Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

User information for RollinThundr

Real Name RollinThundr   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname None given.
Email Concealed by request
ICQ None given.
Description Banned
Homepage None given.
Signed On May 5, 2009, 08:31
Total Comments 2460 (Senior)
User ID 54946
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 ] Older >


News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
66. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 09:48 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:41:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:39:
Redmask wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:29:
You brought this up tough guy. You're the one who launched into the 'why is so smoking so demonized?!!' shit. No one cares if you want to smoke yourself to death, we care about how much it costs society in health and dollars. Yeah no shit smoking increases the risk of cancer, glad you caught up to 30 years ago. That's why the government taxes the shit out of it and restricts advertising to try and prevent people from getting addicted.

The alcohol argument is brainless and invalid. Alcohol can be used recreationally in a responsible manner, cigarettes on the other hand are engineered to be addictive. You can drink without health impact, you cannot smoke without health impact. This is scientific fact, not opinion. Smoking affects general respiratory functions, lowers your immune system capability and a dozen other very nasty things OTHER than cancer risk.

You can gnash your teeth and call me names all you want but you can't hide from the truth. Smoking is on the decline in most countries so the governments approach is working. That's why tobacco companies are getting into the food industry, the writing is on the wall.

So stop trying to change the goalposts and pretend I'm trying to get you to quit. I don't give a SHIT about you, smoke a damned chimney you rude little ankle biter. Just don't sit there and preach to me about the government being so mean to tobacco and launch into hysterics about health care when you are a part of the problem.

Alcohol does as much damage and can aid in the cause of long term illness like alzheimers. It's just as bad as smoking. I'm not changing goalposts one bit. Never heard of anyone being killed by a smoking driver, however you hear about drunk driving deaths daily. So yeah I do think you're wrong. Yet there's no major tax on alcohol in comparison to cigarettes and you see a booze ad every 5 minutes.

Yup, you can get killed by a drunk driver, so drunk driving is outlawed.
You can get killed by second hand smoke, plus it makes your clothes smell like ass, so public smoking is outlawed.

Makes sense to me. Though, I suppose, it's a nanny state thing. Maybe we should relax drunk driving laws. If I choose to drive drunk that's my decision, not the gubments!

You'd know all about nanny state things I'm sure. Maybe we should outlaw cars too, while we're outlawing guns and everything else so you can live in your little bubble world and be safe while papa Barry watches over you.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
63. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 09:39 RollinThundr
 
Redmask wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:29:
You brought this up tough guy. You're the one who launched into the 'why is so smoking so demonized?!!' shit. No one cares if you want to smoke yourself to death, we care about how much it costs society in health and dollars. Yeah no shit smoking increases the risk of cancer, glad you caught up to 30 years ago. That's why the government taxes the shit out of it and restricts advertising to try and prevent people from getting addicted.

The alcohol argument is brainless and invalid. Alcohol can be used recreationally in a responsible manner, cigarettes on the other hand are engineered to be addictive. You can drink without health impact, you cannot smoke without health impact. This is scientific fact, not opinion. Smoking affects general respiratory functions, lowers your immune system capability and a dozen other very nasty things OTHER than cancer risk.

You can gnash your teeth and call me names all you want but you can't hide from the truth. Smoking is on the decline in most countries so the governments approach is working. That's why tobacco companies are getting into the food industry, the writing is on the wall.

So stop trying to change the goalposts and pretend I'm trying to get you to quit. I don't give a SHIT about you, smoke a damned chimney you rude little ankle biter. Just don't sit there and preach to me about the government being so mean to tobacco and launch into hysterics about health care when you are a part of the problem.

Alcohol does as much damage and can aid in the cause of long term illness like alzheimers. It's just as bad as smoking. I'm not changing goalposts one bit. Never heard of anyone being killed by a smoking driver, however you hear about drunk driving deaths daily. So yeah I do think you're wrong. Yet there's no major tax on alcohol in comparison to cigarettes and you see a booze ad every 5 minutes.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
61. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 09:26 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:17:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:08:
Redmask wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 08:52:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 08:20:

You're the type of ex smoker I hate. Preachy and sanctimonious.

If you have nothing to say then take a fucking hike instead of trying to get the last word with some stupid shit. When you've had cancer, we'll talk about being too preachy. There's nothing preachy or sanctimonious about the facts, you just don't want to face the truth or your own hypocrisy.

I know people who didn't smoke or drink their entire lives and still died of cancer. Smoking increases the risk obviously, but if I get cancer I'm not going to blame anyone but myself for it.

Calling smoking a blight is a bit over board unless you want to put alcohol right up there with it. Until then kindly stop being a sanctimonious prick thanks.

My insurance rates thank you you entitled jerk. "I can smoke, and you all can deal! And then, later on, help me pay for any ramifications!"

And it is a blight. I'll never live in an area without a public smoking ban.

Plus, frankly, it makes you look like a redneck in the States. There's definitely a correlation between social class and smoking.

Your insurance rates went up due to obamacare, and will continue to go up due to obamacare. Thank yourself you voted for the shit.

Oh is that right? People who smoke automatically have less class than ones who don't? Riiight. I'm a redneck from Taxachusettes now apparently. Want to call me a bigot again too?

Why would I seek anything from anyone? I'm not a liberal like you, I don't expect everyone else to pay my way for me.

Like I keep saying, you don't discuss things, you ad hoc all day long and wonder why I call you things like libtard.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
59. removed Mar 28, 2013, 09:08 RollinThundr
 
* REMOVED *
This comment was deleted on Mar 28, 2013, 09:45.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
57. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 08:20 RollinThundr
 
Redmask wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 07:12:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 00:32:
Then outlaw it, then you can outlaw booze too. People do things that are unhealthy, people skydive, potentially unhealthy. Spare me the over dramatics though, I know the risks associated with smoking.

Bet you're one of those second hand smoke is worse than first hand smoke types as well.

I swear you are incapable of reading. You, why do they tax smoking but don't allow it to advertise? Me, a full explanation of why. You, a bunch of shit totally unrelated. Over dramatic? It's the truth, it's scientific fact, there is nothing dramatic about it. They tax it because it has a major health cost to people that the cigarette companies would otherwise not kick back. Ban it? If only! They can't ban it because people like you would make an unholy stink and you know that. They restrict advertising because it's bad for society as a whole. You are slowly killing yourself faster than you otherwise would be. Maybe you don't care, fine but you're sucking up unnecessary tax dollars. Take some personal responsibility for your actions you freeloader.

People kill themselves drinking and eating too except those things positive weight for society when used in moderation, smoking does not. You lose all rights to bitch about healthcare when you're a smoker, it is the height of hypocrisy and that's coming from an ex smoker. I smoked for 15 years, don't talk down to me as if I was other people about it, I know all about the health risks and you will learn one day the hard way.

Cancer isn't fun and smoking is the losers lottery ticket to it, as if there wasn't enough risk of getting cancer as it is. Getting into a car accident sucks but that just proves life has enough risk without taking totally unnecessary ones that have nothing positive whatsoever. You want to be a daring risk taker, go climb a mountain. At least you would have some pictures to show for it instead of a huge hole in your wallet where a chunk of your retirement savings could have been and chemotherapy.

You're the type of ex smoker I hate. Preachy and sanctimonious.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
52. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 00:32 RollinThundr
 
Redmask wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 21:44:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 18:13:
And for the record, and being a smoker, I think it's ridiculous, cigarette companies are barely allowed to advertise these days, but that doesn't stop the government from taxing the fuck outta cigarettes.

It's a blight on society and a huge resource drain on the health care system. Of course the government taxes it, they need to recoup something from it. There is no positive benefit to smoking and I say that as someone who smoked for 15 years and knew it was stupid every time I lit one up. You'll quit one day and understand. I don't want my tax dollars paying for unnecessary health care.

Since I know the comparison people will make is to alcohol, it can be used recreationally in moderation. Smoking is more insidious, it has inherent addictive properties, both short term and long term health implications. Smoking has no positive weight whatsoever, literally nothing at all outside of jobs that aren't a good long term bet. Of course it's advertising should be limited.

