I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Off-Topic => Political Debates - Thick Skin Required for Entry => Topic started by: Bill Peckham on February 21, 2018, 10:02:20 PM
-
I have a slogan for 2018 and 2020: Vengeance. Vengeance for Charlestown. Vengeance for Puerto Rico. Vengeance for allowing the Republican Presidential nominee to be unvetted. Vote Vengeance. By 2020 the Republican Party should cease to exist. Change the letter next to your name or be voted out of office. Vote Vengeance 2018 tm
-
Nice slogan. It is time to vote out the NRA flunkiesand vote in people who care about people rather than a gun lobby which has lead to our schools running with innocent blood. This gun first attitude has lead to a place where any public gathering can be turned into a slaughter house.
-
I'll vote for vengeance but I'll also vote to support the great kids from Parkland FL. Their voices are clear and raw and full of truth. They are the only hope I have for the future of this once great country. They are shaming our weak, NRA-owned politicians.
-
Count me in!
:yahoo;
-
While I understand the sentiment, I don't think voting for vengeance is the answer. There is a certain portion of the population that voted for vengeance because we had a black president, and look where that got us.
-
I'm calling my IRA and 401K administrators to be sure none of my investments have anything to do with gun manufacturers or distributors/sellers. And if there are any rallies or pickets going on locally, I'll March for a ban on semi-automatics, assault rifles, bump stocks, or anything any sick mind can dream up to mow down innocent people. Teachers with guns? That's a really bad idea.
-
I'm calling my IRA and 401K administrators to be sure none of my investments have anything to do with gun manufacturers or distributors/sellers.
The problem is that most IRA and 401K investment selections are mutual funds with a broad selection of investment vehicles, selected for best possible return rather than political agenda.
There are "socially resonsible" mutual funds that avoid a wide list of politically incorrect investments. If you can't find one of those with your current custodian, you may have to transfer to another company.
Just be careful that you don't veer from your investment strategy (sector selection/diversification; beta selection; etc.) in the effort to be politically correct.
Oh, and you may want to rent cars form Hertz - they just cancelled the NRA member discount.
-
Yay hertz!
-
I think it would better to cancel the second admendment, of all the constitutional rights it’s the only one it’s proponents want to be unlimited. Every other right las limits and exclusions, if the NRA and it’s minions want to exercise the 2 admendment without any resonable bounds then all that’s left is to admendment the constitution and cancel the second admendment.
-
I refuse to Re-Elect anyone, regardless of their political party.
Keeping these professional politicians in office is what has created this whole mess.
Get rid of the politicians.
It was intended for the Farmer, Rancher, shopkeeper to be elected for a term, go spend those few months in Congress and Senate, then get back home to the Farm, Ranch, or Store and get back to his regular job.
Ever since they started giving themselves salaries they have been voting themselves raises, granting more benefits, perks, paid travel, housing, everything under the sun. And WE THE PEOPLE pay for it all.
Create a worthwhile bill then tag on multiple riders, spending billions of 'pork' dollars to line the pockets of contributors to their reelection campaigns.
It is up to us, WE THE PEOPLE, to put an end to all of this political madness.
The Congress and Senate voted to limit the president to no more than two terms. Why will they not do the same for Congress and Senate? Because they do not want to give up raking in all those tax dollars they are milking from WE THE PEOPLE.
-
I refuse to Re-Elect anyone, regardless of their political party. :pics;
We had a Democratic candidate for the House of Reps (federal) who believed in and campaigned on term limits.
Once in, he changed his mind, and handily won reelection until he retired to take a lucrative job attached to the state nipple while collecting his congressional retirement pay.
Ever since they started giving themselves salaries they have been voting themselves raises
The MA state legislature just gave themselves 40% and included the judiciary to trigger a technicality that would prevent rollback of the increase by a citizen's initiative petition. Every Democrat who voted that can be certain of re-election solely because of party affiliation.
-
I voted with vengeance last time and I will again. Good advice !
MAGA!!! :thumbup; Let's get rid of the guns. Let's see how that works out.
-
Let's get rid of the guns. Let's see how that works out.
Let's start with banning civilian ownership of the AR-15, the most favored weapon, AKA "Barbie for Men", of white male murderers of school children and concertgoers. Don't let anyone tell you that this would go against the Second Amendment.
http://www.businessinsider.com/scalias-2008-second-amendment-opinion-2012-12
https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/justice-scalias-gun-control-argument/
You get the idea.
