U.S. Politics

Page 260 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Why a vendetta?

If insurers have to cover everybody, no matter how unhealthy, what do you suppose that adds to the cost? Medical device manufacturers get slapped with a gross revenue tax of 2.3%.... Who pays for that?

We do. God Bless the govt halfwits.
This is bull****, they raise their rates based on any opening that will give them a chance to raise their rates. They don't care if costs actually went up, they just see an opportunity, if "Obamacare" had not been castrated by your people there would have been a set of rules to deal with opportunistic rate increases like these. It is all about keeping the stockholder happy, not providing quality heathcare.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
This is bull****, they raise their rates based on any opening that will give them a chance to raise their rates. They don't care if costs actually went up, they just see an opportunity, if "Obamacare" had not been castrated by your people there would have been a set of rules to deal with opportunistic rate increases like these. It is all about keeping the stockholder happy, not providing quality heathcare.
For a businessman you can be pretty dense.

Do you have any concept of the margins health insurers work on? Any at all?

You wouldn't sell a bike or fix a flat for that margin, I can guarantee you that.

When manufacturer X raises their cost on bike Y, what do you do? Eat the increase? And you are in business to create what, exactly?

Maybe we should just nationalize the bicycle business.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
Merckx index said:
Mostly because, as discussed on this thread before, most of these “incidents” involve arguments between people who know each other, not encounters with strangers.

Saved from what? I didn’t read anything in that article that said the BURGLAR was armed. Why do you suppose a burglar would knock on the door? To announce to everyone he was about to come in and try to steal stuff? Obviously, he was trying to find out if anyone was home. If the mom had just answered, it is overwhelmingly likely he would have gone away. A guy who wants to steal stuff generally does not want to harm anyone if he can possibly help it.

What was saved was valuables. I understand the mother was protective of the kids, but was it really necessary to shoot the guy? If she wasn't smart enough to tell him she had a gun and to go away while he was still outside the house knocking, couldn’t she just have told him once he was inside that she would shoot unless he got out of the house?

This is the kind of frontier mentality that got a Japanese visitor to the U.S. shot to death some time ago when he had the temerity to step on someone's front lawn. I am far more fearful of paranoid idiots like this than I am of some criminal trying to shoot me. Individually they are not as dangerous as a hard-core criminal, but there are so very many more of them. I have never in my life encountered someone intent on killing me with a gun. I have many times encountered nominally law-abiding people who might use a gun because they are not bright enough to figure out there is an easier way to resolve a situation. And every time an article like this is published, falsely implying that the only option the woman had was to let the guy break into her house and then shoot him, it convinces more idiots that there are thousands of people roaming the street outside their homes, ready at any moment to break into their homes and kill them. It's lies like this that sell guns.
This is why no rational person trusts the libs on guns. A man (or woman) cannot even defend their own family against criminals without the lily-livered set cryinging about the fate of the poor burgler who was shot.
 
BroDeal said:
This is why no rational person trusts the reactionaries on guns. A man (or woman) exposes self and kids to unnecessary danger and is hailed as a hero.
Fixed.

Don't bet your life on it.
I wouldn’t. Which is why I would let a stranger knocking on the door know that someone was home.

boo ****ing hoo, a sorry piece of crap burglar got shot. the only sad thing about this is that he lived. here's the thing: she didn't force him to go into that house. he made that choice and he got what he deserved.
Right. Death penalty for burglary. Let’s also cut off the hands off shop-lifters, and stone adulterers.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Merckx index said:
Fixed.



I wouldn’t. Which is why I would let a stranger knocking on the door know that someone was home.



Right. Death penalty for burglary. Let’s also cut off the hands off shop-lifters, and stone adulterers.

Horse**** MI.

Somebody breaks into your home and are you going to try and find out what their true motives are?

Specious argument.
 
Scott SoCal said:
Why a vendetta?

If insurers have to cover everybody, no matter how unhealthy, what do you suppose that adds to the cost? Medical device manufacturers get slapped with a gross revenue tax of 2.3%.... Who pays for that?

We do. God Bless the govt halfwits.
And this is the problem: too much insurance, too much litigation in the private US system. Take these things out and the costs go down. I've gone over this with you before, having a healthcare system that's purely confined to a praxis centered upon a business and market logic, is perverse, anti-progressive and ultimately sinister. That and it's terribly undemocratic. As if speculating on peoples access to medical care, were the same as going to buy a new television set.