Then outlaw it, then you can outlaw booze too. People do things that are unhealthy, people skydive, potentially unhealthy. Spare me the over dramatics though, I know the risks associated with smoking.

Bet you're one of those second hand smoke is worse than first hand smoke types as well.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
46. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 18:13 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 17:10:
jdreyer wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 16:54:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 16:25:
No? Isn't much different when you're essentially welcoming government to run your life and tell you what you can and can't say/do/eat/drink etc.

Are there egregious examples of this? I mean, where there's no obvious good being done. It's pretty obvious that regulating alcohol and tobacco provide benefit to society. Or do you feel that even this is too much?

He probably thinks the smoking bans are too far.

Bloomberg's soda ban is often brought up. As if, you know, everyone didn't endlessly mock it. Jon Stewart, someone often hailed as a top liberal talking head, endlessly mocked it.

And it does lead to a social good. People are too fat and too likely to get type 2 diabetes. Their insistence upon drinking buckets of liquid sugar and calories is an enormous part of this. So you can see that connection.
It was just the wrong way to make it.

But, of course, some people think that it isn't the government's job to make sure that what companies offer us is good for us. We should judge. If we want to survive solely on Twinkies we should be allowed to eat solely Twinkies, even if it means there will be a strain on society the taxpayer has to bear. Whatever, I see that argument somewhat, the issue comes from when there aren't many alternatives. Most products in the supermarket have excessive amounts of sugar, salt, and chemicals. It would be nice if the government stepped in and regulated that. Clearly the American consumer isn't very good at doing so on an individual level. Banning certain ingredients would be nice. Hell, there are some things banned in the EU as being carcinogenics that the US still allows.

This, though, will somehow be seen as me saying Bloomberg was anything other than a fool.

If someone wants to eat nothing but twinkies, it's their own fault if they end up 300lbs. I don't need, nor want the government to tell me what I can and can't eat or how to live my life thanks. You may think it's a good idea because "hey people will lose weight!" but do we really want to open that door to government running our lives for us? Or is that something you really want Beamer? Someone to tell you what to do?

And for the record, and being a smoker, I think it's ridiculous, cigarette companies are barely allowed to advertise these days, but that doesn't stop the government from taxing the fuck outta cigarettes.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
45. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 18:09 RollinThundr
 
jdreyer wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 16:54:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 16:25:
No? Isn't much different when you're essentially welcoming government to run your life and tell you what you can and can't say/do/eat/drink etc.

Are there egregious examples of this? I mean, where there's no obvious good being done. It's pretty obvious that regulating alcohol and tobacco provide benefit to society. Or do you feel that even this is too much?

I'm fine with regulating tobacco, course when you talk about regulating tobacco do you mean the half of the price of the pack that's all pure tax or actual regulation?

Feinstine's anti gun bill is a perfect example, the woman has a permit to carry in San Fransisco, one of the toughest places in the US to get that type of permit. It's ok for her to have the means to protect herself, just not you or I. She's had a 10+ year agenda to attack the 2nd amendment, I doubt any of her constituents want to remove the 2nd amendment of the constitution. And to me that's the crux of the issue on both the left and the right, politicians today forget that they're supposed to work FOR us. Not for their own agendas. Somehow We the People got lost along the way.

The soft drink ban in NY due to fatties. Yes I know Bloomberg is an independent but his views are all pretty much extremely liberal anyway, may as well just call him a liberal.

Obamacare.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
34. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 16:25 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 16:15:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 15:57:
Beamer wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 15:56:
And who here says the government should daddy us?

You come up with these absolutely nuts strawmen that exist only on the Bill O'Reilly show.


Should the government do what it can to fight institutionalized sexism and racism?
Yes. Yes it should.
Should it "daddy" us?
What does that even mean?

Are liberals and democrats in general, generally for bigger government or against it?

Bigger government != "daddy."