Do you really want to drain the swamp? Really really really? Do you really want to see Trump keep his promise to drain the swamp? Then have him get rid of the NRA. Make it illegal for candidates/elected officials to accept campaign money from the NRA. Let's see the President go after "L'il Wayne" LaPierre. There. I've already given Trump a nickname he can use in his tweets. Never say I'm not a patriot!
-
Sorry Folks, but.... as a Veteran I am all for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership.
The trick is going to be how do you sort out the Responsible from those that may be less than responsible?
Training, training, training. Education from an early age, experience in less than ideal situations, a level head.
Gun laws do not apply to criminals. Period. They simply make it more difficult for responsible people to legally purchase a weapon.
Parenting has a whole lot to do with it. That old adage, ""It takes a Village." But in this day most people hardly even know their neighbors. Living as close as we are we still refuse to socialize with even our neighbors. Instead the kids occupy their time with these damn phones, videos of violence, and play violent games and laugh at the death and destruction pictured. This cannot develop a well balanced individual.
Until we get tough with the kids and start banning all the violence presented to them things are not going to improve anytime soon.
Hollywood needs to stop glorifying violence.
-
Sorry Folks, but.... as a Veteran I am all for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership.
Yeah but a responsible gun owner can be described as someone who has taken the responsible decision not to own a gun!
-
Sorry Folks, but.... as a Veteran I am all for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership.
As a citizen of the United States of America, I am all for banning weapons like the ones used in Las Vegas and Parkland.
As a Veteran, you must surely be appalled that the NRA has taken away our freedom to live in safety because men have to have their Barbies.
I still want to know why we should allow the ownership of this particular weapon.
Stop blaming this on kids who watch violent movies or have bad mommies and daddies. There have been too many mass murders that were perpetrated by other types of men, not kids.
Any responsible gun owner would be very clear with the idea that the second amendment does not mean that these kinds of weapons should be available at all. If they are not used for self defense, and if they are not used for hunting animals, then the only other reason they are used is to hunt down people. That a veteran, whose mission was to protect the United States and its citzens, would believe that these weapons should be allowed in civilian hands is a startling proposition.
There is NOTHING in the Constitution that bans the banning of this class of weaponry.
Again, https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/justice-scalias-gun-control-argument/
-
I still want to know why we should allow the ownership of this particular weapon.
Private swimming pools cause more child deaths per year than school shootings.
Can you please explain why such pools should be permitted?
-
I still want to know why we should allow the ownership of this particular weapon.
Private swimming pools cause more child deaths per year than school shootings.
Can you please explain why such pools should be permitted?
Sorry Simon you loose this argument. It is a very old Internet rule that when someone brings up a stupid comparison like that the debate is over, and the person who brought up the comparison has lost the debate.
-
Sorry Simon you loose this argument. It is a very old Internet rule that when someone brings up a stupid comparison like that the debate is over, and the person who brought up the comparison has lost the debate.
No, it is you who have lost the argument by not responding with a rational answer*.
The comparison is not stupid, as it discusses the balance between allowing an item which is enjoyed by many, but kills a few and banning that item for the common good. The difference is that the idea of guns offends some people but pools do not.
Banning private pools would save children's lives. Why do we permit many people to enjoy such items when filling them in would save lives? Is the recreational value people get from pools really worth telling dozens of parents a year "Sorry, your kid died so people could enjoy private swimming pools"? What are your answers to these two questions?
* - It useless and irrelevant for either party in a debate to declare the other side the loser. The marketplace of ideas and thought does not work that way, and asserting it does is arrogant.
-
Accidentally deleted - see next post.
-
I apologize to Paul. I thought I was quoting his post, and unintentionally deleted it. This happened because I have admin privs for the purpose of installing forum upgrades.
I am going to remove admin privs from SimonDog and create a SimonAdmin account for the upgrades so this will not happen again.
Paul - Please repost your commentary. It was in no way my intent to remove or delete it. I have no right to do so, and apologize again.
-
Once again, the primary purpose of swimming pools is for recreation.
The primary purpose of AR-15s and similar weapons is for killing. https://www.bustle.com/articles/167365-the-creator-of-the-ar-15-rifle-only-invented-the-gun-for-one-purpose (https://www.bustle.com/articles/167365-the-creator-of-the-ar-15-rifle-only-invented-the-gun-for-one-purpose)
Simon Dog, you are falling for NRA propaganda by trying to compare the two.
-
Primary purpose aside, they both result in innocent deaths. Please explain why pools should be allowed.
Curiously, the ARs I get are marketed for only two purposes - recreation and law enforcement. Nothing else.
-
Simon Dog, please supply data that shows that more people are killed each year in private swimming pools than are killed by guns. A logical question, just as a logical answer, needs to be based on factual evidence.
I am sure that many people own both guns and swimming pools. If they have children, I would assume they ensure their children understand the risk of using each. I also assume the parents reduce the risk of accidental death using all sorts of methods, i.e., locking away guns and putting fencing around pools.
The problems is that guns are transportable and can be even stolen and used in nefarious ways. It would be easier to murder someone with a gun than with a swimming pool. You can't transport pools across state lines. There is a reason you need a background check to have a purchase a gun. I am not aware of any background check a man needs to put a pool in his back yard.
No one is calling for "pool control". This is not a national issue. There are not planned marches against pool violence.
It is intellectually lazy to assume that all people who are concerned about the KIND of guns used in these mass shootings "don't like the idea of guns". It would be more honest to say that "most people do not like the idea of AR-15 style weapons being so widespread and so easily available".
And yes, the recreational value that people get from their private swimming pools is worth having to tell some parents that their child died in a private pool, and here's why. Parents and their children can decide if they want to take that risk. They can discuss the pros and cons and are free to choose a local park district pool with lifeguards. Parents can sign their kids up for swimming lessons to lessen any risk. There are many ways to mitigate the risk of drowning in a private pool. When children (and adults) are murdered by a man using an AR-15 type weapon, those victims have not been given a choice. They have had no opportunity to escape.
What we are now left with is a possible scenario where people will no longer go to concerts or allow their children go to school or dare to do anything because you never know when some white dude is going to whip out his gun and start murdering people. You are shifting the burden of risk assessment onto people who have no interest in Barbies for Men. That's not freedom. That's tyranny. I shouldn't have to worry about being shot any time I go into a movie. I don't know what the risk may be. I don't know where the danger may lurk. But if I go into a private swimming pool, I don't have those concerns.
That should answer your queries. If not, then it shows an inability to see nuance and a determination to view this issue in only black and white.
-
Barbies for men? I don't know who coined this phrase but maybe they need to have a couple of wires connected to their head and plugged into the ignition of my truck for a little 'shock' therapy.
Doesn't a lot of men want to marry a 'Barbie'?
What about the 'Barbie' I have on my front porch? I have two. One gas and one charcoal.
Using such a word is asinine and needs a bit of correction.
Now, as for 'Black' guns, most EVERY pistol is 'Black'. Since I was a teen hunting in the forests of the NorthWest we have been refinishing many of our rifles 'Black' non-reflective as the highly reflective lacquered wood finish was too easily seen by the animals long before the hunter saw the animal.
So to answer the simple question "Would I purchase and own a BLACK weapon?" Is actually a very stupid question.
Would I purchase an AR? I seriously doubt it. While I do enjoy a bit of range-time, it is to maintain my proficiency with my selected hunting and self-defense weapons. I've never been one of the spray and pray types. You WILL run out of ammo and then you're toast! Learn to make each round count.
Many yet claim the 223 to be a defensive weapon. I much rather have a 12 gauge, that packs far more 'punch' and will take an intruder off his feet and into the wall behind him. And he ain't gonna get back up.
But if you want to argue about something that kills far more people, DAILY, just look outside on any street in America.
Cars. Why haven't we developed mass transit? No, we are too hooked on this 'Freedom' thing. Crashing and killing far more people daily. And that's before we even add alcohol to the drivers. Yet NO ONE is doing anything to limit the number of vehicles on the roads. Google the number of kids killed in auto accidents annually. Go ahead, I dare you!
-
For years I have argued you can’t ban all guns. Now after the latest killing spree I have changed my opinion. The only right granted under the constitution with out limits is the right to own guns. Reasonable measures such as not selling guns to crazy people or not to sell guns to people on the terrorist watch list, or the inability to stop the sale of bumpstocks has lead me to the conclusion that the second admendment should be repealed. If that happens and it leads to no guns well the reasonable approach has been tried for years and the gun club has blocked them. If the same approach was taken with the first admendment it would be leagal to scream fire in a theater or to produce child porn. So we are left with bodies hitting the floor across America. Romberg what has happened to the survivors of Sandy Hook gun nuts have harassed them for years trying to prove it never happened.
-
Throughout History many countries have banned weapons, specifically firearms. And proceeded to kill off selected portions of their populations. Look it up. Governments, everywhere, tend to select which portion of their population to oppress. That old thing to much power goes to their head.
Governments need to have strict limitations placed on their power. Term limits are a great idea. But Congress and the Senate will NEVER give up their 'Ruling Elite' status.
I no longer remember exactly how it came about, but some time ago (while I was still Enlisted 72 - 75) many of our military officers and enlisted were asked the question, "Could/would you fire upon U.S. Citizens if so ordered?" Far too many replied 'No".
It wasn't to much later that foreign troops started training temporarily assigned to U.S. bases right here within the U.S. And they are still here. You think they will be hesitant in firing on U.S. Citizens? Kinda makes you wonder exactly WHY Congress has allowed foreign troops on our soil. Like I said, 'Ruling Elite'.
-
Simon Dog introduced me to the phrase "Barbies for men", and it is genius.
-
I have always till now supported guns for huntiny, but I have decided that if the gun nuts won’t allow reasonable controls on assault weapons, military grade weapons then lets start the process of repealing the second admendment. After all it’s the only right in the constitution that does not have restrictions. Americans need to look at NRA money and vote for the non NRA candidates. Any gathering is a potential mass murder waiting to happen. This violence directed at the innocent must be stopped.
-
Three police officers have been shot in Northern Idaho in a week. One was Charlie my brother's step son.
The other two were shot today. All will survive. The Suspects, respectively, are dead. No National attention. Why? White cops and white dirt bags. Not News Worthy.
The dirt bag that shot Charlie was a felon.... with a gun! Now damn it Felons are NOT supposed to have guns!
WTF? How did that happen AGAIN!!
It's simple: Bad Guys Will always get guns!
-
Forget Pools! How many Pedestrians are killed by texting and walking without paying attention!
http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/pennsylvania/mc-pa-why-pedestrian-deaths-are-rising-20170330-story.html
-
The reason for felons with guns is the lack of background checks on certain type of sales. Why no checks ask the NRA. Pool deaths are generally caused by incompetent owners, it’s not 50 people attending a concert fault they are being gunned down by a maniac with a weapon that shoots 100 rounds in 13 seconds.
-
Felons KNOW they are Not supposed to buy or steal guns ...
-
Oh you expect criminals to self notify sellers that they are felons, it would be more workable for every gun sale be validated by the local police. List of things that can kill people are ludicrous, I can fence my pool, watch were I walk, but what could 50 Las Vegas concert doers do to stop a maniac from killing them.
-
In my state, all private sales must be reported via an on-line system that requires the buyer enter their gun license # and PIN. The private sale cannot proceed until the system confirms that the license is still valid.
-
As far as I know, the Las Vegas Shooter would have passed any background check.
Let's get rid of the guns and see if that works. It has not worked to ban drugs.
-
If we get rid of guns, lets start with the important people: Celebritie's bodyguards, rich and important people (Did you Donald Trump had a hens tooth, a/k/a NYC carry permit before he went into politics? Ditto for Sean Penn, Howard Stern and other big names), off duty police (why should they be special when not on the job?), and politicians staff below the level of President/VP. Don't forget Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg's and Rosie O'Donnel's personal armed security. Once those people are disarmed, they will have the moral authority to argue that others should be as well.
Funny how many are really arguing "guns for me but not for thee".
Let's get rid of the guns and see if that works. It has not worked to ban drugs.
Alcohol prohibition was a grand experiment showing the futility of attempting to repeal the laws of supply and demand. The country has just begun the process of realizing that MJ prohibition was a catastrophic failure.
-
Just heard this on CBS Evening News
According to the CDC drug overdoses kill 5 people every HOUR across the United States.
-
Just heard this on CBS Evening News
According to the CDC drug overdoses kill 5 people every HOUR across the United States.
Many of those ODs are due to Fentanyl being introduced into the Heroin supply, and customers not knowing what they were getting. ODs would go down considerably if heroin of known purity was legally sold at pharmacies. See, I am pro-choice on everything.
Curiously, my transplant surgeon told me IV drug addicts are the most skilled patients when it comes to self treatment fistula care.
-
Just heard this on CBS Evening News
According to the CDC drug overdoses kill 5 people every HOUR across the United States.
Many of those ODs are due to Fentanyl being introduced into the Heroin supply, and customers not knowing what they were getting. ODs would go down considerably if heroin of known purity was legally sold at pharmacies. See, I am pro-choice on everything.
That can be true. It is also the case that people seek out fentanyl.
It is impacting the provision of dialysis. I've not seen a discussion of opioids on IHD - a lot of dialyzors have prescriptions
-
Here is an interesting statistic for you: In Britain, with a few exceptions, private gun ownership is illegal. In Britain, the number of killings per capita are a lot lower than in the US. There are two possible reasons for this:
1) Guns kill people, banning guns in America would result in less murders. So private gun ownership should be made illegal.
Or
2) Americans, as a whole, are nasty horrid people, and British people are much better human beings that Americans.
Now which of those two do you want to cling to?
PS, I'm British, so I'm going for number two. :P
-
In Britain, the number of killings per capita are a lot lower than in the US
You have a greater chance of being knifed 2 death in London than you have of being shot to death in NYC.
-
In Britain, the number of killings per capita are a lot lower than in the US
You have a greater chance of being knifed 2 death in London than you have of being shot to death in NYC.
No, you had a greater chance of being murdered in London during the first three months of this year than in New York City, however taking a 12 month average, you had a lot more chance of being killed in NYC than in London. We just had a bad few bad months. And anyway, London has a higher population than NYC, PER CAPITA London had a lower killing rate than NYC during that period (just).
I was talking about the whole country in both cases, and Britain, as a whole, had a fraction of the number of killings (per capita) as the US. You cannot take one city and consider it representative of the whole country. For example, the city that used to be called "the murder capital of Europe" had no killings last year, you cannot extrapolate from this that there were no killings in Europe last year.
-
To give you the accurate figures: There are less than five times as many people in the US as in the UK, so you would expect less than five times as many murders in the US as in the UK. However in 2017 there were just under twenty five times as many murders in the US as in the UK, or FIVE TIMES AS MANY MURDERS per capita. That is a hell of a lot of killings!
So, I repeat my question: Are you a nation of psychopaths, or is the "right to bear arms" an evil article of the constitution that is killing thousands of Americans each year?
-
The gun club zombies will equate all sorts of risks such as pools, drugs, and every thing that can kill you. Problem for this argument is that if I take drugs I choose a risky habit that could]d kill me, but I could be attending a public event and be gunnr=ed down by a maniac with a assault rifle firing 100 rounds in 13 seconds. Result 50 dead in Las Vegas people who did nothing wrong but the fact as a country we allow the public to walk around armed with weapons designed to kill mass numbers of hum an beings. Its time to remove the second amendment just like the 21 admendment was canceled when the nation realized it was not working.
-
It is easy for people to think that the US will always be a bastion of freedom, however, we have already seen changes that, had I predicted them on a high school essay back in the 70s, would have earned me a failing grade.
- Secret overseas detention centers?
- Doing things to prisoners that the US called torture when the Viet Cong did them to our service people?
- Widespread monitoring of all citizens communications?
- A secret court that would rubber stamp warrants?
- National security letters that bind a recipient, who signed no confidentiality contract with the govt to maintain secrecy?
- $10,000 per day fine for offering a private untappable communication service?
(in fact, the law requires all telecommunication providers provide the govt the ability to tap any phone from a remote govt location, with only the govts promise it will tap only with a warrant) - Secret dockets and trials in federal courts that are not open to the public?
- Civil forfeiture without the benefit of a trial?
- Internal passport required for travel?
- Inability to fly anonymously without the govt getting a report of your moves?
It is easy to say that the people will never need to rise up against the government, and in today's world, that is true. It will probably be true for some time, probably several more generations. But, given the fundamental change we have seen in the relationship between the people and the government, I do not trust a government that would disarm its citizens - even if it is currently operating in a benign and benevolent manner.
The gun club zombies
You've got that backward. It's the gun club zombie hunters.
Hornaday ammo released "Zombie Killer" ammo as an apparent joke. It was identical to their ammo with the red plastic tip, but colored green. It has remained in their product line as a major seller.
Problem for this argument is that if I take drugs I choose a risky habit that could kill me,
Excellent point, but we allow people to drive, even when they become statistically more dangerous than an AR15 owner with a spotless record. I speculate that the reason for this is everyone hopes to make it to their senior years, and know they would not want their driving rights taken away. It's easier to advocate taking away a right from another person when it is one you do not personally value or exercise.
I was in a 3 car fatal accident a bit over a month ago. The 85-year-old female driver who caused it (police report conclusion, not just mine) is dead, and my wife is still in recovery from an ACDF (Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion) of the C4/C5 vertebrae. That surgery is as scary and painful as the term would leave one to believe. I respectfully submit that it is likely we could save more lives than are lost in mass shootings if we required drivers over a certain age to require a current medical and driving test to stay on the road. Ironically, my wife recognized such dangers and was personally responsible for taking two drivers in their 80's in our family off the road, one of whom never spoke to her for the remainder of his life as a result.
No, you had a greater chance of being murdered in London during the first three months of this year than in New York City, however taking a 12-month average, you had a lot more chance of being killed in NYC than in London
Yes, but if I am attacked by someone with a knife, I can draw my legally carried gun (assuming I have not lazily left it at home, which I have unfortunately become prone to do). Londoners have no such option. It's about individual responsibility vs. collectivism.
Its time to remove the second amendment just like the 21 amendment was canceled when the nation realized it was not working.
The courts are already doing that job for you. We just got another federal court ruling (Worman v. Baker in the first district federal court) that AR15s are not covered the second amendment. I expect the 3 judge panel to affirm, en banc to be denied or affirm, and SCOTUS cert not to be granted. So, the constitution is already void where prohibited by law.
-
Post was simply a message to Simon Dog as something was wrong with his post, but it appears that the problem was that he was editing as I was reading, so I have removed what are now pointless comments.
-
No, you had a greater chance of being murdered in London during the first three months of this year than in New York City, however taking a 12-month average, you had a lot more chance of being killed in NYC than in London
Yes, but if I am attacked by someone with a knife, I can draw my legally carried gun (assuming I have not lazily left it at home, which I have unfortunately become prone to do). Londoners have no such option. It's about individual responsibility vs. collectivism.
So basically you are saying you go for option two, that us Brits are better people than you Americans????????
-
Post was simply a message to Simon Dog as something was wrong with his post, but it appears that the problem was that he was editing as I was reading, so I have removed what are now pointless comments.
Exactly right. I have too much time on my hands right now, and nobody on this forum will have a hard time guessing what I am stuck doing right now.
I am enjoying our dialog. I hope those who find my comments distasteful can return to the dialysis oriented topics on IHD.
You do raise a fundamentally good point about risks voluntarily assumed and those over which you have no control. It is definitely worth some thought.
So basically you are saying you go for option two, that us Brits are better people than you Americans????????
I don't understand. Are you saying Brits are better because you don't allow self-defense?
-
As to the pools vs AR question:
https://m1-garand-rifle.com/gun-safety/firearms-versus-swimming-pools.php
Unfortunately, it does not break down gun deaths by weapon model; just shows total aggregate by age group for pools and guns.
-
I don't understand. Are you saying Brits are better because you don't allow self-defense?
No, I was following on from my point that America has five times as many unlawful killings per capita than Britain. So either 80% of killings in America are due to your lax gun control, and there would be well over ten thousand less deaths if you banned personal ownership of guns. Or gun ownership is not responsible, which would mean British people are better human beings than Americans. You posted to point out that if you had a gun you could defend yourself. I was saying (admittedly I think I shortened my post too much so was not clear) that in that case there should be less unlawful killings in America (you murder me - unlawful killing; I kill you first in self defence - lawful killing), so that means having guns should reduce the number of murders in America, not increase it by a factor of five. So basically I was saying that if your theorising is correct, it means Americans are nasty human beings, and we Brits are a hell of a lot better than you. Personally if I were in your place (i.e. if I were American) I'd go for the "guns bad - ban private use" option, but as a Brit, I am happy to go for the other option.
-
Mid-Terms are around the corner. Vote Democrat OR ELSE There will be riots in the streets, they will burn your car with a Trump Sticker
https://www.krem.com/article/news/washington-man-believes-truck-was-torched-because-of-trump-bumper-stickers/281-602289018
Yield or Else! I'm so scared!!!! :sarcasm;
-
For those of you who want to support democratic (and democratic supporting) senate candidates here is an ActBlue page I setup yesterday which allows you to donate to the thirty-two 2018 democratic candidates and two independents:
https://secure.actblue.com/donate/2018senateraces
It auto allocates out your dontation across all 34 canidates or you can select your own distribuation. There are other lists which are more focused on key races and have much shorter lists of canidates. This makes it easy to give $1/$10 per canidate etc...
-
Give money $$$ or ELSE! THEY know where you live!!! But, they don't have any guns! Just matches and GAS and blow horns!!!
:thx;
-
having guns should reduce the number of murders in America
Actually, it equalizes people. The important people will always have guns or armed minions.
For example, NYC carry permits are VERY hard to get. So hard there was a bribery ring in the NYPD and the going bribe (though a middleman for deniability) was $5000. Sean Penn, Howard Stern and The Donald (before he entered politics) made the cut without paying any bribes because they are important people. The little people are told no.
Don't count suicides. That is a person exercising an individual choice - sometimes reasonably, sometimes not. The CEO of the Fortune 500 company I worked for did himself in with a shotgun - after reaching Stage 4 metastatic lung cancer with nothing but days of painful treatment attempting (and ultimately failing) as forestalling the inevitable. I would consider that a reasonable action, not a tragic gun death. Unfortunately, the Papists stopped the physician-assisted suicide law from passing in MA.
As to statistics - the one to look at is the unlawful shootings by carry permit holders, as well as other crimes. Some studies have found the lawfulness of carry permit holder meets or exceeds that of off-duty police.
So, please don't lump me in with criminals, ne'er-do-wells and idiots when trying to determine if I am qualified to be armed.
-
Liberal Education for the ... ah .. Year:
Repeat as loud as you can!
"Hey Hey Ho Ho (enter GOP Name) Has Got To Go!"
Clap along with the beat (if you can)
:thx;
-
Yet consurvatives are still crying “Lock her up”. So much for due process.
-
Yet conservatives are still crying “Lock her up”. So much for due process.
You are correct. They should be crying "indict her".
Neither side cares for due process unless it helps their agenda. Just look at how many Democrats were saying "we can't use mere accusations against Kavanaugh since he has not been convicted".
-
Democrats, Republicans, I lump them all in the same boat. Crooks and Liars that simply want to suck the public dry while getting rich.
I don't care WHO is up for re-election, vote them OUT. Vote for the new guy.
It will take a lifetime of voting them out, but the benefit of voter imposed term-limits are immense. Those Retiree's will eventually die off, leaving all those retirement salaries in the tax coffers. Not to mention the cost of whatever other perks we are paying for, like unlimited medical, dental, etc.
-
True That (Mostly)
-
The problem with just voting them out and term limits is that ythe keys to government end up in the hands of the civil servants. The BBC mad a real funny show called “Yes Minister” followed by a just as funny show “Yes Prime Minister”. Showing the mandarins that actually ran the government. The problems in the current government in the US started when the democratic leaders in the senate changed the rules on cloture to allow the canadates for judgeships and cabinet positions to be approved by a majority (51%) rather then the 2/3 majority required to stop a filibuster. The republicans then ran with that disgrace and changed the rules further. Prior to this crap senators needed to compromise to get things done. The lack of civility has started a open war between the left and the right.
-
I find the endless unwanted phone calls to be much worse.
Marty Meehan was for term limits until he was elected and wanted to stay in power.
Without term limits imposed by law, it will generally be in the interest of voters to vote for the incumbent with long tenure in office. Such a Senator or Rep will have more influence to fill his/her district's pork barrel.
Just compare the power of Kennedy (back when he was alive) to an unknown freshman senator.
-
You need to vote out the incumbent in the "Primaries" so you can replace a GOP with a GOP though. By now if you vote out an incumbent GOP you would get a Dembo. Can't do that!
Just Can't!!
-
The voters pick who they want if they re-elect a person you don’t like well the people qet the government they deserve. In the midterms next month if the people are happy with the current government they can re-elect the current people in power if they are not happy new people will be elected. I may not like the results (I was not happy in 2016) but win or loose the people get what they want. After all this is a democracy.
-
You need to vote out the incumbent in the "Primaries" so you can replace a GOP with a GOP though. By now if you vote out an incumbent GOP you would get a Dembo. Can't do that!
Just Can't!!
Your previous post ("True That (Mostly) " to Charlie B53's "Democrats, Republicans, I lump them all in the same boat. Crooks and Liars that simply want to suck the public dry while getting rich. I don't care WHO is up for re-election, vote them OUT.") made a lot of sense, so did the first half of post I quoted. However the second part of your post made a nonsense of all this. How can you claim you will vote out the incumbent, when you will only vote Republican? That only works if you want there to always be a Democrat in the White House, and I am pretty certain that is not your desire!
-
The voters pick who they want if they re-elect a person you don’t like well the people qet the government they deserve. In the midterms next month if the people are happy with the current government they can re-elect the current people in power if they are not happy new people will be elected. I may not like the results (I was not happy in 2016) but win or loose the people get what they want. After all this is a democracy.
I agree and will remember this. :thumbup;
-
Paul: I think they are 90 percent crooks. Thus (Mostly)
-
The voters pick who they want if they re-elect a person you don’t like well the people qet the government they deserve. In the midterms next month if the people are happy with the current government they can re-elect the current people in power if they are not happy new people will be elected. I may not like the results (I was not happy in 2016) but win or loose the people get what they want. After all this is a democracy.
Only sort of. The two party system is rigged to give us a choice of the approved candidates. Look at the D superdelegate system (ever get a chance to vote on who your superdelegate is?) and how the Democratic power brokers reserved the nomination for Clinton.
And the electoral college system not only skews results but tells residents of states like NY and MA that "your vote doesn't count ... we will demonstrate by noting that both candidates spend no time or money trying to win your vote". We will never know if H would have won the popular vote since the campaign strategy and public appearances would have been vastly different in an "every vote counts" system.
-
Yes it does work when people care. The best example is Lisa Murkowski from Alaska last time she ran ultra right republicans ran a nasty campaign to unseat her in the Republican primary. So the election was run with democrat candidate a a republicanlican candidate. After the primary it was too late for Murkowski to get on the ballot as a independent. She ran as a write in candidate and won despite the requirement that only the votes with Murkowski spelled correctly would count. Despite all the hurdles the people of Alaska’s chose Lisa Murkowski as there Senator. All term limits do is take the people’s ability to vote for who they choose.
Canadates would have to be chosen from new candidates who would not be independent from the party selection committees. Again I am a liberal democrat and not happy with the current government. However unless evidence is presented that proves trump committed a crime he is the legitimate President. He was chosen by the American people. I lived through Bush Cheney. And I will probably live through trump pence if the republicans dot kill me by removing my health care options. If they do kill me I can at least have a lasting comment on my head stone.
-
Yes it does work when people care. The best example is Lisa Murkowski from Alaska last time she ran ultra right republicans ran a nasty campaign to unseat her in the Republican primary. So the election was run with democrat candidate a a republicanlican candidate. After the primary it was too late for Murkowski to get on the ballot as a independent. She ran as a write in candidate and won despite the requirement that only the votes with Murkowski spelled correctly would count. Despite all the hurdles the people of Alaska’s chose Lisa Murkowski as there Senator. All term limits do is take the people’s ability to vote for who they choose.
What an amazing system that is.
-
Term limits allow people to vote for new blood without the trap of "If I don't vote for the incumbent, my state will lose the clout, good committee assignments, and ability to bring home the pork that comes with seniority relative to other senators and reps". It's part of a rigged system to make congressional and senatorial seats one of the most secure jobs in the US.
-
I am from Alaska and the reason that Murkowski won is the guy that the republicans put up was a lying cheat. If the republicans had run a normal conservative she would not have stood a chance. Most people I know could not vote for him. I normally like Murkowski and agree with her on a number of things. With her recent vote She has lost my support. If she does run again she will not win. I will vote against her even if it means voting for someone I do not agree with politically.
-
:thumbup;
-
:thumbup;