back home with a working computer. reno shows were incredible! should have taken many more c.d.'s than i did since i sold out by first show friday. cool. ended up making only 100 dollars at poker tables for the whole week but i only played about ten hours because i caught the flu and was sick most of the week. i am a little better now but still could use some chicken soup and bed rest so i will be up for the golfing next week.
as a comment on the above: i have spoken to other comics about this and most agree; it is possible to "perform yourself well" or at least, well for the time of the show or shows. i can be sick as a dog, running a fever, coughing up my lungs, on the verge of throwing up and lo and behold go on stage and rock and roll and feel great while i am doing it and for a couple of hours afterwards and then the sickness is back.
my writings about obama have sure stirred some folks up. there is a comment on the last post where some republican has sent in his ideas (not really his, he copied them off the net, but hey, who would think that neo-consactually think for themselves anyway) about what democrats believe. it is anne coulter and rush limbaugh regurgitated. you know, mental vomit. i answered some of his little opinions but got tired of playing....
one of the things that people say about obama is that he is not specific in his ideas. you know where they got that from? hearing other people say that. if you look on his web site he goes into detail on any issue you care to look up. (i had my petty tyrant, obamous, say that she went there and then, as usual, took everything out of context ..there is just no reasoning with some people lol.) the attacks will become more bitter and farfetched as november draws nearer. we already know that the republican neo-con attack machine will hit hillary with everything ifshe is nominated and they are now starting on senator obama as it looks more and more as if he is going to be the one running. they are afraid of obama because he will just slaughter mc cain on every front, from the war to the economy, the republicans are on the wrong side and people are beginning to see that clearly. (it took a while for america to come out of its stupor after the iraqi invasion but they are beginning to see the light....it is an illegal and immoral war against a country which did nothing to us. they can talk about surges and benchmarks and all that other bullshit but it was an illegal and immoral war against a country which did nothing to us and try as they may to obscure that fact, the american people are beginning to see that duck as a duck.)
the right wing will trot out their little boogyboos, "the democrats are going to take away our guns!" is one of their favorites. boy, they sure love those guns don't they? you know what i like best about gun nuts? their wives. i have fucked many a woman whose husband/boyfriend was out with his buddies stoking their guns and telling themselves that gun made them a man. for real. i am not making this up. close to a dozen women whose mates were real gun nuts did, over the years, just fuck me silly and tell me horror stories about their husbands and their inability to either get it up or get it on. i am older now and happily married so it is not me fucking the gun nuts wives.....but someone is.
and psst. i own guns. rifles and handguns. a russian sks from wwII, a walther pp (not the ppk but the pp which was made at the end of wwII for the german army) that my dad took off a german officer, a smith and wesson .357 magnum and a ruger 9mm carbine. and none have been fired in over ten years. the two wwII's are collectors items and the other two were bought when ellen and i had that farm out in the middle of nowhere. everyone who lives on a farm in the middle of nowhere has a gun.
if some right wingers had their way, homosexuality would be a crime. they are way too homophobic for there not to be some hidden desires in the there. see, the right wingers want everyone to be as they tell them they should be. (usually straight, white and republican) they have a problem, it seems, with anyone who is not those three. democrats, liberals and progressives would rather have people what they are. as long as you don't hurt other people, do your own thing is our motto. by the way, almost all of the sex scandals involve republicans. family values. whores and cocks in restrooms. sound like family values to me. see it is not the whores or the cocks in the restrooms it is the hypocrisy that concerns me. i have nothing against prostitution and think, in fact, it should be made legal and i have nothing against sucking cocks (but surely you can find a better place than a public restroom in a busy airport) it is the preaching against it and then doing it that bothers me. i wonder if i could get the right wingers to go for a law against hypocrisy. nah, probably not.
if some right wingers had their way, abortion would be outlawed. (but the vast majority of those who think this way are MEN, who, as we know, don't have babies. matter of fact, as gloria steinem said, if men had babies abortion would be government funded.)
some right wingers claim to be christian but are in favor of war and capital punishment (you ask well, mr. knowitall, if you are soooo christian, why do you support abortion rights? hmmmm? because life doesn't begin at conception, you fool. i don't think jacking off is murder either.) christ said, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. he said turn the other cheek. pray for those who hate you. love those who hate you. (now i ask you, are those the principles that the right wing of the republican party represents?)
some right wingers would have a constitutional ammendment outlawing flag burning. if that a huge problem where you come from? does that in any way threaten your freedom? would not flag burning be the ultimate in protest speech? all the other ammendments limit what the government can do to you. right wingers want it ammended to make a certain kind of speech not free. hmmm. may i quote? "i disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."
it is true that not all republicans are right-wingers and neo-cons. it is also true that all right wingers and neo-cons are republicans. (with maybe the exception of joe lieberman)
intellectual republicans can make a very good argument for smaller government and less taxes and more freedom for companies. i don't agree with all their points but will agree that they have good ones that are based on reason and logic and understanding of history. i can offer just as good an argument rebutting each of them and those arguments will be based on reason and logic and understanding of history. these kinds of debates could make us a better republic but they are not the debates that are held. too many times elections are based on "talking points" and slandering the other guy. we will continue our slide downward as a country if that continues.
i will admit to "slandering" the right wing of the republican party. i feel that it is a threat to our nation and to our freedoms. i believe the right wing is wrong on every count. totally wrong. dangerously wrong. horribly wrong. i think they have perverted the republican party and what it stood for and made it into a neo-fascist party where war and profits are the only gods that they worship.
oh well, gotta go say hello to my dogs and take a look at my pool which rhonda tells me is sorta fucked in as that the cover tore and all the accumulated shit went int the pool. fuck.
as a comment on the above: i have spoken to other comics about this and most agree; it is possible to "perform yourself well" or at least, well for the time of the show or shows. i can be sick as a dog, running a fever, coughing up my lungs, on the verge of throwing up and lo and behold go on stage and rock and roll and feel great while i am doing it and for a couple of hours afterwards and then the sickness is back.
my writings about obama have sure stirred some folks up. there is a comment on the last post where some republican has sent in his ideas (not really his, he copied them off the net, but hey, who would think that neo-consactually think for themselves anyway) about what democrats believe. it is anne coulter and rush limbaugh regurgitated. you know, mental vomit. i answered some of his little opinions but got tired of playing....
one of the things that people say about obama is that he is not specific in his ideas. you know where they got that from? hearing other people say that. if you look on his web site he goes into detail on any issue you care to look up. (i had my petty tyrant, obamous, say that she went there and then, as usual, took everything out of context ..there is just no reasoning with some people lol.) the attacks will become more bitter and farfetched as november draws nearer. we already know that the republican neo-con attack machine will hit hillary with everything ifshe is nominated and they are now starting on senator obama as it looks more and more as if he is going to be the one running. they are afraid of obama because he will just slaughter mc cain on every front, from the war to the economy, the republicans are on the wrong side and people are beginning to see that clearly. (it took a while for america to come out of its stupor after the iraqi invasion but they are beginning to see the light....it is an illegal and immoral war against a country which did nothing to us. they can talk about surges and benchmarks and all that other bullshit but it was an illegal and immoral war against a country which did nothing to us and try as they may to obscure that fact, the american people are beginning to see that duck as a duck.)
the right wing will trot out their little boogyboos, "the democrats are going to take away our guns!" is one of their favorites. boy, they sure love those guns don't they? you know what i like best about gun nuts? their wives. i have fucked many a woman whose husband/boyfriend was out with his buddies stoking their guns and telling themselves that gun made them a man. for real. i am not making this up. close to a dozen women whose mates were real gun nuts did, over the years, just fuck me silly and tell me horror stories about their husbands and their inability to either get it up or get it on. i am older now and happily married so it is not me fucking the gun nuts wives.....but someone is.
and psst. i own guns. rifles and handguns. a russian sks from wwII, a walther pp (not the ppk but the pp which was made at the end of wwII for the german army) that my dad took off a german officer, a smith and wesson .357 magnum and a ruger 9mm carbine. and none have been fired in over ten years. the two wwII's are collectors items and the other two were bought when ellen and i had that farm out in the middle of nowhere. everyone who lives on a farm in the middle of nowhere has a gun.