No? Isn't much different when you're essentially welcoming government to run your life and tell you what you can and can't say/do/eat/drink etc.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
30. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 15:57 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 15:56:
And who here says the government should daddy us?

You come up with these absolutely nuts strawmen that exist only on the Bill O'Reilly show.


Should the government do what it can to fight institutionalized sexism and racism?
Yes. Yes it should.
Should it "daddy" us?
What does that even mean?

Are liberals and democrats in general, generally for bigger government or against it?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
26. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 15:52 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 15:13:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 15:00:
Verno wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 14:11:
Hahah who would seriously defend some dipshit getting 30 months for trying to crash aircraft?
It's a 19 year old kid, I hardly think he was thinking Oh I'll crash some planes today. Stupid to do? Very much so, throwing the book at a bored and obviously stupid kid to do it twice however seems a tad harsh.

And really it's the other story that should have people far more up in arms. We are becoming a police state and no one seems to give a fuck about it.

This is throwing the book? The maximum is 5 years per offense. 2 offenses. 30 months is significantly less than 120 months.

Plus, with this being fairly common and people not realizing it's illegal or dangerous, an example is being made of him to get the word out. It happens.

Plus, given that this is more than the prosecution recommended, there's another hearing next week, in which the sentence will likely be dropped down to 12-15 months.

Plus, even if he did get the 30 months, as a guy with no priors that did something non-violent he'd likely serve a tiny fraction before being let out.

Plus, just because he wasn't thinking "oh, I'll crash some planes today" doesn't mean he didn't do something that could have led to it. He needs to take personal responsibility for his actions, right?

Plus, laws don't necessarily care what your intention was. Trust me, though, had his intent been to use the laser to crash a few planes he'd be getting much, much, much more than 30 months.

Plus, maybe you'll learn a lesson that confusing your actual point with idiocy like "you libs" and "both these stories" just distracts from any point you mean to make. Had you stopped and said "wow, this one story is pretty frightening, what do you guys think?" you would have had some discussion. But when you say "you stupid libtards didn't respond to these two horrible stories within 20 minutes of Blue posting them so clearly you don't care" then you get people mocking you for the rest of the day.
This is why people think you troll. Your posts are so well structured to avoid any real conversation that you have to be planning them that way.

Beamer, I've tried time and time to actually discuss things, sure I take a pot shot at liberals in general here and there, but at the least I don't go out of my way to call people names or accuse them of bigotry on a regular basis. I'll leave that job to you since you're so good at it.

I didn't say you stupid anything, I was amused that a news post sat there for half a morning that paints the gov in a bad light when generally the folks that argue government should daddy us all had nothing to post on the topic. That's all it was, nothing more nothing less.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
24. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 15:00 RollinThundr
 
Verno wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 14:11:
Hahah who would seriously defend some dipshit getting 30 months for trying to crash aircraft?
It's a 19 year old kid, I hardly think he was thinking Oh I'll crash some planes today. Stupid to do? Very much so, throwing the book at a bored and obviously stupid kid to do it twice however seems a tad harsh.

And really it's the other story that should have people far more up in arms. We are becoming a police state and no one seems to give a fuck about it.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Battlefield 4 Gameplay Trailer; Preorder Bonus DLC
30. Re: Battlefield 4 Gameplay Trailer; Preorder Bonus DLC Mar 27, 2013, 12:40 RollinThundr
 
Frags4Fun wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 12:00:
I couldn't even get through half of the video. Super boring. Same marketing strategy as BF3. SP garbage. If they want SP, they should make it like 1942 SP where the SP was the same as MP except with bots.

Speak for yourself, I happen to like an actual single player experience for my 60 dollars even on titles like this that players are generally spending 95% of the time in mp.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
18. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 12:06 RollinThundr
 
InBlack wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 11:59:
Exactly, size doesnt really matter if the job gets done. Unfortunately in the US version of democracy, getting the job done most often entails getting elected and nothing else.

This is getting worse and worse, and its spreading into all of the US influenced nations as well. Left and Right have become meaningless, ideology has become a means to get elected into office and has no true value anymore. No one gives a shit about getting anything done other than getting elected and campaigning for the next election.

