Comments by "nexus1g" (@nexus1g) on "David Pakman Show" channel.

  1. Hillary is not campaigning based on her belief. Jill is.
    15
  2. In the scope of the subject matter, cell phones and Wi-Fi are the same thing, you know? They're radio wavelengths of varying amplitude and frequency.
    4
  3. ***** "...there is a vast difference between the radiation emitted by cellular phones and wifi." No, there isn't. And on the article on "Cell Phones and Cancer Risk": "Radiofrequency energy, unlike ionizing radiation, does not cause DNA damage that can lead to cancer. ... In animal studies, it has not been found to cause cancer or to enhance the cancer-causing effects of known chemical carcinogens (6–8)."
    4
  4. "Because they are fools who don't actually fully understand the dynamic they were benefitting from." Yeah, that must be it. Anything, no matter how far-fetched, just to support your delusions of the evil, greedy gun industry pumping out black, choking smoke and building factories on the graves of children. And it's not "fear-mongering" when you can actually quote, with video sources, senators who want to confiscate guns and put out full on bans, even claiming it's possible to do without repealing the Second Amendment.
    4
  5. Judy, there's not been mercury in vaccines for a long time, and even when there was, you'd get more mercury from a can of tuna fish.
    3
  6. And Sen. Jan Schakowsky said she'd ban handguns as well as "assault weapons." Yes. The Democratic endgame is annihilating gun rights.
    3
  7. ***** I just had to laugh at the Scientific American article you linked. Did you check out the study? I looked at the numbers and questioned the sensationalism of the article. Then I read the results of the study. It included this: "At the end of the 2-year study, survival was lower in the control group of males than in all 2 groups of male rats exposed to GSM-modulated RFR. Survival was also slightly lower in control 3 females than in females exposed to 1.5 or 6 W/kg GSM-modulated RFR. In rats exposed to 4 CDMA-modulated RFR, survival was higher in all groups of exposed males and in the 6 W/kg 5 females compared to controls." It also states, "In pregnant rats exposed to 900 MHz GSM- or CDMA-modulated RFR, no exposure-related effects were observed on the percent of dams littering, litter size, or sex distribution of pups." The only argument here is that the p-values were hovering at just 0.05 -- just barely enough to say it's statistically significant.
    3
  8. Sarban Christian is de facto a creationist, you know?
    2
  9. Martina P HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You're a dumb ass, and thankfully if your family keeps this up for generations your stupidity will die out.
    2
  10. Tough Life Let me know when your supporting evidence doesn't require jumps to conclusions, and I'll take you seriously enough to actually debate you.
    2
  11. Tough Life If I created something that I was expected by the government to provide but had an element of danger to its function, I would expect the government to insure me as well since they're more or less forcing me to do it. You're just too biased I think. No matter what, you're going to see a conspiracy in it, but you're not going to see the plethora of reasonable options therein.
    2
  12. ***** Look who's sore about losing now.
    2
  13. William LeConte What has been proven is that these things are non-ionizing radiation, and it's ionizing radiation that's known to cause cancer. Non-ionizing radiation includes things like infrared heat from a campfire.
    2
  14. I guarantee you that if the Feds passed a law that ONLY and SPECIFICALLY said, "All gun sales must be brokered by an FFL," it would have passed. The problem is the left isn't presenting bills like that. They're presenting complicated bills full of toxic pills. And you're arguing against a strawman. What happens to gun sales is irrelevant to maintaining our rights. We write en masse and fund the NRA to lobby our legislators to uphold the Constitution -- and it's sad we have to do that to make them uphold the Constitution. But I don't want to hear anything more about gun control from the left. The 1934 NFA, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Firearm Owners Protection Act, the Brady Bill, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (which didn't work; see Columbine)... And then you have Dianne Feinstein saying she would have had a forced turn-in of weapons described under the 1994 assault weapons ban if she could have gotten the votes. Or Sen. Jan Schakowsky who said that banning assault weapons is just the beginning and that we can also ban handguns even with the Second Amendment. I'm tired of being a gun owner who is constantly capitulating to your ineffective laws, only succeeding in limiting my rights as a law-abiding citizen.
    2
  15. samiamrg7, I donate to the NRA to lobby for me just to keep our politicians honest by not violating the Constitution's Second Amendment. I would see a repeal of all firearms legislation if I had my way. But then you'd say it was the gun manufacturers "corrupting" politicians.
    2
  16. Tam Hu, the same question to you then if you just want to 'lol.' How is it not honest to ensure that the politicians vote consistent with what the Constitution says?
    2
  17. Still, Tam, if the lobbying is successfully upholding the Constitution, it's the honest path.
    2
  18. Did I not just say I'm not defending lobbying in general, but only in this specific case? Yes, I did.
    2
  19. ***** I don't care about what you just said.
    1
  20. ***** `No, II just don't care that you messaged me about it because I don't feel like talking about it with someone who doesn't matter.
    1
  21. ***** I don't know what thread you're talking about. Talk to me there then if that's the case. You don't need to follow me around to other unrelated threads. I don't even know your name.
    1
  22. Sarban Quite a bit. I'm personally agnostic-atheist, but I know many various orthodoxy and protestant beliefs as well as having read the Bible a few times.
    1
  23. ***** I just saw a post from the other thread you're talking about. We're not even discussing this matter -- we're discussing something entirely different, so why does arguing with you about cancer rates and RF radiation mean I should be inclined to discuss Hillary's spectrum of political stances in a thread about Hillary's religion? Work on your ability to reason.
    1
  24. Sarban I misread the posts. I thought at the time I made my post that he said that hillary was a creationist, and you were correcting him as though you said, "No, she's a Christian." Sorry about that. My bad.
    1
  25. ***** I responded to What's post, not yours. You didn't even have a post here before I made my first post. So apparently you have nothing better to do than follow me around. I feel you didn't matter here because your first post was doing nothing but setting up a straw man of things I never said or even implied. In your other thread, you actually made a solid argument so I was willing to give it some of my time. Is it that hard of a concept for you to get? It looks like you're the "moronic piece of shit."
    1
  26. ***** No, you just don't desire to admit you're wrong.
    1
  27. We are bathed in electromagnetic radiation by nature itself. Our existence is thanks in part to the ability to resist the effects of it pretty well. In fact, things like vision depend on it, as I'm sure you know. An amplitude and wavelength of the EM spectrum that's naturally one of the most common in our area of the universe is a pretty sketchy thing to be concerned about.
    1
  28. Tough Life proof or gtfo
    1
  29. Tough Life Maybe you're crazy. Ever think of that?
    1
  30. Tough Life As soon as I read that you thought anything you've said was intelligent, I just lost it.
    1
  31. Tough Life "You can't even accept basic legislation that has been law for 36 years as fact." I accept it as fact, but your reasoning on why it was passed is what I question.
    1
  32. ohdogwow2, Feinstein still got the 1994 assault weapons ban passed, and she was highly interested in a confiscation, so just arguing against her specifically as though she's in a vast minority is laughable. "Christian's believing by separation of church and state somehow means their persecuted." There's a difference between the Founding Father's (conservative) views of what secularism in the US is and progressive liberal views of it. A progressive forces agnosticism of all government agents while on duty, but that is nowhere near what the Founding Father's demonstrated in regards to what they meant by establishing secularism. George Washington swore in on a Bible in his Second Term, following the ratification of the Bill of Rights. If the First Amendment was meant to say that a public official, while "on the clock" could not exercise his religion, it would have been settled right then and there.
    1
  33. Trill, "Obama tried to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people." And who's mentally ill? Who makes that call? It gives way too much latitude. "Thankfully Trump in all his wisdom reversed that legislation." The law never passed, so what? "Mass shootings in America are overrated." Yeah, they are. And it leads to copycats. We keep giving them the attention they desire.
    1
  34. miami, tell that to Feinstein who said, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn em all in,' I would have done it." So, yeah. They will if they can -- whether it's constitutional or not.
    1
  35. Exactly, Johny. Stripping rights without due process is a sure way to keep people from seeking treatment. I'd rather have someone with a mental health issue who is well medicated with a gun than someone with a mental health issue who is unmedicated with a gun.
    1
  36. Trill, we need to rescind the legislation already in place that is unconstitutional. I'm done with playing.
    1
  37. JETWTF, who would you rather have as a gun owner: the unmedicated schizo or the medicated schizo? Those are your only two options, because when you take away rights like that, they're less apt to go get diagnosed and treated. I think that two things that are important here is to stop threatening to take their rights from them and ensure they have access to the healthcare that they need. This is also the stripping of rights and protections without due process. Such laws require that a subset of citizens are assumed to be guilty. There should be no background checks. Even those convicted in the past of crimes have paid their debt to society. All rights should be restored to them. Such things should not haunt them for the rest of their free life, and this goes for blocks to them getting jobs too.