Are you saying that the insurers should only cover those they deem worthy of their services, because not "so unhealthy" to be economically disadvantageous? What about the low income folks and small business providers, in regards to absorbing the hit of these appallingly ill-considered and consciously timed rates hike?

Everything that's wrong with this private system and ideology behind it has been made glaringly clear with the insurance companies' move. It is an exclusive system, not inclusive, that's permissible to only those that can afford it, in a growing number of cases, only through considerable pain and sacrifice, whereas to just as many more an impossibility. Consequently, it’s stupid of you to blame this on the government and not private business.

How can you guys accept this intolerable America, where it's every man for himself and the weak simply get left behind (not only in principle, but also practice)? Despicable. God bless the republican egoists.

And while they're at it, let's increase military subsidies.
 
Merckx index said:
Mostly because, as discussed on this thread before, most of these “incidents” involve arguments between people who know each other, not encounters with strangers.



Saved from what? I didn’t read anything in that article that said the BURGLAR was armed. Why do you suppose a burglar would knock on the door? To announce to everyone he was about to come in and try to steal stuff? Obviously, he was trying to find out if anyone was home. If the mom had just answered, it is overwhelmingly likely he would have gone away. A guy who wants to steal stuff generally does not want to harm anyone if he can possibly help it.

What was saved was valuables. I understand the mother was protective of the kids, but was it really necessary to shoot the guy? If she wasn't smart enough to tell him she had a gun and to go away while he was still outside the house knocking, couldn’t she just have told him once he was inside that she would shoot unless he got out of the house?

This is the kind of frontier mentality that got a Japanese visitor to the U.S. shot to death some time ago when he had the temerity to step on someone's front lawn. I am far more fearful of paranoid idiots like this than I am of some criminal trying to shoot me. Individually they are not as dangerous as a hard-core criminal, but there are so very many more of them. I have never in my life encountered someone intent on killing me with a gun. I have many times encountered nominally law-abiding people who might use a gun because they are not bright enough to figure out there is an easier way to resolve a situation. And every time an article like this is published, falsely implying that the only option the woman had was to let the guy break into her house and then shoot him, it convinces more idiots that there are thousands of people roaming the street outside their homes, ready at any moment to break into their homes and kill them. It's lies like this that sell guns.



Fixed.



Because the miracles of modern medicine are expensive, and people want them. Because people eat sh!t and don’t exercise, and then wonder why their bodies fall apart. Believe me, the Republicans don’t have any solutions to these problems, either.

I see you’re still at this notion that lowering taxes increases revenue. You still haven’t figured out that when incomes of the rich go up, the top 1% go into a higher bracket. That is why they are taxed more, not because taxes go up on a percentile basis. Have no idea why this is so difficult for some people to understand.
In Italy if you shoot an unarmed burgler in your house, you go to jail. This because it's not for the individual citizen to dispense justice. Otherwise we live in the Far West and ultimately the whole society becomes less civil, as we can see has taken place in the US.

Given that it's more difficult to possess a gun here, means that one is less likely to encounter such a situation in the first place, though that's another matter. Point is, unless armed, even in ones own domicile, if you shoot, you become the criminal.
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
Merckx index said:
Fixed.



I wouldn’t. Which is why I would let a stranger knocking on the door know that someone was home.



Right. Death penalty for burglary. Let’s also cut off the hands off shop-lifters, and stone adulterers.
and while we're at it let's cut the nuts off of men who think she was wrong. oops, we already did.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
rhubroma said:
And this is the problem: too much insurance, too much litigation in the private US system. Take these things out and the costs go down. I've gone over this with you before, having a healthcare system that's purely confined to a praxis centered upon a business and market logic, is perverse, anti-progressive and ultimately sinister. That and it's terribly undemocratic. As if speculating on peoples access to medical care, were the same as going to buy a new television set.

Are you saying that the insurers should only cover those they deem worthy of their services, because not "so unhealthy" to be economically disadvantageous? What about the low income folks and small business providers, in regards to absorbing the hit of these appallingly ill-considered and consciously timed rates hike?

Everything that's wrong with this private system and ideology behind it has been made glaringly clear with the insurance companies' move. It is an exclusive system, not inclusive, that's permissible to only those that can afford it, in a growing number of cases, only through considerable pain and sacrifice, whereas to just as many more an impossibility. Consequently, it’s stupid of you to blame this on the government and not private business.

How can you guys accept this intolerable America, where it's every man for himself and the weak simply get left behind (not only in principle, but also practice)? Despicable. God bless the republican egoists.

And while they're at it, let's increase military subsidies.
Are you saying that the insurers should only cover those they deem worthy of their services, because not "so unhealthy" to be economically disadvantageous?
No. I'm saying covering the unhealthy cost exponentially more than those who are healthy in any system. I have no problem covering everybody. Just don't ***** about cost of care increases passed on to the end user.

It is an exclusive system, not inclusive, that's permissible to only those that can afford it, in a growing number of cases, only through considerable pain and sacrifice, whereas to just as many more an impossibility. Consequently, it’s stupid of you to blame this on the government and not private business.
It's inclusive. Nothing's free. It's neither the governments fault that people need healthcare nor the fault of business. Cost is cost. Think about how much more you will pay for life insurance if everybody can buy it even if they are terminally ill for example.

How can you guys accept this intolerable America, where it's every man for himself and the weak simply get left behind (not only in principle, but also practice)? Despicable. God bless the republican egoists.
That's all fine. All I'm saying is everything we were told regarding Obamacare and cost is garbage and was from the very beginning.
 
Scott SoCal said:
No. I'm saying covering the unhealthy cost exponentially more than those who are healthy in any system. I have no problem covering everybody. Just don't ***** about cost of care increases passed on to the end user.
This is true, but this isn't a problem of healthcare but an entire way of life.

It's inclusive. Nothing's free. It's neither the governments fault that people need healthcare nor the fault of business. Cost is cost. Think about how much more you will pay for life insurance if everybody can buy it even if they are terminally ill for example.
Cost isn't cost. Within a business construct preferential treatment is a dividend of purchase, which isn't the same as covering everyone irrespective of individual expense through the public fiscal contribution.



That's all fine. All I'm saying is everything we were told regarding Obamacare and cost is garbage and was from the very beginning.
Let me just say that I don't like Obamacare, because it's trying to fix the problem from the wrong end. It would be better to remove, as much as possible, the insurance business and the lawyers from healthcare, and healthcare costs, and focus on measures to curb public expense while potentiating research and development.

PS. Of course, I'm not saying eliminate a private option, just have a public institution in place.
 
Mar 10, 2009
286
0
0
Somehow I knew that a woman defending her home against a criminal, who is breaking the law, and to do who knows what to her, or the children, or if the criminal just came in to steal stuff, somehow I knew you some of you guys would side with the criminal. If you break into someones house, you deserve to get shot...period. Seems some of your laws in Italy are quite silly, I would be in jail in your country I guess. Thankfully in this brave womans case we don't have to second guess what was saved, since she ended the issue rather well.

One of you it seems were victims of a mugging in Philly, I was a victim of a home invasion in Philly, and had a gun at the back my neck while laying on the ground with 2 others...long story short one perp took 9 rounds and lived to go to court, the other 2 invaders got ran off and left their friend, but got caught later...all three are doing 30+ for armed robbery. Thankfully my friends and I didn't just lay there and hoping they would just go away and take my flat screen.

It's clear that the sides of the gun issue are very far apart, I rest assured that the 2nd Admenment, won't be taken away, but I have no problem with me not being able to buy a 30 round magazine(or 100 round)...until people stop the straw purchases of cheap handguns, the gun culture will always be a problem. Mass shooting gets the headlines, while 400 killings in Philly every year with cheap hanguns barely get noticed...to many people make money of straw purchases fueling the arms race in the inner city, for this to change.
 
mikeNphilly said:
Somehow I knew that a woman defending her home against a criminal, who is breaking the law, and to do who knows what to her, or the children, or if the criminal just came in to steal stuff, somehow I knew you some of you guys would side with the criminal. If you break into someones house, you deserve to get shot...period...straw purchases fueling the arms race in the inner city, for this to change.
But this is a Far West mentality that's been given up in more civilized societies, or at least among the more civil within them.

There is something known as a proportioned response, which escapes you here. In the absence of a gun, killing the burglar or agonizing him with a firearm isn't a proportioned response, no matter the circumstances. This has to do with placing greater value in life (not the burglar's, just life in general) over material goods, however personal and domestic. Of course if the burglar has an intention to kill, then a corresponding response can't be taken as disproportioned.

At the same time this isn't about "taking the criminal's side" either, but finding more evolved and less reactionary responses to deal with (or even view) the situation. Then there would be the concept of dispensing justice, which can't be left in the hands of individual citizens (again for reasons of not encouraging a Far West state of affairs, or how about the Middle Ages), and so must be placed in those of the legal institutions and judicial process, after law enfocement has done its job.

Sure the impulse to defend one's home and family is comprehensibly a natural inclination, at times with a ferocity that the situation demands. However, we really shouldn't glorify that woman for what she did, which is to glorify the violence and potency that anyone obtains with a firearm. Someone who can easily be transformed into a cold-blooded killer, even if this was to "defend" one's home. There's already enough incivility and gun violence out there to not have need to applaud such instances, which only represent the barbarity within us. Even if of necessity, it is still a tragic outcome, about which there is nothing to extol. Those who do today are simply rather underdeveloped and cretinous. I’m aware they are many.

The issue of a society that treats a right to bear arms as holy writ and the culture of violence this has begotten, are really the tragic aspect in all of this. I was held up at gun point in Philly, if that's what you meant. The event only reinforced my conviction that I wanted nothing to do with such weapons, have no need of them and would rather die living with this principle, and because of it, than otherwise. Hopefully it won't come to that. Terrible home robbery you describe, but the problems lie here and more guns are not the solution. The mass glorification of "gun justice" is another terrible aspect of the American folly.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
In case anyone missed it or didn't even hear about it, please treat yourself to one of BD's buds 'debating' the gun question with Piers Morgan. This is truly priceless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uymMI_omik

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5myV_-2XjI
"At any rate, watch this lunatic meltdown on live tv, and keep in mind this is the kind of person who wants unlimited access to guns."

The right does have a point about keeping the mentally ill away from guns.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
rhubroma said:
But this is a Far West mentality that's been given up in more civilized societies, or at least among the more civil within them.

There is something known as a proportioned response, which escapes you here. In the absence of a gun, killing the burglar or agonizing him with a firearm isn't a proportioned response, no matter the circumstances. This has to do with placing greater value in life (not the burglar's, just life in general) over material goods, however personal and domestic. Of course if the burglar has an intention to kill, then a corresponding response can't be taken as disproportioned.

At the same time this isn't about "taking the criminal's side" either, but finding more evolved and less reactionary responses to deal with (or even view) the situation. Then there would be the concept of dispensing justice, which can't be left in the hands of individual citizens (again for reasons of not encouraging a Far West state of affairs, or how about the Middle Ages), and so must be placed in those of the legal institutions and judicial process, after law enfocement has done its job.
I can see it now. A meth addict invades Rhubroma's home and is presented with a twenty part questionaire to judge his intentions so Rhubroma can figure out the appropriate response. If the crook is unarmed and promises not to stomp his family with his Doc Martens or is only there to take material goods then Rhubroma helps load stuff into his car and gives him a farewell wave.

Law enforcement's job is to draw chalk outlines around the corpses of those killed by criminals.
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
BroDeal said:
I can see it now. A meth addict invades Rhubroma's home and is presented with a twenty part questionaire to judge his intentions so Rhubroma can figure out the appropriate response. If the crook is unarmed and promises not to stomp his family with his Doc Martens or is only there to take material goods then Rhubroma helps load stuff into his car and gives him a farewell wave.

Law enforcement's job is to draw chalk outlines around the corpses of those killed by criminals.
don't forget the essay portion
 
BroDeal said:
I can see it now. A meth addict invades Rhubroma's home and is presented with a twenty part questionaire to judge his intentions so Rhubroma can figure out the appropriate response. If the crook is unarmed and promises not to stomp his family with his Doc Martens or is only there to take material goods then Rhubroma helps load stuff into his car and gives him a farewell wave.

Law enforcement's job is to draw chalk outlines around the corpses of those killed by criminals.
Not likely Bro. I could also fall off a bridge. I don't worry about this stuff. Nuff said.

PS: My apartment has been broken into twice here, fortunately both times when I was out. Would I defend my premises? Well the first thing I'd do is alert the entire complex that there is a burglar/s in the palazzo. After that he/they would probably take off immediately, etc. End of story.

In any case I'm not scared of being robbed, it sucks, but that's all. Wild scenarios such as you portray are mostly the stuff of Hollywood fantasy. If someone entered my place with a gun while I was there, then I guess it would be up to fate as to the outcome. It doesn't cost me sleep though. I'm a fatalist in this sense.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,657
0
0
rhubroma said:
Not likely Bro. Nuff said.