Worst of all are the masses who seem obvlivious to this, despite the fact that this is getting more and more obvious with every single election.

Democracy is way fucking overrated if you ask me...

It's two sides of the same coin, just what is personally more important to oneself, social issues or economy. That's really what it breaks down to at this point.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
16. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 11:52 RollinThundr
 
InBlack wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 11:49:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 11:42:
Bard wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 11:18:
Don't fall for the Machiavellian 'divide and conquer' tactics that is the Repubs vs Democrats - that's just nonsense to distract.

With realtime monitoring of all our communications, the true masters of the US will be able to prevent further exposure of their crimes.

We're already seeing the citizenry becoming 'the enemy' - it's just going to get worse.

It isn't a left vs right thing on this one, its ideology. Actual conservatives are against things like the DHS, news flash most of the republicans in office? Aren't conservative.

The reason I mentioned liberals at all is they tend to not comment on stories like these, but god forbid they feel someone, or some special group got trampled on, it's the end of the world. Making government larger and giving them more control in any area is always going to be bad for the common man.

Erm, beurocracy = bad.

Well regulated control = good.

Why is regulation good? Because it protects the interests of the citizen, or it should in theory at least. A well regulated government can be a very powerful ally to a small insignificant citizen, a large bloated government with no self regulation in place can also be a great ally to corporate interests. Do you see the point Im trying to make here?

I do, and I don't actually totally disagree with you Black, sadly we don't have a well regulated government however, quite the opposite.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
12. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 11:42 RollinThundr
 
Bard wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 11:18:
Don't fall for the Machiavellian 'divide and conquer' tactics that is the Repubs vs Democrats - that's just nonsense to distract.

With realtime monitoring of all our communications, the true masters of the US will be able to prevent further exposure of their crimes.

We're already seeing the citizenry becoming 'the enemy' - it's just going to get worse.

It isn't a left vs right thing on this one, its ideology. Actual conservatives are against things like the DHS, news flash most of the republicans in office? Aren't conservative.

The reason I mentioned liberals at all is they tend to not comment on stories like these, but god forbid they feel someone, or some special group got trampled on, it's the end of the world. Making government larger and giving them more control in any area is always going to be bad for the common man.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
5. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 10:57 RollinThundr
 
ldonyo wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 10:53:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 10:11:
Funny how the libs here ignore posting on stories like these two. No the government isn't out of control and corrupt, no they're not taking measures to destroy privacy rights and turn the US into another nanny state not at all!

The FBI has been trying to get as much power as they can to watch everything imaginable for far longer than the current President's terms in office. But, that's okay, you keep those blinders on nice and tight and make sure you turn up the talk radio volume to drown out anything else you might otherwise hear.

No kidding, I didn't mention Obama did I or blame him for it? No? Ok then. That being said, thinking that giving government more control on anything, is generally a pretty fucking terrible idea.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
3. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 10:49 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 10:42:
Wait, what's wrong with putting someone trying to blind the pilot of a commercial aircraft in jail?
Nothing, but 30 months seems a bit excessive don't you think? How do you feel on the other article there Beamer?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
1. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 27, 2013, 10:11 RollinThundr
 
Funny how the libs here ignore posting on stories like these two. No the government isn't out of control and corrupt, no they're not taking measures to destroy privacy rights and turn the US into another nanny state not at all!  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft Announced
14. Re: Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft Announced Mar 27, 2013, 09:05 RollinThundr
 
Cutter wrote on Mar 23, 2013, 03:08:
Yifes wrote on Mar 23, 2013, 00:34:
Cutter wrote on Mar 22, 2013, 21:45:
There is absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that's why they chose this. Free my ass. Money is the one and only thing Actiblizz cares about.

Rolleyes

That's all that any company cares about.

Rolleyes

You couldn't be any further off the mark. There are plenty of good companies out there.


Businesses exist to make money, that's how the real world works.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
2460 Comments. 123 pages. Viewing page 48.
< Newer [ 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo