www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37221379/ns/technol...
Do you really think the government response would be better? They're not really known for effeciency or competance, especially something like FEMA or involving disasters around the Gulf Coast. And the EPA would most likely be worse somehow, I would imagine.
Let BP fix the problem. It'll probably be more effecient and it won't cost tax payer dollars or resources.
Besides, oil is good for the ocean and the environment can handle anything we do, ever. I mean, the oil was just at the bottom and now its at the top, what could go wrong?!
AMIRITE?!
/no.
Do you really think the government response would be better? They're not really known for effeciency or competance, especially something like FEMA or involving disasters around the Gulf Coast. And the EPA would most likely be worse somehow, I would imagine.
Let BP fix the problem. It'll probably be more effecient and it won't cost tax payer dollars or resources.
You do realize they could simply have blown the well shut by now right?
BP is attempting to continue harvesting the oil.
Our government wasn't always so stupidly bad at handling disasters. (and by the way if you don't think this isn't going to cost us taxpayers anything you are dead wrong. It's going to cost us more than if the government stepped in and found someone at that actually wants to do something about it. Because frankly local economies down there are going to Train Wreck, and we get ALOT of fish, crabs, etc from the Gulf)
BP has no interest in fixing the problem and frankly they've demonstrated that quite clearly.
Letting them continue this, is killing the environment at a record speed. And it's only a matter of time before that oil slick finds its way into the Atlantic at the rate it's going.
ZB: but the government DOES have access to the needed explosives to get the job done along with several robotic submersibles that are capable of planting the devices required.
I didn't mean it wasn't going to cost anything, but why make the government (hence us) pay for what BP is supposed to? And its clear that they're trying to fix the problem; they attempted several fixes. It just didn't work.
The government should be working with BP instead of taking over for them.
On a side note, does anyone know anything about those chemical dispursants? BP claims its biodegradable, but the government claims its toxic. I was wondering if there was an independent study on them or if anyone knew specifics.
Blow the well shut. That would fix it. End of story. So what they lose a well. It's not like they NEED it.
(also we're going to pay through the nose on fuel you just watch.)
We ARE going to have to pay for it, damage to the economy, our shorelines, tourism, etc. And we'll still end up paying for it on our taxes at some point too, to say nothing of paying for it at the pump.
Why in the hell did we ever let them drill so deep anyway is just asinine but that's another tangent.
I'm expecting our fuels costs to rise. Not only is it going to be the summer, but I'm assuming there'll be added regulations and the like. Blowing up wells (even if that's a solution) will only add to the costs.
I never said we're not going to pay for the after effects. But why would you want to add additional costs and resources on top of that?
I'm no expert on the matter, but I'm assuming we allowed them to drill because it was perceived safe, we wanted to lower fuel costs, we wanted to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and other similar reasons.
But with all that said, the government really should be doing something. Again, I think the government should work with BP, not replace BP. I can't believe this has been going on for a month.
That is quite apart from the cost of the cleanup, for which BP should also be billed in its entirety, as well as punitive fines and compensation to the families of the 11 men killed during the original explosion.
Again, I think the government should work with BP, not replace BP. I can't believe this has been going on for a month.
The US government has been "working with BP"*. Maybe that's why it's "been going on for a month"? ;)
* - Certain members of the MMS have been working particularly intimately with BP. If you know what I mean...
I'm expecting our fuels costs to rise. Not only is it going to be the summer, but I'm assuming there'll be added regulations and the like. Blowing up wells (even if that's a solution) will only add to the costs.
I never said we're not going to pay for the after effects. But why would you want to add additional costs and resources on top of that?
I'm no expert on the matter, but I'm assuming we allowed them to drill because it was perceived safe, we wanted to lower fuel costs, we wanted to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and other similar reasons.
But with all that said, the government really should be doing something. Again, I think the government should work with BP, not replace BP. I can't believe this has been going on for a month.
Those wells shouldnt be there in the first effing place every one of them should be shut down and blown up. We need to move onto green energy oil is not the solution.
I think that at the very least the government should assay the value of the "land" make a low ball offer, and revoke BP's rights to drill there or claim ownership. From there, place the land up for auction to whatever company is willing to fix this problem.
I mean, all a terror group would have to do is load a boat with explosives like the did with the attack on the USS Cole and blow it up on the oil slick.
One thing I never got though is why they never had a plan just in case this happened? Did they just think that it wouldn't happen or are they just more concerned with a paycheck than planning for disasters like this.
...
It would appear that they had several plans incase something like this should happen. Just all of them have been failing.
...
It would appear that they had several plans incase something like this should happen. Just all of them have been failing.
Ah, well I haven't been following it as much. All I've seen about it is mainly blame-shifting.
...
It would appear that they had several plans incase something like this should happen. Just all of them have been failing.
Ah, well I haven't been following it as much. All I've seen about it is mainly blame-shifting.
One thing I never got though is why they never had a plan just in case this happened? Did they just think that it wouldn't happen or are they just more concerned with a paycheck than planning for disasters like this.
...
It would appear that they had several plans incase something like this should happen. Just all of them have been failing.
Yep. They had shut off valves that failed, external (base of the shaft) shut off valves that could be accessed by ROVs that also failed, a tried and tested cap solution that failed, a net and burn procedure that won't work because the oil is throughout the water instead of just on its surface (due to its composition) and now they've moved on to the last resort (but something started immediately) - a relief well. So they had a ton of procedures in place. Some were hampered by nature and others were defeated by negligence.
Sounds like capitalism inaction, to me
Fixed.
Pluisjen/Boraxe: Based on capitalism, wouldn't BP want to stop the well from leaking? Not only are they billed for cleanup efforts, but they're losing hundreds of millions of gallons of precious oil.
Except they cut too many corners in building it and in their response. They haven't spent enough to fix it so its not going to work. Thats the problem with capatalism the companies cut too many corners. Buisness especially that involving fuels needs to be heavily regulated by the government or else the buisnesses cut too many corners and dont do what they are supposed to. Unfortunatley the agency overseeing these oil companies is too corupt and has been bribed too much.
Green tech is the future, of course. The future, unfortunately, isn't now. We still need oil and we'll still need it for a while. Drilling is the only answer right this second. It is a stop gap, of course, but it is necessary.
I do agree that green tech isn't now, but who do we have to blame for that? I mean Kennedy said they would put a man on the moon by the end of the 60s, and they did. Sure these are two very different problems, but I am not seeing the same kind of optimism about advances in big tech now that we saw in the middle of the century. It will take major government funding to make green tech happen. I don't think you can rely on the private sector while there still fossil fuel to be found. If we don't push for it, eventually we won't have any more fossil fuels to burn, and we will have a very short period of time to invent green tech.
Pluisjen/Boraxe: Based on capitalism, wouldn't BP want to stop the well from leaking? Not only are they billed for cleanup efforts, but they're losing hundreds of millions of gallons of precious oil.
Yes and no. They want to be able to stop the flow but not the seal the well. They still want to be able to get at that oil.
Actually, it's likely not even a million gallons of oil yet. Assuming a rate of 15,000 barrels a day leaking from the Deepwater Horizon (a good middle range based on expert estimates and accounting for the drainage pipe) for the past 37 days, it's gushed about 555,000 gallons so far. Compare that to the vast quantity of oil still in the deposit and you can see why they don't want to cap it off for good. No matter how much they spend on cleanup and in fines (if any) it is peanuts to the money still available to be made from it.
Green tech is the future, of course. The future, unfortunately, isn't now. We still need oil and we'll still need it for a while. Drilling is the only answer right this second. It is a stop gap, of course, but it is necessary.
I disagree the more we drill the less likely we are to develop green energy as fast as we could and should. All that money being put into drilling needs to go into green energies.
Yes and no. They want to be able to stop the flow but not the seal the well. They still want to be able to get at that oil.
Actually, it's likely not even a million gallons of oil yet. Assuming a rate of 15,000 barrels a day leaking from the Deepwater Horizon (a good middle range based on expert estimates and accounting for the drainage pipe) for the past 37 days, it's gushed about 555,000 gallons so far. Compare that to the vast quantity of oil still in the deposit and you can see why they don't want to cap it off for good. No matter how much they spend on cleanup and in fines (if any) it is peanuts to the money still available to be made from it.
Sorry, my mistake with the amount of oil.
I disagree the more we drill the less likely we are to develop green energy as fast as we could and should. All that money being put into drilling needs to go into green energies.
Why don't we just do both? I'm not an eco-biologist (thank god!), but is there an advantage for fossil fuels remaining untapped? (I honestly don't know if there is a benefit.)
You can substain our current energy use and companies that try to develop greener alternatives can get lots of press and government aid.
Probably if you gave a big company today that kind of breakthrough, they'd patent it and place it on a shelf until all the fossil fuels ran out and the world would start breaking down, before stepping up as "saviour" and raking in the big bucks, again.
We should do both; we need the fossil fuels right now or everything will grind to a halt. But we shouldn't rely on companies and economics to make the move to green energy, because for many companies it's both a massive investment in current money and means they're putting themselves out of business.
Probably if you gave a big company today that kind of breakthrough, they'd patent it and place it on a shelf until all the fossil fuels ran out and the world would start breaking down, before stepping up as "saviour" and raking in the big bucks, again.
Fossil fuels are too harmful to the enviornment. If the government really started putting money energy and effort into green energy programs we could be off oil very quickly and in the mean time we can import what we need. Fossil fuels especially with spills are too horrible to continue to use.
Fossil fuels are an environmental apocalypse. There is nothing they do which cannot be done better and cleaner by something else. The reason we are stuck with them is cos the people who are making a metric ass-ton of money off them use billions of those dollars to buy political influence and to stiffle the superior alternatives. Only when fossil fuels run out, or the alternatives will make the same people more money, will it change. Oil execs are quite happy to send this entire planet straight to hell so long as they can ride their on a throne made of money.
Pretty much yeah.
Fossil fuels are an environmental apocalypse. There is nothing they do which cannot be done better and cleaner by something else. The reason we are stuck with them is cos the people who are making a metric ass-ton of money off them use billions of those dollars to buy political influence and to stiffle the superior alternatives. Only when fossil fuels run out, or the alternatives will make the same people more money, will it change. Oil execs are quite happy to send this entire planet straight to hell so long as they can ride their on a throne made of money.
Do you have any non partisan data to support that claim? I am sure we can develop green technologies, but right now I haven't seen anything that can replicate what fossil fuels do. We have wind farms where I live, and they just don't generate the amount of energy that fossil fuels do. Same for solar. Electric powered cars still require energy that ultimate comes from fuel burning plants. The only alternative I can think of that comes close is nuclear, and I think people in the US are very wary of switching to that kind of power source.
Yes and no. They want to be able to stop the flow but not the seal the well. They still want to be able to get at that oil.
Well, they did attempt to seal it and they would if that were feasible. They can easily get to the oil from another drilling point. Thanks to horizontal drilling tech, they can easily access the reserve from another location. And they'd much rather have done that. The two things they tried, however, failed. So they are working toward that end as we speak. Two major problems exist, however. It will take no small amount of time and it will not seal anything.
I disagree the more we drill the less likely we are to develop green energy as fast as we could and should. All that money being put into drilling needs to go into green energies.
Well, if we run out of fossil fuels before the tech is ready and affordable, we'll be screwed. So we do need it. The fact that that need is wholly manufactured does nothing to alleviate it. I agree that we should force the measure, though. It needs to be done much sooner than later. Even if you don't give a damn about the environment, it'll at least make us less dependant upon importing energy from ... undesirables. That's a good thing. For me, it's the Keys. They're in very real danger. It's a fragile ecosystem in the best of times. This disaster may erase it from the face of the Earth. That's a true tragedy. Immeasurable, really. Hopefully they'll be spared but it ain't lookin' good.
We should definately use nuclear power plants. I was happy when Obama suggested using them in his State of the Union address. But we'll have to see if he actually does something.
I still don't know how I feel about nuclear. The US is way behind in that area and when things go wrong with nuclear power, they can go really wrong. I realize proponents of nuclear energy assure us it is safe now. But then so were the proponents of off shore drilling. I say move cautiously on this one. Obama has already demonstrated he doesn't understand the real risks of one thing. I really don't think he is in a position to push for nuclear energy now. Time to take a step back and really evaluate all the options, without noise from partisan and commercial think tanks. Americans deserve accurate and objective information.
Umm. We've had nuclear plants running for decades and the last trouble we had with one was decades ago. I think we've got it down pretty good, actually.
Not to mention every navy carrier and submarine being nuclear powered. Also I expect they'd be much stricter with nuke plants on saftery than the GD oil rigs. We need to get off of fossil fuels within the decade.
Not to mention every navy carrier and submarine being nuclear powered. Also I expect they'd be much stricter with nuke plants on saftery than the GD oil rigs. We need to get off of fossil fuels within the decade.
Good point. Good points all around, really. It's really sickening to hear about all of the safety and protocol breaches that rig was found to have. Unimaginable negligence. No matter what we do to the people responsible, it'll never repair the damage done. I'd not be opposed to the death penalty here. Loss of life and massive environmental damage should damn those responsible the same way it damned those that died.
Umm. We've had nuclear plants running for decades and the last trouble we had with one was decades ago. I think we've got it down pretty good, actually.
Not to mention every navy carrier and submarine being nuclear powered. Also I expect they'd be much stricter with nuke plants on saftery than the GD oil rigs. We need to get off of fossil fuels within the decade.
1) The US is still behind. It never took off in the US, the way it did in say france (largely because of protests against it during the 70s and 80s). And we really haven't developed it much further in the meantime.
2) The navy will not be running US power plants. And while the last problem occured decades ago with three mile island, that doesn't mean a bigger, more serious disater won't occur. Up until last month, there hadn't been an oil leak from off shore drilling in the US for decades as well.
3) Just because there are regulations in place, that doesn't mean companies won't put profit ahead of human life. Do you really trust companies not to cut corners and take chances with nuclear power? A spill, we can handle. But a Chernobyl or worse?
I am very uncomfortable about just jumping on board with nuclear power. I've heard optimistic predictions from pro-nuclear industry folk, and I've heard dire predictions from people who oppose nuclear power. I would rather move forward with accurate and objective data that isn't the product of an interest group's research or funding.
3) Just because there are regulations in place, that doesn't mean companies won't put profit ahead of human life.
France can make nuclear power work, and work safely, because the state regulates the heck out of everything. Unfortunately, the US has shown that it's institutionally incapable of competent, meaningful regulation of big business. And your political system is such that the problem is probably unfixable, at least in the short to medium term.
However, even France doesn't know what to really do with all the nuclear waste. And nuclear fuel itself has to be mined and is not a renewable resource. Nuclear power will only ever be a stop-gap measure during a longer-term transition to solar/wind/wave/tidal/biofuel/geothermal/hydro power, and its initial costs are so high that it's not even particularly useful in that role now.
3) Just because there are regulations in place, that doesn't mean companies won't put profit ahead of human life.
France can make nuclear power work, and work safely, because the state regulates the heck out of everything. Unfortunately, the US has shown that it's institutionally incapable of competent, meaningful regulation of big business. And your political system is such that the problem is probably unfixable, at least in the short to medium term.
However, even France doesn't know what to really do with all the nuclear waste. And nuclear fuel itself has to be mined and is not a renewable resource. Nuclear power will only ever be a stop-gap measure during a longer-term transition to solar/wind/wave/tidal/biofuel/geothermal/hydro power, and its initial costs are so high that it's not even particularly useful in that role now.
We should regulate the hell out of companies very much so. Purley free capatalism does not and will not work we need much harsher regulations for saftey.
The US government already regulates the hell out of companies. They're just too incompetant/inefficent to actually check up on most companies until disasters happen. After many disasters, there'll be reports about how so and so regulation was not followed or something was not up to code.
So its not harsher regulations, but actually enforcing the existing regulations or some jazz like that.
Also, purely free capitalism hasn't been around for quite a long time now. Almost every industry is regulated by the government in one form or another. The question is just if those regulations accomplish their goals.
The US government already regulates the hell out of companies. They're just too incompetant/inefficent to actually check up on most companies until disasters happen. After many disasters, there'll be reports about how so and so regulation was not followed or something was not up to code.
So its not harsher regulations, but actually enforcing the existing regulations or some jazz like that.
Also, purely free capitalism hasn't been around for quite a long time now. Almost every industry is regulated by the government in one form or another. The question is just if those regulations accomplish their goals.
The enforcement end is actually the tricky part, and that takes money...more money than I suspect American's are actually willing to spend these days (since the mood appears to be one of anti-taxation, small government, and unregulated market).
Do you have any non partisan data to support that claim?
Google.com. Enjoy.
The enforcement end is actually the tricky part, and that takes money...more money than I suspect American's are actually willing to spend these days (since the mood appears to be one of anti-taxation, small government, and unregulated market).
Word. My point was just that we don't need more regulation, but better enforcement.
I would actually argue the opposite with the mood of government roles. It appears like there are more and more regulatory laws being passed which expands the government's role (healthcare and finance sectors for example). At the same time, there is a backlash to these reforms and bills. I guess its the normal 50/50 split.
Do you have any non partisan data to support that claim?
Google.com. Enjoy.
No. I am not going to google for you. You made a statement, which is either supported by reliable data or it isn't. You are the one who made the claim, not me. Since I have never encountered information supporting your claim before, if you refuse to support it, I will just have to assume you didn't base it on the facts.
Newsflash:
Obama owns it.
He's taken full responsibility for the clean up and stated that the Fed was in charge from moment one. Some underlings disagree, but whatever. Looks like the anti-BP folks have a new organization to blame - the one they thought would do better.
At any rate, they're actually accomplishing stuff. There's two relief wells and they're trying an experimental procedure that involves shooting drilling mud into the well. It seems to be working.
The enforcement end is actually the tricky part, and that takes money...more money than I suspect American's are actually willing to spend these days (since the mood appears to be one of anti-taxation, small government, and unregulated market).
Word. My point was just that we don't need more regulation, but better enforcement.
I would actually argue the opposite with the mood of government roles. It appears like there are more and more regulatory laws being passed which expands the government's role (healthcare and finance sectors for example). At the same time, there is a backlash to these reforms and bills. I guess its the normal 50/50 split.
I basically agree. My impression is, every step forward is a step backward in terms of mood. The people in power at the moment, are more open to the idea of regulation. But it is looking more and more, that by November things will reverse. Either way, both the democrats and republicans in the states, seem to me to be very hesitatant to truly reform anything. I think because of the way news has fragmented along party and ideological lines, there is an unfortunate "pick your own narrative" situation, that really forces a much more short sighted approach to solutions (everyone is just trying to stay in the game and not lose the next election).
Newsflash:
Obama owns it.
He's taken full responsibility for the clean up and stated that the Fed was in charge from moment one. Some underlings disagree, but whatever. Looks like the anti-BP folks have a new organization to blame - the one they thought would do better.
At any rate, they're actually accomplishing stuff. There's two relief wells and they're trying an experimental procedure that involves shooting drilling mud into the well. It seems to be working.
Actually what I think is hurting Obama in terms of the PR is the visual distance in the media between him and the crisis. It sounds corny, but being on site, talking to locals, and establishing some kind of visible relief system for the people who were impacted by this (this did effect peoples' livlihoods afterall---shouldn't BP be responsible for the cost of that?), really makes a difference in peoples' minds. With Katrina one of the things that really hurt Bush (in addition to the serious mismanagement) was that iconic helicopter fly-by. For all I know Obama is busy working hard behind the scenes in a desparate race to solve the problem, but he has this bad habit of distancing himself from the public and secluding himself. It may even just be a product of the 24 hour news cycle, but even if that is the case, the guy needs to do something so people know what his administration is doing to solve crisis.
When there is less regulations, bad things will happen so people will blame lack of regulations. So regulators get elected and start setting up regulations. Then when more regulations spring up, bad things will happen, so people will want less regulations. So un-regulators get elected and the cycle repeats.
No. I am not going to google for you.
Funny, I said pretty much the same thing in different words.
You made a statement, which is either supported by reliable data or it isn't. You are the one who made the claim, not me. Since I have never encountered information supporting your claim before, if you refuse to support it, I will just have to assume you didn't base it on the facts.
So is this the part where I'm meant to get all riled up cos you called me out then get drawn into yet another wearisome session of junior debate club? Sorry, not interested. Feel free to assume whatever you wish, I really don't care either way.
Cheers.
They're still working on Nuclear Fusion, I'm personally counting on that one to be the powersource of the future.
All that money being put into drilling needs to go into green energies.
Yah, see, that money you put into drilling? It comes back, and brings friends. Money put into green energy? Not so much...
Well then. I may be for this after all. Provided I get to inspect said box and am satisfied with its durability and opaqueness, of course.
The box would be disintegrated instantly if exposed to the temperatures inside, from what I've heard. They're using some sort of electric plasma field to lock the heat in, or something.
