Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


disgruntled last won the day on May 21 2014

disgruntled had the most liked content!

About disgruntled

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 12/19/1914

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Sometimes I mess with telemarketers. I have even had one yell at me for wasting his time.
  2. But what about the fact that liberals are ok with all aspects of the human body, and transgenderism, and loving yourself, and art? Or is all that just ok when it's not a Trump? How many people attack her but love the story line behind "Pretty Woman"?
  3. My Roomba was a gift, and I swear it is the best gift I have received in a very long time.
  4. No. It doesn't. Doing something just for the sake of doing something is a waste of our tax dollars. That money would have been better spent in an advertising campaign showing the harmful effects of smoking than making it "illegal" for a LEGAL ADULT ( I don't think I can stress the words LEGAL ADULT enough to get the point across) to purchase a pack of cigarettes. The act of tossing that little exception for military proves to me, that they see the folly in this "attempt" to "stop" smoking and to combat the "I can go to war, but I can't buy cigarettes?" argument. "Ohh... the nanny state says I have to wait three more years to legally purchase cigarettes? Maybe I should not smoke at all?" <that's not how it's going to work. You know what's going to happen? More cigarettes are going to be stolen. So we replaced a self-harm "crime" with a real crime. Congratulations.
  5. Increasing the legal age for smoking by 3 years is only a "feel good" measure so that people can pretend elected officials are actually doing something. It doesn't stop the problem. That being said, I agree that smoking should be discouraged overall. But splitting hairs over what makes something illegal for a LEGAL adult simply because they haven't made as many trips around the sun is ludicrous.
  6. I'm told that a groundhog was also victimized at their hands previous to the deer incident. Hopefully these two young men get the help they clearly need.
  7. I vehemently disagree. The government does not have the duty to stop me from doing stupid things that harm myself if I am legally an adult. If I'm legally an adult at 18, and can now vote in elections, join the military, play the lottery, get a tattoo, get married without parental consent, be on a jury, own a gun, own a car, buy a house, and legally enter into a contract; I should be permitted to purchase a cigarette if I want to. That being said, I agree that there should be laws to protect others from the damage I cause to myself. For instance, I shouldn't be able to drive my car, while smoking, if there are minors in the car.
  8. This is not going to stop those that want to smoke. It will simply make an extra hurdle to legally purchasing them. We don't need the government to protect us from ourselves. Proper parenting could accomplish a lot of what the nanny state attempts to do. It has been proven over the years that smoking causes/contributes to lung cancer and yet people still choose to voluntarily inhale that garbage into their bodies. Can't fix stupid.
  9. Was she cooking it up for patrons? I mean it's not like she made anyone eat it, amirite?
  10. Is that baby still with the primary guardian? Or has the child been removed from her care?
  11. I said "legal" maturity. Not actual maturity. I know some 60+ year olds that I'd trust less than some 13 year olds.
  12. At 18, you are LEGALLY an adult. I think they need to lower the drinking age to 18, and leave cigarettes at 18. Or we need to consider raising the age of legal maturity to 21.
  13. My maple is still holding on to a good portion of leaves. A lot of those leaves are still green. Hopefully they consider a second pickup day.
  14. The message simply implies that the person operating the vehicle may trust in God. It's no indication that anyone reading the motto must believe or that the officers would offer preferential treatment based on religious beliefs or lack thereof. The comment about them wasting taxpayer time placing this message on the cars? The time spent was certainly nominal, and may have even been done gratis. But the FFRF is completely fine with the wasting of taxpayer time to entertain the nonsense coming from the FFRF? I wonder if the FFRF refuses to use money... In God I trust.
  • Create New...