if some right wingers had their way, homosexuality would be a crime. they are way too homophobic for there not to be some hidden desires in the there. see, the right wingers want everyone to be as they tell them they should be. (usually straight, white and republican) they have a problem, it seems, with anyone who is not those three. democrats, liberals and progressives would rather have people what they are. as long as you don't hurt other people, do your own thing is our motto. by the way, almost all of the sex scandals involve republicans. family values. whores and cocks in restrooms. sound like family values to me. see it is not the whores or the cocks in the restrooms it is the hypocrisy that concerns me. i have nothing against prostitution and think, in fact, it should be made legal and i have nothing against sucking cocks (but surely you can find a better place than a public restroom in a busy airport) it is the preaching against it and then doing it that bothers me. i wonder if i could get the right wingers to go for a law against hypocrisy. nah, probably not.
if some right wingers had their way, abortion would be outlawed. (but the vast majority of those who think this way are MEN, who, as we know, don't have babies. matter of fact, as gloria steinem said, if men had babies abortion would be government funded.)
some right wingers claim to be christian but are in favor of war and capital punishment (you ask well, mr. knowitall, if you are soooo christian, why do you support abortion rights? hmmmm? because life doesn't begin at conception, you fool. i don't think jacking off is murder either.) christ said, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. he said turn the other cheek. pray for those who hate you. love those who hate you. (now i ask you, are those the principles that the right wing of the republican party represents?)
some right wingers would have a constitutional ammendment outlawing flag burning. if that a huge problem where you come from? does that in any way threaten your freedom? would not flag burning be the ultimate in protest speech? all the other ammendments limit what the government can do to you. right wingers want it ammended to make a certain kind of speech not free. hmmm. may i quote? "i disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."
it is true that not all republicans are right-wingers and neo-cons. it is also true that all right wingers and neo-cons are republicans. (with maybe the exception of joe lieberman)
intellectual republicans can make a very good argument for smaller government and less taxes and more freedom for companies. i don't agree with all their points but will agree that they have good ones that are based on reason and logic and understanding of history. i can offer just as good an argument rebutting each of them and those arguments will be based on reason and logic and understanding of history. these kinds of debates could make us a better republic but they are not the debates that are held. too many times elections are based on "talking points" and slandering the other guy. we will continue our slide downward as a country if that continues.
i will admit to "slandering" the right wing of the republican party. i feel that it is a threat to our nation and to our freedoms. i believe the right wing is wrong on every count. totally wrong. dangerously wrong. horribly wrong. i think they have perverted the republican party and what it stood for and made it into a neo-fascist party where war and profits are the only gods that they worship.
oh well, gotta go say hello to my dogs and take a look at my pool which rhonda tells me is sorta fucked in as that the cover tore and all the accumulated shit went int the pool. fuck.
posted by Ron Shock | 4:15 PM
7 Comments:
Ron--I assume that none of your past adventures involved felony convictions?
I can't understand how a politician can claim to support the constitution but accept or promote the gun bans in many liberal states. It is like saying "Freedom of religion only applies to Judeo-Christian beliefs, unapproved beliefs aren't considered religious."
A politician's position on guns is (to me at least) more an indication of whether they consider us citizens or subjects. Many were passed because blacks had the audacity to fight back against the KKK and similar, and weren't intended to be enforced against whites.
the rifles require no permit. the pp from wwII is an antique, requires no permit. the .357 belongs to ellen, my previous "wife" and she had the permit. here in vegas, i deeded it to rhonda. lol
on the other point you made, the supreme court in the only two rulings it has ever had (to my knowledge) on "gun rights and the second ammendment" ruled that the founders were speaking of ONLY a milita and that the second ammendment did NOT give the RIGHT of a private citizen to carry a gun. this is, of course, not what the nra wants to hear. my argument has alway been not under the second but under private property and the seizure thereof. if i bought a "legal" anything then the government does not have the right to confiscate it. now, whether i can carry a "legal" gun is another matter. to be truthful, i would just as soon not have every tom, dick and harry toting weapons around with them. why? because i have met way too many toms, dicks and harry's that were just plain idiots and really should not have lethal weapons at their disposal.
