U.S. Politics

Page 309 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
You...you mean I want the government to actually perform their PRIMARY role? Guilty, man. I'm guilty.
No, you want one individual to have the power to overrule the recommendations of the state parole board. Most people would consider that close to dictatorship.

Lifetime sentenced murderers set free is a problem for me no matter who does it.
Well, don't complain about the cost to taxpayers, then. Costs a lot of money to keep people in jail forever. But treating individuals and individual cases homogeneously is stupid.

You care about people murdered except when you don't. Nice.
You invent scary scenarios to better fit your ideology when reality fails to conform. Nice.

Common sense much? Didn't think so.
Relying on "common sense" is why science was invented.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/20/why-does-the-gun-lobby-fear-science-and-safety.html?

Back when the Centers for Disease Control were allowed to do gun research, they found that American children under age 15 were nine times more likely to die of a gun accident than children in other advanced wealthy countries.

The Centers for Disease Control reserve the term "very rare" for accidental deaths from vaccines, the number of which is zero, or close to it. If more than 600 people a year were dying from vaccines, we'd have a national uproar, if not a revolution.
Yep, we would, and we have. But guns? Nah. 600+ is an acceptable sacrifice to the NRA and the 2nd Amendment.

About 200 Americans go to emergency rooms every day with gunshot wounds.
No wonder health care is so expensive these days.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
California DOC report looks at recidivism rates

The California recidivism rate, which has long been among the highest in the country, clocks in at 67.5 percent









http://www.correctionsone.com/re-entry-and-recidivism/articles/2865158-California-DOC-report-looks-at-recidivism-rates/

But, according to 'scientists using strict protocol', the CA DOC doesn't know what it's talking about.
Dude, the national recidivism rate for homicide is 1.5%, meaning that of the 377 murderers paroled by Jerry Brown maybe 5-6 *might* be arrested for homicide again in the future. But since, according to yours and BroDeal's common sense, criminals just murder other criminals, what's the big deal anyway? One would think you'd be advocating for all of them to be released so they can wipe each other out and solve our gun problem.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
Scott SoCal said:
No, you want one individual to have the power to overrule the recommendations of the state parole board. Most people would consider that close to dictatorship.

Well, don't complain about the cost to taxpayers, then. Costs a lot of money to keep people in jail forever. But treating individuals and individual cases homogeneously is stupid.

You invent scary scenarios to better fit your ideology when reality fails to conform. Nice.

Relying on "common sense" is why science was invented.
No, you want one individual to have the power to overrule the recommendations of the state parole board. Most people would consider that close to dictatorship.
Nope, most people would call that having more concern with the safety of innocents versus taking chances with convicted violent felons. You know, common sense type stuff.

Well, don't complain about the cost to taxpayers, then. Costs a lot of money to keep people in jail forever. But treating individuals and individual cases homogeneously is stupid.
It sure does. Did you know that CA prison guards get lifetime medical paid by the State after only 10 years of service? Did you know there are no no limits to how much vacation they can bank? It used to be 80 days. Now it's unlimited.

Payroll data compiled by Bloomberg on 1.4 million public employees in the 12 most populous states show that California has set a pattern of lax management, inefficient operations and out-of-control costs. From coast to coast, states are cutting funding for schools, public safety and the poor as they struggle with fallout left by politicians who made pay-and-pension promises that taxpayers couldn’t afford.
“It was completely avoidable,” said David Crane, a public-policy lecturer at Stanford University.

“All it took was for political leaders to think more about the general population and the future, rather than their political futures,” said Crane, a Democrat who worked as an economic adviser to former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican. “Citizens should be mad as hell, and they shouldn’t take it anymore.”

Indeed.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-11/-822-000-worker-shows-california-leads-u-s-pay-giveaway.html

You invent scary scenarios to better fit your ideology when reality fails to conform. Nice.
Uh, no. Reality is that mass shootings (21 dead on 2011) are rare. That's reality and yet you'll readily ****-can a constitutional guarantee for political reasons. Reality is most people committing gun violence against others are already known to correction departments and police across the country. It's scary, but so, so typical.

Relying on "common sense" is why science was invented
And that explains all anyone will ever need to know about you.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
Dude, the national recidivism rate for homicide is 1.5%, meaning that of the 377 murderers paroled by Jerry Brown maybe 5-6 *might* be arrested for homicide again in the future. But since, according to yours and BroDeal's common sense, criminals just murder other criminals, what's the big deal anyway? One would think you'd be advocating for all of them to be released so they can wipe each other out and solve our gun problem.
Dude, the national recidivism rate for homicide is 1.5%, meaning that of the 377 murderers paroled by Jerry Brown maybe 5-6 *might* be arrested for homicide again in the future.
That number, 1.5%, is for first year re-incarceration, no? If not, go ahead and post a link.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
That number, 1.5%, is for first year re-incarceration, no? If not, go ahead and post a link.
No. 3 years. Sorry, thought I'd posted the link - it's from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17

And I was wrong: it's not 1.5%, it's even lower, 1.2%.

If you really want to reduce crime, know what would lower recidivism rates even further? A more humane prison system and a stronger social safety net. Like Norway, for eg, which is around 20% total, compared to the US's ~50%.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1986002,00.html#ixzz0n9t8l6FT

But that would be coddling the criminals, wouldn't it.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
And that explains all anyone will ever need to know about you.
That I have more faith in science than in "common sense"? **** I hope so. That you put more faith in "common sense" (who's "common sense" are we talking about, anyway? Yours? Mine? Obama's? Bush's?) we already know all too well and explains all anyone will ever need to know about you.
 
VeloCity said:
No. 3 years. Sorry, thought I'd posted the link - it's from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17

And I was wrong: it's not 1.5%, it's even lower, 1.2%.

If you really want to reduce crime, know what would lower recidivism rates even further? A more humane prison system and a stronger social safety net. Like Norway, for eg, which is around 20% total, compared to the US's ~50%.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1986002,00.html#ixzz0n9t8l6FT

But that would be coddling the criminals, wouldn't it.
Right, but a more humane prison system would mean, among other things, restructuring the food industry, reconceiving the training, function and roles of mental health specialists, the obvious of course of asking what the purposes of incarceration are and if an industrial modern, one-size fits all idealized model is really the best means for dealing with criminal activities across the board.

And we know that's not the case. What the relation of the penal system is to illegitimate classes. How long it would take to achieve a kind of societal reform that would minimize both the ineffectual **** ups and the truly mentally unstable who populate US prisons. It would also necessitate some basic educational reform. And so on.

Sorry if that's a bit serious.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Uh, no. Reality is that mass shootings (21 dead on 2011) are rare. That's reality and yet you'll readily ****-can a constitutional guarantee for political reasons. Reality is most people committing gun violence against others are already known to correction departments and police across the country. It's scary, but so, so typical.
um, yes. Isn't that why you posted that scary, scary bit about Jerry Brown letting a horde of murderers loose on the streets? You even said that because of that, you were now thinking about getting a gun yourself.

We ****-can constitutional guarantee's quite often, when they no longer fit the reality of current-day life. Slavery, prohibition, denying voting rights to women and minorities, they were once "constitutional", and the whole point of the SC is to interpret what "constitutional rights" people have today, which more often than not are completely opposite to what was considered "constitutional" previously (segregation, for eg). The 2nd Amendment served it's purpose back when it was written, when the extent of firepower were muskets and cannon and the threat of government overextension and foreign invasion could realistically be fought off by militias, but the 2nd is completely obsolete in today's world. Time to move guns into the everyday regulatory realm and out of the constitutional realm.

Odd how often conservatives call for constitutional amendments, though.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
No. 3 years. Sorry, thought I'd posted the link - it's from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17

And I was wrong: it's not 1.5%, it's even lower, 1.2%.

If you really want to reduce crime, know what would lower recidivism rates even further? A more humane prison system and a stronger social safety net. Like Norway, for eg, which is around 20% total, compared to the US's ~50%.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1986002,00.html#ixzz0n9t8l6FT

But that would be coddling the criminals, wouldn't it.
Wow. The homicide recidivism rate in Finland is 3X that of the USA.:rolleyes:

So, we are to believe that the recidivism rate amongst violent felons (3 year) is 67% +, but somehow homicide is 1.2%.

Odd, wouldn't you say... unless of course criminal homicide does not just mean murder. Manslaughter is homicide, certainly not the same as murder 1 or 2.

It might be interesting to know those numbers. From everything I can find it appears that murder recidivism is much lower than violent felony re-incarceration.

Still, as it relates to guns, does it matter? If more than 3/4 of violent felons will be back in prison within 3 years, does that lessen anyone's need to be free to defend themselves or their loved ones?
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
um, yes. Isn't that why you posted that scary, scary bit about Jerry Brown letting a horde of murderers loose on the streets? You even said that because of that, you were now thinking about getting a gun yourself.

We ****-can constitutional guarantee's quite often, when they no longer fit the reality of current-day life. Slavery, prohibition, denying voting rights to women and minorities, they were once "constitutional", and the whole point of the SC is to interpret what "constitutional rights" people have today, which more often than not are completely opposite to what was considered "constitutional" previously (segregation, for eg). The 2nd Amendment served it's purpose back when it was written, when the extent of firepower were muskets and cannon and the threat of government overextension and foreign invasion could realistically be fought off by militias, but the 2nd is completely obsolete in today's world. Time to move guns into the everyday regulatory realm and out of the constitutional realm.

Odd how often conservatives call for constitutional amendments, though.
We ****-can constitutional guarantee's quite often
when was the last time we amended the bill of rights?

the whole point of the SC is to interpret what "constitutional rights" people have today
Interpretation of is quite different than repeal, no?

but the 2nd is completely obsolete in today's world. Time to move guns into the everyday regulatory realm and out of the constitutional realm
How many other of the first 10 are you wanting to remove constitutionally?
 
Apr 16, 2011
1,074
1
0
VeloCity said:
The 2nd Amendment served it's purpose back when it was written, when the extent of firepower were muskets and cannon and the threat of government overextension and foreign invasion could realistically be fought off by militias, but the 2nd is completely obsolete in today's world.
Armies do not have to be overwhelmed in order for a resistance movement to achieve its objectives, just harassed until the cost is too high. Isn't this how America won Independence in the first place? Besides, why should we trust the government if we can't trust the citizens that elect and appoint those men and women? If it is merely that government officials are trained (so are many others), then how is it possible that 150 years of mandatory education has failed to bring up a responsible citizenry, such as existed in the first few years of the Republic when all free men were required to possess firearms?
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
How many other of the first 10 are you wanting to remove constitutionally?
"Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

Nope, nothing out dated about any of those.:rolleyes:
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
How many other of the first 10 are you wanting to remove constitutionally?
Just the outdated 2nd (and the pointless 3rd could probably go as well). How many do conservatives want to remove? Lessee.

Scrap part of the 14th http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/112287--mcconnell-congress-ought-to-take-a-look-at-altering-immigration-law

"Restore" the 13th http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/07/27/why-some-republicans-want-to-restore-the-13th-amendment.html

Repeal the 16th http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/does-rick-perry-still-favor-repeal-of-16th-amendment/2011/03/03/gIQAcghgWJ_blog.html

Repeal the 17th http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/opinion/01tue4.html?ref=opinion&_r=1&

Not to mention the numerous calls for constitutional amendments to outlaw abortion - how many of those have there been over the years? - and for balanced budgets, repealing the federal income tax, banning Obamacare, gay marriage, flag burning, the two-thirds state repeals, etc. Then you've even got Wackjob Sharron Angle suggesting a repeal of the 21st so that the 18th - ie Prohibition - would come back into force. And lastly, not to mention how they've managed to completely recast the 2nd into something it isn't and was never meant to be.

Jeez, you guys really don't have much respect for the constitution. ;)
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
VeloCity said:
The 2nd Amendment served it's purpose back when it was written, when the extent of firepower were muskets and cannon and the threat of government overextension and foreign invasion could realistically be fought off by militias, but the 2nd is completely obsolete in today's world. Time to move guns into the everyday regulatory realm and out of the constitutional realm.
Good to know to know that you have decided which rights the rest of us citizens are allowed to keep.