    1
  38. So when Bannon was brought into Trump's cabinet and people were saying he is a racist, misogynist and antisemite, I had to read up on why people said that, because while I've heard of the name "Breitbart" in passing, I never knew anything about it nor Bannon. In perusing articles that give indication that he or his news outlet are these things, I came across an article given as proof titled, "Racist, Pro-Nazi Roots of Planned Parenthood Revealed." And that's when I laughed to myself and shook my head at the lack of critical thinking involved in that. I don't get how you can be a racist and antisemite while using "racist" and "Pro-Nazi" in a deprecating way. While I can't be sure, I think the left uses the general ignorance of what is "alt-right" as a catch-all for demonizing people they don't like. It's like the right's "Socialist" or "Communist" demonization.
    1
  39. ***** If you actually had an argument, you'd present it and not resort to ad hominem.
    1
  40. Cory Lay I'm not wrong, but I did really missword my post. I meant to say that ionizing radiation is what causes cancer and the radiation in question is not ionizing. I'm going to edit my post to reflect what I actually meant to say.
    1
  41. It's a short-term decline in sales, but a long-term greater growth.
    1
  42. Guillermo, I'm going to defend the Second Amendment no matter what happens.
    1
  43. I think the point is that everyone was expecting Hillary to win the general, pretty much up until election day. That's what the predictions were based on.
    1
  44. Firearms frequently go out of service. They understand better than either of us the rate of attrition.
    1
  45. If this were a movie of Mohammed, they would have just blown up/shot the offender and everyone related to the offender.
    1
  46. samiamrg7, that shows how inexperienced and ignorant you are.
    1
  47. samiam, an executive has to be quite familiar with all aspects of his business. He's not a machinist, but he has to know enough to know what makes a good machinist. He's not a metallurgist, but he has to know where to source good product. He's not an engineer, but he needs to know whether his engineers are making a sound product that's marketable. He's not a chemist, but he needs to understand the emerging research of propellants. He's not a gunsmith, but he needs to understand how a firearm works. He's not a lawyer, but he needs to understand Federal, state and local laws that pertain to his business. And finally, being an executive is so much more than just supply, demand and pricing. I'm going to be blunt here. The fact is that your pea brain cannot fathom the amount of responsibility and work that's part and parcel to being an executive officer of any corporation. It literally takes being a genius to be successful in the executive world because of how much you have to constantly be learning about your industry(ies), how fast you have to learn it and how much of what you intake you must be capable of recalling, let alone how perfect you must be in all of this. Just one bad decision can end your company and career. Compound that with a lack of sleep, long-ass hours and the stress of perfection on you and there's only a minority of a minority that can handle that job. And you probably think they don't deserve their millions in compensation.
    1
  48. samiam, workers have had a steady purchasing power for their work over the years, and that's what we should expect for workers. If workers desire more than consistent pay, they should stop being workers and be owners. That's the point of capitalism: choice and freedom to work or to own. "No one deserves 200, 300, or 400 times what their average employee makes." Why don't they deserve it? "especially when a sizable number of those employees make wages they can't live on" As is stands right now, a minimum wage employee costs about $15 an hour to a business. 2/3rds of that cost goes to the government. The remaining third goes to the employee -- after 20% taxes are taken, of course. Our government is using smoke and mirrors. They steal your money and then blame, or allow others to blame, someone else. "ESPECIALLY when hundreds of workers are laid off and at the same time as executives get raises." It's better than everyone losing their jobs and money.
    1
  49. samiam, this is not India and it is not a caste system. It doesn't matter what your pedigree is, you can go from rags to riches. If you're not careful, you can go from riches to rags too. It happens every day. And it doesn't take a great investment, but it does require taking risks that some aren't willing to take. You could do something as simple as carving wooden ducks to something as complex as opening a restaurant.
    1
  50. samiam, this is just your ignorance and inexperience talking yet again. It doesn't matter what impression you get, the reality is that they could have closed a location that they laid off 100 employees from because it wasn't making money with those 100 employees. Now it's able to add $3 million to its bottom line, maybe saving the place from shutting completely down and costing 500 jobs instead of 100. If the work isn't there, the work isn't there. There's only so much you can control in that matter.
    1