So the first time, I listened to him say he'd "fuck you in the ass" a few times. Then I stopped watching.

I finished the video this time....oh my god he said "whiteboy" "f*ggot" and had a couple of sexually violent lyrics.

If you think this shit is extreme and would cause a band to lose their record label, you need to get out more. Eminem has said worse, imo.

Listen to some death metal...lmao. Pick any Cannibal Corpse song recorded over the past 26 years, and know that they've been signed to the same label for the duration of their career.



Pick some Gwar songs....they're satirical but violent and offensive (they have a song called BabyR*per...). They still have a record label.

Check out the Meatmen, who describe themselves as "anti-social hate punk." They have a record label, and still putting out such classics as "One down, three to go (referred to live as 'Two down, two to go')" about killing the remaining members of the Beatles, "Morrissey Must Die," and the legendary "Suck Trilogy (Crippled Children Suck, Camel Jockeys Suck and French People Suck)"

Pungent Stench, Anal Cunt...

I could go on and on with metal and punk bands that are full of lyrics a lot worse than "I'll fuck you in the ass whiteboy f*ggot (paraphrasing)."

agree to disagree, DUI laws definitely save lives. Otherwise everyone would be drunk driving lol

sorry you don't understand how it works, maybe one day

Wow! Free speech is not denying freedoms to others. It is the ability to discuss anything.

You need to travel a bit. Live somewhere with little or no law and see the difference.

Interesting info. you can sort murder rate per state. I assumed that states with big cities would be the most dangerous states. Not so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio...tates_by_state

According to the National Highway Traffic and Safety Admin in 2009 (most recent I could find) 10,839 people were killed in traffic accidents where the drive had a .08 blood alcohol level. That means 10,839 people had two beers and a shot, thought they were fine and killed themselves or others.

My uncle is a perfect example of how DUI laws are a deterrent for many. He is retired now, but for 30 years he worked in construction. He would drive this nice conversion van and every morning he would put a six pack in the ice box. After work he would take it out and drinking the beer during his drive home. On Fridays he would drink the beer on his way to his favorite bar where he would drink more then drive home. This went on for several years before he got busted.

His life was not ruined, but it was great inconvenienced. He ended up spending about $5K between fines, lawyers etc. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail, but they let him serve it on the weekends. His license was suspended for a year. That was the biggest issue for him because he had to apply for a hardship license which means he had to go to the DMV and file papers stating his route to and from work and the times he was traveling it and the route to and from the grocery store and the day he would be making that trip. Since he worked construction their job sites often switched 2-3 times a month. So he had to constantly go to the DMV to switch his paperwork. Any DMV is a nightmare, but the ones in the Los Angeles area are a special kind of hell.

He never had a drink and drove after that. He was, and still is, a heavy drinker, but now he takes a cab to a bar and he waits to get home before he drinks. I was always busting his ass about driving drunk and he admitted to me that he was shocked he had never been in an accident. It was likely only a matter of time until he was.

I believe we should have personal freedom, and I think some of the DUI and traffic laws could stand to be changed, but I lost a close friend to a drunk driver when I was a teenager and I have zero tolerance for people who drink and drive. People should know what their tolerance levels are. If a person can go out to dinner and have a glass of wine or a beer and be fine, great. If that makes you tipsy, don't drink or don't drive it is that simple.

kane, just because a person in an auto accident had a .08 blood/alcohol level does NOT mean that alcohol caused the accident. They are surmising that shit after the fact.

Reality is that auto accidents happen every second. The guy who has never had a drink in his life could pull out in front of a perfectly fine driver who has a .08 level and cause the accident...but the cops will call it "alcohol related".

Not saying that nobody ever drives drunk and gets in a wreck. The law of averages says that too happens all the time...which is my point: the DUI laws are set up to make money. And IF they just happen to every once in hundred thousand times prevent an accident that is great.

But of course...we'll never know if the person pulled over for DUI ever WOULD have had an accident.

That's the evil of preemptive action. You never know what would have happened.

So the cops pat themselves on the back and post stats showing that alcohol "related" (meaning passengers who are drunk, pedestrians who are drunk, bicyclists who are drunk and yes drivers) driving deaths are down.

Meanwhile overall driving deaths are down by 20,000 a year since 1980...while the population is 70 MILLION more.
Again....better cars, air bags, seat belt use, better roads.

And I agree...people do have different tolerances. Some folks drink two drinks and hit the ground. Other people can drink a bottle of Jack and have better hand to eye coordination than 99% of other people.

Making it .08% isn't stopping DRUNK driving. It's making money for the local police dept. and the insurance companies.

Somewhere, some common sense needs to take place.

I have.

Drove all over St. Martin with a rum drink in my hand waving at the cops. No problems.

I've traveled all over the place since 1978 as a professional musician...and lots of places since then on vacations and to conferences.

I'm world traveled.

And I STILL know the difference between calling .08 "drunk" and the reality of that situation (not even close to drunk or "impaired")

Dude, you can literally gargle with listerine and blow an .08 and go to jail. It's ridiculous and set up so to make them money.

Want to arrest DRUNK drivers? Fine. Want to arrest drivers on prescription pills (there is you real problem by the way)? Fine.

But this .08 horseshit, and their newest campaign: "Buzzed driving is drunk driving" is just a way to make money and to treat adults like children.

While I normally err on the side of personal freedom, I don't mind the police trying to get people who have drank and are driving off the streets. The odds are you are more likely to get in an accident while driving under then influence than if you are not. I personally would rather know that there are fewer potential people under the influence driving around while I am on the road than just letting it go and punishing after the fact.

Most laws are in place to make money, but when it comes to DUI situations it is something that is 100% avoidable and I have no pity for those that end up in trouble because of it.

I guess we just won't agree on that one.

I don't think that cops are stopping any accidents from happening by their actions.

The only time I think they MIGHT help is if they see someone driving erratically and pull them over.

And that should result in a night in the drunk tank on a first time. Not losing your license, spending thousands of dollars on attorneys, insurance rates through the roof, etc.

That shit ruins people's lives and in this already fucked up economy...people can't have that. And of course the local govt.'s are pushing for MORE income and revenue from "traffic enforcement" because they are broke too from people not having any good jobs and the tax base shrinking :(

I didn't hear any special interest 'slurs' in the vid you posted

so slander is just a form of discussing, thanks for clearing that up :thumbsup

The gun owner, by his actions.

I would say their attitude is just as important as their actions. I was watching a show a few weeks ago and a guy was buying an AR-15 at a gun store. They asked him why he was getting it. At first he seemed normal and told them he liked to shoot and he wanted it for home defense. Then he started ranting about the Chinese invading and the government overthrowing the people (not sure what that means exactly) and it was clear this dude was pretty nutty. That doesn't mean he is ever going to shoot anyone with his gun.

A person can be a gun nut and never harm anyone.

If you think that the punishment for murder doesnt stop people from just grabbing their gun and shooting someone, you are wrong.

I can think of a few people that I havent shot simply because it's illegal. The laws already on the books do actually work.

I have an answer for you. When I am talking about gun nuts, *I* get to decide, and so do you. I think the term "Gun nut" is a relative term. I'm not a shrink, but if I think someone is behaving strangely, they are doing so relative to me, who I would consider to be normal. They are a "nut" compared to me. If they are being "crazy" with a gun, they are a "gun nut".


Thanks for the nice words Robby, but this is not what you said. In your post on 06-08-2014, 03:09 PM in this thread you said:

and


You also said:

They aren't a problem. They work! And I am an example of that.

No not at all. It may seem that way to someone who listens to the constant hate filled crap that comes from right wing media, but its really not the case.


There are a couple of things wrong with this statement. Just because you don't feel buzzed and feel "perfectly fine" to drive doesn't mean you're not drunk. Alcohol is a depressant because it slows down the central nervous system, causing a decrease in motor coordination, reaction time and brain smarts.

Even if you have been driving forever, you still need to react fast when presented with a dangerous situation such as swerving to avoid another car or stopping quickly. Sometimes a few milliseconds can make a difference.

And of course, even after your last drink, you are still drunk and getting drunker. 20% of alcohol is absorbed from your stomach while the rest is absorbed through the small intestine which of course takes its time to wiggle its way down there.

Doctors, Lawyers, street cops and especially Insurance companies will all tell you that you're wrong, sir Robbie.

Mark, as usual...you believe what you are told.

And as far as listening to "right wing" shit...THEY are the ones who are behind all of the DUI laws and pretty much every law that restricts people having a good time (drug laws, etc.)

And I'll say it again...once you've actually lived a bit in this world as I have you will see that some folks are wasted drunk on a few drinks. Others have incredible hand to eye coordination after drinking enough to kill an elephant.

.008 is so little alcohol that you can gargle with Listerine and blow drunk (it's been done). It's a ridiculously low level that is set up to make money for local govt.'s

You can keep posting all you want my friend. But you won't move me on this. I have family who are cops and I have friends who are judges. I know exactly what they are doing.

There... the same "f" word used as a slur against homosexuals, released by a popular artist within the past year. The result?

Didn't lose his record label...

Tesco Vee/The Meatmen:


Lyrics: http://songmeanings.com/songs/view/3530822107859457839/
Repeated use of the "d" word for lesbian


Lyrics: http://songmeanings.com/songs/view/3530822107858536992/
That dreaded "f" word again

So what was your point again?

Robbie, some states have different penalties depending on your blood alcohol content. So if you are at the .08 and first time you'll pretty much get a restricted license and some minor fines. If you blow higher the penalties get much harsher. So they are accounting for your complaints

Very interesting stats indeed.