it is one of those issues that there seems to be no real answer that could possibly please everyone. background checks seem to be the best answer but, then again, there are ways around them. know what i mean?
do we want the wild west here? do we want another congo or kenya with armed gangs roaming the streets? do we want our police to be outgunned by the criminals? i would hope the answer to all of those is a resounding NO WE DON'T!
i, myself, am torn between my beliefs against killing and having a gun. i would want to believe that i could remain calm enough under pressure to either shoot to wound or shoot to scare. (the sound a .357 makes is enough to scare the shit out almost anyone) it is a moral quandry for me. i feel responsible for my wife as well as myself. now, on the other hand, since i have a really big dog, chances are no one will ever put me in the position of having to find out just how calm i can be. when i was younger and battle tested, so to speak, i could count on me not losing my cool. i literally was good under fire. how do i know? i have been under fire and held my mud.
Permits are a local issue. By federal law, felons may not possess firearms, regardless of whether a background check was done. There's little to effectively prevent them, but if caught, it is another felony.
United States v. Miller was the last supreme court case to deal directly with the second amendment. It was lousy in a lot of ways.
Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense
Miller wasn't present for his trial (I don't remember if he was dead by then, or just a fugitive) so his case was not argued as effectively as it might have been. Trench guns were used in WW1, and in at least some circumstances were used with cut down barrels. There was nothing in the decision that said that the person needed to be a member of an organized militia, just that weapons not suitable for military use were not protected.
Even if the second only applies to militarily-suitable weapons, that covers almost everything I'd want. Generals were issued small pocket-sized automatics in .25 and .32. Snubnose revolvers were carried by some aircrew. Soldiers carry both full-sized high-capacity handguns and select-fire machine guns, which would cover much of the rest.
As far as idiots carrying, I think the current concealed carry licensing system that most states have works well. Those of us who get licenses have astoundingly good records--We get convicted of violent crime less than either ordinary people or police, (even with police "professional courtesy") and when we do shoot, we fuck it up about 10 times less than police. It's a lot easier for us though--We don't have to arrest people, and we're encouraged to run like hell if possible. Most of the major idiots do something sometime in their lives to make themselves ineligible, and most people's idiocy peaks sometime in the early 20's.
It’s a real shame. You have a blog that should have been a vehicle for disseminating new and possibly wonderful comedy material, but instead you use it as a format for ranting on about a candidate who is as shallow as he is ambitious. I agree with one of your critics that he comes across as another Manchurian candidate, a corporate lackey who merely tries to con us all with empty rhetoric and sound bites. We come to your blog looking for interesting stories and insights, but instead get these political rants when you’re not bragging about your poker triumphs. I can’t even imagine Bill Hicks or George Carlin descending to such a level.
Ron, you ignorant slut. (I'm smiling when I say that so don't shoot me.)
Gotta take you to task on that 2nd amendment view you have there buddy.
Of the first 10 amendments, (aka The Bill of Rights) NONE of them grant rights to the people. The authors specifically said that these rights are granted by God and cannot be taken away by government. All of the first 10 prohibit the government from infringing on your rights granted from said God.
Unless of course you take your view where 9 of the first 10 amendments restrict the power of government and only one, the 2nd, restricts the rights of the people.
The simple fact that it is second on the list right after the freedom of speech, religion and press, (1st) should tell you what a priority the founding fathers had on this matter. From their point of view, God didn't grant rights to a militia, he granted rights to the individual.
If that isn't enough for you, let's hear from the man who actually WROTE the second amendment.
"You ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole of the people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason.
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
Let's move on to Samuel Adams, 4th Governor of Massachusetts, cousin of our 2nd president, and maker of some really fine beer.
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent THE PEOPLE (caps mine) of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789
I can go on all day quoting from the Federalist Papers but I believe their original intent is more than clear in these two quotes.
PS. I'm not a gun nut and you can't fuck my wife. But I'll still buy you lunch if I can make it down to San Antonio that weekend if you're interested.
j.t.
what a great post. i am ashamed of my ignorance and stand corrected. henceforth i will use quotes. fucking great! thanks for the information. i was wrong.
Looks like you had to remove another foot out of your mouth.
Greetings from your favorite racist.
Post a Comment
<< Home