utility.
Electricity, natural gas, water/sewer...THESE are utilities and in a city are fairly necessary to life for a number of reasons.
Internet Access is NOT necessary to life..is not a utility and never should be. Its a service that no one "must" have and that no company should ever be required to even offer or be told how to offer.
I'm still stunned at how quickly of what one would tend to believe is a collection of conservative/libertarian, small-government, Constitutionally minded, capitalists/free-market thinkers are so damn quick to go begging the federal government to regulate something because it might inconvenience them.
What some proponents of "net neutrality" really seem to want is for those who don't use significant amounts of bandwidth/specific services to subsidize the bandwidth/services of others...the most significant difference between what those proponents of "net neutrality" want and what the people who wanted Obamacare wanted is the name of the product.