The State of Wyoming has a 59.7% gun ownership rate and has a 0.9% per 100k gun murder rate

The District Of Columbia has a 3.6% gun ownership rate and has a 16.5% per 100k gun murder rate

But I'm sure that Rochard or Mark Prince will be along in a moment to explain to me why those numbers don't mean anything

After all, more guns always means more gun murders right? :winkwink:

Sir Robbie, there is no doubt in my mind that I or anyone else would be able to shift your thinking.

Cheers.

MK,

I'm sure your numbers are correct (I didn't check), but you are missing the point. I am all for legal gun ownership. I just think that, like driving a car, gun owners should be licensed, and that for guns like machine guns or assault rifles, perhaps stronger licenses should be put in place.

What alot of right wingers would say to the above is that licensing is somehow against the 2nd amendment. I don't think so, but ok, sure, maybe. This would be a discussion to have in the courts. It seems fair enough, no? But this is not what is happening. What is really happening is that the NRA and right wing media is spinning this way over the top of what it needs to be, working everyone into a froth, and creating very dangerous conditions in the United States (Armed Militias in Nevada, Open Carry demonstrations in restaurants, etc). You have to admit that alot of this goes way beyond what even the most hardcore gun lover on GFY would consider normal or even "patriotic".

Mark, all I'm saying is that the current DUI laws in the U.S. were instigated by "Mothers Against Drunk Driving" back in the 1970's.

And their voting block and ad campaign pressured politicians to make the accepted levels far too low.
It was done on emotion, not clear thinking.

I'm not against having laws for DUI.

I'm against having a level that is so low...that whenever a town needs extra revenue they can just send the cops out on a Friday night and pull anybody over and they will blow that ridiculous low number.

Just because the cops put up billboards and t.v. commercials saying that "buzzed driving is drunk driving" doesn't make it true.

I could drink a six pack and a couple of shots and still be more alert and have better hand-to-eye coordination than a 100% sober guy who hasn't slept.
Or a person texting on their phone.
Or just a busy mom with several kids in the car diverting her attention from the road.

I think that DUI laws shouldn't be using breathalyzers (I'm even hearing of people's blood being DRAWN to check for drugs...outrageous).
I think it should be based on a police officer giving a field sobriety test.

If you can't even walk straight and you're talking slurred...you don't need to be behind the wheel.
If you are alert, awake, and clear headed...then there shouldn't be any problem.

I think the levels that have been set are simply too low, and that it has become a source of revenue.

You think that the levels are great and that cities are not making bank off of it and it's okay to ruin lives.

I just can't go with your line of thinking on that.

beats me... don't care? guess the vids haven't rung the bells of the gay mafia is all I can say other than that is you my friend, you are completely ingracious. wouldn't surprise me a bit if your are insufferable as well :thumbsup

fell free to parse all the threads I have here at GFY...

one thing I have noticed is that the majority of death row inmates have already done time for manslaughter ... liberals in action :winkwink:

#1 Gee Thank You for allowing that the figures I quoted from the US Census Bureau and the FBI may be accurate.

#2 The point that I was trying to make that you seem to think that I "missed" was that the oft repeated assertion "more guns equals more gun murders" is in fact false.

#3 FYI Driving a car in the US is not a right guaranteed under our Constitution, owning a gun is. Since you are a non-American I will forgive your ignorance.
(Also, there is no Federal Law requiring a license to drive a car.)

#4 Licenses are already required for ownership of a machine gun.

#5 In the District of Columbia which I used as an example in my post, a license is required to be able to purchase a long gun or handgun, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law...ct_of_Columbia
yet DC still has the highest per capita gun murder rate in the country.

#6 Your diatribe against "the NRA" and "right-wingers" once again reinforces my (and other's) opinion that you are only here to troll and spread partisan hatred and intolerance in a country where you don't even live.

Since that seems to be your main function here at GFY that puts you under my "Mind Over Matter" Rule.



I don't mind.

And you don't matter.



:)

:2 cents::thumbsup


.

Because your country is awash with guns, so you need then to level the playing field.
Euro countries aren't full of guns, the US cant ban guns now, there are just too many.

But something has to be done to stop kids getting their hands on them no?

Me, I've lived in 3 different EU countries, probably 15 different cities, I have never been robbed/burgled/mugged/assaulted.

Where I live now, I can leave my door open when I go out.

Have you ever had to defend your property/loved ones or is it just fear of that happening? Is the US such a violent country?

Funny how banning inanimate objects in Australia and countless other countries stopped mass shootings, and significantly lowered rates of suicide and accidental deaths caused by their usage...

the fuck is wrong with you OP. US is the ONLY "developed" country this happens to for a reason...

Having lots of guns around doesn't mean changing the laws wouldn't work... Australia case in point. A lazy excuse for a lazy country that's reaping what it sows at the cost of innocent lives.

you so concerned, move to the USA, become a citizen and start voting????? just a thought... you know????