PS: My apartment has been broken into twice here, fortunately both times when I was out. Would I defend my premises? Well the first thing I'd do is alert the entire complex that there is a burglar/s in the palazzo. After that he/they would probably take off immediately, etc. End of story.

In any case I'm not scared of being robbed, it sucks, but that's all. Wild scenarios such as you portray are mostly the for Hollywood fantasy. If someone entered my place with a gun while I was there, then I guess it would be up to fate as to the outcome. It doesn't cost me sleep though. I'm a fatalist in this sense.
It is interesting to note that I am debating this exact same topic on another forum and oddly, I seem to proposing similar points to rhubroma. I think to add to Rhubroma's point, the probability of someone being burgled is quite low in general anywhere. The probability of burglaries happening while you are home is very low and the probability that the burglar will use the gun to actually harm somebody is absurd in my view. In general, burglars just go in for some money or your possessions. To say that you need a gun to defend yourself in these super rare situations is plain moronic.
I think also that when you allow someone to use a gun for self defence purposes, often that usage often is abused by people and the guns are misused which results in people unnecessarily being killed. It often comes down to the question of is the removal of a liberty worth the consequences of safety and better society? Personally, the use of a gun has harsh consequences for the person it is being used upon than the user, so I have no problem with gun control.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
rhubroma said:
In any case I'm not scared of being robbed, it sucks, but that's all. Wild scenarios such as you portray are mostly the stuff of Hollywood fantasy. If someone entered my place with a gun while I was there, then I guess it would be up to fate as to the outcome. It doesn't cost me sleep though. I'm a fatalist in this sense.
And a quick google of the news shows:

Man tied to chair during Hopkinton home invasion
Providence Eyewitness News‎ - 47 minuteg

Man tells story of deadly home invasion, arrested
San Francisco Chronicle‎ - 8 houg

Third suspect arrested in Christmas Day home invasion
Pensacola News Journal‎ - 5 houg

Georgia Home Invasion 911 Call: 'She's Shooting Him'
ABC News‎ - 12 houg

Allentown Home Invasion Suspects Looking For Painkillers
CBS Local‎ - 7 hourg

Man linked to violent home invasion arrested after calling police
Topeka Capital Journal‎ - 6 houg

Detective: Suspect Burned Truck After Centreville Home Invasion
Patch.com‎ - 1 hursg

Man linked to violent home invasion arrested after calling police
Topeka Capital Journal‎ - 7 houg

2 robbers sought in Belle Rose home invasion case
The Advocate‎ - 7houro

Family: Victim in Raleigh home invasion has serious injuries
WRAL.com‎ - 11 hourg
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
BroDeal said:
I can see it now. A meth addict invades Rhubroma's home and is presented with a twenty part questionaire to judge his intentions so Rhubroma can figure out the appropriate response. If the crook is unarmed and promises not to stomp his family with his Doc Martens or is only there to take material goods then Rhubroma helps load stuff into his car and gives him a farewell wave.

Law enforcement's job is to draw chalk outlines around the corpses of those killed by criminals.
And you need a military-issue assault rifle and armor-piercing bullets for that? A 100-round magazine clip to fend off that horde of burglars? Do you also sleep in body armor? Keep a bazooka and tank in the garage in case your neighborhood is invaded? A surface-to-air missile in the backyard for when the government comes to take your house?

Bit of overkill having military-level armament so readily and easily available, don't you think? Let's have some ****ing sensible gun control, for Christ's sake.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
And you need a military-issue assault rifle and armor-piercing bullets for that? A 100-round magazine clip to fend off that horde of burglars? Do you also sleep in body armor? Keep a bazooka and tank in the garage in case your neighborhood is invaded? A surface-to-air missile in the backyard for when the government comes to take your house?

Bit of overkill having military-level armament so readily and easily available, don't you think? Let's have some ****ing sensible gun control, for Christ's sake.
I agree because we all know the criminals and mentally ill follow the law to the letter.

Gotta regulate inanimate objects lest the knee jerk left won't be able to sleep at night.

You see Pat Caddell's comments the other day? He's one of yours.

Also, it looks like DiFi is trying to give Obama a run for gun salesperson of the century. Oh, the irony.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
Similar threads
The Politics of Sport

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS