Show Comments That Contain...
  • On 27 Jul 2012 in NRA asks 'Please Try To Remember Wonderful Things Guns Do For Us Every Day', taketheplunge said:

    FunTime says

    So I think the idea, for some, is that the level of tool that they want covered by law comes all the way from nuclear bombs, F16s(can a private citizen own a fighter jet?), down to hand guns, or guns designed to quickly kill dozens of people. What is the purpose of such a tool, if not mass murder?


    Yes, they are intended for mass killing and/or murder. The government is made of the same human beings as those not in the government. Anything banned from the private citizen should also be banned from the government and vice versa. So if a general citizen can't have an F-16, neither should the government. The situation we have now is a situation of haves and have-nots.

  • On 13 Jul 2012 in Investors buying REO cripple the move-up market, taketheplunge said:

    What an interesting chart. I wish I knew what the footnotes meant.

  • On 12 Jul 2012 in //, taketheplunge said:

    This URL isn't working for me, FunTime.

  • On 12 Jul 2012 in San Francisco prices fall again, taketheplunge said:

    dublin hillz says

    If I were to live in the city, the only way I would do it would be to get a rent controlled apartment in sunset district, that's about it

    I used to have a rent-controlled apartment in the Sunset district. I traded that for a rent-controlled apartment in North Beach. It's noisy. I now pay for parking. Drunks are breaking bottles in the street on Friday and Saturday nights. But, somehow, I'm much happier. I think of noise as texture and rather enjoy city sounds.

  • On 11 Jul 2012 in The Ultra-rich Have a Right to Free Speech, taketheplunge said:

    Patrick says

    Easy, just have primaries or maybe even pre-primaries where you collect signatures to get on the ballot (no paid signature collectors either!).

    I feel uneasy about this. I see the two major parties rigging campaign finance like they do debates. States would raise the number of signatures to get on the ballot so high that only Democrats and Republicans would get funding. And there would be no way to donate to third parties, creating a duopoly.

    To me, that's a worse outcome than what we have now.

Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 22 milliseconds to create.