Ted Nugent on Gun Control

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JWsleep

I think there's some question about that, though this is certainly a source with an agenda. The bigger pie is calculated by including debt incurred from military spending, including the supplemental support for the war, and trying to more accurately gauge what is being spent on the war on terror that's buried in other outlays. The smaller pie is the one you refer to, I take it.

We could argue the accuracy of this stuff, no doubt, but if you don't think the gov't is downplaying military spending to some degree, I think you should look more closely.

In any event, my point was more general: if you're against gov't intrusion and taxation, what about military spending? Should there be more or less? Why is it acceptable to a libertarian? My guess is that it's because it's for the common good. But that same reasoning can be used to promote gun control and welfare. The main issue is not whether taxation and government programs are allowed, it's a question of what is in the common interest. There is no blanket prohibition against the government acting in this way, which I take it was JoeRedskin's point.

(And I think a pie hijacking might be appropriate now...)



The Federal Pie Chart

Yes the cost of Iraq does currently drive up defence spending but that will drop off when the war is over. Take WWII and what that must have done to the budget in its years. I'm talking in general we spend more on other programs than defense. The libertarian party does not believe that all fuctions of the fed gov should be done away with they are more against its ever expanding role in our everyday life. They feel that it sould be left up to the states. One example is health ins. If you could buy health ins by picking you coverages you could save a bunch of money. I don't need addiction coverage, mental health cov. (well my wife may say differently) or aids coverage. I could go on and on but the federal goverment mandates that health ins. co provide these coverages in every policy and it drives the cost way up.

[MTK]

Not do hijack this thread too much but does anyone watch the dog whisperer? He's proof that you don't need to beat down a dog to make him learn.

[Lady Brave]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Not do hijack this thread too much but does anyone watch the dog whisperer? He's proof that you don't need to beat down a dog to make him learn.

Cesar is the man. I've used his techniques and they work. I don't think people should be naive enough to think it's going to work as fast for them as they do him though. It does take more time and effort than what you see in a 30 minute TV program. Consistency is the key.

Also, I work around several K9 officers and pick up tips from them. I've been told repeatedly that over-correcting your dog works against what you're trying to instill in them. Dogs live in the moment. You have to correct them while their exhibiting the undesireable behavior, otherwise you're just confusing them if you correct them after the fact. The biggest thing is rewarding a dog when they do something correct. That will re-enforce their training quicker than anything.

As far as house training goes. Shoving your dog's nose in his own urine and smacking it basically tells the dog that urinating is bad, not that the location he did it in is bad.

[cpayne5]

Originally Posted by Lady Brave

As far as house training goes. Shoving your dog's nose in his own urine and smacking it basically tells the dog that urinating is bad, not that the location he did it in is bad.

Exactly. It will teach them to hide it.

If a dog pees in the house, it's not the dog's fault. You have to take the dog outside and wait (however long it takes!) for the dog to go. When the dog goes, you praise him - a treat usually works best. It will learn that by going outside, it is doing what you want. If you smack it for peeing inside, it will say "crap, I better stop peeing when he's around".

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by cpayne5

Exactly. It will teach them to hide it.

If a dog pees in the house, it's not the dog's fault. You have to take the dog outside and wait (however long it takes!) for the dog to go. When the dog goes, you praise him - a treat usually works best. It will learn that by going outside, it is doing what you want. If you smack it for peeing inside, it will say "crap, I better stop peeing when he's around".

Well your dog might say "crap, I better stop peeing when he's around" but when I walk my dog like you suggested he say's "look at this dumb fool I can stay out as long as I want if I just don't pee and I can check out the entire back yard. These humans are so dumb and easy to train".

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by cpayne5

Exactly. It will teach them to hide it.

If a dog pees in the house, it's not the dog's fault. You have to take the dog outside and wait (however long it takes!) for the dog to go. When the dog goes, you praise him - a treat usually works best. It will learn that by going outside, it is doing what you want. If you smack it for peeing inside, it will say "crap, I better stop peeing when he's around".