Been a while since I last read about how exactly it works... it's very interesting stuff. Safer then fission at any rate, at worst they'd melt the whole facility, but that's about it.
All that money being put into drilling needs to go into green energies.
Yah, see, that money you put into drilling? It comes back, and brings friends. Money put into green energy? Not so much...
That's basically the whole reason why they shouldn't rely on companies to bring us to the future.
The box would be disintegrated instantly if exposed to the temperatures inside, from what I've heard. They're using some sort of electric plasma field to lock the heat in, or something.
Been a while since I last read about how exactly it works... it's very interesting stuff. Safer then fission at any rate, at worst they'd melt the whole facility, but that's about it.
Hmm. Is it dark plasma?
They're still working on Nuclear Fusion, I'm personally counting on that one to be the powersource of the future.
Fun Fact: Did you know that a tan is actually a thin layer of dead skin on top of healthy skin?
Isn't that how all skin is?
Your hair is dead, too.
I would rather move forward with accurate and objective data that isn't the product of an interest group's research or funding.
But on a controversial issue, you'll never find "unbiased" research. Whether it's the safety of nuclear power, global warming, gays in the military, electric cars, and so-on, there will always be someone casting doubt on the study no matter it's results.
Hmm. Is it dark plasma?
I hope so; anything that's "dark" has to be cooler than the regular version, right? Its like "dire" things.
I would rather move forward with accurate and objective data that isn't the product of an interest group's research or funding.
But on a controversial issue, you'll never find "unbiased" research. Whether it's the safety of nuclear power, global warming, gays in the military, electric cars, and so-on, there will always be someone casting doubt on the study no matter it's results.
There are studies that are more reliable than others is my point. If the study is produced by a partisan think tank or special interest group, I would be more cautious about its findings than it if it was produced by a university (provided the funding for the research isn't all coming from a heavily biased source).
Funny, I said pretty much the same thing in different words.
The difference is I was asking you to verify an outrageous claim; while you were asking me to verify your claim for you.
So is this the part where I'm meant to get all riled up cos you called me out then get drawn into yet another wearisome session of junior debate club? Sorry, not interested. Feel free to assume whatever you wish, I really don't care either way.
Cheers.
No this is the part where it becomes clear you didn't have anything to support your statement.
No this is the part where it becomes clear you didn't have anything to support your statement.
So this is the part now where we start fighting over who gets the last word?
There are studies that are more reliable than others is my point. If the study is produced by a partisan think tank or special interest group, I would be more cautious about its findings than it if it was produced by a university (provided the funding for the research isn't all coming from a heavily biased source).
Well, yes, but if you're biased, then you'll never see them. You'll see a good, reliable study, take a look and say "Oh, that's from NMT. They get over half their budget from military research grants. I can't trust that." or "From Purdue? Yeah, like that isn't full of left-wing garbage1." Not to mention that, being as no one's perfect, if it's a controversial issue, then someone will go digging through closets to find something to discredit the study with.
And toss in that even if you do have a perfect study, a lot of people aren't going to accept it anyway, which will be seen as a failing of the study. I mean really, if the "experts" disagree, how's the layman supposed to know which is the "good" research and which is the "bad"?
So again: on a controversial issue, you aren't going to find a study that's generally accepted as nonpartisan and unbiased.
________
1I have no idea if Purdue swings left or right, it was just a name.
Well, yes, but if you're biased, then you'll never see them. You'll see a good, reliable study, take a look and say "Oh, that's from NMT. They get over half their budget from military research grants. I can't trust that." or "From Purdue? Yeah, like that isn't full of left-wing garbage1." Not to mention that, being as no one's perfect, if it's a controversial issue, then someone will go digging through closets to find something to discredit the study with.
Yes, if you are biased then finding any good information will be a problem. But there are degrees of bias, and there are people who, while they have a bias, may still be interested in what the research actually says, rather than in cherry picked research. Even with a potentially biased source of information, if you know how to read the data, rather than just read the abstract, you are in a better position to evaluate it. My point about partisan sources, is they are generally less reliable than non partisan ones, because they usually begin with a conclusion, then hand select evidence to prove their point. Funding is also a good indication of potential bias, somethingt he reader should be aware of.
And toss in that even if you do have a perfect study, a lot of people aren't going to accept it anyway, which will be seen as a failing of the study. I mean really, if the "experts" disagree, how's the layman supposed to know which is the "good" research and which is the "bad"?
Well, unless there actually is something wrong with the study (which there could be in some cases), then that is the person's failing, not the study's. If the experts disagree, the laymen should look at the different arguments and try to decipher the general consensus. If things aren't nearing a concensus, that might mean enough research hasn't been conducted.
So again: on a controversial issue, you aren't going to find a study that's generally accepted as nonpartisan and unbiased.
Yes you will. You will find partisans who refuse to acknowledge good research, and you will need to be more careful when evaluating research of a cotroversial subject, but there are still people out there doing research who are interested in good information and not buffering one political position over another.
No this is the part where it becomes clear you didn't have anything to support your statement.
So this is the part now where we start fighting over who gets the last word?
Not at all. But don't expect me to take your claims seriously if you refuse to offer evidence. Feel free to have the last word.
Yes you will.
Ok. Back up your claim. Find me a study on global warming that's generally accepted as nonpartisan and unbiased.
Yes you will.
Ok. Back up your claim. Find me a study on global warming that's generally accepted as nonpartisan and unbiased.
With global warming it is easier, because there is an actual scientific concensus (and the only folk who really dispute Global Warming findings are partisans in the US). You can go directly to statements issued by major scientific organizations (which I would say are not generally regarded (except perhaps by far right wing pundits in the US) as partisan:
Joint Science Academy (nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf)
The IPCC fourth assessment report (www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/sy... www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/public...)
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_cha...)
The scientific consensus on this issue is just overwhelming.
The scientific consensus on the issue is not overwhelming. Why? Because then we wouldn't have 59% of the public that thinks scientists can't agree. If it was overwhelming, they'd be overwhelmed. Clearly they aren't even whelmed, never-the-less overwhelmed.
What kind of argument is that escher? Now you are just playing silly word games. The scientific consensus has no bearing on the public consensus. There could be a 100% consensus among scientists on a given issue (an overwhelming consensus), and you could still have a situation where only 12% of the public agrees with the sceince. If people want to ignore good sceince because of partisan leanings, that is their business. But it doesn't make their position more valid.
I mean really, SS, my entire point was that people are, generally speaking, biased bigoted morons who wouldn't know good science if it hit them in the face with a two-by-four of truth. The scientific consensus has about as much relevance to my statement as public opinion has to the scientific consensus.
Seeing as I was never talking about validity of anything, I'm not sure where you're going with this.
I mean really, SS, my entire point was that people are, generally speaking, biased bigoted morons who wouldn't know good science if it hit them in the face with a two-by-four of truth. The scientific consensus has about as much relevance to my statement as public opinion has to the scientific consensus.
And I said as much about six posts ago. My entire point is there is reliable and unreliable research out there. Frankly, then I am not even sure why you are arguing with me here. All I said was you will find a study that is "generally accepted as reliable" (and by that I meant among people who actually know what they are talking about). Because my original point was simply that there exists good and bad research.
And my entire point is that regardless of whether there is reliable research other there, that when it comes to controversial issues you won't find any that is generally accepted as such. That you decided to tack on a qualifier that I completely failed to imply is no fault of my own, and I take no blame for you seemingly arguing against something you say you said.
Just back off Escher, I am tired of your crap. You a forum bully, and internet tough guy. Plain and simple.
Right now I think this is situation where people are goading you because you react to it. Let it be and it will all go away.
SS, relax buddy. You're still cool, right?
Right now I think this is situation where people are goading you because you react to it. Let it be and it will all go away.
I am not going to sit by anylonger. First he attacked my culture and my people. Then he keeps up with this nonsense. He has been rude, sarcastic, elitist and pompous. I don't care if they ban me. I am not going to take it and say nothing, just because everyone else is affraid to confront him.
All and all, there's no reason for one person (or a small set of people) to ruin your experience on a site which you normally enjoy. If you really just can't stand people, you should add them to your ignore list.
Dude, its not that people are afraid of him. Its just that you can't do anything about it. Its the internet, the land of no consequences. People can do or say whatever they want because of the amonymous nature of it.
All and all, there's no reason for one person (or a small set of people) to ruin your experience on a site which you normally enjoy. If you really just can't stand people, you should add them to your ignore list.
No they can't. Sure it is an anonymous medium. But there are moderators for a reason. People expect to be treated poiltely. And I don't expect him to encoutner Islamaphobic language from other posters. Its wrong. On a hate site, I would expect that. Here I don't.
The government, IMO, is letting BP handle it so they can blame BP when some of the attempts fail. It also factors into things, again IMO, that BP incurs costs by attempting to fix it; costs that would otherwise be incurred by a government response.
BP should be forced out of buisness and made to sell of their assets after this. Made an example of to other companies that atempt to cut corners as much.
Edit:
Otherwise, Bush would have done it with Citgo (I think that's the company ran by the government ran by that Venezualan Dude, whose name escapes me.)
(Citgo is a property of Petróleos de Venezuela S.A.)
I am in favor of nuclear fusion as a method of electrical generation. I however prefer more miniaturisation so I won't require a massive structure to house such a generator that will be my power supply in the near future.
I do understand why a portion of you humans are displeased with BP plc. What I do not understand is the logic of protesting a major refueling station in New York City. Such a gamble is more likely to harm (financially) the franchisee and its customers than change how BP plc conducts itself.
Um, you all realize that BP stands for British Petroleum right? It isn't an American Company. Our government forcing another country's company out of business is not the way you handle foreign policy.
Edit:
Otherwise, Bush would have done it with Citgo (I think that's the company ran by the government ran by that Venezualan Dude, whose name escapes me.)
Then ban them from operating inside of the US thats what the government is for to protect the citzens of the country from those who would harm them and BP has proven to not give a dam about people and needs to be made an example of in a big way.
Um, you all realize that BP stands for British Petroleum right? It isn't an American Company. Our government forcing another country's company out of business is not the way you handle foreign policy.
Edit:
Otherwise, Bush would have done it with Citgo (I think that's the company ran by the government ran by that Venezualan Dude, whose name escapes me.)
Then ban them from operating inside of the US thats what the government is for to protect the citzens of the country from those who would harm them and BP has proven to not give a dam about people and needs to be made an example of in a big way.
You are so niaeve.
There have been unconfirmed reports of Dubya being spotted in a wetsuit, planting explosives below the oil rig prior to it exploding...
And Barry has got the perfect solution... halt ALL off-shore drilling! Wow! I'm glad that's taken care of!
First he attacked my culture and my people.
Have I? Unless you're talking about the time I brought up eight specific countries and their laws, I don't believe I have1. However, as that wasn't my intention, I apologize for any undue offense.
That said... again, if you honestly find me to be such a rude, elitist, arrogant bore of a man, then you have options. Put me on your ignore list. Report my inflammatory posts. Or if you'd rather a more gentlemanly solution, tell me that you have no wish to have continued interactions and I will do my best to not respond to your posts so long as you do the same.
But simply lashing out at me whenever the mood strikes you is not constructive.
________
1And if pointing out laws on the books constitutes an "attack", then your people and culture attacked themselves first. I merely highlighted the self-inflicted slight.
The scientific consensus on the issue is not overwhelming. Why? Because then we wouldn't have 59% of the public that thinks scientists can't agree. If it was overwhelming, they'd be overwhelmed. Clearly they aren't even whelmed, never-the-less overwhelmed.
What kind of argument is that escher? Now you are just playing silly word games. The scientific consensus has no bearing on the public consensus. There could be a 100% consensus among scientists on a given issue (an overwhelming consensus), and you could still have a situation where only 12% of the public agrees with the sceince. If people want to ignore good sceince because of partisan leanings, that is their business. But it doesn't make their position more valid.
Not to throw myself under this nice argument train, but the whole "concensus" on global warming thing is a bit of a sham. Is the world getting warmer? I think they've satisfactorily proven that. Is human activity the cause of it? That's where it gets sticky. Certainly we are a major contributing factor and need to do a better job of caring for our environment, but there are other factors that can be just as key. How much of global warming is caused by the current cycle of solar activity (activity that is said to reach its peak in two more years)? I can't say, and I don't know of a single study that has adequately answered it. And do bear in mind that's just when studies fail to take into account possible factors.
As for partisanship, that is a trickier issue. How do you measure the partisanship of a research organization? Is it by monies they received; a record of past public support for one party; or is it something more esoteric? How do you judge whether an organiztion is partisanly affected by contributions? I don't know of a single standard that is used in this measurement, so it seems that the partisanship of an organization (except in cases where it is blatantly obvious) is essentially in the eye of the beholder.
In short, I believe EE has a point about studies (regardless of their validity) being undermined in the public eye. Things like: who funded the organization that paid the scientists, the publicly perceived bias of the organization, etc. can have an affect on their public acceptance.
Global warming?
Again?
...
The planet and sun and solar system does what it does...
Some people stand to make a lot of money off this global scam...
Really?
Global warming?
Again?
Just usin' it as an example of topics on which it's difficult to find a study that's agreed to be "reliable" and "unbiased".
Not really interested in startin' that topic.
Really?
Global warming?
Again?
...
The planet and sun and solar system does what it does...
Some people stand to make a lot of money off this global scam...
Yea, cause nobody stands to gain anything by claiming it is a scam. Especially not the people currently earning all the money peddling fossil fuels.
But regardless of the global warming issue, isn't keeping the air clean of pollution and developing renewable, efficient, clean energy a good idea?
I personally don't mind the crazy weather we're having, I just dont' want lung cancer and I'd like to be able to see the scenic views from the mountains that used to show up.
Global warming, regardless of its root cause, is a red herring.
Finding cleaner, more efficient, renewable energy is common f-ing sense.
Really?
Global warming?
Again?
...
The planet and sun and solar system does what it does...
Some people stand to make a lot of money off this global scam...
Yea, cause nobody stands to gain anything by claiming it is a scam. Especially not the people currently earning all the money peddling fossil fuels.
But regardless of the global warming issue, isn't keeping the air clean of pollution and developing renewable, efficient, clean energy a good idea?
I personally don't mind the crazy weather we're having, I just dont' want lung cancer and I'd like to be able to see the scenic views from the mountains that used to show up.
Global warming, regardless of its root cause, is a red herring.
Finding cleaner, more efficient, renewable energy is common f-ing sense.
+50. Using oil at this date in time is irresponsible. Jimmy Carter was right we should have been switching back then. Only greed and stupidity are keeping us on such an inefficient method of generating energy. Clean renowable energy must be the future, and sooner rather than later or the world will be too far gone for it to fing matter.
Oil is evil!
Bad, bad oil!
Jimmy Carter?
Ah...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Wow!
I haven't laughed like that in a long time... it was great!
Thanks!
Ah...HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oil is evil!
Bad, bad oil!
Jimmy Carter?
Ah...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Wow!
I haven't laughed like that in a long time... it was great!
Thanks!
Oil is bad. It produces pollutants causes smog, and does contribute to global warming. It also has a tendency to spill since corporations suck at initiating proper saftey procedures.
You cant argue those facts at least not intelligently. And at least jimmy carter wasnt a crook like most of the previous administration or an outright traitor like chenney.
And at least jimmy carter wasnt a crook like most of the previous administration or an outright traitor like chenney.
Ahhhh....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Whew!
*Robin wipes tears of mirth from eyes*
Wow!
Can anyone else smell tea?
*sniff*
Can anyone else smell tea?
shrugs if he wants to listen to those people hes free to do what he wants. But the fact is chenney leaked the name of a cia agent to the media for political gain if thats not treason then I dont know what is he should have been executed for that since it happened during a time of war. Then theres the fact that those idiots want us all to go back to living in the 1950s. I bet he's opposed to gay mariage and rights as well.
... Willia, is hyperbole and assuming people's positions on unrelated issues really necessary?
I agree with this sentiment.
On a side note: RH stopped bothering me once I came to the conclusion that his online persona is a performance piece, like Stephen Colbert's on-air persona.
... Willia, is hyperbole and assuming people's positions on unrelated issues really necessary?
I agree with this sentiment.
On a side note: RH stopped bothering me once I came to the conclusion that his online persona is a performance piece, like Stephen Colbert's on-air persona.
Sorry but I thought everyone knew how bad oil was for the enviriornment. Look at what happens when there is a spill, look at the smog over large cities you can't tell me those are good things. This country should be leading the world in finding alternate solutions.
I'm an engineer and working with some oil-plant building companies (we supply raw materials for them, mainly copper) and what they told me is that trying to blow up the rig is not really a safe option with all the natural gas there.
For sure we need to look for alternatives to oil as, aside from pollution issues, we'll have to face the fact that it will run out some day (today the rate of new discoveries vs. consumption is 1 to 4 and the ratio will worsen in the future).
I bet he's opposed to gay mariage and rights as well.
The fact that this is clearly intended as an insult makes me smile.
I bet he's opposed to gay mariage and rights as well.
The fact that this is clearly intended as an insult makes me smile.
shrugs everyones entitled to an opinion.
On oil though it's not that we need alternate fuels eventually we need them NOW there is no reason to further damage the world with drilling if we can find other methods of generating energy. We need to begin switching as soon as possible as in right now.
On oil though it's not that we need alternate fuels eventually we need them NOW there is no reason to further damage the world with drilling if we can find other methods of generating energy. We need to begin switching as soon as possible as in right now.
But that isn't feasible. I mean, research, action, yes, but we just don't have the means to abandon oil right now. It's not just how we get our power or fuel our cars, but plastics plastics plastics. In your milk carton, in your toys, in teh handles of your scissors, in your dice. Plastics, plastics plastics.
Do we need alternatives? Yes. Do we need our government to step up and give some real incentives to finding practical and feasible alternatives? Yes. Do we need to crack down on oil company execs that have been stifling alternatives for a good long while now? Yes. Is it at all workable to abandon oil right now? Nope.
If you don't then here's a hint, new tech costs money and most of America lives below the poverty line. Oil is cheap. It ain't clean and I agree that something should be done but expecting America to ditch oil and move on without a plan to make sure everyone, including the poor, can move on with it is kinda' stupid.
I bet he's opposed to gay mariage and rights as well.
The fact that this is clearly intended as an insult makes me smile.
shrugs everyones entitled to an opinion.
On oil though it's not that we need alternate fuels eventually we need them NOW there is no reason to further damage the world with drilling if we can find other methods of generating energy. We need to begin switching as soon as possible as in right now.
In all fairness, it's not the drilling that actually damages the planet. Geothermal is pretty green and it requires drilling as well. It's the spills and the polluting gases that make oil so bad for the environment.
But I do agree that we need to get off oil sooner rather than later. Even if we go to something that is equally as harmful to the environment (though I would prefer less harmful options) we need to get off oil so we can stop getting militarily involved in the middle east. I would love to see the day when, after we are "off" oil, we can both stop meddling in middle eastern politics and tell the nations over there to sort out their own problems.
On a side note: RH stopped bothering me once I came to the conclusion that his online persona is a performance piece, like Stephen Colbert's on-air persona.
Although I may be more personable and approachable, yes, and even likeable, in real life, I still believe in everything I post.
And I never cease to learn new things... in general as well as about myself.
And yes, sometimes I get "schooled" and even less frequently change my position...
But I don't think demomnizing oil and quitting cold turkey is an answer to the energy problem.
Although I may be more personable and approachable, yes, and even likeable, in real life, I still believe in everything I post.
Ah, but I like you.
But that isn't feasible. I mean, research, action, yes, but we just don't have the means to abandon oil right now. It's not just how we get our power or fuel our cars, but plastics plastics plastics. In your milk carton, in your toys, in teh handles of your scissors, in your dice. Plastics, plastics plastics.
You have plastic in your milk cartons?
But that isn't feasible. I mean, research, action, yes, but we just don't have the means to abandon oil right now. It's not just how we get our power or fuel our cars, but plastics plastics plastics. In your milk carton, in your toys, in teh handles of your scissors, in your dice. Plastics, plastics plastics.
You have plastic in your milk cartons?
We have cardboard cartons where I live, but we also have half-gallon and one-gallon plastic jugs.
Do you guys know how many medical things are/must be made of plastics?
Do you know how plastics have made our lives easier?
Hey, I'm for cutting down on plastic bags and stuff, but lets not start demonizing things...
Although I may be more personable and approachable, yes, and even likeable, in real life, I still believe in everything I post.
Ah, but I like you.
And I you.
Oh don't start demonizing plastic!
Do you guys know how many medical things are/must be made of plastics?
Do you know how plastics have made our lives easier?
Hey, I'm for cutting down on plastic bags and stuff, but lets not start demonizing things...
I'm not demonizing plastic. I agree with you that we need to cut down on packaging (both from a cost and enviro-friendly perspective), but if we could find a way to make plastic from something other than oil, that would be fantastic.
Oh don't start demonizing plastic!
Do you guys know how many medical things are/must be made of plastics?
Do you know how plastics have made our lives easier?
Hey, I'm for cutting down on plastic bags and stuff, but lets not start demonizing things...
Yep, if it weren't plastics almost all surgical equipment would be made out of steel. You want an ecological nightmare wait until we start mining deeper for iron ore. Not good my friend, not good.
Oh don't start demonizing plastic!
Do you guys know how many medical things are/must be made of plastics?
Do you know how plastics have made our lives easier?
Hey, I'm for cutting down on plastic bags and stuff, but lets not start demonizing things...
I'm not demonizing plastic. I agree with you that we need to cut down on packaging (both from a cost and enviro-friendly perspective), but if we could find a way to make plastic from something other than oil, that would be fantastic.
What about synthetically producing the oils to make the plastics? Im no scientist but it seems that we should be able to do that. I know we cant get off oil now but we need to be taking the steps to do so now, otherwise it wont happen soon enough to matter. Theres only a certain time frame before what we do to the world fs it up beyond recovery.
As to the mid east yup as soon as we can get off oil we can put sanctions on Saudia Arabia for their horrible human rights violations and way they treat women. So another reason to get off oil quickly.
You have plastic in your milk cartons?
Sorry, flub. I meant "milk jugs", either the gallon jugs or the smaller weird ones I've started seeing show up.
The cardboard ones are only for the quarts, and even then sometimes they're plastic.
You have plastic in your milk cartons?
Yes. Milk cartons are made from layers of cardboard and polyethylene.
What about synthetically producing the oils to make the plastics?
I'm not sure, but it seems that if we could synthetically produce oil we wouldn't have (all of the) problem(s) we have now.
We can already produce synthetic oil, but its more expensive than drilling for the real thing...
SCIENCE TO THE RESCUE!
At least I hope so. It would be nice if some this new biotech, like synthetic enzymes, and nanotech could cheapen the cost of synthesyzing oil.
We can already produce synthetic oil, but its more expensive than drilling for the real thing...
SCIENCE TO THE RESCUE!
At least I hope so. It would be nice if some this new biotech, like synthetic enzymes, and nanotech could cheapen the cost of synthesyzing oil.
Nano tech Im a little wary of but synthetic enzymes and bio tech are routes that need to be explored and if we can produce synthetic oil then lets find a way to do it cheaper and only use it for making plastics and such as we get our energy off of oil.
Oh don't start demonizing plastic!
Do you guys know how many medical things are/must be made of plastics?
Do you know how plastics have made our lives easier?
Hey, I'm for cutting down on plastic bags and stuff, but lets not start demonizing things...
Which is more reason to cut down on oil consumption for energy. We need to use it to make plastics. Recycling can't cover everything.
Of course, I'm assuming that the grade of oil used in producing petrol and plastics are similar, of which I am admittedly unsure...
I don't hate oil, nor oil barons for making money (nor would I hate any capitalist seeking to make money on green energy). I just think we need alternatives and I'm tired of breathing smoke and nastiness. My city (knoxville, tn) is in the top 20 most polluted cities and in the top 10 of rate of increase in pollution.
This isn't just from the fact that I40 and I75 are two major trade interstate junctions (#1 city for 18-wheelers, allegedly), but also from extensive use of coal (despite numerous nuclear, hydro, and wind stations). And these coal plants are not as heavily regulated due to grandfather clauses.
And awesomely we're in a freaking valley, so everything just sits here...
I'm tired.
/rambling
/rant
On a side note: RH stopped bothering me once I came to the conclusion that his online persona is a performance piece, like Stephen Colbert's on-air persona.
I also suspect he has at least one MUP/sock puppet "opponent" in action at the moment as well.
On a side note: RH stopped bothering me once I came to the conclusion that his online persona is a performance piece, like Stephen Colbert's on-air persona.
I also suspect he has at least one MUP/sock puppet "opponent" in action at the moment as well.
AH HA!
Then you would be wrong!
I do not have but one account at a time.
And since you want to start accusing people of sock puppetry, I should bring your attention to the fact that accusing people of sock puppetry is a violation of the COC... but you already know that and do it anyway...
AH HA!
Then you would be wrong!
I do not have but one account at a time.
And since you want to start accusing people of sock puppetry, I should bring your attention to the fact that accusing people of sock puppetry is a violation of the COC... but you already know that and do it anyway...
It was a supposition, not an accusation.
I thought things were cool with you, mate, but you seem really dead-set on causing strife again, which is a real drag. I mean really, could there be anything more indicative of your clearly adversarial intent than screaming "AH HA!" at someone?
And I am always cool...;)
On a side note: RH stopped bothering me once I came to the conclusion that his online persona is a performance piece, like Stephen Colbert's on-air persona.
I also suspect he has at least one MUP/sock puppet "opponent" in action at the moment as well.
AH HA!
Then you would be wrong!
I do not have but one account at a time.
And since you want to start accusing people of sock puppetry, I should bring your attention to the fact that accusing people of sock puppetry is a violation of the COC... but you already know that and do it anyway...
I also see you having a "sock puppet" opponent. In my case though, I see it as more of a Mr Hat kind of thing.
So in my mind, you are essentially Stephen Colbert's on-air persona arguing with Mr Hat while posting.
I don't have sock puppets, and I don't have a "persona" I assume when posting.
I may be abrasive, outspoken, and controversial, but above all things I'm real.
And as long as you guys are accusing me of sock puppetry, care to provide some evidence?
If not, please stop.
Even though I am not a reportin' kinda guy, I will tend to retaliate...
I said your sock puppet was on your hand, not on the net. I imagine you argue with it vigorously while composing your posts. Then again, I have a very vivid imagination.
Oh!
Well that's funny!
LOL
But just as untrue...
I do not have but one account at a time.
... so you do have more then one account at a time?
Is anyone else as sickened as am I that it seems BP bussed in workers for photo ops during Obama's visit in order to seem like they had more people on the cleanup job: www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/5/31/871...
I can't wait to see how Faux News tries to blame it on Obama. Maybe he could have had them put up a big "Mission Accomplished" banner…
I do not have but one account at a time.
... so you do have more then one account at a time?
Erm...
?
Maybe I said that wrong?
I only have one account... until it gets banned... then I make another one, etc.
I don't have more than 1 account at a time..
No one is "letting" BP clean it up, they are making them do it - for largely the same reason your mom made you clean up your own room: when you make the mess it is your job to clean it up.
Is anyone else as sickened as am I that it seems BP bussed in workers for photo ops during Obama's visit in order to seem like they had more people on the cleanup job: www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/5/31/871...
I can't wait to see how Faux News tries to blame it on Obama. Maybe he could have had them put up a big "Mission Accomplished" banner…
HAHAHAHAHA
Like ACORN didn't bus in voters for Barry!! And are on video bussing in protestors!!!
AHHH.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Nano tech Im a little wary of but synthetic enzymes and bio tech are routes that need to be explored and if we can produce synthetic oil then lets find a way to do it cheaper and only use it for making plastics and such as we get our energy off of oil.
What do you have against nanotechnology?
Anything that comes up from the gulf we get down here. Anything that comes barging in from the Atlantic that doesn't hit Florida? (or sometimes that DOES hit Florida) we get it.
They don't want to get on the ball with this. They have no reason to. It's not their country on the line. (remember there are SEVERAL on the line here not just the US) And they know that frankly given how much they have contributed to this administrations election funding wise that they aren't going to be rushed.
We should be putting political pressure on Britain, and be threatening to just buy out the land BP is using.
So no one wants to help a machine understand why it is appropriate to protest outside a major franchised station?
Its probably due to the fact that not only are people extremely dumb, but they're publicity whores who want to see themselves on the news.
I can't wait to see how Faux News tries to blame it on Obama. Maybe he could have had them put up a big "Mission Accomplished" banner…
They don't need to try. He decided it was his responsibility. Came right out an' said it. Any shortcomings or problems can be blamed on lack of oversight from BO. That's the way he wants it. I don't personally agree with that, but, if blame is cast on the Pres, it's cuz he asked for it. I mean, really. When the Pres comes out and says the Fed is in charge now and was from the beginning, is it really that difficult to see how he could be blamed?
But he's backed away from those comments and started to distance himself in the normal fashion. So I really don't understand what the point of taking full responsibility for a few days was.
I was pretty surprised that he took responsibility. I mean, a politician taking responsibility =P
But he's backed away from those comments and started to distance himself in the normal fashion. So I really don't understand what the point of taking full responsibility for a few days was.
Yeah, he did it in order to avoid the Bush/Katrina stuff and save his approval rating. And he didn't just take responsibility, he took retroactive responsibility by saying it was his show all along. It's, in reality, an incredibly complicated situation with no real go-to guy. There's just too much happening and too much going on. All Obama can responsibly do is push. He doesn't know what could fix it, doesn't understand the technology involved, can't see how the environment itself comes into play, etc, etc and on and on - and that's to be expected. He's no oil industry techy, ya know? So him saying he's in charge is ... him saying he's in charge. But that's what he wanted us to think so any blame shot his way is totally ok with me. Plus, he is the friggin' President. Even if all he can do is push, few can push as hard as he can.
Maybe I said that wrong?
Yep. An extraneous "not". I was originally gonna poke fun at the whole serial multiple accounts1 going on there, but then I noticed the negative and that struck me as even more funny.
________
1Probably making a joke about serial polygamy as practiced in the USA.
I don't think he even knows where to push.
He pushes our allies and pulls our enemies.
He has had no idea what he is doing from the start...
He sort of feels like a modern Herbert Hoover.
But worse...
if you can imagine that...
He sort of feels like a modern Herbert Hoover.
But worse...
if you can imagine that...
No, I don't think he is worse. I just think they both appear equally ineffective.
It's easy enough to explain. A campaign was elected, not a man. When the man inevitably took over, it became all too apparent that all of his bluster was exactly that and that he, contrary to every word he spoke on his way up, is the very definition of a conventional, modern day politician. The party sold the public an image and they bought it. Now that the image is fading and reality is making an appearance, a crapton of people are feeling ... disillusioned if not outright duped. I don't blame Obama for any of it. He did what any and every other politician today does. Make crap up and pretend to care long enough to get elected and then maintain the status quo to ensure your cronies can keep their jobs. The problem I have is with the way he did it - he played the game exactly as everyone else did but told us that what made him different was that he'd not play the game.
It is more than that. Every politician campaigns on "bringing change to Washington". That wasn't what I was expecting. I was expecting a passionate candidate who would be effective in moving his policies forward and offer a clear vision of American foreign policy. Instead, he flinches at every shadow that comes out of Fox news. There is a dramatic shift form the man who campaigned to the man who is in office. It is like he is being too cagey, his guard is up too much, as if he doesn't want to invite controversy. But it is coming anyways and he isn't able to get stuff done.
Its probably due to the fact that not only are people extremely dumb, but they're publicity whores who want to see themselves on the news.
I suppose this answer shall suffice. This situation is similar to that of the protesters boycotting AriZona®, even though the beverage company has little to do with the affairs of Arizona state.
It is more than that. Every politician campaigns on "bringing change to Washington". That wasn't what I was expecting. I was expecting a passionate candidate who would be effective in moving his policies forward and offer a clear vision of American foreign policy. Instead, he flinches at every shadow that comes out of Fox news. There is a dramatic shift form the man who campaigned to the man who is in office. It is like he is being too cagey, his guard is up too much, as if he doesn't want to invite controversy. But it is coming anyways and he isn't able to get stuff done.
But he wasn't just about bringing change. He was about being a different politician. He's not. That's ok, though. It's the price of the office. A party elected him and now he has to repay that party. That's why you're seeing him act so guarded and precise. I don't know that he would have been different, done more if his party didn't have so much control over him (just like the other party and just like everyone else in office - the parties are a business) but I do like to think so - for all the good that does. Anyhoo, every decision he makes has to take the welfare of the other members of the party into consideration - especially those soon up for election. That's his real job and it's a shame. It's why, until we get a viable 3rd party or the system undergoes massive reform, no politician is gonna do anything. It just doesn't pay to rock the boat. Talk about it, sure. Just don't, you know, do it.
Nano tech Im a little wary of but synthetic enzymes and bio tech are routes that need to be explored and if we can produce synthetic oil then lets find a way to do it cheaper and only use it for making plastics and such as we get our energy off of oil.
What do you have against nanotechnology?
Same thing I have against advanced AI technology and actual outright human cloning, or trying to improve human genome too far. I think such things have a lot of potential for abuse if not very closely regulated and monitored and Im not sure most people realize what impact such tech could actually have. I'm for it but with something like Nano tech I want it explored cautiously very very cautiosly.
On to Acorn those allegations have never been proven, and the so called pimp thing was proven to have been edited so those videos are false and can't be trusted, thus I do not believe any of the allegations against them. The people decrying acorn will have to bring a lot more proof before I believe them.
He sort of feels like a modern Herbert Hoover.
But worse...
if you can imagine that...
No, I don't think he is worse. I just think they both appear equally ineffective.
The president has very little power he cant make laws thats the senate any failure I blame on the senate and house. The fing republicans fillabuster everything preventing Obama from doing anything. Hes tried changing things as much as he can at least he repealed dont ask dont tell and is trying to repair americas rep over seas. Fact is America is in a mess not even another FDR would be able to deal with this situation. What we need is a strong third party to break the dead lock and real reform like term limits on senators, national standards for teachers and education. (to prevent things like the new books in Texas which are a travesty every person who approved those should be ashamed). Heck his initial health care plan would have worked this compramise one doesn't have enough teeth to it. For it to work it needs a public option.
He sort of feels like a modern Herbert Hoover.
But worse...
if you can imagine that...
No, I don't think he is worse. I just think they both appear equally ineffective.
The president has very little power he cant make laws thats the senate any failure I blame on the senate and house. The fing republicans fillabuster everything preventing Obama from doing anything. Hes tried changing things as much as he can at least he repealed dont ask dont tell and is trying to repair americas rep over seas. Fact is America is in a mess not even another FDR would be able to deal with this situation. What we need is a strong third party to break the dead lock and real reform like term limits on senators, national standards for teachers and education. (to prevent things like the new books in Texas which are a travesty every person who approved those should be ashamed). Heck his initial health care plan would have worked this compramise one doesn't have enough teeth to it. For it to work it needs a public option.
You Obviously never heard of George Bush then, because for a man with very little power he managed to change the country greatly.
Presidents have no power when they lack majorities in congress. But Obama has an unprecedented majority of Democrats (not even Bush had it this good).
A third party would just artifically stregthen one of the other parties (by siphoning votes from the party most closely aligned with its platform). I don't think our system is well designed for three parties.
Honeslty I just wanted to see more done for the black community. Finally, after centuries of waiting we have a black president and it feels like he forgot about the black community.
He sort of feels like a modern Herbert Hoover.
But worse...
if you can imagine that...
No, I don't think he is worse. I just think they both appear equally ineffective.
The president has very little power he cant make laws thats the senate any failure I blame on the senate and house. The fing republicans fillabuster everything preventing Obama from doing anything. Hes tried changing things as much as he can at least he repealed dont ask dont tell and is trying to repair americas rep over seas. Fact is America is in a mess not even another FDR would be able to deal with this situation. What we need is a strong third party to break the dead lock and real reform like term limits on senators, national standards for teachers and education. (to prevent things like the new books in Texas which are a travesty every person who approved those should be ashamed). Heck his initial health care plan would have worked this compramise one doesn't have enough teeth to it. For it to work it needs a public option.
You Obviously never heard of George Bush then, because for a man with very little power he managed to change the country greatly.
Presidents have no power when they lack majorities in congress. But Obama has an unprecedented majority of Democrats (not even Bush had it this good).
A third party would just artifically stregthen one of the other parties (by siphoning votes from the party most closely aligned with its platform). I don't think our system is well designed for three parties.
Honeslty I just wanted to see more done for the black community. Finally, after centuries of waiting we have a black president and it feels like he forgot about the black community.
The democrats are a more divided party than the republicans getting enough of them to agree is difficult, also the dems never fillabustered as much as the republicans are right now and sadly they dont have a fillabuster proof majority I wish they did. I wish the terrorists could get tried in civilian court. I wish we could have gay lesbian marrigaes legalized everywhere. As for the black community not sure what he could do for them there are a lot of programs for people of that community and more minority scholarships available than there are for non minority people. Hes not just the president for black people but for everyone.
He sort of feels like a modern Herbert Hoover.
But worse...
if you can imagine that...
No, I don't think he is worse. I just think they both appear equally ineffective.
The president has very little power he cant make laws thats the senate any failure I blame on the senate and house. The fing republicans fillabuster everything preventing Obama from doing anything. Hes tried changing things as much as he can at least he repealed dont ask dont tell and is trying to repair americas rep over seas. Fact is America is in a mess not even another FDR would be able to deal with this situation. What we need is a strong third party to break the dead lock and real reform like term limits on senators, national standards for teachers and education. (to prevent things like the new books in Texas which are a travesty every person who approved those should be ashamed). Heck his initial health care plan would have worked this compramise one doesn't have enough teeth to it. For it to work it needs a public option.
You Obviously never heard of George Bush then, because for a man with very little power he managed to change the country greatly.
Presidents have no power when they lack majorities in congress. But Obama has an unprecedented majority of Democrats (not even Bush had it this good).
A third party would just artifically stregthen one of the other parties (by siphoning votes from the party most closely aligned with its platform). I don't think our system is well designed for three parties.
Honeslty I just wanted to see more done for the black community. Finally, after centuries of waiting we have a black president and it feels like he forgot about the black community.
The democrats are a more divided party than the republicans getting enough of them to agree is difficult, also the dems never fillabustered as much as the republicans are right now and sadly they dont have a fillabuster proof majority I wish they did. I wish the terrorists could get tried in civilian court. I wish we could have gay lesbian marrigaes legalized everywhere. As for the black community not sure what he could do for them there are a lot of programs for people of that community and more minority scholarships available than there are for non minority people. Hes not just the president for black people but for everyone.
I don't know, the republicans are pretty divided as well. You can't get much more different than Libertarian and RIght wing Christian, but they somehow managed. Maybe the dems aren't as good at finding common ground with one another. I don't really know the reasons. But the result appears to be a less than effective president on many fronts.
I realize he is the president for everyone, but he is black. In the same way that George Bush was a born again and made a point of reaching out to that constituency. The black community was really expecting a president who understood our concerns and needs more. We don't just need scholarships. We need drugs off our streets, fathers with their children, and greater access to better educations at an earlier age. It's not just me making this criticism. A lot of black commentators like Tavis Smiley have expressed this concern. The problem, frankly, is black people (who voted in record numbers in this election) are in serious danger of becoming dissillusioned and voting in lower numbers next election (which will be bad for the democrats).
The president has very little power he cant make laws thats the senate any failure I blame on the senate and house.
He could have signed a stop-loss executive order the first day he was in office and put an effective end to DADT if he had wanted to. He could have stepped into the health care reform much, much sooner and wrapped that up in a timely manner (he waited almost a year before getting his hands dirty, and when he did, things were done in a month). He could have his Department of Justice not compare homosexuality to incest and bestiality in their briefs. He could have not had the Department of Justice repeatedly defend (using some damn offensive defenses at that) DOMA, DADT and so-on. He could have stood up with Democratic senators to pressure the FDA. He could have given congress a clear path forward on the DADT repeal until waffling about it until congress put pressure on him. He could actually do what he said he would and pull us out of the two wars he said he wanted to end. He could actually put pressure on his party to get legislation passed, as opposed to trying to stand clear and look bipartisan (not that it works).
Don't get me wrong, I think Obama is better then McCain would have been (especially since we're now seeing McCain's self-destruction in his desperate bid to stay in office), but he has plenty of power, he can apply plenty of pressure, and there are lots of things he could have done that he hasn't.
The president has very little power he cant make laws thats the senate any failure I blame on the senate and house.
He could have signed a stop-loss executive order the first day he was in office and put an effective end to DADT if he had wanted to. He could have stepped into the health care reform much, much sooner and wrapped that up in a timely manner (he waited almost a year before getting his hands dirty, and when he did, things were done in a month). He could have his Department of Justice not compare homosexuality to incest and bestiality in their briefs. He could have not had the Department of Justice repeatedly defend (using some damn offensive defenses at that) DOMA, DADT and so-on. He could have stood up with Democratic senators to pressure the FDA. He could have given congress a clear path forward on the DADT repeal until waffling about it until congress put pressure on him. He could actually do what he said he would and pull us out of the two wars he said he wanted to end. He could actually put pressure on his party to get legislation passed, as opposed to trying to stand clear and look bipartisan (not that it works).
Don't get me wrong, I think Obama is better then McCain would have been (especially since we're now seeing McCain's self-destruction in his desperate bid to stay in office), but he has plenty of power, he can apply plenty of pressure, and there are lots of things he could have done that he hasn't.
Emm he has to walk a tight rope I think. If he puts too much pressure on Congress he gets acused of meddling. If he gets too close to the health care bill it really would look like he was shoving it down peoples throats. The thing about Obama is I think he's over compensating for Busch I think he tries to reach compramise a little too often rather than up front leadership. The important thing is Dont ask Dont tell has finally been repealed, not that it was ever a good policy mind you everyone in the military knows at least one gay person. We had two in my berthing and no one cared.
What more could Obama be doing for the black community without alienating the rest of the country?
If he puts too much pressure on Congress he gets acused of meddling.
He isn't being accused of meddling all sorts of other terrible things? You need to watch Fox News some more.
The important thing is Dont ask Dont tell has finally been repealed [...]
And yet the discharges continue with no deadline in sight...
Same thing I have against advanced AI technology and actual outright human cloning, or trying to improve human genome too far. I think such things have a lot of potential for abuse if not very closely regulated and monitored and Im not sure most people realize what impact such tech could actually have. I'm for it but with something like Nano tech I want it explored cautiously very very cautiosly.
All nanotechnology is is technology that's really, really small in size. I don't even thing there's an official definition yet. It doesn't have to deal with life or meddling with cells or anything. My specific field rarely deals with living samples and nanotechnology often times is showcased or referred to at conferences (calling something nanotechnology has become a buzz phrase).
Its really not that special. Its just really small technology.
The president has very little power he cant make laws thats the senate any failure I blame on the senate and house.
He could have signed a stop-loss executive order the first day he was in office and put an effective end to DADT if he had wanted to. He could have stepped into the health care reform much, much sooner and wrapped that up in a timely manner (he waited almost a year before getting his hands dirty, and when he did, things were done in a month). He could have his Department of Justice not compare homosexuality to incest and bestiality in their briefs. He could have not had the Department of Justice repeatedly defend (using some damn offensive defenses at that) DOMA, DADT and so-on. He could have stood up with Democratic senators to pressure the FDA. He could have given congress a clear path forward on the DADT repeal until waffling about it until congress put pressure on him. He could actually do what he said he would and pull us out of the two wars he said he wanted to end. He could actually put pressure on his party to get legislation passed, as opposed to trying to stand clear and look bipartisan (not that it works).
Thank you. This is exactly the sort of stuff I wanted to see him do, but he didn't. Even in cases where he just could have changed the tone by taking a rhetorical stand, I would have been happy. If he had come out passionately defending the need to follow the constitution and the criminal justice process when arraigning terrorists (heck even many republicans I talk to are really worried about civil liberties and our counter terrorism policies). The president isn't just a figure head. He has power. And he has tremendous influence.
Don't get me wrong, I think Obama is better then McCain would have been (especially since we're now seeing McCain's self-destruction in his desperate bid to stay in office), but he has plenty of power, he can apply plenty of pressure, and there are lots of things he could have done that he hasn't.
I am with you. It isn't that I dislike Obama. I am just dissapointed. Really, I just don't get why the republicans can ram through everything they want when they're in office, but the democrats twiddle their thumbs and try not to look like socialists. I can at least respect the republicans for taking a stand, and flying in the face of public opinion when its against them. But the democrats just come accross as people pleasers (which I think becomes like a self fullfilling prophecy, because no one respecte people pleasers).
The president has very little power he cant make laws thats the senate any failure I blame on the senate and house.
He could have signed a stop-loss executive order the first day he was in office and put an effective end to DADT if he had wanted to. He could have stepped into the health care reform much, much sooner and wrapped that up in a timely manner (he waited almost a year before getting his hands dirty, and when he did, things were done in a month). He could have his Department of Justice not compare homosexuality to incest and bestiality in their briefs. He could have not had the Department of Justice repeatedly defend (using some damn offensive defenses at that) DOMA, DADT and so-on. He could have stood up with Democratic senators to pressure the FDA. He could have given congress a clear path forward on the DADT repeal until waffling about it until congress put pressure on him. He could actually do what he said he would and pull us out of the two wars he said he wanted to end. He could actually put pressure on his party to get legislation passed, as opposed to trying to stand clear and look bipartisan (not that it works).
Don't get me wrong, I think Obama is better then McCain would have been (especially since we're now seeing McCain's self-destruction in his desperate bid to stay in office), but he has plenty of power, he can apply plenty of pressure, and there are lots of things he could have done that he hasn't.
Emm he has to walk a tight rope I think. If he puts too much pressure on Congress he gets acused of meddling. If he gets too close to the health care bill it really would look like he was shoving it down peoples throats. The thing about Obama is I think he's over compensating for Busch I think he tries to reach compramise a little too often rather than up front leadership. The important thing is Dont ask Dont tell has finally been repealed, not that it was ever a good policy mind you everyone in the military knows at least one gay person. We had two in my berthing and no one cared.
What more could Obama be doing for the black community without alienating the rest of the country?
He is going to be accused of being a radical and out of touch no matter what he does. I mean, the guy has been playing Mr. Moderate, and they still cry he is a communist. He might as well put forward some robust policies. If he really wants to be like an FDR, he should really be like FDR and make some major changes, knowing that the fruits of those changes will convince people in the long run (FDR was one of the most popular presidents the US has ever had).
Why would it alienate the country to address problems in the black community like our insane level of incarceration, drugs, fatherless homes, lack of education, poverty, etc? If a segment of the country is suffering disproportionately how is it alienating give them some focus. And for God's sake why are people (not you, but commentators in the media) suggesting it would somehow be racist for Barrack Obama to shine the light on a seriously neglected community? You need to understand, black people voted for him, because they really thought he would address these issues. Just like gay people expected him to repeal don't ask don't tell in a timely and assertive manner.
Make no mistake (to use an Obama phrase), the president needs to lead sometimes. It may not be popular in all sectors of the country to defend homosexuals. But he really could have taken a strident moral stance that would have earned him invaluable street cred with the public if he had just stood up and said: "I don't care what republicans say. I don't care what retired generals say. It's wrong to discriminate. Homosexuals are one of the last groups people are allowed to hate openly and I am going to do my part to stop it by signing an executive order. And anyone who doesn't like that can kiss my black a**". That is leadership. That is impressive. Waiting fora consensus to emerge isn't a way to become a great president.
Why would it alienate the country to address problems in the black community like our insane level of incarceration, drugs, fatherless homes, lack of education, poverty, etc? If a segment of the country is suffering disproportionately how is it alienating give them some focus. And for God's sake why are people (not you, but commentators in the media) suggesting it would somehow be racist for Barrack Obama to shine the light on a seriously neglected community? You need to understand, black people voted for him, because they really thought he would address these issues. Just like gay people expected him to repeal don't ask don't tell in a timely and assertive manner.
But you're not being concrete about how he should do it. Have the police stop arresting people? Force fathers back home? I think what people are curious about are what concrete initiatives (such as putting a stop to the abbreviations EE mentioned) you suggest.
He is going to be accused of being a radical and out of touch no matter what he does. I mean, the guy has been playing Mr. Moderate, and they still cry he is a communist. He might as well put forward some robust policies. If he really wants to be like an FDR, he should really be like FDR and make some major changes, knowing that the fruits of those changes will convince people in the long run (FDR was one of the most popular presidents the US has ever had).
Not sure America is really ready for those kinds of radical policies though. I really think if he tried changing things too quickly it would alienate the country.
Why would it alienate the country to address problems in the black community like our insane level of incarceration, drugs, fatherless homes, lack of education, poverty, etc? If a segment of the country is suffering disproportionately how is it alienating give them some focus. And for God's sake why are people (not you, but commentators in the media) suggesting it would somehow be racist for Barrack Obama to shine the light on a seriously neglected community? You need to understand, black people voted for him, because they really thought he would address these issues. Just like gay people expected him to repeal don't ask don't tell in a timely and assertive manner.
The thing is there is only so much the president can do about those things. Changes in the black community will have to come from the black community the government HAS programs for people who want out, I dont really know what the solution is. But education and such is the only way. But the government can't do anything if the people are not willing to change.
Make no mistake (to use an Obama phrase), the president needs to lead sometimes. It may not be popular in all sectors of the country to defend homosexuals. But he really could have taken a strident moral stance that would have earned him invaluable street cred with the public if he had just stood up and said: "I don't care what republicans say. I don't care what retired generals say. It's wrong to discriminate. Homosexuals are one of the last groups people are allowed to hate openly and I am going to do my part to stop it by signing an executive order. And anyone who doesn't like that can kiss my black a**". That is leadership. That is impressive. Waiting fora consensus to emerge isn't a way to become a great president.
Yes it is wrong to discriminate. And dont ask dont tell needs to be completley repealed. And I hope they stop kicking people out soon. Heck I hope they start taking transexuals and such.
Why would it alienate the country to address problems in the black community like our insane level of incarceration, drugs, fatherless homes, lack of education, poverty, etc? If a segment of the country is suffering disproportionately how is it alienating give them some focus. And for God's sake why are people (not you, but commentators in the media) suggesting it would somehow be racist for Barrack Obama to shine the light on a seriously neglected community? You need to understand, black people voted for him, because they really thought he would address these issues. Just like gay people expected him to repeal don't ask don't tell in a timely and assertive manner.
But you're not being concrete about how he should do it. Have the police stop arresting people? Force fathers back home? I think what people are curious about are what concrete initiatives (such as putting a stop to the abbreviations EE mentioned) you suggest.
I would just like to see any attempt on the part of the executive branch to address these issues. They are complicated and I don't expect them to get a homerun on the first swing. With high incarceration rates of black men, I suppose I would like to see more community programs that address both the root causes of the criminal behavior (poverty, absence of fathers, drugs, etc) and help guide young black men away from crime. I think you do it through a combination of education, advocacy, and addressing root causes.
Why would it alienate the country to address problems in the black community like our insane level of incarceration, drugs, fatherless homes, lack of education, poverty, etc? If a segment of the country is suffering disproportionately how is it alienating give them some focus. And for God's sake why are people (not you, but commentators in the media) suggesting it would somehow be racist for Barrack Obama to shine the light on a seriously neglected community? You need to understand, black people voted for him, because they really thought he would address these issues. Just like gay people expected him to repeal don't ask don't tell in a timely and assertive manner.
But you're not being concrete about how he should do it. Have the police stop arresting people? Force fathers back home? I think what people are curious about are what concrete initiatives (such as putting a stop to the abbreviations EE mentioned) you suggest.
Pretty much yeah right now its a cultural thing in the black community with more people dropping out of high school and not going to colledge the government cant force them to care.
The thing is there is only so much the president can do about those things. Changes in the black community will have to come from the black community the government HAS programs for people who want out, I dont really know what the solution is. But education and such is the only way. But the government can't do anything if the people are not willing to change.
Certainly change needs to come from within, but many of the problems are environmental. It is easy to blame black people for their high incarceration rates, their higher level of poverty and their broken homes. But more resources, more programs, and a greater effort to keep young black men out of prison, will yield results.
We aren't unwilling to change. The problems in our communities are just too deep at this point. We need assistance. I don't like that my daughter has to worry about gangs and drugs on her way to school. No child should have to worry about that.
Yes it is wrong to discriminate. And dont ask dont tell needs to be completley repealed. And I hope they stop kicking people out soon. Heck I hope they start taking transexuals and such.
Sometimes the only way to advance change is for the president to take an unpopular stand.
Why would it alienate the country to address problems in the black community like our insane level of incarceration, drugs, fatherless homes, lack of education, poverty, etc? If a segment of the country is suffering disproportionately how is it alienating give them some focus. And for God's sake why are people (not you, but commentators in the media) suggesting it would somehow be racist for Barrack Obama to shine the light on a seriously neglected community? You need to understand, black people voted for him, because they really thought he would address these issues. Just like gay people expected him to repeal don't ask don't tell in a timely and assertive manner.
But you're not being concrete about how he should do it. Have the police stop arresting people? Force fathers back home? I think what people are curious about are what concrete initiatives (such as putting a stop to the abbreviations EE mentioned) you suggest.
Pretty much yeah right now its a cultural thing in the black community with more people dropping out of high school and not going to colledge the government cant force them to care.
It is also environmental. Growing up in the inner city isn't like growing up in the suburbs. There are serious temptations that lure young black men away from schools. They live in a sea of gangs and drugs. And what is more, the lack of fathers means these men often don't have the guidance (though the lord knows their mothers try as hard as they can) to fend these things off. I for one believe there should be stronger measures in place to penalize men for having children and taking off. Because what we are doing now isn't working.
I would just like to see any attempt on the part of the executive branch to address these issues. They are complicated and I don't expect them to get a homerun on the first swing. With high incarceration rates of black men, I suppose I would like to see more community programs that address both the root causes of the criminal behavior (poverty, absence of fathers, drugs, etc) and help guide young black men away from crime. I think you do it through a combination of education, advocacy, and addressing root causes.
You're right, it's complicated. Much more complicated than just asking the black community to change, but also more complicated than just running programs. I think money is a large issue. Americans generally don't want the government to interfere, and that includes taking their hard-earned money for taxes to use for programs for black kids. Not even most of the people who voted for Obama. Many other countries are used to be government investing billions in addressing social issues, because this has served them well for decades, but unless Obama does something very decisive, which has a large, measurable effect well before the next election, he likely wont get away with it. In other words, he has to get a homerun in first swing.
I for one believe there should be stronger measures in place to penalize men for having children and taking off. Because what we are doing now isn't working.
I'm not sure it's realistic. Sure, it fits with the democrats because it's about social responsibility and helping women and children, and it fits with the republicans because it's about punishing people for failing in their moral obligations, but the US appears to have a very large, influential men's rights movement, which is already protesting that men don't have enough reproductive control, including the choice to abandon the child completely.
Why would it alienate the country to address problems in the black community like our insane level of incarceration, drugs, fatherless homes, lack of education, poverty, etc? If a segment of the country is suffering disproportionately how is it alienating give them some focus. And for God's sake why are people (not you, but commentators in the media) suggesting it would somehow be racist for Barrack Obama to shine the light on a seriously neglected community? You need to understand, black people voted for him, because they really thought he would address these issues. Just like gay people expected him to repeal don't ask don't tell in a timely and assertive manner.
But you're not being concrete about how he should do it. Have the police stop arresting people? Force fathers back home? I think what people are curious about are what concrete initiatives (such as putting a stop to the abbreviations EE mentioned) you suggest.
Pretty much yeah right now its a cultural thing in the black community with more people dropping out of high school and not going to colledge the government cant force them to care.
It is also environmental. Growing up in the inner city isn't like growing up in the suburbs. There are serious temptations that lure young black men away from schools. They live in a sea of gangs and drugs. And what is more, the lack of fathers means these men often don't have the guidance (though the lord knows their mothers try as hard as they can) to fend these things off. I for one believe there should be stronger measures in place to penalize men for having children and taking off. Because what we are doing now isn't working.
There already are called child support payments and such. Im not saying the inner city is the same as the suburbs but there are poor places that are not in the inner city such as the Applachian mountain regions. Any impovrished area is bad, and while the government should do what it can without raising taxes there isnt much they can do same with health care. I dont think America is willing to accept those kinds of taxes and such.
well, according to NOAA - no oil raindrops, at least.
*breaths massive sigh of relief for my inland froggy buddies*
He could have his Department of Justice not compare homosexuality to incest and bestiality in their briefs.
Huh? Why? All three are sexual practices that many find repulsive on a moral/religious/gut level. I can see alot of ground for comparing the three. The fact that one (or perhapes 2) are gaining in acceptance does not make the comparisons any less apt. "A guy having sex with a guy" "A guy having sex with his sister" "A woman having sex with her dog"; none of these are things I would ever be involved in, and I recoil at the thought of actually doing them. But if others want to do these things, who am I to tell them not too? Who are you?
Why would it alienate the country to address problems in the black community like our insane level of incarceration, drugs, fatherless homes, lack of education, poverty, etc? If a segment of the country is suffering disproportionately how is it alienating give them some focus. And for God's sake why are people (not you, but commentators in the media) suggesting it would somehow be racist for Barrack Obama to shine the light on a seriously neglected community? You need to understand, black people voted for him, because they really thought he would address these issues. Just like gay people expected him to repeal don't ask don't tell in a timely and assertive manner.
But you're not being concrete about how he should do it. Have the police stop arresting people? Force fathers back home? I think what people are curious about are what concrete initiatives (such as putting a stop to the abbreviations EE mentioned) you suggest.
Pretty much yeah right now its a cultural thing in the black community with more people dropping out of high school and not going to colledge the government cant force them to care.
It is also environmental. Growing up in the inner city isn't like growing up in the suburbs. There are serious temptations that lure young black men away from schools. They live in a sea of gangs and drugs. And what is more, the lack of fathers means these men often don't have the guidance (though the lord knows their mothers try as hard as they can) to fend these things off. I for one believe there should be stronger measures in place to penalize men for having children and taking off. Because what we are doing now isn't working.
There already are called child support payments and such. Im not saying the inner city is the same as the suburbs but there are poor places that are not in the inner city such as the Applachian mountain regions. Any impovrished area is bad, and while the government should do what it can without raising taxes there isnt much they can do same with health care. I dont think America is willing to accept those kinds of taxes and such.
I agree that black communities aren't the only ones' suffering or the only ones' in need of attention. But as a group black people are disproportionately effected by these sorts of social ills.
I wasn't thinking child support. There are lots of guys I know that are paying multiple court ordered child support for their children, and they brag that they are good "providers". The problem is they don't spend time with their children. They seem to think it begins and ends at paying the mom money once a month.
Well, I am in favor of raising taxes on the wealthy. Our tax system used to be much more progressive and was able, as a result, to pay for more (that was also a period of great prosperity in general in this country.
Huh? Why?
First, the Department of Justice doesn't have to defend laws the president doesn't support. This is well established.
Second, when the President claims to be a "fierce advocate" for the LGBT community, it kinda grates when his Department of Justice then defends laws that hurt us.
Third, when in their defense of laws the President has claimed he thinks should be repealed, the Department of Justice goes out of their way to not just argue the merits of the laws and their constitutionality, but to needlessly further stigmatize homosexuality by comparing it to dog-****ing, it really makes one wonder what happened to the "fierce advocate" he promised to be.
Huh? Why?
First, the Department of Justice doesn't have to defend laws the president doesn't support. This is well established.
Second, when the President claims to be a "fierce advocate" for the LGBT community, it kinda grates when his Department of Justice then defends laws that hurt us.
Third, when in their defense of laws the President has claimed he thinks should be repealed, the Department of Justice goes out of their way to not just argue the merits of the laws and their constitutionality, but to needlessly further stigmatize homosexuality by comparing it to dog-****ing, it really makes one wonder what happened to the "fierce advocate" he promised to be.
Actually just because some presidents can and do choose not to enforce certain laws, the duties of the executive branch include enforcing all laws. That said, he should still take a stand.
And regardless what the law is, comparing gays and lesbians to people who engage in bestiality is demonization. It is a lot like when Europeans used to compare Jews to rats. To see Obama's administration engage in that kind of hate speech is just shocking. Simply shocking.
Failing to tell some people to not compare a specific thing to other similiar things before they make such a comparision is stretching a bit far as an example of an insult.
Isn't it a bit hypocritical to say people should not meddle in your sexual encounters so long as your not hurting anyone, and then turn around and decry groups who want the same? You do not want homosexuality to be seen as a bad thing, so why are you1 insistent on seeing bestiality to be a bad thing (in instances where the animals are not harmed). I fail to see how it could be insulting without such a viewpoint.
As far as I can reason, Beastiality and Incest can probably trace their heritage as taboo sexual practices back to the same cause as said heratige of homosexuality; they weaken the community gene pool by allowing people sexual urges to be expended down avenues that do not result in viable offspring for the family. I see no reason to be accepting of the one but not of the others.
The "Huh? Why?" part was about the not comparing homosexuality to bestiality and incest, not anything about defending laws for no reason or whatever it is your talking about. Compareing Thing A that Group 1 does not like to similiar Thing B and Thing C that Group 1 also tends to not like.
Failing to tell some people to not compare a specific thing to other similiar things before they make such a comparision is stretching a bit far as an example of an insult.
Isn't it a bit hypocritical to say people should not meddle in your sexual encounters so long as your not hurting anyone, and then turn around and decry groups who want the same? You do not want homosexuality to be seen as a bad thing, so why are you1 insistent on seeing bestiality to be a bad thing (in instances where the animals are not harmed). I fail to see how it could be insulting without such a viewpoint.
As far as I can reason, Beastiality and Incest can probably trace their heritage as taboo sexual practices back to the same cause as said heratige of homosexuality; they weaken the community gene pool by allowing people sexual urges to be expended down avenues that do not result in viable offspring for the family. I see no reason to be accepting of the one but not of the others.
Incest can actually be harmful though by increasing the likely hood of genetic defects in the offspring and lead to all kinds of mental health problems for those involved, especially when most cases of incest in modern times involve some form of child abuse. You can't compare homosexuality to that.
Incest can actually be harmful though by increasing the likely hood of genetic defects in the offspring and lead to all kinds of mental health problems for those involved, especially when most cases of incest in modern times involve some form of child abuse. You can't compare homosexuality to that.
The same can be said of allowing people with a personal or family history of mental or physical illness breed.
As for 'most cases involving crime x" thats as valid a viewpoint as being aginst homosexuality becuase a 'large percentage of cases of homosexuality involve some sort of sodomy'. True, but rather off target.
Incest can actually be harmful though by increasing the likely hood of genetic defects in the offspring and lead to all kinds of mental health problems for those involved, especially when most cases of incest in modern times involve some form of child abuse. You can't compare homosexuality to that.
The same can be said of allowing people with a personal or family history of mental or physical illness breed.
As for 'most cases involving crime x" thats as valid a viewpoint as being aginst homosexuality becuase a 'large percentage of cases of homosexuality involve some sort of sodomy'. True, but rather off target.
The two are completley different things there are valid reasons to ban incest such as health of the child, there are no such reasons to ban gay marriage and such.
[Otherwise it still ammounts to meedling in someone sex life because it isn't likely to produce good offspring, or rather, pretending that is what we are doing.]
Actually just because some presidents can and do choose not to enforce certain laws, the duties of the executive branch include enforcing all laws. That said, he should still take a stand.
I could dig up the article that gives the history and precedent, but the point is that Obama didnot have to have the DoJ defend DADT and DOMA in court. He chose to have the DoJ do so. And when they did so, they went above and beyond the call of duty in an attempt to further stigmatize LGBT.
Did they do something else that you consider 'being nasty' or are you just asserting that comparing homosexuality to bestiality constitutes 'being nasty', because it superficially appears a reasonable comparision.
Not having seen said argument, perhapes they could have been making disparging remarks about both homosexuality and bestiality, but considering a comparision to bestality as 'being nasty' would require a rather large censure of bestality to make sense, which seems a rather hypocritical stance for the LGBT community in general to take.
I mean, protesting comarisons between Yourselves and X is as good as condeming X. When X shares many similarites with yourselves, this seems like a poorly thought out thing to do.
Anywho, pretty far afeild from the threads topic.
Then stop responding to me. I already said that I think its rather off topic, and that I do not think either of us really wants to have this conversation (seems I was right). I still think its hypocritical, however.
But as a group black people are disproportionately effected by these sorts of social ills.
Statements like the above need proof... otherwise, I am not convinced. Perhaps blacks are more vocal in their lamenting and given more media coverage?
And the so-called black leaders, like Sharpton and Jackson, have a stake in keeping the black man down... their livelihood depends on it.
Also, personal responsibility plays a big part in the plight of the black man...
Not a question of hypocrisy, I think, TA - but relativity. He mentioned morals and ethics. For him, one crosses the line, the other doesn't. For others, both do equally. (and I believe, but cannot prove, that for yet others, it is reversed - think farmer/cowboy jokes)
And there is the rub.
[I]t superficially appears a reasonable comparision.
For extremely loose definitions of "superficially appears" and "reasonable", maybe. But probably not.
Seriously, I thought the issue with homosexuality was that the creatures that tend to be involved were too similar? Seems bestiality more closely resembles heterosexuality to me.
I mean, from where I'm standing it seems like dating someone of a completely different sex is already a bit much, but now you want a completely different species too?
[I]t superficially appears a reasonable comparision.
For extremely loose definitions of "superficially appears" and "reasonable", maybe. But probably not.
Seriously, I thought the issue with homosexuality was that the creatures that tend to be involved were too similar? Seems bestiality more closely resembles heterosexuality to me.
I mean, from where I'm standing it seems like dating someone of a completely different sex is already a bit much, but now you want a completely different species too?
I don't think TA wants to date anything other than other amphibians like himself. I believe he's speaking in hypotheticals. You may also be, just wanted to be clear.
I also (somewhat) agree with TA, insofar as I really want to see minotaurs in my lifetime.
An extreme libertarian anthrocentric view would say that an individual human's right to do anything it wanted to any other non-humnan creature would be well within their rights, as long as it didn't infringe on the rights of others. Same with incest.
Just spouting hypothetical BS of course.
I am with you. It isn't that I dislike Obama. I am just dissapointed. Really, I just don't get why the republicans can ram through everything they want when they're in office, but the democrats twiddle their thumbs and try not to look like socialists. I can at least respect the republicans for taking a stand, and flying in the face of public opinion when its against them. But the democrats just come accross as people pleasers (which I think becomes like a self fullfilling prophecy, because no one respecte people pleasers).
I concur. While I respect and agree with Obama's ideals of bipartisanship the concept only works if both sides buy into it. When it becomes clear the other party not only refuses to engage in bipartisan governance but is committed to actively blocking and hindering anything the ruling party does then one must, regretfully, say "well
you, then" and use the overwhelming mandate granted by the people and get on with the act of governing.I am with you. It isn't that I dislike Obama. I am just dissapointed. Really, I just don't get why the republicans can ram through everything they want when they're in office, but the democrats twiddle their thumbs and try not to look like socialists. I can at least respect the republicans for taking a stand, and flying in the face of public opinion when its against them. But the democrats just come accross as people pleasers (which I think becomes like a self fullfilling prophecy, because no one respecte people pleasers).
I concur. While I respect and agree with Obama's ideals of bipartisanship the concept only works if both sides buy into it. When it becomes clear the other party not only refuses to engage in bipartisan governance but is committed to actively blocking and hindering anything the ruling party does then one must, regretfully, say "well
Totally. And I get that this is a center right country. But we need to ask ourselves, why is that? Partly I think its becuase the republicans have painted a demon picture of liberalism, and since the democrats haven't had the fortitude to be true liberals, and therefore the people don't really even know what liberalism is in practice anymore, liberalism becomes whatever the people fear most. I mean, I liked Clinton, but he wasn't a liberal. The closest thing was Jimmy Carter, and he failed because he wasn't a good leader, not because he was liberal. But since then, democrats seem to feel the need to match republicans. To show they aren't weak, or they aren't really into social programs, etc. They just let the republicans controlt he debate. The republicans say "we're for freedom", and instead of the democrats retaliating with "No, they are for greed, and we are for charity and social good" they say "wait, wait, we are for freedom too". Its the constant buckling that causes them to lose votes. You can't get forward by trying to be like the other party.
For extremely loose definitions of "superficially appears" and "reasonable", maybe. But probably not.
Seriously, I thought the issue with homosexuality was that the creatures that tend to be involved were too similar? Seems bestiality more closely resembles heterosexuality to me.
I mean, from where I'm standing it seems like dating someone of a completely different sex is already a bit much, but now you want a completely different species too?
Not really. I mean, there's a biological reason that heterosexual sex makes sense. Without it, we'd not be having this conversation right now. That's not, of course, to say that homosexual sex does not make sense. Not at all. I'm just trying to say that hetero sex would be considered the 'norm' simply because it's how life works. To me, both are 'normal'. Whatever that means. Hopefully that came across as intended and didn't light a fire under anyone's bum.
Re: Obstructionist tactics.
There may well be a reason that the Reps are blocking all sorts of legislation, you know. Namely the fact that they were elected by Republican voters that don't particularly like a lot of the stuff that is being attempted. They're doing their 'job' and representing the people that elected them. It's just the way the stupid two party system works and it's a direct result of the increasing gap between the parties. They'll never work together because, in order to get elected, you need to be on an extreme end. Once elected, you need to rep your extreme position or risk being ousted. We don't have a gov't any more. We have political theater. The reason I put the above 'job' in quotes is because that's what their job is supposed to be. In reality, their job is to maintain the party and keep as many members of the party - particularly themselves - employed as possible. Obama works for the Democrat party - not us. McCain would have worked for the Republican party - not us. It's just how it works now. We need massive change to fix this mess. Change we ain't gonna get any time soon because the people we keep asking to make the change are the ones that benefit from the status quo. As far as the workings of the gov't are concerned, every politician is a Conservative.
Conservative: I believe X.
Liberal: I believe Y.
Conservative: HAHAHA! That is so stupid and lame, you're a bad person for believing that, and I don't have to show anything to prove it.
Liberal: Oh, ok, I'll drop it then.
Not really. I mean, there's a biological reason that heterosexual sex makes sense. Without it, we'd not be having this conversation right now. That's not, of course, to say that homosexual sex does not make sense. Not at all. I'm just trying to say that hetero sex would be considered the 'norm' simply because it's how life works. To me, both are 'normal'. Whatever that means. Hopefully that came across as intended and didn't light a fire under anyone's bum.
I think part of the problem is that a lot of people think the word "normal" is a value-judgement. A bigger part of the problem is they are often right.
Liberals are weak. That's a part of being a liberal. We don't want to tell people how to live beyond telling them they can't infringe on others. As such we are unlikely to push issues onto other people (because they have a right to do whatever). So arguments go something like this:
Conservative: I believe X, here's why.
Liberal: I believe Y, here's why.
Conservative: HAHAHA! That is so stupid and lame, you're a bad person for believing that, and I don't have to show anything to prove it.
Liberal: Oh, ok, I'll drop it then.
But we aren't. Perhaps now they are timid. But in the past, liberals were very vocal. FDR was no push-over, neither were Kennedy or Johnson. Ted Kennedy was called the liberal lion for a reason. Now we don't seem to have any lions. The closest I've seen is Anthony Weiner.
On the other hand, the republican party is full of lions. You can't stop them from roaring.
I think part of the problem is that a lot of people think the word "normal" is a value-judgement. A bigger part of the problem is they are often right.
Too true.
Liberals are weak. That's a part of being a liberal. We don't want to tell people how to live beyond telling them they can't infringe on others. As such we are unlikely to push issues onto other people (because they have a right to do whatever). So most arguments uiltimately go something like this:
Conservative: I believe X.
Liberal: I believe Y.
Conservative: HAHAHA! That is so stupid and lame, you're a bad person for believing that, and I don't have to show anything to prove it.
Liberal: Oh, ok, I'll drop it then.
I don't think that's true at all. Liberals are just as apt to attempt to force their ideals upon others as Conservatives are. Gun control, I think, is the biggest example. It used to be censorship, but the Reps have totally stolen that one. Other than that, you have Pelosi constantly threatening to ram all sorts of stuff through without any Rep support whatsoever. That means more than party lines. People elected those reps and they did so for a reason. So, yeah. I don't think this is true at all.
I don't think that's true at all. Liberals are just as apt to attempt to force their ideals upon others as Conservatives are. Gun control, I think, is the biggest example. It used to be censorship, but the Reps have totally stolen that one. Other than that, you have Pelosi constantly threatening to ram all sorts of stuff through without any Rep support whatsoever. That means more than party lines. People elected those reps and they did so for a reason. So, yeah. I don't think this is true at all.
My thoughts exactly. Both parties honestly believe that they are more for freedom than their opposition.
My thoughts exactly. Both parties honestly believe that they are more for freedom than their opposition.
Yup. The problem is, so many people buy it. 'Course, that's the point.
I don't think that's true at all. Liberals are just as apt to attempt to force their ideals upon others as Conservatives are. Gun control, I think, is the biggest example. It used to be censorship, but the Reps have totally stolen that one. Other than that, you have Pelosi constantly threatening to ram all sorts of stuff through without any Rep support whatsoever. That means more than party lines. People elected those reps and they did so for a reason. So, yeah. I don't think this is true at all.
My thoughts exactly. Both parties honestly believe that they are more for freedom than their opposition.
My issue with the democrats is that it feels like they spend most of their time trying to prove they aren't as bad as the republicans say they are. But I rarely see republicans doing the same thing. They have a confidence that the democrats appear to have lost. And the democrats have an unprecedented majority. One of the things the Republicans were good at was getting things through, so they could go back and show their base they had actually achieved something. But the democrat base is furious, because it has all been compromise and caution. I just don't see the boldness in the democrats that I see in the republican party.
I don't think that's true at all. Liberals are just as apt to attempt to force their ideals upon others as Conservatives are. Gun control, I think, is the biggest example. It used to be censorship, but the Reps have totally stolen that one. Other than that, you have Pelosi constantly threatening to ram all sorts of stuff through without any Rep support whatsoever. That means more than party lines. People elected those reps and they did so for a reason. So, yeah. I don't think this is true at all.
But here is the difference. Republicans come out and say what they are for proudly. When was the last time you heard a democrat say real gun control was an important issue? Honestly, most just want it to go away, because its an issue they know can get them in trouble. But even on issues republicans know are unpopular they stick to their guns (sorry couldn't resist), and make a solid argument based on what looks like a consistent philsophy. Because the dems are so much fighting but running, and in the process just throwing what works for the moment in the ring, they don't really have the same consistent foundation the republicans are for. They end up saying things like "I am for regulation and social programs I am also for small government and lower taxes". Those two things don't go together. If they want people to take them seriously they have to be in the forefront (perhaps losing ground initially) making a good argument for why government can be a force for good.
That's certainly fair. I think there's some boldness there (Hil-dog and Pelosi) but not everywhere it would need to be to actually force things through. And Obama has really moved away from all of his campaign force to be reckoned with-ness.
Even people like Pelosi don't come out charging. Gingrich charged. He came out and said what the base was thinking, whether it got him in trouble or not. He understood how you pursuade people. He made a statement that might seem shocking at first to people unnaccustomed to it, then he would say "no see, this makes perfect sense if you want to do X, you have to do Y". As much as I disagree with the man, he was a brilliant politician. Pelosi, she panders to the base lightly. She may attack republicans loudly. But that isn't the same as being bold. Bold would be: "yes, we need to raise taxes on the wealthy, and we want to grow the size of government, here is how". It's rhetorical Judo. Instead of fighting the republicans ("we're not socialist, we don't want higher taxes, we want lower taxes, smaller governmetn and social programs at the same time"), they should turn it around. "No we want to help the american people, we don't think greed is a good starting point for a prosperous society. Whether you agree that the republicans are promoting greed, or whether you disagree with greed being a bad thing, you can see they've staked out a position and turned the attack on the republicans at the same time. And on top of that, they have a position that is internally consistent. The one they have now isn't, and that is why people don't take them seriously.
Liberals are weak. That's a part of being a liberal. We don't want to tell people how to live beyond telling them they can't infringe on others. As such we are unlikely to push issues onto other people (because they have a right to do whatever). So most arguments uiltimately go something like this:
Conservative: I believe X.
Liberal: I believe Y.
Conservative: HAHAHA! That is so stupid and lame, you're a bad person for believing that, and I don't have to show anything to prove it.
Liberal: Oh, ok, I'll drop it then.
I don't think that's true at all. Liberals are just as apt to attempt to force their ideals upon others as Conservatives are. Gun control, I think, is the biggest example. It used to be censorship, but the Reps have totally stolen that one. Other than that, you have Pelosi constantly threatening to ram all sorts of stuff through without any Rep support whatsoever. That means more than party lines. People elected those reps and they did so for a reason. So, yeah. I don't think this is true at all.
Oh, ok, I'll drop it then.
Just kidding!
I was using a more text-book definition of liberal, rather than the political party. Which is probably a bad idea.
Liberal, not leftist/democrat. I personally (as a liberal) have no problem with anyone owning guns (nor censorship). As long as they don't use those guns to shoot other people (except in self-defense). I myself (as you could probably guess) would never own a gun, and I think they're primitive and stupid machines used for naught but killing and monkey-fun, but my personal opinions don't apply to other people. I also have no problem with people enjoying what I call "monkey-fun", it is fun after all; I myself enjoy many things that I would also consider monkey-fun. I mean, I love paintball...
And of course, as per normal, I probably included a lot of hyperbole and bad sarcasm.
Liberals are weak. That's a part of being a liberal. We don't want to tell people how to live beyond telling them they can't infringe on others. As such we are unlikely to push issues onto other people (because they have a right to do whatever). So most arguments uiltimately go something like this:
Conservative: I believe X.
Liberal: I believe Y.
Conservative: HAHAHA! That is so stupid and lame, you're a bad person for believing that, and I don't have to show anything to prove it.
Liberal: Oh, ok, I'll drop it then.
I don't think that's true at all. Liberals are just as apt to attempt to force their ideals upon others as Conservatives are. Gun control, I think, is the biggest example. It used to be censorship, but the Reps have totally stolen that one. Other than that, you have Pelosi constantly threatening to ram all sorts of stuff through without any Rep support whatsoever. That means more than party lines. People elected those reps and they did so for a reason. So, yeah. I don't think this is true at all.
Oh, ok, I'll drop it then.
Just kidding!
I was using a more text-book definition of liberal, rather than the political party. Which is probably a bad idea.
Liberal, not leftist/democrat. I personally (as a liberal) have no problem with anyone owning guns (nor censorship). As long as they don't use those guns to shoot other people (except in self-defense). I myself (as you could probably guess) would never own a gun, and I think they're primitive and stupid machines used for naught but killing and monkey-fun, but my personal opinions don't apply to other people. I also have no problem with people enjoying what I call "monkey-fun", it is fun after all; I myself enjoy many things that I would also consider monkey-fun. I mean, I love paintball...
And of course, as per normal, I probably included a lot of hyperbole and bad sarcasm.
I am pro gun control. I think people should be able to own firearms for self protection (but I don't think they need assault rifles or explosives). However, I am in favor of gun control limits such as waiting periods and screening processes. I don't want foreign or domestic terrorists getting their hands on guns, and I don't want violent criminals getting their hands on guns. I also want stronger laws in place for misuse of firearms. A major problem where I live is people being hit in their homes because either a person in the apartment above, beside or below you discharges a firearms stupidly, or people getting caught in the cross fire and gang violence. Most gang members own illegal firearms anyways (they aren't going to commit crimes with traceable guns), so attacking on the use end would be an effective way to deter them from putting others at risk. But we have also had more than our share of legal firearms shot off at a party that hit someone.
I am pro gun control. I think people should be able to own firearms for self protection (but I don't think they need assault rifles or explosives). However, I am in favor of gun control limits such as waiting periods and screening processes. I don't want foreign or domestic terrorists getting their hands on guns, and I don't want violent criminals getting their hands on guns. I also want stronger laws in place for misuse of firearms. A major problem where I live is people being hit in their homes because either a person in the apartment above, beside or below you discharges a firearms stupidly, or people getting caught in the cross fire and gang violence. Most gang members own illegal firearms anyways (they aren't going to commit crimes with traceable guns), so attacking on the use end would be an effective way to deter them from putting others at risk. But we have also had more than our share of legal firearms shot off at a party that hit someone.
Regulation sure. Removal, not so much. I'm sure everyone can agree we don't want criminals having easy access to guns.
Licensing should be sufficient. People get killed by cars driven by stupid people too. It's (very very loosely) similar to accidental death from guns.
You don't take away everyone's car because a drunken illegal immigrant stole a car and hit somebody with it.
I am pro gun control. I think people should be able to own firearms for self protection (but I don't think they need assault rifles or explosives). However, I am in favor of gun control limits such as waiting periods and screening processes. I don't want foreign or domestic terrorists getting their hands on guns, and I don't want violent criminals getting their hands on guns. I also want stronger laws in place for misuse of firearms. A major problem where I live is people being hit in their homes because either a person in the apartment above, beside or below you discharges a firearms stupidly, or people getting caught in the cross fire and gang violence. Most gang members own illegal firearms anyways (they aren't going to commit crimes with traceable guns), so attacking on the use end would be an effective way to deter them from putting others at risk. But we have also had more than our share of legal firearms shot off at a party that hit someone.
Regulation sure. Removal, not so much. I'm sure everyone can agree we don't want criminals having easy access to guns.
Licensing should be sufficient. People get killed by cars driven by stupid people too. It's (very very loosely) similar to accidental death from guns.
You don't take away everyone's car because a drunken illegal immigrant stole a car and hit somebody with it.
No but you could regulate cars more effectively. When people have numerous moving violations or DUIs, maybe we should take their license away sooner. I can't tell you the number of times me and my family have nearly been killed by a carload of young people going 80 miles an hour and weaving in and out of traffick. Guns like cars, should be used responsibly and I have no problem with the state regulating their use.
There may well be a reason that the Reps are blocking all sorts of legislation, you know. Namely the fact that they were elected by Republican voters that don't particularly like a lot of the stuff that is being attempted.
But in quite a few provable cases, they're lying about what the legislation does to their constituents in order to get them to rail against it. They lied about HCR (remember "death panels"?), they lied about Hate Crimes legislation (So far not a single preacher has been arrested for preaching their hate), they lied about Wall Street Reform ("infinite bailouts"), they lie about the stimulus bills (at least while in DC. Then they turned around and in their own states said "hey, this is working great! look what I got for you! Ain't stimulus great?"), they work directly against their constituent's wishes (remember when they were trying to find a place to house the Guantanamo inmates? How that small town said "hell yeah we'll take 'em!" and then their senator said "**** no, get out of here!") and so-on.
That's not representing your constituents, that's lying to them so they "want" what your party wants.
Heck, even DADT-repeal has support among 60% of Republicans, but that only got 5 votes in the House. (Not to mention they're lying about that being an instant repeal as well. Admittedly, so are the Democrats.)
Not saying that Democrats don't lie too, but when you have to lie to someone to get them to support your party's position, that position isn't really the position of the people, ya know?
But here is the difference. Republicans come out and say what they are for proudly. When was the last time you heard a democrat say real gun control was an important issue? Honestly, most just want it to go away, because its an issue they know can get them in trouble. But even on issues republicans know are unpopular they stick to their guns (sorry couldn't resist), and make a solid argument based on what looks like a consistent philsophy. Because the dems are so much fighting but running, and in the process just throwing what works for the moment in the ring, they don't really have the same consistent foundation the republicans are for. They end up saying things like "I am for regulation and social programs I am also for small government and lower taxes". Those two things don't go together. If they want people to take them seriously they have to be in the forefront (perhaps losing ground initially) making a good argument for why government can be a force for good.
That's true. Outside of a couple of individuals, the Dems don't have that consistancy. What's odd is that, now that they have control, they're not consolidating their position. It would seem like the perfect time to fix the problem. The waffling got them to a safe place, why not use that place to stop the waffling? But yeah, it's pretty impossible to be satisfied by a political party.
Even people like Pelosi don't come out charging. Gingrich charged. He came out and said what the base was thinking, whether it got him in trouble or not. He understood how you pursuade people. He made a statement that might seem shocking at first to people unnaccustomed to it, then he would say "no see, this makes perfect sense if you want to do X, you have to do Y". As much as I disagree with the man, he was a brilliant politician. Pelosi, she panders to the base lightly. She may attack republicans loudly. But that isn't the same as being bold. Bold would be: "yes, we need to raise taxes on the wealthy, and we want to grow the size of government, here is how". It's rhetorical Judo. Instead of fighting the republicans ("we're not socialist, we don't want higher taxes, we want lower taxes, smaller governmetn and social programs at the same time"), they should turn it around. "No we want to help the american people, we don't think greed is a good starting point for a prosperous society. Whether you agree that the republicans are promoting greed, or whether you disagree with greed being a bad thing, you can see they've staked out a position and turned the attack on the republicans at the same time. And on top of that, they have a position that is internally consistent. The one they have now isn't, and that is why people don't take them seriously.
I'd consider Pelosi to be a charger, though. She may not be charging in the best way to advance whatever goals she's fighting for, but she is a firebrand all the same. Still, the consistancy issues are pretty major.
Oh, ok, I'll drop it then.
Just kidding!
I was using a more text-book definition of liberal, rather than the political party. Which is probably a bad idea.
Liberal, not leftist/democrat. I personally (as a liberal) have no problem with anyone owning guns (nor censorship). As long as they don't use those guns to shoot other people (except in self-defense). I myself (as you could probably guess) would never own a gun, and I think they're primitive and stupid machines used for naught but killing and monkey-fun, but my personal opinions don't apply to other people. I also have no problem with people enjoying what I call "monkey-fun", it is fun after all; I myself enjoy many things that I would also consider monkey-fun. I mean, I love paintball...
And of course, as per normal, I probably included a lot of hyperbole and bad sarcasm.
I see. Aighty, then. Oh, but guns are tools just like any other. If the intent behind the use is to do harm, it will do harm. If it's constructive, it will be constructive. Just like a screwdriver or a knife.
But in quite a few provable cases, they're lying about what the legislation does to their constituents in order to get them to rail against it. They lied about HCR (remember "death panels"?), they lied about Hate Crimes legislation (So far not a single preacher has been arrested for preaching their hate), they lied about Wall Street Reform ("infinite bailouts"), they lie about the stimulus bills (at least while in DC. Then they turned around and in their own states said "hey, this is working great! look what I got for you! Ain't stimulus great?"), they work directly against their constituent's wishes (remember when they were trying to find a place to house the Guantanamo inmates? How that small town said "hell yeah we'll take 'em!" and then their senator said "**** no, get out of here!") and so-on.
That's not representing your constituents, that's lying to them so they "want" what your party wants.
Heck, even DADT-repeal has support among 60% of Republicans, but that only got 5 votes in the House. (Not to mention they're lying about that being an instant repeal as well. Admittedly, so are the Democrats.)
Not saying that Democrats don't lie too, but when you have to lie to someone to get them to support your party's position, that position isn't really the position of the people, ya know?
Well, that's true. I wonder, though, if it's a case of fighting fire with fire. I mean, the HCR was sold to the populace through lies, too. Cheaper? Ha! But that's what we were fed. So, I wonder, did the Reps lie after the Dems or did the Reps start it and were then battled with the same strategy? In any event, this highlights nicely just how ****ed we are as a nation and how abysmally awful our system actually is. And I think it does a nice job of backing my thought that a politician's employer is not the people that elected him, but his party. God, I wonder when we'll get tired enough of this to do something.
Not a question of hypocrisy, I think, TA - but relativity. He mentioned morals and ethics. For him, one crosses the line, the other doesn't. For others, both do equally. (and I believe, but cannot prove, that for yet others, it is reversed - think farmer/cowboy jokes)
And there is the rub.
Exactly. They have a problem with where thoes people draw the line, but are then willing to turn around and draw a new line themselves, one that has precious little if any more justification than the line that they cross and oppose.
"We denounce you for your sick sexual practicies!"
"You have no right! Our sex lives are none of your concern!"
"We denounce you for your sick sexual practicies!"
My personal disdain is irrelevant to my original complaint.
Agreed, I guess, assuming your complaint was that they where trying to be insulting, and not that they where actually insulting.
On the republican/democrat thing. Im BI and am even going to be going on hormones as soon as I get my own place, the republicans would mostly call me immoral or against god or what not thus I can't vote for them.
Agreed, I guess, assuming your complaint was that they where trying to be insulting, and not that they where actually insulting.
Since my main beef was that they were going out of their way to not only defend DOMA, but to further stigmatize LGBT, whether or not bestiality and incest should be stigmatized is irrelevant. As I said a while back.
Well, they can give stiffer penalties for criminals in trouble for other crimes, but you can do that without punishing the innocent anyway.
Yup. And I'm all sorts of for that. Criminals that use firearms in their crimes actually only put more heat on me and every other responsible, legal gun owner - not them. I'm all for sending them to prison for incredibly long stretches. First offense? Mandatory extra 25 years without possibility for parole for an additonal 10. And ramp it up from there all the way to life.
[Oh god. That sounded so bad even I couldn't post it... stupid herd instincts, all giving me pause before making off-color jokes. Phooey.]
[Oh god. That sounded so bad even I couldn't post it... stupid herd instincts, all giving me pause before making off-color jokes. Phooey.]
Don't you hate it when that happens? I know I do ...
I am with you. It isn't that I dislike Obama. I am just dissapointed. Really, I just don't get why the republicans can ram through everything they want when they're in office, but the democrats twiddle their thumbs and try not to look like socialists. I can at least respect the republicans for taking a stand, and flying in the face of public opinion when its against them. But the democrats just come accross as people pleasers (which I think becomes like a self fullfilling prophecy, because no one respecte people pleasers).
I concur. While I respect and agree with Obama's ideals of bipartisanship the concept only works if both sides buy into it. When it becomes clear the other party not only refuses to engage in bipartisan governance but is committed to actively blocking and hindering anything the ruling party does then one must, regretfully, say "well
Or when one party seeks to ram its beliefs/ideas down everybodys throat, and damn what the majority wants...
Like Barry's Dems...
And then say there is no bi-partisanship when they won't work with Repubs to agree on something.
It's not the Repubs not willing to work it out, it's the Dems not willing to work with the Repubs...
Liberals are weak. ).
I agree.
That's a part of being a liberal. We don't want to tell people how to live beyond telling them they can't infringe on others. As such we are unlikely to push issues onto other people (because they have a right to do whatever).Liberals are weak. ).
I agree.
That's a part of being a liberal. We don't want to tell people how to live beyond telling them they can't infringe on others. As such we are unlikely to push issues onto other people (because they have a right to do whatever).
Ah... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Liberals love to tell people how to live and what's best for them, and then the libs live their own lives their own way....
Ah... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Liberals are weak. ).
I agree.
That's a part of being a liberal. We don't want to tell people how to live beyond telling them they can't infringe on others. As such we are unlikely to push issues onto other people (because they have a right to do whatever).Liberals are weak. ).
I agree.
That's a part of being a liberal. We don't want to tell people how to live beyond telling them they can't infringe on others. As such we are unlikely to push issues onto other people (because they have a right to do whatever).
Ah... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Liberals love to tell people how to live and what's best for them, and then the libs live their own lives their own way....
Ah... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
*quote fail*
You don't take away everyone's car because a drunken illegal immigrant stole a car and hit somebody with it.
3 things...
First, the illegal immigrant shouldn't even be in this country. Broke law #1.
Second, the illegal immigrant either doesn't have a drivers license, or is using an illegal one, and is driving. Broke law #2.
And last, he is drunk while driving. Broke law #3.
So, had not the illegal broke the law in the first place by coming to this country illegally, none of the other would have happened.
So, responsibility lies totally with the illegal immigrant.
But I can see a liberal saying how the poor guy is simply a victim of America and had America not been so much more prosperous than his country, the poor guy would never have come here. So the liberal will say it is actually the US fault...
And then say there is no bi-partisanship when they won't work with Repubs to agree on something.
It's not the Repubs not willing to work it out, it's the Dems not willing to work with the Repubs...
I know, I mean, if only those big-bad Dems could work with a Republican health care plan, similar in many ways to what they (the Republicans) proposed back when Clinton tried to get health care reform passed. Or Mitt Romney (a Republican) passed in Massachusets. I mean, if the Dems had only latched onto a Republican plan like one of those, maybe the Republicans would have been willing to come to the table...
There's a lot to be said about gun control - but I'll just say this. At no time in the history of this country have so many guns been in the hands of private citizens. Violent crime has steadily decreased over the last several years (at least - I linked to the FBI report on the matter in a different thread some time ago but I'm just not motivated to find it again). So where's the 'guns mean crime' correlation? Also, criminals do not obey laws. This includes, but is not limited to, any gun laws (or potential bans). Look to banned drugs for your lesson here. Gun laws criminalize the innocent and do nothing to the criminals.
Thats more due to better police work than gun ownership though. Police work has gotten WAY better in the last 10 years or so, gun ownership has almost nothing to do with reducing crime.
you do realise CSI (and it's cousins) is 90 percent made up tech right?
Sure it's improved tremendously, but frankly it's still a joke, and your train of thought about guns=violence is still in grievous error by the Facts presented.
back on topic. Did you know Haliburton was involved? Yeah that's right one of the most likely potential points of Failure was done by Haliburton. Imagine That. Evidently they do some seriously shoddy work on pouring undersea concrete. Along with having some extremely lazy reconstruction workers, with non competitive rates, and various other overpriced shoddy things.
Oh and that more likely than not had there not been Deregulation proposed by and passed by the last administration this mess would never have happened in the first place?
Funny how when we remove laws that prevent corporations from being cheap douchebags that will take any and every means necessary to make a short term profit long term consequences be damned, how that's repeatedly bitten us in the ass...... Can't be a message in there somewhere.
I have a question for you Old People. Just how many short cuts did you people take to get short term gains? Just how much is my generation and likely the next four after it, are we going to have to Pay for your Greed?
Rawr! Rebellin' 'ginst the old people! Down with the 'stablishment man!
Thats more due to better police work than gun ownership though. Police work has gotten WAY better in the last 10 years or so, gun ownership has almost nothing to do with reducing crime.
I'm curious. Do you have anything better then correlation to back such a claim? If not you're running blind just as much as ZB is.
That is to say: correlation does not imply causation. We have more guns. We have less crime. (You believe) we have better police1. To claim that any of these is necessarily the cause of any of the others is a bit premature.
That said, I'd like to bring up Kennesaw, GA. It's always a great one to bring up when it comes to crime and gun ownership.
________
1Forgive me if I don't give you full faith here, as it is summer and that's making me think of last summer's police raids. I do hope we get through this summer without more of the same.
I see. Aighty, then. Oh, but guns are tools just like any other. If the intent behind the use is to do harm, it will do harm. If it's constructive, it will be constructive. Just like a screwdriver or a knife.
I tried using a gun as a screwdriver. I really messed up my shelving project.
I realize it is just a tool and you can use it for many things, but ultimately it is a weapon. A very specific type of tool designed to propel something into something else very fast without much utility beyond damage.
It's a negative tool. The best thing you can do with it is shoot cans. Because everyone hates cans and we have a pretty bad can overpopulation problem.
Though, I have a friend who uses his russian handgun (not sure of the make/model) as a bottle opener, so I guess thats a constructive use. And you could also use it as a hammer I'm sure.
You don't take away everyone's car because a drunken illegal immigrant stole a car and hit somebody with it.
3 things...
First, the illegal immigrant shouldn't even be in this country. Broke law #1.
Second, the illegal immigrant either doesn't have a drivers license, or is using an illegal one, and is driving. Broke law #2.
And last, he is drunk while driving. Broke law #3.
So, had not the illegal broke the law in the first place by coming to this country illegally, none of the other would have happened.
So, responsibility lies totally with the illegal immigrant.
But I can see a liberal saying how the poor guy is simply a victim of America and had America not been so much more prosperous than his country, the poor guy would never have come here. So the liberal will say it is actually the US fault...
I don't know if you're arguing with me or just the liberal agenda in general, or just making a separate point with me as a springboard (which is perfectly acceptable).
I was just drawing a line between over-reaction from one event (with many extra factors, as you show) leading to penatlies for everyone accross the board.
We shouldn't take guns away from people just because some people get shot accidentally, just as we shouldn't take cars away.
I only mentioned the drunk driving illegal immigrant, because I was personally hit by a drunk-driving illegal immigrant in a "borrowed" car.
I don't think he's a victim of anything other than being yet another moron. I don't know about hypotheticals of what would've happened were he able to immigrate more easily/legally. I'm assuming that his character flaws would have stilled existed and he still would've driven drunk and made a bad call as far as how close I was to the intersection. Then again, he may have had a real job and more responsibilities. I don't know.
Right now, he's probably been deported to Mexico. And he's probably Drunk.
Right now, he's probably been deported to Mexico. And he's probably Drunk.
And you're probably right...
Good riddance to bad rubbish...
Back on topic. (thanks to EE. This is a rather big story really. and yeah it's a big ****ing deal.)
We need to stop off shore drilling entirely, until proper blowout valves can be implemented at the very least.
Oh and that more likely than not had there not been Deregulation proposed by and passed by the last administration this mess would never have happened in the first place?
From my understanding, much of the rig and its failsafes were not up to code. So its wasn't an issue of regulations, but one of enforcement. The solution is not to enact more laws, but to better enforce the one which are already on the books.
So it's both. Failure uptop due to BP's usual negligence, and a lowering of standards 1mile down.
Its hard to tell if the standards were as much of a failure since they weren't followed. But its possible that if the standards were higher, it might have help lessen the event. People cutting corners will probably use the guidelines as a suggestion at least.
We definately need to example the enforcement agency as much as the regulations. It doesn't help if we have the best standards in the world if no one follows them.
Thats more due to better police work than gun ownership though. Police work has gotten WAY better in the last 10 years or so, gun ownership has almost nothing to do with reducing crime.
I never said it did. What I did say was that the idea that more guns = more crime is not supported by the current situation and all the data we have pretty effectively show it's not true. I never hazarded a guess as to why. What we do know is that we have more guns and less crime. All that means is that more guns != more crime.
I also fail to see what better police work has to do with anything. Police are called after the fact. That means that the crime has already been committed. It's already on the books. Being better at catching criminals means that more crimes would be reported - not less. Unless you're suggesting that the improved ability of the police force has become a deterrent on its own - which is a pretty big leap, IMO.
I'm curious. Do you have anything better then correlation to back such a claim? If not you're running blind just as much as ZB is.
Hey now, see above. I never made a guess as to what the causation is. I simply stated the facts of the matter as a rebuttal to the 'more guns = more crime' claim. The best we could do with the data we currently have is make a blind guess. That's something I didn't do. The facts of the situation, however, are quite useful in refuting the claim I used them to refute and I don't think that was running blind in the least.
I tried using a gun as a screwdriver. I really messed up my shelving project.
I realize it is just a tool and you can use it for many things, but ultimately it is a weapon. A very specific type of tool designed to propel something into something else very fast without much utility beyond damage.
It's a negative tool. The best thing you can do with it is shoot cans. Because everyone hates cans and we have a pretty bad can overpopulation problem.
Though, I have a friend who uses his russian handgun (not sure of the make/model) as a bottle opener, so I guess thats a constructive use. And you could also use it as a hammer I'm sure.
Actually, the best potential use of a firearm is that of self-defense or protecting another human life. This could be from another human using some deadly tool or from an animal. To me, that's the best use (aside from hunting, but we've been through that). So long as we remember that the gun itself has no motivation - no inclination to do evil, we understand it properly. It's a damned dangerous tool and needs to be treated with respect. Kinda like a car. Anyhoo, I ain't tryin' to make you change your opinion about 'em and I don't really hate where you're coming from as far as the rest of it goes. So I guess that's it? ;)
I also fail to see what better police work has to do with anything. Police are called after the fact. That means that the crime has already been committed. It's already on the books. Being better at catching criminals means that more crimes would be reported - not less. Unless you're suggesting that the improved ability of the police force has become a deterrent on its own - which is a pretty big leap, IMO.
I am not arguiing with your other points (I don't really feel like a gun control debate at the moment). But I don't think police are purely a reactionary tool in that sense. There is a big detterence factor. In our city, there is a gang unit, and their mission isn't just to nab gang members after they break the law, but keep track of gang activity, build cases against the leadership so the rank and file become less effective, and do community outreach to de-glamorize gang membership. Another important factor is how many cops are in the department. Simply having more patrols, deters crime.
I am not arguiing with your other points (I don't really feel like a gun control debate at the moment). But I don't think police are purely a reactionary tool in that sense. There is a big detterence factor. In our city, there is a gang unit, and their mission isn't just to nab gang members after they break the law, but keep track of gang activity, build cases against the leadership so the rank and file become less effective, and do community outreach to de-glamorize gang membership. Another important factor is how many cops are in the department. Simply having more patrols, deters crime.
Has that been demonstrated with anything other than us guessing, though? I wouldn't be totally surprised, but I'd be a hell of a lot more comfortable accepting it. The fact of the matter is that police do deter some people from committing crimes. Others simply don't care. In the case of gangs, they just wait until the police aren't around. Plus, we've always had police. We've even had police that were a lot more deterrent than the version we have now, too (the ol' tune ups from back in the day - glad they're gone, but I'd bet you're less likely to act the fool if you know a cop can break your face for fun when you do). So this is something I'm not gonna just buy - just like I don't believe it's simply more guns in the hands of citizens. There's no proof. If there is, I'll listen and I'm honestly unaware of it if it does exist.
As for the gun control debate, I'm actually trying to avoid it myself. It's a topic I know quite a bit about, but I'm tryin' to keep the ol' trap shut. I've had the debate here several times and it never, ever, ever works out. Too contentious. So it's best to just - at the most - state a couple points and move on. There's a reason politicians usually try to stay away from the topic. ;) Anyhoo, I'm perfectly fine dropping that topic altogether. It's not like the BP stuff isn't compelling enough in its own right, ya know?
I tried using a gun as a screwdriver. I really messed up my shelving project.
I realize it is just a tool and you can use it for many things, but ultimately it is a weapon. A very specific type of tool designed to propel something into something else very fast without much utility beyond damage.
It's a negative tool. The best thing you can do with it is shoot cans. Because everyone hates cans and we have a pretty bad can overpopulation problem.
Though, I have a friend who uses his russian handgun (not sure of the make/model) as a bottle opener, so I guess thats a constructive use. And you could also use it as a hammer I'm sure.
Actually, the best potential use of a firearm is that of self-defense or protecting another human life. This could be from another human using some deadly tool or from an animal. To me, that's the best use (aside from hunting, but we've been through that). So long as we remember that the gun itself has no motivation - no inclination to do evil, we understand it properly. It's a damned dangerous tool and needs to be treated with respect. Kinda like a car. Anyhoo, I ain't tryin' to make you change your opinion about 'em and I don't really hate where you're coming from as far as the rest of it goes. So I guess that's it? ;)
Seems like it.
Though, to be honest, you did change my opinion on gun control a little. I felt it happening, deep inside.
Has that been demonstrated with anything other than us guessing, though? I wouldn't be totally surprised, but I'd be a hell of a lot more comfortable accepting it. The fact of the matter is that police do deter some people from committing crimes. Others simply don't care. In the case of gangs, they just wait until the police aren't around. Plus, we've always had police. We've even had police that were a lot more deterrent than the version we have now, too (the ol' tune ups from back in the day - glad they're gone, but I'd bet you're less likely to act the fool if you know a cop can break your face for fun when you do). So this is something I'm not gonna just buy - just like I don't believe it's simply more guns in the hands of citizens. There's no proof. If there is, I'll listen and I'm honestly unaware of it if it does exist.
That is a little outside my area of knowledge. I can only speak from what I've been told by my cop friends and what I read in the local papers. Some years we have more cops and some years we have fewer. The years with fewer cops always seem worse, but I haven't been keeping a tally or anything. Whether police work has improved over time, I don't know. They seem to be using more advanced techniques and equipment now than they were 10 or 20 years ago. How effective those are, I don't know. But I would imagine it is a lot like anything else, over time a well managed police department should learn from its mistakes and improve. The key being you need leadership that is making an effort to learn from its mistakes.
I do know this. when there is a visible police precense in our neighborhoods, we have fewer shootings and fewer robberies. I am just speaking specifically about where I live though.
I am not so sure police in the old days were more effective than they are today. For one thing, I am reliably informed by police that the training is much more involved now, and education a much more important factor in a cops career. Back in the day, I think cops were feared more by law abiding citizens as much as by criminals, and I think that would have contributed to a culture of silence (not to mention corruption was rampant back in the day--- or so my grand daddy says). I also have to believe the rapid advances in communication and computer technology have seriously improved the ability of police to do their job.
Seems like it.
Though, to be honest, you did change my opinion on gun control a little. I felt it happening, deep inside.
Yeah, that's the way I operate. Deep, baby. Real deep.
In all seriousness, it was yet another nice discussion - however brief it was. As I don't typically get along with vegans, I must assume that you are, in fact, quite evil.
That is a little outside my area of knowledge. I can only speak from what I've been told by my cop friends and what I read in the local papers. Some years we have more cops and some years we have fewer. The years with fewer cops always seem worse, but I haven't been keeping a tally or anything. Whether police work has improved over time, I don't know. They seem to be using more advanced techniques and equipment now than they were 10 or 20 years ago. How effective those are, I don't know. But I would imagine it is a lot like anything else, over time a well managed police department should learn from its mistakes and improve. The key being you need leadership that is making an effort to learn from its mistakes.
I do know this. when there is a visible police precense in our neighborhoods, we have fewer shootings and fewer robberies. I am just speaking specifically about where I live though.
I am not so sure police in the old days were more effective than they are today. For one thing, I am reliably informed by police that the training is much more involved now, and education a much more important factor in a cops career. Back in the day, I think cops were feared more by law abiding citizens as much as by criminals, and I think that would have contributed to a culture of silence (not to mention corruption was rampant back in the day--- or so my grand daddy says). I also have to believe the rapid advances in communication and computer technology have seriously improved the ability of police to do their job.
You know, I don't really think there's anything at all to argue with there. I'd only go so far as to say, however, that an improved police force is likely a contributing factor to the steadily decreasing crime rate. I doubt it's something we'll ever actually know for certain, but I do know that I'm in no way shape or form opposed to better educated and more police officers on the streets - especially in high risk neighborhoods - because I do see them as a benefit.
I tried using a gun as a screwdriver. I really messed up my shelving project.
I realize it is just a tool and you can use it for many things, but ultimately it is a weapon. A very specific type of tool designed to propel something into something else very fast without much utility beyond damage.
It's a negative tool. The best thing you can do with it is shoot cans. Because everyone hates cans and we have a pretty bad can overpopulation problem.
Though, I have a friend who uses his russian handgun (not sure of the make/model) as a bottle opener, so I guess thats a constructive use. And you could also use it as a hammer I'm sure.
Actually, the best potential use of a firearm is that of self-defense or protecting another human life. This could be from another human using some deadly tool or from an animal. To me, that's the best use (aside from hunting, but we've been through that). So long as we remember that the gun itself has no motivation - no inclination to do evil, we understand it properly. It's a damned dangerous tool and needs to be treated with respect. Kinda like a car. Anyhoo, I ain't tryin' to make you change your opinion about 'em and I don't really hate where you're coming from as far as the rest of it goes. So I guess that's it? ;)
Seems like it.
Though, to be honest, you did change my opinion on gun control a little. I felt it happening, deep inside.
I do own a gun, because I want to protect my family. I just don't mind being screened and prevented from buying more dangerous arms. I've known too many gun owners who were irresponsible to believe there shouldn't be some basic regulations in place. We had a kid who was playing with a gun (legally owned) at a party a few weeks ago and it discharged. The bullet went through his floor and through the chest of a woman sitting in her couch watching TV (killing her). With morons like that, I am happy to take measures to keep them from owning guns.
That is a little outside my area of knowledge. I can only speak from what I've been told by my cop friends and what I read in the local papers. Some years we have more cops and some years we have fewer. The years with fewer cops always seem worse, but I haven't been keeping a tally or anything. Whether police work has improved over time, I don't know. They seem to be using more advanced techniques and equipment now than they were 10 or 20 years ago. How effective those are, I don't know. But I would imagine it is a lot like anything else, over time a well managed police department should learn from its mistakes and improve. The key being you need leadership that is making an effort to learn from its mistakes.
I do know this. when there is a visible police precense in our neighborhoods, we have fewer shootings and fewer robberies. I am just speaking specifically about where I live though.
I am not so sure police in the old days were more effective than they are today. For one thing, I am reliably informed by police that the training is much more involved now, and education a much more important factor in a cops career. Back in the day, I think cops were feared more by law abiding citizens as much as by criminals, and I think that would have contributed to a culture of silence (not to mention corruption was rampant back in the day--- or so my grand daddy says). I also have to believe the rapid advances in communication and computer technology have seriously improved the ability of police to do their job.
You know, I don't really think there's anything at all to argue with there. I'd only go so far as to say, however, that an improved police force is likely a contributing factor to the steadily decreasing crime rate. I doubt it's something we'll ever actually know for certain, but I do know that I'm in no way shape or form opposed to better educated and more police officers on the streets - especially in high risk neighborhoods - because I do see them as a benefit.
I would agree that police are not the only thing that lowers crime. Where they also probably help is targeting some basic root causes like the flow of drugs into the neighborhoods. But community outreach programs are just as important in that respect. I would think having a boys club and girls club in the area is a big factor. Just making sure kids have a focus that can keep them away from the drugs and the gangs. There are a number of factors. My suspicion has always been (and I don't know how this is supported by data) that gun ownership does a better job of detering crime in other places, but in the inner city it is less helpful. A lot of people I know own guns (legally or illegally), but these kids who are committing crimes, they really don't have any fear of being shot or killed. In fact being shot is like a badge of honor to them. With gangs, everything changes because they like almost by a warrior code. Still, whether it impacts the crime level or not, owning again can certainly save your ass!
Has that been demonstrated with anything other than us guessing, though? I wouldn't be totally surprised, but I'd be a hell of a lot more comfortable accepting it. The fact of the matter is that police do deter some people from committing crimes. Others simply don't care. In the case of gangs, they just wait until the police aren't around. Plus, we've always had police. We've even had police that were a lot more deterrent than the version we have now, too (the ol' tune ups from back in the day - glad they're gone, but I'd bet you're less likely to act the fool if you know a cop can break your face for fun when you do). So this is something I'm not gonna just buy - just like I don't believe it's simply more guns in the hands of citizens. There's no proof. If there is, I'll listen and I'm honestly unaware of it if it does exist.
That is a little outside my area of knowledge. I can only speak from what I've been told by my cop friends and what I read in the local papers. Some years we have more cops and some years we have fewer. The years with fewer cops always seem worse, but I haven't been keeping a tally or anything. Whether police work has improved over time, I don't know. They seem to be using more advanced techniques and equipment now than they were 10 or 20 years ago. How effective those are, I don't know. But I would imagine it is a lot like anything else, over time a well managed police department should learn from its mistakes and improve. The key being you need leadership that is making an effort to learn from its mistakes.
I do know this. when there is a visible police precense in our neighborhoods, we have fewer shootings and fewer robberies. I am just speaking specifically about where I live though.
I am not so sure police in the old days were more effective than they are today. For one thing, I am reliably informed by police that the training is much more involved now, and education a much more important factor in a cops career. Back in the day, I think cops were feared more by law abiding citizens as much as by criminals, and I think that would have contributed to a culture of silence (not to mention corruption was rampant back in the day--- or so my grand daddy says). I also have to believe the rapid advances in communication and computer technology have seriously improved the ability of police to do their job.
FL has recently cut down its number of highway patrols, and even cities have had to cut down on patrols now we have more crime a string of 7-11 robberies in my area and various other gun related crime more so than we had last year.
When criminals are caught it means they are off the streets at least for awhile a lot of crime (i dont have numbers) is done by repeat offenders, I read something on it awhile back but can't find it now. Also the rates of crime in places like Japan and Singapore is a lot less than the U.S and they have very strict gun laws so yeah I see a corelation there.
I do own a gun, because I want to protect my family. I just don't mind being screened and prevented from buying more dangerous arms. I've known too many gun owners who were irresponsible to believe there shouldn't be some basic regulations in place. We had a kid who was playing with a gun (legally owned) at a party a few weeks ago and it discharged. The bullet went through his floor and through the chest of a woman sitting in her couch watching TV (killing her). With morons like that, I am happy to take measures to keep them from owning guns.
It's tragedies like that that are one of the reasons I am for compulsory gun training. Either put it in schools or make it mandatory for anyone that buys a gun (a one time course for proper handling would suffice, IMO). Not everyone was lucky enough to learn the way I did - from an ex-Marine and hunter (my father). Most people don't even know that the first thing you're supposed to do when handed a weapon is check to be certain it's empty. Not knowing that is a big friggin' deal, ya know? That's why I was pretty proud of my group of friends when my buddy showed a couple of us his new home defense weapon. He owns it and knew it was empty yet he cycled the action and checked anyway before passing it to me. I did the same, examined the weapon and then passed it to a friend that also checked. It seems like overkill, but it isn't. Stuff like that is what people absolutely need to know.
I do own a gun, because I want to protect my family. I just don't mind being screened and prevented from buying more dangerous arms. I've known too many gun owners who were irresponsible to believe there shouldn't be some basic regulations in place. We had a kid who was playing with a gun (legally owned) at a party a few weeks ago and it discharged. The bullet went through his floor and through the chest of a woman sitting in her couch watching TV (killing her). With morons like that, I am happy to take measures to keep them from owning guns.
It's tragedies like that that are one of the reasons I am for compulsory gun training. Either put it in schools or make it mandatory for anyone that buys a gun (a one time course for proper handling would suffice, IMO). Not everyone was lucky enough to learn the way I did - from an ex-Marine and hunter (my father). Most people don't even know that the first thing you're supposed to do when handed a weapon is check to be certain it's empty. Not knowing that is a big friggin' deal, ya know? That's why I was pretty proud of my group of friends when my buddy showed a couple of us his new home defense weapon. He owns it and knew it was empty yet he cycled the action and checked anyway before passing it to me. I did the same, examined the weapon and then passed it to a friend that also checked. It seems like overkill, but it isn't. Stuff like that is what people absolutely need to know.
Compulsory training for those who own guns should be a must. I dont think banning them is realistic for America but I'd like to see a more stringent screening system at least.
I would agree that police are not the only thing that lowers crime. Where they also probably help is targeting some basic root causes like the flow of drugs into the neighborhoods. But community outreach programs are just as important in that respect. I would think having a boys club and girls club in the area is a big factor. Just making sure kids have a focus that can keep them away from the drugs and the gangs. There are a number of factors. My suspicion has always been (and I don't know how this is supported by data) that gun ownership does a better job of detering crime in other places, but in the inner city it is less helpful. A lot of people I know own guns (legally or illegally), but these kids who are committing crimes, they really don't have any fear of being shot or killed. In fact being shot is like a badge of honor to them. With gangs, everything changes because they like almost by a warrior code. Still, whether it impacts the crime level or not, owning again can certainly save your ass!
Yes, giving kids things to do that are constructive and that they can actually become passionate about is very, very important anywhere - let alone in gang areas. And those programs are really one of the best ways to address some of the real causes, too. Instead of catching those already gone, save 'em before they get there.
It's true that gangs change the dynamic and that some kids don't care about getting shot. The thing is, whether they care or not, they still got shot. They're out of the mix for a time. But that's that 'savin' your ass' you were talking about.
All I know is that in a world that sees criminals with guns and no way to stop that, I feel a damn sight better being armed myself. Obviously I have other reasons that I like owning guns, but self defense is one of them. And the one I hope I never, ever have to test.FL has recently cut down its number of highway patrols, and even cities have had to cut down on patrols now we have more crime a string of 7-11 robberies in my area and various other gun related crime more so than we had last year.
When criminals are caught it means they are off the streets at least for awhile a lot of crime (i dont have numbers) is done by repeat offenders, I read something on it awhile back but can't find it now. Also the rates of crime in places like Japan and Singapore is a lot less than the U.S and they have very strict gun laws so yeah I see a corelation there.
Yes, cops do contribute to the lower crime rates. And it's fine to see a correlation so long as you don't assume it's causation. One thing to consider with Japan especially is the differences in society. It's just a different place so things happen differently. I'm not trying to dismiss your correlation, mind, I'm just trying to point out that, as with all complex matters, there's a vast array of involved factors to consider.
Or has his gun stolen by a gangbanger.
Rather than treat guns like some kind of Boogieman, Gun Education should be mandatory in our schools. Stop Demonising the tool, and start teaching people the proper use and care of them and abuse of them will plummet accordingly.
Something you are neglecting entirely also. The Economy SUCKS. Crime ALWAYS goes up when people can't afford to feed their families, or have nothing else better to do. It's not just police cutbacks. It's more to do with people being Unemployed.
I do own a gun, because I want to protect my family. I just don't mind being screened and prevented from buying more dangerous arms. I've known too many gun owners who were irresponsible to believe there shouldn't be some basic regulations in place. We had a kid who was playing with a gun (legally owned) at a party a few weeks ago and it discharged. The bullet went through his floor and through the chest of a woman sitting in her couch watching TV (killing her). With morons like that, I am happy to take measures to keep them from owning guns.
It's tragedies like that that are one of the reasons I am for compulsory gun training. Either put it in schools or make it mandatory for anyone that buys a gun (a one time course for proper handling would suffice, IMO). Not everyone was lucky enough to learn the way I did - from an ex-Marine and hunter (my father). Most people don't even know that the first thing you're supposed to do when handed a weapon is check to be certain it's empty. Not knowing that is a big friggin' deal, ya know? That's why I was pretty proud of my group of friends when my buddy showed a couple of us his new home defense weapon. He owns it and knew it was empty yet he cycled the action and checked anyway before passing it to me. I did the same, examined the weapon and then passed it to a friend that also checked. It seems like overkill, but it isn't. Stuff like that is what people absolutely need to know.
Your 100% right. It is really the little details that matter. And too many people know what they know about guns from TV. A little education, goes a long way. We have some excellent firearm safety courses where I live (most taught by law enforcement people).
Every time i think of that story, my heart goes out to the woman and her family. Its something we all take for granted: that we are safe watching tv in our own homes. I only hope she didn't suffer much when it happened.
We already have pretty tough screening procedures Will. You can't do anything about the guy that buys a gun and later sells it or give it to a gangbanger.
Or has his gun stolen by a gangbanger.
Rather than treat guns like some kind of Boogieman, Gun Education should be mandatory in our schools. Stop Demonising the tool, and start teaching people the proper use and care of them and abuse of them will plummet accordingly.
Something you are neglecting entirely also. The Economy SUCKS. Crime ALWAYS goes up when people can't afford to feed their families, or have nothing else better to do. It's not just police cutbacks. It's more to do with people being Unemployed.
Also people who purcahse guns legally don't usually sell them to gangbangers for fear the gun will be traced to them when it is used.
Compulsory training for those who own guns should be a must. I dont think banning them is realistic for America but I'd like to see a more stringent screening system at least.
The thing is, a lot of people are against compulsory training because it could be used as a tool to take guns out of the hands of average people. Say the price for training was set at, I dunno, $2500 or something. A lot of people couldn't afford that. So it needs to be done correctly. Make it as cheap as possible so people aren't all up in arms about it. I'm all for that. What could it hurt, you know? You get training in the military and you even get in in hunter education classes. It's something that could only help - so long as it's implemented properly.
By screening system, what do you mean? If you don't have any particular ideas, don't worry about it. I'm just curious. See, a lot of this stuff can actually be used as a defacto ban and so it needs to be properly described and realistically implemented.
That way also you pretty much gaurantee that every citizen is capable of properly handling a firearm. It will also have the added benefit of reducing the casualties of kids shooting their own faces off when they find daddy's gun.
Your 100% right. It is really the little details that matter. And too many people know what they know about guns from TV. A little education, goes a long way. We have some excellent firearm safety courses where I live (most taught by law enforcement people).
Every time i think of that story, my heart goes out to the woman and her family. Its something we all take for granted: that we are safe watching tv in our own homes. I only hope she didn't suffer much when it happened.
That's it exactly. TV makes 'em look cool. You can just pick it up and shoot and shoot and everything's ok. Think about the A Team, man. Every episode saw 'em literally unloading fully auto Mini 14s and nobody ever died (well, one guy did in one episode but that was a different, and as far as I know unique, situation). Teach people how to properly and safely store and operate the weapons. To me, that's common sense.
Stories like that really hurt because you know it was so easily preventable. It's terribly sad.
Also people who purcahse guns legally don't usually sell them to gangbangers for fear the gun will be traced to them when it is used.
Yep. The registration/trace program has proven to be almost entirely useless. People that buy guns for honest reasons don't typically commit crimes with them. It's like asking criminals to register their prints and DNA before they commit any crimes to make it easier to catch them. Why would anyone do that?
That's what's frustrating about all this to me. Criminals do bad things with guns and I get lumped into that group somehow. Like because I own a gun - even though I've never misused one - I'm also part of the problem. That's not fair, but nobody really cares about it.
That's why I want Gun Education in our schools. That way you don't have to pay for it. It's something you grew up with. (and have a refresher course each tier of school. You learn in elementary, again in junior high, and again in HS)
That way also you pretty much gaurantee that every citizen is capable of properly handling a firearm. It will also have the added benefit of reducing the casualties of kids shooting their own faces off when they find daddy's gun.
I have no trouble with that - as a matter of fact, I prefer it. It's just that it'll never happen. Too many people that don't know anything about guns won't want to expose their Susies and Johnnies to that evil machine. When it comes to guns, willful ignorance is quite often the order of the day.
Yep. The registration/trace program has proven to be almost entirely useless. People that buy guns for honest reasons don't typically commit crimes with them. It's like asking criminals to register their prints and DNA before they commit any crimes to make it easier to catch them. Why would anyone do that?
That's what's frustrating about all this to me. Criminals do bad things with guns and I get lumped into that group somehow. Like because I own a gun - even though I've never misused one - I'm also part of the problem. That's not fair, but nobody really cares about it.
I don't lump you in with criminals. Especially since you have purchased your firearms legally and have followed firearm regulations.
One thing to remember, we can't really know how many deaths the registration program prevents. One thing it does do (and one reason why I still think it is a good idea) is it allows us to trace guns in crimes committed by non-career criminals. A career criminal knows to buy guns off the black market. A guy who kills his wife in a fit of passion doesn't. Or someone who gets desparate and robs a bank, and just fires a warning shot (leaving evidence that can be traced the the gun). While I agree, there are lots of criminals who know how to stay off the radar, the registration program still must have some benefit. I've read too many news stories of guys who get nabbed because the gun was traced back to them, not to believe it.
Nothing is 100%, but guys like us who follow the law, are screened and registed, don't have anything to worry about or be ashamed about.
I don't lump you in with criminals. Especially since you have purchased your firearms legally and have followed firearm regulations.
One thing to remember, we can't really know how many deaths the registration program prevents. One thing it does do (and one reason why I still think it is a good idea) is it allows us to trace guns in crimes committed by non-career criminals. A career criminal knows to buy guns off the black market. A guy who kills his wife in a fit of passion doesn't. Or someone who gets desparate and robs a bank, and just fires a warning shot (leaving evidence that can be traced the the gun). While I agree, there are lots of criminals who know how to stay off the radar, the registration program still must have some benefit. I've read too many news stories of guys who get nabbed because the gun was traced back to them, not to believe it.
Nothing is 100%, but guys like us who follow the law, are screened and registed, don't have anything to worry about or be ashamed about.
I didn't think you did. As a gun owner, you get lumped into that group right along with me. ;)
I know I've seen data demonstrating just how ineffective the registration program has been. Unfortunately, it was in a magazine and it was some time ago so I have no way of finding it. From what I recall, the number of crimes that are actually solved, in part, by the system is vanishingly small. As we've been through, registered weapons are rarely used in crimes by the people that registered them. One thing it does do well, I guess, is provide some idea of how many weapons that are used in crimes are stolen - since so many of the few trails this does provide lead back to that.
Ugh. Just spent 10 minutes searching and I could not for the life of me find the figures. Dammit.
Oh, law abiding people don't like registration because it has been used as a precursor to confiscation. Twice (England and Australia). So, it does tend to agitate.
Oh, law abiding people don't like registration because it has been used as a precursor to confiscation. Twice (England and Australia). So, it does tend to agitate.
I understand the concer, but I don't mind registration. The US is in a much different place politically than Austrailia and England. Registration itself isn't a bad thing. Now if there were a move toward confiscation (which they could do with or without registration----registration just makes it easier to do), then that would be something to object to. But registration alone actually makes me feel better as a gun owner.
I understand the concer, but I don't mind registration. The US is in a much different place politically than Austrailia and England. Registration itself isn't a bad thing. Now if there were a move toward confiscation (which they could do with or without registration----registration just makes it easier to do), then that would be something to object to. But registration alone actually makes me feel better as a gun owner.
It's one of those things that has good and bad to it. I mean, it prevents people that aren't allowed to own guns from legally doing so. It legitimizes my ownership by proving that I am legall allowed to own firearms. But if the 'right' sort of people get their way, it can be used as a devastating tool against gun owners. And those that register would be hit the hardest by far. So, to me, as it stands it's no big deal. It has the potential, however, to be used to destroy gun ownership in America. That's a big deal to me.
Compulsory training for those who own guns should be a must. I dont think banning them is realistic for America but I'd like to see a more stringent screening system at least.
The thing is, a lot of people are against compulsory training because it could be used as a tool to take guns out of the hands of average people. Say the price for training was set at, I dunno, $2500 or something. A lot of people couldn't afford that. So it needs to be done correctly. Make it as cheap as possible so people aren't all up in arms about it. I'm all for that. What could it hurt, you know? You get training in the military and you even get in in hunter education classes. It's something that could only help - so long as it's implemented properly.
By screening system, what do you mean? If you don't have any particular ideas, don't worry about it. I'm just curious. See, a lot of this stuff can actually be used as a defacto ban and so it needs to be properly described and realistically implemented.
Psych eval before getting one would be a must. If the training is compulsory I wouldnt charge the people for taking it or allow it to be a tax write off one time. Also I doubt Id let someone with little kids buy a gun unless they can prove they have a gun safe or can keep it out of reach of the kids. By little I mean 2-5 year olds after that the kids could learn enough that they are dangerous.
Also anyone with ties to groups like neo nazis black panthers KKK and such would be banned from owning guns all together. If I had my way government would assault each of those compounds with National guard and thsoe groups would be on terrorist watch list but thats a seperate issue.
Psych eval before getting one would be a must. If the training is compulsory I wouldnt charge the people for taking it or allow it to be a tax write off one time. Also I doubt Id let someone with little kids buy a gun unless they can prove they have a gun safe or can keep it out of reach of the kids. By little I mean 2-5 year olds after that the kids could learn enough that they are dangerous.
Also anyone with ties to groups like neo nazis black panthers KKK and such would be banned from owning guns all together. If I had my way government would assault each of those compounds with National guard and thsoe groups would be on terrorist watch list but thats a seperate issue.
I'm not so sure about a psych eval. There's a few issues with that. One, of course, is cost. Another is evaluator bias. Any anti-gun shrink could simply red flag everyone that came by. Plus, what would they even look for? The rest is stuff I'm cool with. I'm not too concerned with the kids, though, as education classes would take care of that. Safes are quite expensive, too. But I have all my stuff locked up so it wouldn't hit me personally. But there's room for abuse with a couple of your suggestions. Then again, they're just suggestions and not fleshed out policy so some holes are to be expected.
I have no problem blacklisting any member of a radical, racist group, though. Those things don't need guns - they need to go.
Psych eval before getting one would be a must.
At who's expense? A good psych eval isn't cheap ya know. Not to mention that for the most part the things are about as useful as a lie-detector (that is, if you're actually worried about failing you can prepare yourself to pass).
Also I doubt Id let someone with little kids buy a gun unless they can prove they have a gun safe or can keep it out of reach of the kids. By little I mean 2-5 year olds after that the kids could learn enough that they are dangerous.
Not gonna happen, as that would unfairly punish people who buy guns after getting kids, as opposed to people who spawn more kids after getting guns. Either way, the gun safe is a requirement in many places already, with or without kids.
Also anyone with ties to groups like neo nazis black panthers KKK and such would be banned from owning guns all together.
Thought crime isn't a real crime yet, and treating someone like a criminal just because they hold unfavorable views isn't just.
Thought crime isn't a real crime yet, and treating someone like a criminal just because they hold unfavorable views isn't just.
Sure it is. These people belong to groups with histories of violence against minorities. I am 100% okay with barring them from gun ownership. Just like I am okay with anyone who has gang or terrorist ties from not being allowed to purchase a firearm.
Thought crime isn't a real crime yet, and treating someone like a criminal just because they hold unfavorable views isn't just.
But there is precedent. The vast majority of people on the Terrorist Watch List are prevented from obtaining a firearm. The NICS is set to flag them.
Thought crime isn't a real crime yet, and treating someone like a criminal just because they hold unfavorable views isn't just.
But there is precedent. The vast majority of people on the Terrorist Watch List are prevented from obtaining a firearm. The NICS is set to flag them.
Exactly. Why would we screen out radical muslim extremists but not screen out radical white supremacists or domestic terrorist sympathizers.
Exactly. Why would we screen out radical muslim extremists but not screen out radical white supremacists or domestic terrorist sympathizers.
I can see where he's coming from, to tell you the truth, and part of me agrees that it's a bad idea (and definitely unjust). I just hate extremist groups enough that that part of me is silenced.
Thought crime isn't a real crime yet, and treating someone like a criminal just because they hold unfavorable views isn't just.
Sure it is. These people belong to groups with histories of violence against minorities. I am 100% okay with barring them from gun ownership. Just like I am okay with anyone who has gang or terrorist ties from not being allowed to purchase a firearm.
Yup why those groups are not considered terrorists I dont know. I just dont like the idea of giving guns to people who might be mentally unbalanced is all. The psych eval might be a bit much but how else are you going to prevent crazy people from getting guns?
Not to mention that who gets to say who's bad enough to have their rights stripped away for thought crimes? Do we let the current DoJ do that? What if the DoJ says that the Tea Party is just too violent in their rhetoric? After all, they lauded that suicidal pilot that flew into the IRS building earlier this year. Is that a strong enough connection? Or what about anti-abortion activists? They practically saint those ****s that kill doctors, shouldn't they be stopped from having guns?
No, it's just too easy to justify denying anyone a gun to say that you can deny someone a gun because of their ideology. Not to mention that treating someone like a criminal for belonging to a group that has committed no crimes1 is basically stripping away people's Freedom of Association.
________
1And face it, most modern KKK and neo-Nazi groups haven't committed crimes. Do they have roots in groups that did? Sure. But that's really not the same.
Exactly. Why would we screen out radical muslim extremists but not screen out radical white supremacists or domestic terrorist sympathizers.
I can see where he's coming from, to tell you the truth, and part of me agrees that it's a bad idea (and definitely unjust). I just hate extremist groups enough that that part of me is silenced.
This is one issue where I think public safety trumps individual liberties. Everyone knows what the Klan is about. I don't want klan members being able to buy firearms.
But there is precedent. The vast majority of people on the Terrorist Watch List are prevented from obtaining a firearm. The NICS is set to flag them.
I'd like to believe that they have more reasonable suspicion before taking someone onto such a list then "they frequent KKK sites". If they just say "well, he's a vocal Muslim from Iraq, so clearly he's a terrorist" then that's a step too far.
Ah, but terrorist or gang ties are different. That's being tied to actual crimes, you see? But someone who shaves their head, tattoos a swastika on their arm and starts talking about the master race? Sure, they're probably not someone I'd want to deal with, but they haven't done anything more then act on their First Amendment rights.
What do you think the Neo-Nazis or the KKK are? They are large gangs. You don't actually have to commit a crime to be on that list. You just need to be suspected of posing a threat.
Look they can say what they want to say. But the moment someone joins a group with a history of violence against minority groups (and they are still engaged in violence by the way). Put them on the terrorist watch list in my opion.
Not to mention that who gets to say who's bad enough to have their rights stripped away for thought crimes? Do we let the current DoJ do that? What if the DoJ says that the Tea Party is just too violent in their rhetoric? After all, they lauded that suicidal pilot that flew into the IRS building earlier this year. Is that a strong enough connection? Or what about anti-abortion activists? They practically saint those ****s that kill doctors, shouldn't they be stopped from having guns?
The department of justice already has that authority when it comes to terrorism.
People that make threats in public, people who join hate groups, people who join groups with real histories of violence should be prohibited.
No, it's just too easy to justify denying anyone a gun to say that you can deny someone a gun because of their ideology. Not to mention that treating someone like a criminal for belonging to a group that has committed no crimes1 is basically stripping away people's Freedom of Association.
No, we just deny people who pose a real threat like clan members, neo-nazis and domestic extremist groups.
There are already laws like this for gangs and terrorism.
But there is precedent. The vast majority of people on the Terrorist Watch List are prevented from obtaining a firearm. The NICS is set to flag them.
I'd like to believe that they have more reasonable suspicion before taking someone onto such a list then "they frequent KKK sites". If they just say "well, he's a vocal Muslim from Iraq, so clearly he's a terrorist" then that's a step too far.
I think it is based on intelligence reports. As should a list like the one I am talking about. I used to live in Klan Nazi terrority. These guys are not just all talk. As far as I am concerned, being in the klan isn't any different from being in any other gang.
This is one issue where I think public safety trumps individual liberties.
Have you found an issue where you don't think so?
This is one issue where I think public safety trumps individual liberties.
Have you found an issue where you don't think so?
Yes. But I don't see how that is important to the discussion.
I'd like to believe that they have more reasonable suspicion before taking someone onto such a list then "they frequent KKK sites". If they just say "well, he's a vocal Muslim from Iraq, so clearly he's a terrorist" then that's a step too far.
I'm honestly not able to tell you what gets people placed on the Watch List (aside from it occasionally being mistaken identity - like that kid we were talking about a few months back). Whatever criteria they use for that, once the name is placed, the person, in most cases, is legally barred from obtaining a firearm.
I would assume, if it were applied to racist groups, actual proof of membership would be required. That's not saying it would be. And it really doesn't solve anything because they'll just not join the groups openly. As I said earlier, a lot of my opinion on this is formed out of my hatred of these groups and, therefore, is not entirely rational.
www.gao.gov/new.items/d10703t.pdf
Yes. But I don't see how that is important to the discussion.
It's not. But hey, the discussion itself isn't exactly on-topic either, no?
Anyway, the point people seem to be missing is that when you categorically strip a group of people of rights before they've done something wrong, you're over-stepping your bounds. On a case by case basis? Sure, I can accept that if there's a good reason. But group membership is not sufficient in most cases, and if the group is actually violent and committing crimes, then they're already committing crimes you can jail them for. And then they fall under that whole "felon" thing which means they're stripped of certain rights anyway.
But going up to someone and saying "you've committed no crimes. We don't actually have any good reason for suspecting you will commit a crime, other then your politics which, to this point, you haven't acted unlawfully in support of. But we don't like your politics so we're going to strip you of rights anyway"? That's crossing a line. If you have a good reason, like, say, concrete ties to a terrorist cell or gang such that it's clear that you are supporting criminals even if you've toed the line so far? Fine. But just being a bigoted moron who needs to keep his trap shut isn't enough. Otherwise we'd have already locked up the entire Westboro Baptists group, no?
Yes. But I don't see how that is important to the discussion.
It's not. But hey, the discussion itself isn't exactly on-topic either, no?
Anyway, the point people seem to be missing is that when you categorically strip a group of people of rights before they've done something wrong, you're over-stepping your bounds. On a case by case basis? Sure, I can accept that if there's a good reason. But group membership is not sufficient in most cases, and if the group is actually violent and committing crimes, then they're already committing crimes you can jail them for. And then they fall under that whole "felon" thing which means they're stripped of certain rights anyway.
But going up to someone and saying "you've committed no crimes. We don't actually have any good reason for suspecting you will commit a crime, other then your politics which, to this point, you haven't acted unlawfully in support of. But we don't like your politics so we're going to strip you of rights anyway"? That's crossing a line. If you have a good reason, like, say, concrete ties to a terrorist cell or gang such that it's clear that you are supporting criminals even if you've toed the line so far? Fine. But just being a bigoted moron who needs to keep his trap shut isn't enough. Otherwise we'd have already locked up the entire Westboro Baptists group, no?
Those groups espose overthrowing the government and killing large groups of people to me that makes them the same as Al quida and means they should be squashed like bugs.
Exactly. Why would we screen out radical muslim extremists but not screen out radical white supremacists or domestic terrorist sympathizers.
I can see where he's coming from, to tell you the truth, and part of me agrees that it's a bad idea (and definitely unjust). I just hate extremist groups enough that that part of me is silenced.
This is one issue where I think public safety trumps individual liberties. Everyone knows what the Klan is about. I don't want klan members being able to buy firearms.
And I don't want the black panthers and members of nation of islam to be able to buy guns either...
Thought crime isn't a real crime yet, and treating someone like a criminal just because they hold unfavorable views isn't just.
But there is precedent. The vast majority of people on the Terrorist Watch List are prevented from obtaining a firearm. The NICS is set to flag them.
Exactly. Why would we screen out radical muslim extremists but not screen out radical white supremacists or domestic terrorist sympathizers.
Or radical black nationalists...
Yes. But I don't see how that is important to the discussion.
It's not. But hey, the discussion itself isn't exactly on-topic either, no?
Anyway, the point people seem to be missing is that when you categorically strip a group of people of rights before they've done something wrong, you're over-stepping your bounds. On a case by case basis? Sure, I can accept that if there's a good reason. But group membership is not sufficient in most cases, and if the group is actually violent and committing crimes, then they're already committing crimes you can jail them for. And then they fall under that whole "felon" thing which means they're stripped of certain rights anyway.
But going up to someone and saying "you've committed no crimes. We don't actually have any good reason for suspecting you will commit a crime, other then your politics which, to this point, you haven't acted unlawfully in support of. But we don't like your politics so we're going to strip you of rights anyway"? That's crossing a line. If you have a good reason, like, say, concrete ties to a terrorist cell or gang such that it's clear that you are supporting criminals even if you've toed the line so far? Fine. But just being a bigoted moron who needs to keep his trap shut isn't enough. Otherwise we'd have already locked up the entire Westboro Baptists group, no?
Those groups espose overthrowing the government and killing large groups of people to me that makes them the same as Al quida and means they should be squashed like bugs.
The American Constitution allows for the overthorwing of the gov't ...
Yes. But I don't see how that is important to the discussion.
It's not. But hey, the discussion itself isn't exactly on-topic either, no?
Anyway, the point people seem to be missing is that when you categorically strip a group of people of rights before they've done something wrong, you're over-stepping your bounds. On a case by case basis? Sure, I can accept that if there's a good reason. But group membership is not sufficient in most cases, and if the group is actually violent and committing crimes, then they're already committing crimes you can jail them for. And then they fall under that whole "felon" thing which means they're stripped of certain rights anyway.
But going up to someone and saying "you've committed no crimes. We don't actually have any good reason for suspecting you will commit a crime, other then your politics which, to this point, you haven't acted unlawfully in support of. But we don't like your politics so we're going to strip you of rights anyway"? That's crossing a line. If you have a good reason, like, say, concrete ties to a terrorist cell or gang such that it's clear that you are supporting criminals even if you've toed the line so far? Fine. But just being a bigoted moron who needs to keep his trap shut isn't enough. Otherwise we'd have already locked up the entire Westboro Baptists group, no?
Those groups espose overthrowing the government and killing large groups of people to me that makes them the same as Al quida and means they should be squashed like bugs.
The American Constitution allows for the overthorwing of the gov't ...
I dont want guns in the hands of what amounts to thugs, gangs and terrorist groups and I lump black panthers, Nazi groups, and the KKK in that group. Hell such groups should be banned and their members thrown in jail as threats to national security, and the constitution needs to be changed in some respects.
Actually, the best potential use of a firearm is that of self-defense or protecting another human life. This could be from another human using some deadly tool or from an animal.
I tells ya officer, that run away power sander almost got me! Good thing I had my 12 gauge out and ready. Ol' bess saved my hide fo realz t'day!
... damn. Totally missread that, thought you said "another human, some deadly tool or from an animal." **** it, I like my way better.
Those groups espose overthrowing the government and killing large groups of people [...]
... and? You can espouse whatever you want and still be free. This is America. We started with a bunch of crazy nut-bags overthrowing the government and killing large groups of people. And then we made a habit of doing so around the world. Getting upset that people took the lesson to heart is a bit hypocritical, no?
It's really a very basic distinction. We treat people that have committed crimes like criminals. We treat people that have not committed crimes like innocents. And rhetoric alone is not enough to commit a crime in the USA. If it was then the Southern Poverty Law Center wouldn't have a list of hate groups, it would have a list of outstanding warrants.
Yes. But I don't see how that is important to the discussion.
It's not. But hey, the discussion itself isn't exactly on-topic either, no?
Anyway, the point people seem to be missing is that when you categorically strip a group of people of rights before they've done something wrong, you're over-stepping your bounds. On a case by case basis? Sure, I can accept that if there's a good reason. But group membership is not sufficient in most cases, and if the group is actually violent and committing crimes, then they're already committing crimes you can jail them for. And then they fall under that whole "felon" thing which means they're stripped of certain rights anyway.
But going up to someone and saying "you've committed no crimes. We don't actually have any good reason for suspecting you will commit a crime, other then your politics which, to this point, you haven't acted unlawfully in support of. But we don't like your politics so we're going to strip you of rights anyway"? That's crossing a line. If you have a good reason, like, say, concrete ties to a terrorist cell or gang such that it's clear that you are supporting criminals even if you've toed the line so far? Fine. But just being a bigoted moron who needs to keep his trap shut isn't enough. Otherwise we'd have already locked up the entire Westboro Baptists group, no?
I just don't agree. You belong to a hate group. I don't want you owning firearms. Period. End of story.
The American Constitution allows for the overthorwing of the gov't ...
I could be wrong but to my knowledge that isn't mentioned in the constition. In the declaration of independance it mentions it as a universal right against tyranny. But itt is against the law to advocate overthrow of the US government.
Sec. 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or
teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of
overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or
the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession
thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by
force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any
such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any
such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates,
sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed
matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity,
desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any
government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts
to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society,
group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the
overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or
violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any
such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes
thereof -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by
the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five
years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in
this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for
employment by the United States or any department or agency
thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms "organizes" and "organize",
with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include
the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the
regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units
of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
AMENDMENTS
1994 - Pub. L. 103-322 substituted "fined under this title" for
"fined not more than $20,000" in fourth and fifth pars.
1962 - Pub. L. 87-486 defined the terms "organizes" and
"organize".
1956 - Act July 24, 1956, substituted "$20,000" for "$10,000",
and "twenty years" for "ten years" in the paragraph prescribing
penalties applicable to advocating overthrow of government and
inserted provisions relating to conspiracy to commit any offense
named in this section.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1956 AMENDMENT
Amendment by act July 24, 1956, as applicable only with respect
to offenses committed on and after July 24, 1956, see section 3 of
act July 24, 1956, set out as a note under section 2384 of this
I just don't agree. You belong to a hate group. I don't want you owning firearms. Period. End of story.
... I'm going to assume that should read "[If] you belong to a hate group, I don't want you owning firearms", as otherwise I'd have a few choice words for you.
In which case... who defines a hate group? Any group you let do the defining is going to be accused of bias. Heck, the Southern Poverty Law Center is accused of bias, and there isn't any punch to them calling you a hate group. Would you trust the DoJ to do the labeling? I certainly wouldn't, and with how their general tone changes with every administration, there's no way in hell I'd trust them to be consistently impartial. So who gets to make the call on what is or isn't a hate group?
Do the Boy Scouts of America count? How about the Tea Partiers? the Stonewall Democrats? Concerned Women of America? Have 'bout ol' Phyllis Schlafly? The entire Republican Party? OneIowa? Family Research Council? Get Equal? Who can we trust to unequivocally and without bias strip a group of people their constitutional rights?