The Afghans seem to have done a pretty good job of convincing the U.S. to leave, and those guys can barely shoot straight. The Iraqis blew up the U.S. budget and were only subdued when the U.S. started to pay off the various factions; ultimately they achieved their political goals. The good ol' U.S. of A did not fare that well in the Vietnam either.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
VeloCity said:
Then you've even got Wackjob Sharron Angle suggesting a repeal of the 21st so that the 18th - ie Prohibition - would come back into force.
Sounds like a whackjob you would feel right comfortable with. Alcohol is responsible for far more deaths than guns.

Think of the children. Ban Demon Rum!
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
BroDeal said:
Good to know to know that you have decided which rights the rest of us citizens are allowed to keep.

The Afghans seem to have done a pretty good job of convincing the U.S. to leave, and those guys can barely shoot straight. The Iraqis blew up the U.S. budget and were only subdued when the U.S. started to pay off the various factions; ultimately they achieved their political goals. The good ol' U.S. of A did not fare that well in the Vietnam either.
I see, so now Iraqis, Afghans, and Vietnamese are all American citizens who are/should be protected by the second Amendment. Bit of a reach to say that is a properly armed militia defying its own elected government, don't you think?
Or do you think?
 
Mar 10, 2009
286
0
0
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The first part of the amendment allowed the US to create an army, as there was no standing army to speak of after the end of the Revolutionary war. The second part of the amendment says that we have the right to keep arms. The two parts have nothing to do with each other.

That comma is one of the most important commas ever used.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
mikeNphilly said:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The first part of the amendment allowed the US to create an army, as there was no standing army to speak of after the end of the Revolutionary war. The second part of the amendment says that we have the right to keep arms. The two parts have nothing to do with each other.

That comma is one of the most important commas ever used.
If that's true, then why can't I have my own M-60 and sarin stockpile?
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
I see, so now Iraqis, Afghans, and Vietnamese are all American citizens who are/should be protected by the second Amendment. Bit of a reach to say that is a properly armed militia defying its own elected government, don't you think?
Or do you think?
Nope.

I'm quite sure you understand the point made. If you don't there is nothing that can be said that will help.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
BroDeal said:
Sounds like a whackjob you would feel right comfortable with. Alcohol is responsible for far more deaths than guns.

Think of the children. Ban Demon Rum!

Now you've gone over the edge. Liberals like their alcohol buzz as much or more than anybody.

You simply can't be taken seriously by the left if you start bagging on alcohol. It's not alcohol's fault, but the a-hole that drank too much.

Now do you see??

It's way different with guns. Waaaayyyyy different.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Huh.

President Barack Obama’s job approval is at the highest level since his first year in office, and Americans prefer his economic message to that of his increasingly unpopular GOP opponents, according to a poll released Wednesday.

Fifty-five percent of Americans approve of Obama’s job performance, the highest since September 2009, according to the Bloomberg poll. Forty percent disapprove. Only 35 percent have a favorable view of the Republican party, and 55 percent have an unfavorable outlook. Democrats other than Obama are less popular — 47 percent of those surveyed have a favorable view, and 43 percent have an unfavorable opinion.

Asked which approach they think will grow the economy, 49 percent of Americans chose increasing government investment in education, alternative energy and education. Only 44 percent said they preferred slashing spending and cutting business taxes.

As negotiations on the sequester — a package of $1.2 trillion in spending cuts scheduled to go into effect March 1 — sit at a standstill, only 42 percent approve of how Obama is negotiating with congressional Republicans. Forty-four percent disapprove. Americans are more likely to blame Republicans than Democrats for problems in Washington, 43 percent to 34 percent.
Sounds like the people ain't buying the R bull**** anymore.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/poll-obama-approval-highest-since-09-87887.html#ixzz2LW5WSPtg
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Now you've gone over the edge. Liberals like their alcohol buzz as much or more than anybody.

You simply can't be taken seriously by the left if you start bagging on alcohol. It's not alcohol's fault, but the a-hole that drank too much.

Now do you see??

It's way different with guns. Waaaayyyyy different.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/acf/30_jails_and_alcoholuse.cfm

"Excludes an estimated 35,500 convicted DWI/DUI offenders. If these inmates are included, the proportion of public order offenders reporting alcohol use at the time of offense increases to approximately 48%.
"

nothing to see here, move along :D
 
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