Porforis
11 years ago

Reside. Aluminum is terrible. Not so much for looks or the actual aluminum part, but the crap they used as 'insulation' underneath it. Go with some sort of pinkboard underneath whatever you put up.

Originally Posted by: Formo 



I grew up in a house with plain ol' wood siding, my parents moved into a house with vinyl siding after I moved out but I greatly prefer both in terms of look and feel to aluminum. It's fairly new siding, but pretty much everything around here seems to be either aluminum or brick/cobblestone. But yeah, replacing it's on my medium-long term list because I don't like how it dents and it looks like what's underneath it is crap. And I'll probably be gluing corners back on 10 times a year.

Definitely won't do it this year though, won't have the money. Need to replace at least one gutter and will probably replace all of them while I'm at it, grading on the sides of the house to divert a little bit of rainwater away (literally dirt cheap though), and a butt-ton of furniture to buy (and a washer+dryer). Also need to pay my parents back money they lent us for a down payment, they said not to worry about paying it until 2014 if we need to but I don't like debts looming over me. I also need to build up a more respectable emergency fund now that our monthly housing costs went up.
Cheesey
11 years ago
Wow....alot going on since my last time here. Wish i could be here more often.

"Assualt weapons". What exactly does that mean? Does it mean "MEAN looking guns!" And as far as making magazines that only hold 5 rounds. Once again, how long does it take to replace a magazine? Answer: Just a few seconds. So that will NOT stop madmen from these shootings.

I agree with what the NRA said (which i believe i said last time i was here) put an armed person in each school. The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. That's a fact.
Making new laws that target legitimate law abiding citizens won't lower gun crimes.
Example: England put a gun ban in place in 1997. From 1998-2005 the number of deaths and injuries from handguns rose 340% there. So what did their gun ban accomplish? It disarmed law abiding citizens, allow the bad guys to do whatever they want.

Lets face it, the gun hating media sensationalizes gun violence, as it feeds fuel to their desire, which is to disarm us. (Law abiding people)
More info: In 2003 children 14 and under suffered 56 fatal gun accidents. In that same year 86 drowned in bathtubs and 285 drowned in pools. So i guess taking a bath is more likely to kill a child then a gun accident in the home. Ans swimming in a pool??? That should be outlawed.

Yes, any death is bad. But going overboard to try to "fix" it, when you arn't actually going after the bad people doing the crimes solves nothing but to give you a warm feeling.
UserPostedImage
DakotaT
11 years ago

Wow....alot going on since my last time here. Wish i could be here more often.

"Assualt weapons". What exactly does that mean? Does it mean "MEAN looking guns!" And as far as making magazines that only hold 5 rounds. Once again, how long does it take to replace a magazine? Answer: Just a few seconds. So that will NOT stop madmen from these shootings.

I agree with what the NRA said (which i believe i said last time i was here) put an armed person in each school. The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. That's a fact.
Making new laws that target legitimate law abiding citizens won't lower gun crimes.
Example: England put a gun ban in place in 1997. From 1998-2005 the number of deaths and injuries from handguns rose 340% there. So what did their gun ban accomplish? It disarmed law abiding citizens, allow the bad guys to do whatever they want.

Lets face it, the gun hating media sensationalizes gun violence, as it feeds fuel to their desire, which is to disarm us. (Law abiding people)
More info: In 2003 children 14 and under suffered 56 fatal gun accidents. In that same year 86 drowned in bathtubs and 285 drowned in pools. So i guess taking a bath is more likely to kill a child then a gun accident in the home. Ans swimming in a pool??? That should be outlawed.

Yes, any death is bad. But going overboard to try to "fix" it, when you arn't actually going after the bad people doing the crimes solves nothing but to give you a warm feeling.

Originally Posted by: Cheesey 



Republicans - the party of bad ideas, like armed guards in schools.

Democrats - the party of no ideas.




UserPostedImage
Cheesey
11 years ago
Why is armed guards in schools a bad idea???
Protecting the children isn't worthy of it?
I don't understand your thinking.
What SHOULD be done then? Put people at every school holding an olive branch to stop the killers from coming in?
Wait the 10 minutes or more it takes for the police to get there, which gives plenty of time for a mass murderer to kill alot of innocent people?
UserPostedImage
DakotaT
11 years ago

Why is armed guards in schools a bad idea???
Protecting the children isn't worthy of it?
I don't understand your thinking.
What SHOULD be done then? Put people at every school holding an olive branch to stop the killers from coming in?
Wait the 10 minutes or more it takes for the police to get there, which gives plenty of time for a mass murderer to kill alot of innocent people?

Originally Posted by: Cheesey 



Because we can't even afford our teachers according to the Republicans who want to gut education - but sticking yahoos at the front door solves our problems? It's proposterous - and the NRA look like a bunch of jackasses for bringing it up.
UserPostedImage
Formo
11 years ago

Because we can't even afford our teachers according to the Republicans who want to gut education - but sticking yahoos at the front door solves our problems? It's proposterous - and the NRA look like a bunch of jackasses for bringing it up.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



Having armed guards (or unarmed even) wouldn't take money away from education. So the pubs wouldn't be taking any money from them. And you don't think they would have stopped the massacre that happened in Mass? C'mon man, you must gone lost yo mind.

I'll leave you all with this, a quote from a dear friend of mine.

"In a season of heated rhetorical debate, lemme inject a little clarity and common sense.

Some of you want to ban guns, and prevent me and people like me from having the tools necessary to defend my loved ones and community from those who would threaten it. You blithely ignore the fact that police neither can nor are obligated to protect citizens (Warren v. District of Columbia), and that the supreme court has dictated that the citizen is responsible for their own protection first.

You blithely ignore the spillover from the Mexican Civil War that has already claimed numerous American lives, tens of thousands of Mexican lives, and has left local sheriff's departments, ranchers and other citizens facing off against drug-cartel-hired Mexican military units. You blithely ignore the gang violence fueled by illegal drugs and illegal weapons brought into this country by those same cartels, which account for the vast majority of firearm homicides in the nation. That's fine, we'll stick with your desire to outlaw guns because you A) fear someone killing you with one, and 😎 feel they are unnecessary.

I want to outlaw alcohol and drugs of all sorts.

Why? Well, simple- using your own logic, I am FAR more likely to be killed by you driving drunk than you are by me shooting you. You don't drink? You don't drink and drive? Well, I don't commit crimes, either, but that hasn't stopped you from making your blanket judgement, so I shall return the favor. Drugs and alcohol are not necessary, they do not provide nourishment nor have any place within modern society.

Sure, booze made sense in the days of the Founders when water was tainted with bacteria and parasites, and alcohol was the only way to render it safe, but that was a very low-grade of alcohol, nothing like the powerful and dangerous concoctions one can buy in any bar with ease today. We don't need alcohol in modern society, because our water is now protected by water treatment plants and is no longer a threat. Only people living in third-world environments need alcohol today, not people in the civilized world.

So, due to irresponsible drunk drivers- which account for three times more deaths than all firearms deaths, including legal ones such as law enforcement uses of force, combined- and the risk that you might potentially drive drunk, let us outlaw alcohol rather than just punish the offenders who used it stupidly.

makes sense, right?"
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
DakotaT
11 years ago
Why is it the pro gun people keep coming up with these lame apples to oranges comparisons? Jesus Christ, just stick to the issue which is what guns are needed by civilians and which civilians should have the right to own them. That's all this is about, but yet everyone throws in these "common sense" analogies that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
UserPostedImage
dhazer
11 years ago
Why don't this make national headlines 

Here is a good point why we should have guns, but then again this won't make national news because this isn't what the government wants people to see.


A homeowner kills a would be robber and wounds 2 others, as there was a sleep over in his house. So he could have prevented another mass shooting but like I said this won't make it out because it goes against what Obama wants.
Just Imagine this for the next 6-9 years. What a ride it will be 🙂 (PS, Zero should charge for this)
UserPostedImage
Formo
11 years ago

Why is it the pro gun people keep coming up with these lame apples to oranges comparisons? Jesus Christ, just stick to the issue which is what guns are needed by civilians and which civilians should have the right to own them. That's all this is about, but yet everyone throws in these "common sense" analogies that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



Alcohol or drugs aren't needed by civilians too. It's about our personal LIBERTIES, not about guns, booze, or drugs. They have EVERYTHING to do with the issue at hand.

Of course, I know better. Someone already pointed out the futility of debating the effectiveness of gun control with believers in the religion of Gun Control.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
yooperfan
11 years ago

Why don't this make national headlines 

Here is a good point why we should have guns, but then again this won't make national news because this isn't what the government wants people to see.


A homeowner kills a would be robber and wounds 2 others, as there was a sleep over in his house. So he could have prevented another mass shooting but like I said this won't make it out because it goes against what Obama wants.

Originally Posted by: dhazer 



Did he need an assault rifle to prevent this mass shooting or did he accomplish this with a 12 Ga. shotgun and 1 round of double O buck?
I'm all for gun ownwership and home protection. I stand against assault rifles with 30 round magazines.

Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (20m) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (20m) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (20m) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (28m) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (28m) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (49m) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (2h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (2h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (2h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (2h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (3h) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (3h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (3h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (3h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (3h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (3h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (3h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (3h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (3h) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs
Zero2Cool (3h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
Zero2Cool (3h) : I literally just said it.
packerfanoutwest (3h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
Zero2Cool (3h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.
Zero2Cool (3h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.
packerfanoutwest (3h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what
Zero2Cool (3h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.
packerfanoutwest (3h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in
packerfanoutwest (3h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker
packerfanoutwest (3h) : if bucs win out they win their division
beast (3h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us
packerfanoutwest (4h) : falcons are already ahead of us
beast (4h) : Packers will get in
beast (4h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen
packerfanoutwest (4h) : they still are in the playoffs
packerfanoutwest (4h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7
Zero2Cool (5h) : We can say it. We don't play.
Mucky Tundra (7h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints
Mucky Tundra (7h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games
Mucky Tundra (7h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.
buckeyepackfan (7h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.
Mucky Tundra (16h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan
beast (17h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings
bboystyle (17h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in
Mucky Tundra (20h) : Or ties, but let's be real here
Mucky Tundra (20h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses
Mucky Tundra (20h) : Needed a Falcons loss for a Seahawk loss to clinch
buckeyepackfan (20h) : Am I wring in saying if Tge Vikings beat The Seahawks, The Packers clinch?
Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : Agreed; you stinks
Zero2Cool (21-Dec) : I'm not beating anyone. I stinks.
Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : rough injury for tank dell. guy can't catch abreak
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

2h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Mucky Tundra

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.