Topix Chitown Regulars

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#79420 Jan 31, 2013

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

#79421 Jan 31, 2013
Sam I Am wrote:
So a snowmobiler died today from injuries he suffered doing a stunt during the X-Games, and now there is an uproar to cancel the event and make all kinds of revisions to the event. I think that is silly. They're called the X-Games, not the C(onservative)-Games. The participants are athletes who follow all the safety protocols, but the fact is they are engaged in sports with higher levels of risk which they voluntarily assumed. It is not a blood sport, it's not the gladiators. If we are going to let every Tom, Dick and Jethro who demonstrates he's not Coo-Coo for Cocoapuffs have a gun, then we should let people who train to reach the pinnacle of their sport and know the risks do what they do.
So you support a gun-ban, or stricter gun laws, because one nutball went on a shooting spree, but you don't support stricter rules for x-games because one person got killed?

Liberals aren't hypocritical at all.

“I Am Mine”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#79422 Jan 31, 2013
Sam I Am wrote:
now there is an uproar to cancel the event and make all kinds of revisions to the event.
And who is it that's making an uproar?

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

#79423 Jan 31, 2013
PEllen wrote:
The news reports were giving examples of 3 minor felonies
What's a "minor" felony?

“I Am Mine”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#79424 Jan 31, 2013
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
So you support a gun-ban, or stricter gun laws, because one nutball went on a shooting spree, but you don't support stricter rules for x-games because one person got killed?
Liberals aren't hypocritical at all.
Not that I am supporting a gun ban, but you are comparing apples to watermelons. On the left, we have innocents killed by the hand of another. On the right we have a guy who died by voluntarily participating in an extremely risky and dangerous activity.
Sam I Am

Nashville, TN

#79425 Jan 31, 2013
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
So you support a gun-ban, or stricter gun laws, because one nutball went on a shooting spree, but you don't support stricter rules for x-games because one person got killed?
Liberals aren't hypocritical at all.
You're right, it's just one nutball that is the cause of the gun discussion.

X-Gamer hurt himself and no one else. People with guns hurt others. I know that's a subtle nuance so I understand how you missed it.
Sam I Am

Nashville, TN

#79426 Jan 31, 2013
Mister Tonka wrote:
<quoted text>And who is it that's making an uproar?
I don't have all their names, I'll have to get back to you.
Sam I Am

Nashville, TN

#79427 Jan 31, 2013
Mister Tonka wrote:
<quoted text>Not that I am supporting a gun ban, but you are comparing apples to watermelons. On the left, we have innocents killed by the hand of another. On the right we have a guy who died by voluntarily participating in an extremely risky and dangerous activity.
See, Mutt? Tonka gets it. But then again, Tonka isn't preoccupied with labeling people as "liberal" as an insult.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

#79428 Jan 31, 2013
Banning something because it's potentially dangerous. Whether it's dangerous for you or dangerous for me should be irrelevant.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#79429 Jan 31, 2013
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
What's a "minor" felony?
felony committed while you were a minor? Or maybe felony that does not involve bodily harm to another? I dunno.
Sam I Am

Memphis, TN

#79430 Jan 31, 2013
Lindsay Lohan is an absolute wreck. 20+ court visits, 67 days of community service, 250 days in rehab, ongoing issues, she switched to an attorney who was barred from practicing for 5 years. And she looks awful. She has officially sunk below the Kardashians in my book.

Since: Mar 09

Miami, FL

#79431 Jan 31, 2013
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That woulda been awesome.
I know; I regret that we didn't do it. It would have been worth the money.
Sam I Am

Memphis, TN

#79432 Jan 31, 2013
edogxxx wrote:
Banning something because it's potentially dangerous. Whether it's dangerous for you or dangerous for me should be irrelevant.
Says the person who advocates an individual's right to choose whether or not they smoke or wear a seatbelt because they (according to you) aren't affecting anyone else.

That hypocrisy aside, that is one of the dumber things you have said. And I feel confident that your stated opinion is in the minority.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

#79433 Jan 31, 2013
Sam I Am wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the person who advocates an individual's right to choose whether or not they smoke or wear a seatbelt because they (according to you) aren't affecting anyone else.
How is that hypocrisy?

“I Am Mine”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#79434 Jan 31, 2013
Sam I Am

Nashville, TN

#79435 Jan 31, 2013
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
How is that hypocrisy?
You must not know what hypocrisy means. Your response to me was "Whether it's dangerous for you or dangerous for me should be irrelevant." Then you turn around on the smoking and seat belt issues and use the argument that those two activities affect only the person and not others as a justification for the government not coming in and telling you what to do.
Sam I Am

Memphis, TN

#79436 Jan 31, 2013
Mister Tonka wrote:
I like that she didn't get rattled but I think what she said was a little dumb.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

#79437 Jan 31, 2013
Sam I Am wrote:
<quoted text>
You must not know what hypocrisy means. Your response to me was "Whether it's dangerous for you or dangerous for me should be irrelevant." Then you turn around on the smoking and seat belt issues and use the argument that those two activities affect only the person and not others as a justification for the government not coming in and telling you what to do.
I was pointing out YOUR hypocrisy. You support smoking bans and seat belt laws but don't think there should be bans or restrictions on x-games.

“I Am Mine”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#79438 Jan 31, 2013
Sam I Am wrote:
<quoted text>
I like that she didn't get rattled but I think what she said was a little dumb.
I see it the exact opposite. I think the fact that she felt the need to try to make that chick feel stupid says she got rattled. She's on Bourbon Street on Superbowl week and got pissed off that a drunk fan got into her shot? Really? You don't want drunks in your shot, stay off Bourbon Street. As far as what she said, I thought it was funny.
Sam I Am

Memphis, TN

#79439 Jan 31, 2013
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I was pointing out YOUR hypocrisy. You support smoking bans and seat belt laws but don't think there should be bans or restrictions on x-games.
You said "Banning something because it's potentially dangerous. Whether it's dangerous for you or dangerous for me should be irrelevant." That really sounds like you are stating your position. Would you like to clarify? Do you agree that there is a difference between activities that pose a risk to oneself and activities that pose a risk to others?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min USAsince1680 1,521,845
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr WelbyMD 240,333
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 3 hr Moon Rhythm 10,577
Newbie HELP needed!!! 3 hr AmandaPTownGirl 3
women 4 hr John 1
Obumbler Back To Community Organizing 6 hr ABANDON OBUMBLER 5
Scary Obituary 6 hr The Shadow 10

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages