Who are all these gun owners? Are they the uneducated poor, left behind? It turns out they have the same level of formal education as nongun owners, on average. Furthermore, they earn 32% more per year than nonowners. Americans with guns are neither a small nor downtrodden group.
Nor are they "bitter." In 2006, 36% of gun owners said they were "very happy," while 9% were "not too happy." Meanwhile, only 30% of people without guns were very happy, and 16% were not too happy.
Choose anyone of the above or insert your own doom and gloom response to this crap. Note: this entry is coming from a wrestling fan, and I felt yucky watching that clip.
Honestly, I admittedly am a fan of professional wrestling so I suppose that might explain my myopic interpretation of this but talk about an overreaction of disdain in this blog. I always do enjoy seeing the pseudo-intellects reject any mere association with professional wrestling as if it was, you know, child pornography or something as decadent and repulsive as that. Shakespeare it's not, but acknowledge its merit and how it can be enjoyable because millions watch it around the world. If anything, this shows that neither Obama, McCaine, nor Hilary take themselves too damn seriously, as opposed to most people here evidently. To be sure, this was cheesy but if this lowers your opinion of them - jeez, 1) lighten up and 2) if this is the worst thing they do, or if this is the most intellectually insulting thing they or any person does this year, we should be grateful. Take care! Cheers.
Posted by Allergic2light at April 21, 2008 8:04 PM
Good lord, I am amazed that all three would shuck and jive for the WWE! I mean, who the fuck watches pro wrestling AND votes with any regularity?? You have to be able to read the ballot first, son! And was it not within the past year or so that one of the WWE's premiere 'talents' murdered his son and wife before hanging himself and all the company had to say was "steroids, schmeroids- the guy was a monster?" I mean, McCain or Obama asking ESPN viewers this fall if they're ready for some football is one thing, but jeez...
I wouldn't exactly be on Iran's side, if they sent nukes into Israel, either, but I'd still be a little concerned about any potential blow-back from Russia and/or China. I'd probably be more willing to opt for a more conventional battle. It doesn't really matter, though, since we'll likely end up being the aggressors, not Iran.
It was by no means his fault. He saw the way the media winds were blowing and capitalized on them. But Bill's sunglassed saxophone solo on Arsenio has doomed us to stuff like this for all eternity.
Still, I get tickled knowing that Jeffrey probably had a long sleepless night trying to reconcile the Chosen One pandering to the WWE crowd. And quoting The Rock, no less!
What makes me sad about modern politics is that for a candidate to rise to the top and win, they have to compromise their integrity to such a degree that they lose your respect.
Point taken, vp19. But I think Nixon was already president when he made that appearance. I was thinking more along the lines of the pandering candidates do to the popular media to get elected. If Nixon was just a candidate at that point, I'll stand corrected.
If you expand the criteria, you could also throw in JFK's cooperating with the birthday party the Rat Pack threw for him where Marilyn sang her famous song. I'm sure it goes back even farther than that.
"I wouldn't exactly be on Iran's side, if they sent nukes into Israel, either, but I'd still be a little concerned about any potential blow-back from Russia and/or China. I'd probably be more willing to opt for a more conventional battle. It doesn't really matter, though, since we'll likely end up being the aggressors, not Iran."
Has D.Z. had his earth entity taken over by the Center for Strategic Advancement?
Mgmax: I can't seem to Google that term, but if you're making a joke about me suddenly shifting to a hawk, I'm ok with retaliation if a country does attack another country. I'm not ok with nukes, however, especially since we'd basically be doing what the fundamentalist Islamic world wants; and that would be killing any leftover Middle Eastern Jews in Iran. Not to mention that our own troops would be out-numbered by a tag-team retaliation from Syria, Lebanon, and Hamas.
That might work out in our favor as well as that '67 war, if we had competent leadership; but anyone willing to push the button without considering the repercussions would hardly be considered competent.
kidkosmic: I'm not as foolish as a guy who intentionally fudges statistics in his favor, by leaving out gun-owners who are "unhappy', since they clearly represent a majority-if his research is to be believed.
"Gun-owning Republicans are more likely than nonowning Republicans to be very happy (46% to 37%). Democrats with guns are slightly likelier than Democrats without guns to be very happy as well (32% to 29%)"
So that basically means 54% of gun-owning Republicans are in fact "unhappy", while 68% of gun-owning Democrats are also "unhappy".
comment #1
kidkosmic
says ...
Things have not been great in either Wellsworld or Obamaland in the last few days....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120856454897828049.html
By ARTHUR C. BROOKS
April 19, 2008; Page A10
Who are all these gun owners? Are they the uneducated poor, left behind? It turns out they have the same level of formal education as nongun owners, on average. Furthermore, they earn 32% more per year than nonowners. Americans with guns are neither a small nor downtrodden group.
Nor are they "bitter." In 2006, 36% of gun owners said they were "very happy," while 9% were "not too happy." Meanwhile, only 30% of people without guns were very happy, and 16% were not too happy.
Posted by kidkosmic
at April 21, 2008 6:34 PM
comment #2
Josh Massey
says ...
McCain should probably avoid referring to himself as "The Man."
Posted by Josh Massey
at April 21, 2008 6:36 PM
comment #3
djiggs
says ...
"The death of open-minded democracy"
"End of the World"
"Are you that craven for votes?"
Choose anyone of the above or insert your own doom and gloom response to this crap. Note: this entry is coming from a wrestling fan, and I felt yucky watching that clip.
Posted by djiggs
at April 21, 2008 6:39 PM
comment #4
swordandpen
says ...
This clip has an "Idiocracy" vibe to it that depresses me.
Obama should have known better. As for the other two, I'm not as surprised.
Posted by swordandpen
at April 21, 2008 6:52 PM
comment #5
alynch
says ...
Ow, my brain!
Posted by alynch
at April 21, 2008 6:55 PM
comment #6
D.Z.
says ...
kidkosmic: Happiness can't be statistically quantified, despite what the WSJ would like to brainwash you into believing.
Posted by D.Z.
at April 21, 2008 7:00 PM
comment #7
echoes14
says ...
I hate computer slang....... but.......
OMFG
Posted by echoes14
at April 21, 2008 7:03 PM
comment #8
David Ehrlich
says ...
amen to swordandpen.
Posted by David Ehrlich
at April 21, 2008 7:08 PM
comment #9
christian
says ...
Holy shit, is this what our country has come to? None of these people deserve to be president for this alone. Holy shit.
And boy, IDIOCRACY is visionary. (good one alynch!)
Posted by christian
at April 21, 2008 7:18 PM
comment #10
Allergic2light
says ...
Honestly, I admittedly am a fan of professional wrestling so I suppose that might explain my myopic interpretation of this but talk about an overreaction of disdain in this blog. I always do enjoy seeing the pseudo-intellects reject any mere association with professional wrestling as if it was, you know, child pornography or something as decadent and repulsive as that. Shakespeare it's not, but acknowledge its merit and how it can be enjoyable because millions watch it around the world. If anything, this shows that neither Obama, McCaine, nor Hilary take themselves too damn seriously, as opposed to most people here evidently. To be sure, this was cheesy but if this lowers your opinion of them - jeez, 1) lighten up and 2) if this is the worst thing they do, or if this is the most intellectually insulting thing they or any person does this year, we should be grateful. Take care! Cheers.
Posted by Allergic2light
at April 21, 2008 8:04 PM
comment #11
christian
says ...
I love wrestling too, but this is such wretched pandering.
I await their cameos in HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER.
Posted by christian
at April 21, 2008 8:21 PM
comment #12
Josh Massey
says ...
Lighten up, Francises.
Posted by Josh Massey
at April 21, 2008 8:29 PM
comment #13
BurmaShave
says ...
I was dissapointed. I'd been promised Beef Supreme would make an appearance.
Posted by BurmaShave
at April 21, 2008 8:36 PM
comment #14
D.Z.
says ...
I don't watch wrestling, but I do read "Ultimate Muscle"...
Posted by D.Z.
at April 21, 2008 8:48 PM
comment #15
christian
says ...
Of course, what's even sadder is our president sucking up to Howie Mandel:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/21/president-bush-on-deal-or_n_97874.html
Posted by christian
at April 21, 2008 8:51 PM
comment #16
Dzayson
says ...
Good lord, I am amazed that all three would shuck and jive for the WWE! I mean, who the fuck watches pro wrestling AND votes with any regularity?? You have to be able to read the ballot first, son! And was it not within the past year or so that one of the WWE's premiere 'talents' murdered his son and wife before hanging himself and all the company had to say was "steroids, schmeroids- the guy was a monster?" I mean, McCain or Obama asking ESPN viewers this fall if they're ready for some football is one thing, but jeez...
Posted by Dzayson
at April 22, 2008 12:08 AM
comment #17
christian
says ...
Well, Clinton did threaten to go nuclear on Iran if she has to on Olbermann tonite...good lord.
Posted by christian
at April 22, 2008 1:00 AM
comment #18
D.Z.
says ...
I wouldn't exactly be on Iran's side, if they sent nukes into Israel, either, but I'd still be a little concerned about any potential blow-back from Russia and/or China. I'd probably be more willing to opt for a more conventional battle. It doesn't really matter, though, since we'll likely end up being the aggressors, not Iran.
Posted by D.Z.
at April 22, 2008 1:16 AM
comment #19
Rich S.
says ...
It was by no means his fault. He saw the way the media winds were blowing and capitalized on them. But Bill's sunglassed saxophone solo on Arsenio has doomed us to stuff like this for all eternity.
Still, I get tickled knowing that Jeffrey probably had a long sleepless night trying to reconcile the Chosen One pandering to the WWE crowd. And quoting The Rock, no less!
Posted by Rich S.
at April 22, 2008 4:48 AM
comment #20
Jay
says ...
What makes me sad about modern politics is that for a candidate to rise to the top and win, they have to compromise their integrity to such a degree that they lose your respect.
Posted by Jay
at April 22, 2008 7:17 AM
comment #21
vp19
says ...
This descent into inanity all started with Richard Nixon on "Laugh-In." Remember "sock it to me?"
Posted by vp19
at April 22, 2008 7:47 AM
comment #22
D.Z.
says ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ItU6tkdF2A
Posted by D.Z.
at April 22, 2008 8:05 AM
comment #23
Rich S.
says ...
Point taken, vp19. But I think Nixon was already president when he made that appearance. I was thinking more along the lines of the pandering candidates do to the popular media to get elected. If Nixon was just a candidate at that point, I'll stand corrected.
If you expand the criteria, you could also throw in JFK's cooperating with the birthday party the Rat Pack threw for him where Marilyn sang her famous song. I'm sure it goes back even farther than that.
Posted by Rich S.
at April 22, 2008 8:10 AM
comment #24
BurmaShave
says ...
He was a candidate in '68 on Laugh-In. It was classy though.
Posted by BurmaShave
at April 22, 2008 1:52 PM
comment #25
Rich S.
says ...
I stand corrected.
Posted by Rich S.
at April 22, 2008 1:58 PM
comment #26
Mgmax, le Corbeau
says ...
"I wouldn't exactly be on Iran's side, if they sent nukes into Israel, either, but I'd still be a little concerned about any potential blow-back from Russia and/or China. I'd probably be more willing to opt for a more conventional battle. It doesn't really matter, though, since we'll likely end up being the aggressors, not Iran."
Has D.Z. had his earth entity taken over by the Center for Strategic Advancement?
Posted by Mgmax, le Corbeau
at April 22, 2008 3:45 PM
comment #27
kidkosmic
says ...
"kidkosmic: Happiness can't be statistically quantified, despite what the WSJ would like to brainwash you into believing."
But, can income and education levels be quantified?
I know it has been said many times in many ways here, D.Z., but it bears repeatingâ€â€you are a fool.
Posted by kidkosmic
at April 22, 2008 4:18 PM
comment #28
D.Z.
says ...
Mgmax: I can't seem to Google that term, but if you're making a joke about me suddenly shifting to a hawk, I'm ok with retaliation if a country does attack another country. I'm not ok with nukes, however, especially since we'd basically be doing what the fundamentalist Islamic world wants; and that would be killing any leftover Middle Eastern Jews in Iran. Not to mention that our own troops would be out-numbered by a tag-team retaliation from Syria, Lebanon, and Hamas.
That might work out in our favor as well as that '67 war, if we had competent leadership; but anyone willing to push the button without considering the repercussions would hardly be considered competent.
kidkosmic: I'm not as foolish as a guy who intentionally fudges statistics in his favor, by leaving out gun-owners who are "unhappy', since they clearly represent a majority-if his research is to be believed.
"Gun-owning Republicans are more likely than nonowning Republicans to be very happy (46% to 37%). Democrats with guns are slightly likelier than Democrats without guns to be very happy as well (32% to 29%)"
So that basically means 54% of gun-owning Republicans are in fact "unhappy", while 68% of gun-owning Democrats are also "unhappy".
Posted by D.Z.
at April 22, 2008 5:48 PM
comment #29
affiliatesreview
says ...
really good post :) Thank you
Best regards!
----------------
Free pc games
Affiliate review
Posted by affiliatesreview
at May 16, 2011 1:33 AM