U.S. Politics - Page 615 - Cyclingnews Forum

Go Back   Cyclingnews Forum > Cafe > General

General Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #6141  
Old 01-09-13, 19:01
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,567
Default

With Obama at the helm all we really need is one branch of government.

King Obama.

Quote:
"The president is going to act," said Biden, giving some comments to the press before a meeting with victims of gun violence. "There are executives orders, there's executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet. But we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required."
Thank God for Biden.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ns_694984.html
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #6142  
Old 01-09-13, 19:02
aphronesis aphronesis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,844
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Yes, you've mentioned that before.

This is usually where the conversation ends between those of us who actually live in the real world and those that just think they do.
Well, on that score, since you're back to the "you guys" level of discussion, why should gun control people address the real issues when you don't?

More to the point, are you telling me that "you guys" (whoever that is, because i'm not on a side in this) foster a climate or a culture that offers better solutions to this particular issue?

How about those kiddie-tailored bullet proof vests? That's definitely a boon for the economy and the way forward isn't it.

Last edited by aphronesis; 01-09-13 at 19:21.
Reply With Quote
  #6143  
Old 01-09-13, 19:05
rhubroma's Avatar
rhubroma rhubroma is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,570
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Yes, you've mentioned that before.

This is usually where the conversation ends between those of us who actually live in the real world and those that just think they do.
Keep thinking then.

Reply With Quote
  #6144  
Old 01-09-13, 19:22
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,567
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aphronesis View Post
Well, on that score, since you're back to the "you guys" level of discussion, why should gun control people address the real issues when you don't?

More to the point, are you telling me that "you guys" (whoever that is, because i'm not on a side in this foster a climate or a culture that offers better solutions to this particular issue?

How about those kiddie-tailored bullet proof vests? That's definitely a boon for the economy and the way forward isn't it.
Quote:
why should gun control people address the real issues when you don't?
Oh, but they are. In California perps are being let out of prison by the thousands due to budget shortfalls. We raise taxes here but only to shore up teachers pensions. Cities like San Bernardino have lost more than a third of their Police force due to bankruptcy. We see the priority of the left in Cali everyday.

Criminality isn't a leftist concern... just look at the last few posts of Rhub's.

Near as I can tell the left is utterly uninterested in addressing mental illness on any level. No union money in that.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #6145  
Old 01-09-13, 19:31
aphronesis aphronesis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,844
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Oh, but they are. In California perps are being let out of prison by the thousands due to budget shortfalls. We raise taxes here but only to shore up teachers pensions. Cities like San Bernardino have lost more than a third of their Police force due to bankruptcy. We see the priority of the left in Cali everyday.

Criminality isn't a leftist concern... just look at the last few posts of Rhub's.

Near as I can tell the left is utterly uninterested in addressing mental illness on any level. No union money in that.
I'm fully conversant with the situation in California. Not sure though how that "they" relates to my question to "you".

So lots of cities lost part of their police force to bankruptcy. Big deal. Take out home owners insurance.

I'm aware with Rhub's position on this issue and of several of the "left's," I think--you seem to have a highly reductive and selective definition of what constitutes left (read local, unless they're DC pols) however as your preoccupation with unions indicates. At a global level, I think there are many "lefts" who are highly preoccupied with criminality. They choose to engage it in less self-serving terms maybe. On that score, a great many of Rhub's posts are concerned with criminality, just not as defined solely in relation to possessive individualism. Similarly, as a still legal resident of California, I'll get concerned about California's problems with Californians are capable of defining issues that relate to things other than themselves.

I'd say that there are just as many neoliberal progressives as there are conservatives (maybe you could try updating your terminology like that and the terms of the discussion might move forward) who are wholly unconcerned with mental illness because both ends of the spectrum have outsourced their social concerns to a safety net that isn't working in their interests and doesn't really exits.

Last edited by aphronesis; 01-09-13 at 19:51.
Reply With Quote
  #6146  
Old 01-09-13, 19:36
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,126
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
I agree because we all know the criminals and mentally ill follow the law to the letter.
Define "mentally ill". How 'bout these guys? Mentally ill?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...doomsday-obama
http://seattletimes.com/html/localne...itadel24m.html
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/04/509...or-zombie.html

How about this guy? He seems to be a bit wacko, believing that Bloomberg is trying to have him killed by crackheads and all that. Mentally ill or not? Should he be allowed to own guns?

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2013/01...oull-ever-see/

How about someone like Ted Nugent? I'd say most people would agree that the guy is not exactly playing with a stacked deck, yet he's armed to the teeth. He's high-profile, but there are tens of thousands more out there like him. Mentally ill or not? If so, disarm them all?

Or the TP'ers calling for armed revolution? Or the multitudes of paranoid private militias and survivalists and preppers and apocalyptic doomsdayers etc that spawned (among many others) the likes of Timothy McVeigh? Mentally ill or not?

All of the above talk about using guns, so how the **** do you plan to determine who is about to act and who is just spouting off? To many people, myself included, all of the above are mentally ill, all potentially pose a threat to public safety and society, and yet they're all are armed to the teeth. You probably don't agree. So again, define mentally ill.

It's impossible to know who's going to act and who's just spouting off angry rhetoric, and if it's impossible to distinguish the harmless wacko from the truly dangerous wacko, then the only sensible course is to make it as difficult as possible for them to obtain weapons of mass destruction. Which we do for every "inanimate object" for exactly that reason. Other than guns, that is.

Quote:
Gotta regulate inanimate objects lest the knee jerk left won't be able to sleep at night.
We regulate inanimate objects every day, all the time, and every time some material is used to kill lots of people it's regulated thereafter (except guns). After Timothy McVeigh car-bombed the Murrah building, Congress passed a law regulating the sale of ammonium nitrate - go try and buy a whole bunch of fertilizer and see what happens. After 9/11, all kinds of safety regulations went into effect - try and take a razor on board a plane and see what happens. We regulate explosives, dangerous gases, etc etc, all for the same reason - because they can be used to kill large numbers of people. And when they are, we pass laws to try to prevent it from happening again.

Personally I'd like to see all guns be heavily regulated, including handguns and hunting rifles, and all military-grade weapons banned outright - same as yelling fire in a crowded theater, and despite what the gun nuts would like to believe, your right to own a gun does not trump our rights, nor does it trump the right of the public to be safe from your gun. But at a minimum guns should be treated exactly the same way all other inanimate object that can be used to kill and maim large numbers of people in very short periods of time are, like ammonium nitrate or nerve gas or whatever. Don't really see why guns should be the exception.
Reply With Quote
  #6147  
Old 01-09-13, 19:53
aphronesis aphronesis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,844
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post

We regulate inanimate objects every day, all the time.
It's sheer foolishness of you to follow him in that argument since it completely detracts from what even Scott acknowledges are bigger issues. The only thing that's regulated are people (and animals). People's access to interact with other people under certain terms. It's a question of mediation. Not objects.
Reply With Quote
  #6148  
Old 01-09-13, 19:54
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,567
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aphronesis View Post
I'm fully conversant with the situation in California. Not sure though how that "they" relates to my question to "you".

So lots of cities lost part of their police force to bankruptcy. Big deal. Take out home owners insurance.

I'm aware with Rhub's position on this issue and of several of the "left's," I think--you seem to have a highly reductive and selective definition of what constitutes left (read local, unless they're DC pols) however as your preoccupation with unions indicates. At a global level, I think there are many "lefts" who are highly preoccupied with criminality. They choose to engage it in less self-serving terms maybe.

I'd say that there are just as many neoliberal progressives as there are conservatives (maybe you could try updating your terminology like that and the terms of the discussion might move forward) who are wholly unconcerned with mental illness because both ends of the spectrum have outsourced their social concerns to a safety net that isn't working in their interests and doesn't really exits.
Here was your question.

Quote:
why should gun control people address the real issues when you don't?
gun control people = they.

As for me, my votes don't count here. So, I'm doing what I can.

Quote:
So lots of cities lost part of their police force to bankruptcy. Big deal. Take out home owners insurance


It will be interesting to see this graph when it's updated. Just a guess, but I'll bet the line goes up. For those that live in San Bernardino I'm sure having a homeowners policy will be comforting. Chicago too.

Quote:
They choose to engage it in less self-serving terms maybe.
Maybe. Maybe they just ignore the criminality part. Criminals aren't really bad, they are just disadvantaged, underprivileged, misunderstood...

Quote:
maybe you could try updating your terminology like that and the terms of the discussion might move forward
Eh, I'll keep it simple if it's all the same to you. Leftist know who they are.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #6149  
Old 01-09-13, 20:05
aphronesis aphronesis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,844
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Here was your question.



gun control people = they.

As for me, my votes don't count here. So, I'm doing what I can.





It will be interesting to see this graph when it's updated. Just a guess, but I'll bet the line goes up. For those that live in San Bernardino I'm sure having a homeowners policy will be comforting. Chicago too.



Maybe. Maybe they just ignore the criminality part. Criminals aren't really bad, they are just disadvantaged, underprivileged, misunderstood...



Eh, I'll keep it simple if it's all the same to you. Leftist know who they are.
Leftists know who they are. I'm not sure you do. Well, I guess if your vote doesn't count there's no reason to sweat it. Similarly, keeping your terminology simple: don't be surprised as the world continues not to correspond to your positions then.

Who cares about Chicago? You don't live there

Oh, and in two sentences that's a very fine summary of criminality you've produced. Not quite ethnically loaded, but pushing the line. There are studies done in a discipline called sociology which suggests that your first two descriptors--if total--do certainly predispose people toward a very [I]narrow[I] and [I]individualistic[I] type of criminality.

There are other forms you know. Even if there weren't, I've yet to see you offer a single proposal (other than more police apparently) as a solution to the sort of personal criminality that makes your radar.

Misunderstood? What are we in the seventies. Did you just come off an afternoon of watching PBS?

Last edited by aphronesis; 01-09-13 at 20:17.
Reply With Quote
  #6150  
Old 01-09-13, 20:44
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,567
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
Define "mentally ill". How 'bout these guys? Mentally ill?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...doomsday-obama
http://seattletimes.com/html/localne...itadel24m.html
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/04/509...or-zombie.html

How about this guy? He seems to be a bit wacko, believing that Bloomberg is trying to have him killed by crackheads and all that. Mentally ill or not? Should he be allowed to own guns?

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2013/01...oull-ever-see/

How about someone like Ted Nugent? I'd say most people would agree that the guy is not exactly playing with a stacked deck, yet he's armed to the teeth. He's high-profile, but there are tens of thousands more out there like him. Mentally ill or not? If so, disarm them all?

Or the TP'ers calling for armed revolution? Or the multitudes of paranoid private militias and survivalists and preppers and apocalyptic doomsdayers etc that spawned (among many others) the likes of Timothy McVeigh? Mentally ill or not?

All of the above talk about using guns, so how the **** do you plan to determine who is about to act and who is just spouting off? To many people, myself included, all of the above are mentally ill, all potentially pose a threat to public safety and society, and yet they're all are armed to the teeth. You probably don't agree. So again, define mentally ill.

It's impossible to know who's going to act and who's just spouting off angry rhetoric, and if it's impossible to distinguish the harmless wacko from the truly dangerous wacko, then the only sensible course is to make it as difficult as possible for them to obtain weapons of mass destruction. Which we do for every "inanimate object" for exactly that reason. Other than guns, that is.

We regulate inanimate objects every day, all the time, and every time some material is used to kill lots of people it's regulated thereafter (except guns). After Timothy McVeigh car-bombed the Murrah building, Congress passed a law regulating the sale of ammonium nitrate - go try and buy a whole bunch of fertilizer and see what happens. After 9/11, all kinds of safety regulations went into effect - try and take a razor on board a plane and see what happens. We regulate explosives, dangerous gases, etc etc, all for the same reason - because they can be used to kill large numbers of people. And when they are, we pass laws to try to prevent it from happening again.

Personally I'd like to see all guns be heavily regulated, including handguns and hunting rifles, and all military-grade weapons banned outright - same as yelling fire in a crowded theater, and despite what the gun nuts would like to believe, your right to own a gun does not trump our rights, nor does it trump the right of the public to be safe from your gun. But at a minimum guns should be treated exactly the same way all other inanimate object that can be used to kill and maim large numbers of people in very short periods of time are, like ammonium nitrate or nerve gas or whatever. Don't really see why guns should be the exception.
Quote:
Or the TP'ers calling for armed revolution?
So you haven't seen Caddell's comments then.

Quote:
How about someone like Ted Nugent?
Anybody who wrote "Cat Scratch Fever" is off, for sure.

Quote:
To many people, myself included, all of the above are mentally ill
Of course they are. They disagree with you but because you know you know everything the mere fact they disagree renders them mental.

Quote:
make it as difficult as possible for them to obtain weapons of mass destruction.
An assault rifle now meets this definition? Plenty of those found in Iraq. Time to apologize?

Quote:
(except guns).
WTF are you talking about? Can you go by a fully automatic AK47 legally? A Bazooka, SAM or whatever weapons you were on about earlier?

Quote:
go try and buy a whole bunch of fertilizer and see what happens.
But I can still go buy ammonium nitrate. So what?

Quote:
Personally I'd like to see all guns be heavily regulated, including handguns and hunting rifles, and all military-grade weapons banned outright - same as yelling fire in a crowded theater, and despite what the gun nuts would like to believe, your right to own a gun does not trump our rights, nor does it trump the right of the public to be safe from your gun

The public is completely safe from my gun. I don't own one.

"and despite what the gun nuts would like to believe, your right to own a gun does not trump our rights''

Nothing trumps your rights to whatever it is you think. Not the 2nd amendment or anything else. Nothing.

Are you beginning to see why certain groups of law abiding citizens fear people like you?

Trample the constitution as you see fit. You really should be in politics.

Quote:
Don't really see why guns should be the exception
You should read the US constitution sometime. Maybe some supreme court decisions too.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:45.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.