I disagree.
I will also follow them outside in the morning / evening and praise them when they do pee or poo to reaffirm they are in the right area. (of course I don't need to anymore cause they know where to do it)
Whatever works for you is what works for you. My method works for me, and it works extremely fast. I have very obediant dogs and they are a ton of fun. They are like my little children and have tons of personality. I guess my dogs were smart enough to realize to pee outside right away. They never hid it.

[MTK]

I said right away in that thread yesterday I was wrong for quoting schneed.

http://www.redskinswarpath.com/442045-post19.html

What more do you want? Everyone makes mistakes. I guess you want to keep it going.

I had moved on, I just wanted to talk about your dog beating.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I said right away in that thread yesterday I was wrong for quoting schneed.

http://www.redskinswarpath.com/442045-post19.html

What more do you want? Everyone makes mistakes. I guess you want to keep it going.

I had moved on, I just wanted to talk about your dog beating.

Well, it wasn't right away, I had to PM you why, but whatever.

You're right, everyone makes mistakes, and maybe I am just still a little erked at you for such a post, then another today that has personal attack undertones. (whether you think they were there or not, I did) So I will let this go and we can move on from here. Like I said, you can provide decent feedback to threads.
So, if I overreacted, I apologize.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I said right away in that thread yesterday I was wrong for quoting schneed.

http://www.redskinswarpath.com/442045-post19.html

What more do you want? Everyone makes mistakes. I guess you want to keep it going.

I had moved on, I just wanted to talk about your dog beating.

There is a big difference in dog discpline and dog beating. The way you make it sound is that he is beating his dog just because he likes to beat on his dog.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by firstdown

There is a big difference in dog discpline and dog beating. The way you make it sound is that he is beating his dog just because he likes to beat on his dog.

Thank you. That's how I took it too.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by firstdown

There is a big difference in dog discpline and dog beating. The way you make it sound is that he is beating his dog just because he likes to beat on his dog.

Let's be clear, he's the one that originally said he beat his dogs. Beating is a pretty harsh word to me that that's why I asked if he really did that. If he had said discipline I wouldn't even have thought twice.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Let's be clear, he's the one that originally said he beat his dogs. Beating is a pretty harsh word to me that that's why I asked if he really did that. If he had said discipline I wouldn't even have thought twice.

That was the 1 and only time I used that word. Maybe I chose the wrong word there, but I figured I built up a comment base that someone wouldn't take that word so personally.
such as:

I disagree 100%.
Look at a dog. If he pees on the carpet and you let it go, he will continue to do so. If you shove his nose in it, spank him and throw him outside, he eventually learns not to do it.
If you cut the hand off a person that steals, and others watch it, do you seriously think that won't deter others from stealing? I certainly do. Punishment absolutely prevents issues if the punishment is severe enough.

So I apologize for using the word "beating" one time. Given the arguments in the past about how I am an animal lover and give more money to animal related charities than human related, I figured it wouldn't be taken out of context.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by jsarno

That was the 1 and only time I used that word. Maybe I chose the wrong word there, but I figured I built up a comment base that someone wouldn't take that word so personally.
such as:

So I apologize for using the word "beating" one time. Given the arguments in the past about how I am an animal lover and give more money to animal related charities than human related, I figured it wouldn't be taken out of context.

Like I said beating is a pretty strong word to me and what caused me to reply. If you didn't mean it in that matter fine, but it is what it is. No need to apologize, if this is simply a case of a poor choice of a word, no big deal.

[MTK]

Go ahead shoot, I don't know what you're talking about.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Go ahead shoot, I don't know what you're talking about.

Alrighty.
Back when we were just starting out these rep points, I had quite a few...high 30's if I recall. I gave you a negative rep, and the next thing I knew, all those points were erased from me. I even PMed you about it. You then put some back. You got very upset at me about the rep points, even though you deserved it, and you erased what I gave you and erased what others gave me due to your anger over the rep points I gave you.
You don't recall that?