U.S. Politics

Page 339 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Wal-Mart devours the competition, and consumers suffer in consequence.

Is that supposed to be the capitalist dream?
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Respectfully, if you think they ask, you are either characterizing it in a completely deceitful manner, or you really don't grasp it. They don't ask anyone anything.

On the contrary, if that is who we are going to continue to evolve into, I hope I'm right.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but you seem to suggest they play by their own rules. That's just not so. They play the political game as well as anybody, but understand that is certainly a two way street... and everyone has seen this movie before. Amazon comes to mind.

Hell, they ask (persuasively).

Btw did you know Hillary sat on the WM BOD? Shocker, I know. But Arkansans stick together, or so it would seem.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
MarkvW said:
Wal-Mart devours the competition, and consumers suffer in consequence.

Is that supposed to be the capitalist dream?
200,000,000 customers marching to a pied piper.

Oh, the horror.

I bet you shop there, don't you? Yep, thought so.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
RetroActive said:
Some people are waiting for the zombie apocalypse, I'm not.
When the zombies rise I plan on changing my name to Yojimbo and making bank by selling human flesh to one side and bullets to the other.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
200,000,000 customers marching to a pied piper.

Oh, the horror.

I bet you shop there, don't you? Yep, thought so.
Don't shop at Wal-Mart. It destroys local businesses and hurts competition. That's the undisputable reality of it.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
BroDeal said:
When the zombies rise I plan on changing my name to Yojimbo and making bank by selling human flesh to one side and bullets to the other.
Anything for a few dollars more, eh?
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
MarkvW said:
Don't shop at Wal-Mart. It destroys local businesses and hurts competition. That's the undisputable reality of it.
Shop at a supermarket? Buy an assembly line produced automobile? Shop at Home Depot or Lowe's? I bet you have an Apple product or two.

How about dining preferences? Go out to dinner at any big national chain restaurants?

Hypocrite and fool. Plain and simple, bad combination, but completely unsurprising.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Shop at a supermarket? Buy an assembly line produced automobile? Shop at Home Depot or Lowe's? I bet you have an Apple product or two.

How about dining preferences? Go out to dinner at any big national chain restaurants?

Hypocrite and fool. Plain and simple, bad combination, but completely unsurprising.
This is the intolerant attack-dog mentality of the right wing conservative.
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
BroDeal said:
When the zombies rise I plan on changing my name to Yojimbo and making bank by selling human flesh to one side and bullets to the other.
When? They often go by the pseudonym "consumers".
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
RetroActive said:
When? They often go by the pseudonym "consumers".
Soon. Very Soon. The stars are aligning. My toast landed butter side up. And Velo is becoming ever more hysterical about guns. Obviously he is already in a pre-zombie state and afraid of being shot in the head.
 
patricknd said:
Whatever we've been doing over the last 20-30 years seems to be working, more or less. The murder rate has been cut by more than half since 1980: from 10.7 to 4.7.
Might have mentioned medical advances. It has been estimated that the number of American deaths in Iraq would have been four times as high if the state of medicine were at the same level as during the Vietnam War. It’s no secret that many people gunned down on the streets today survive who would not have survived several decades ago.

Take out the black underclass from the statistics, and even American murder rates fall to European levels.
And Europe doesn’t have an underclass? That’s like saying, take out the poorest, most economically desperate portion of the population, people who are most likely to resort to violence as the only avenue they perceive left to them, and violence will be less. And if that's the case, one would think that someone who is not a member of the underclass would not need a gun to protect himself.

• Idaho (2.3, was 1.4 in 2010)
• Finland (2.2)
• Oregon (2.1)
• Maine (2.0)
• Utah (1.9)
• Belgium (1.7)
• Canada (1.6)
• Iowa (1.5)
• Greece (1.5)
• Minnesota (1.4)
• New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island (1.3)
• UK and Portugal (1.2)
• Hawaii (1.2)
• France (1.1)
• New Hampshire (1.0 in 2010)
Yes, and those states listed above tend to have the strongest gun control laws:

Each state has different sets of gun ownership laws. According to the Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank that supports gun control, there appears to be a strong relationship between the strength of gun laws in the state and the amount of gun violence. In some states, gun violence exceeds the rest of the country by a wide margin. In Louisiana, between 2001 and 2010, there were 18.9 gun deaths for every 100,000 people, more than six times the rate in Hawaii, the state with the lowest violence. Based on the Center for American Progress report, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed the 10 states with the most gun violence.

The states on this list with higher gun violence tend to have much less stringent gun laws than other states with less violence like New Jersey, Connecticut and Hawaii. For instance, none of the states with the highest gun violence require permits for handgun purchases. In the 10 states with the lowest gun violence, seven have this requirement, including all six states with the lowest levels of gun violence. The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence gave seven of the 10 states an F for their gun control policies, with the remaining three receiving a D or D–.
Here’s the top ten most violent states, all red states with outspoken support for gun ownership:

Louisiana
Alaska
Alabama
Arizona
Mississippi
South Carolina
New Mexico
Missouri
Arkansas

Yes, you can look for trends, but the Centers for Disease Control already did that for you. During 2000-02, a CDC task force "conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury." Here was their conclusion.

"The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes."
Omitted is the immediately following statement: “(Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)” The report goes on to explain that many conclusions could not be determined because of an inadequate number or type of studies, and numerous other factors.

But the main reason the CDC found insufficient evidence is because they were forced to stop the study by the NRA:

Mark Rosenberg, former director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, had even stronger words. “The scientific community has been terrorized by the NRA,” Rosenberg said.
Lawmakers who agreed first tried unsuccessfully to shut down the CDC’s injury center, then stripped the agency of $2.6 million used for firearms-related research.
Arthur Kellermann, a former Emory researcher, became a focus of NRA criticism in the 90s after he published CDC-funded studies that found more risks than benefits to having a gun in the home.

Today, he said, some private foundations and the U.S. Department of Justice fund work on gun violence, but it’s a fraction of what existed before the mid-90s.

“I have to acknowledge that the (NRA) strategy of shutting down the pipeline of science was effective,” said Kellermann, who later moved on to the RAND Corp. “It is almost impossible today to get federal funding for firearm injury prevention research.”
But the CDC has found sufficient evidence for some conclusions:

Before the NRA got its way, the CDC had already learned, 20 years ago, that having a gun in the house meant that someone living there was 300 percent more likely to die of a firearm homicide than someone living in a house where no guns are kept. That, in fact, was the study that irked the NRA into action.
Think about that: 3 times more likely to die from a gunshot wound. Several statisticians have pointed out that a significant number of accidental deaths is inevitable when guns are kept in a home. Not to mention non-accidental deaths when people like Adam Lanza's mother totally ignore the dangers of allowing a mentally ill son to have access to guns.

To be fair, maybe that 300% correlation could be partly explained by people living in more dangerous areas being more likely to own guns to defend themselves. But we’ll never know, because the NRA, like so many on the right strongly opposed to any light shed on any question by modern science, is not about to allow the kind of studies that might tell us.

The NRA is like an individual who is profoundly unhealthy, but in very heavy denial about this, so much so that he refuses to see a doctor, for fear the doctor may tell him something he doesn’t want to hear. The same kind of denial that had so many Republicans so certain that Romney was going to win the election, that whenever someone held up genuinely scientific polls that showed the opposite, they held their hands over their eyes and spouted all these non-scientific beliefs that they were so sure were more important.

A challenge to gun advocates everywhere: if you are so certain that having guns makes people safer, why are you so afraid of funding studies that might prove your point?
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
patricknd said:
I won't try to emulate MI's excellent debunking of this piece of absolute bovine excrement, as he covered all the salient points. But Pat, linking to "americanthinker" really is a non-no, because of all the many right wing batsh!t inane sites on the webz, this truly is one of the most nasty, virulent, up to their eyeballs in guano pages. I blow wind in their general direction.

As for the NRA, I feel about them rather like Henry II was meant to have felt about Becket. If only the organization could be 'killed off' by one hit. The way the NRA has been allowed to gain, and wield, its insidious extreme conservative influence is one of the major disgraces of Merikan society. I'd like to think that they would be the zombie's first target.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
BroDeal said:
And Velo is becoming ever more hysterical about guns. Obviously he is already in a pre-zombie state and afraid of being shot in the head.
And you increasingly lose sight of the difference between humor, and hypocritical trolling. You post all sorts of apparently sensible stuff, then completely destroy your credibility with your asinine comments whenever guns are mentioned.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
MarkvW said:
This is the intolerant attack-dog mentality of the right wing conservative.
Please explain how I'm attacking you by pointing out your hypocrisy?

You are attacking Walmart and yet you contribute to that very business model.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Merckx index said:
Might have mentioned medical advances. It has been estimated that the number of American deaths in Iraq would have been four times as high if the state of medicine were at the same level as during the Vietnam War. It’s no secret that many people gunned down on the streets today survive who would not have survived several decades ago.



And Europe doesn’t have an underclass? That’s like saying, take out the poorest, most economically desperate portion of the population, people who are most likely to resort to violence as the only avenue they perceive left to them, and violence will be less. And if that's the case, one would think that someone who is not a member of the underclass would not need a gun to protect himself.



Yes, and those states listed above tend to have the strongest gun control laws:



Here’s the top ten most violent states, all red states with outspoken support for gun ownership:

Louisiana
Alaska
Alabama
Arizona
Mississippi
South Carolina
New Mexico
Missouri
Arkansas



Omitted is the immediately following statement: “(Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)” The report goes on to explain that many conclusions could not be determined because of an inadequate number or type of studies, and numerous other factors.

But the main reason the CDC found insufficient evidence is because they were forced to stop the study by the NRA:







But the CDC has found sufficient evidence for some conclusions:



Think about that: 3 times more likely to die from a gunshot wound. Several statisticians have pointed out that a significant number of accidental deaths is inevitable when guns are kept in a home. Not to mention non-accidental deaths when people like Adam Lanza's mother totally ignore the dangers of allowing a mentally ill son to have access to guns.

To be fair, maybe that 300% correlation could be partly explained by people living in more dangerous areas being more likely to own guns to defend themselves. But we’ll never know, because the NRA, like so many on the right strongly opposed to any light shed on any question by modern science, is not about to allow the kind of studies that might tell us.

The NRA is like an individual who is profoundly unhealthy, but in very heavy denial about this, so much so that he refuses to see a doctor, for fear the doctor may tell him something he doesn’t want to hear. The same kind of denial that had so many Republicans so certain that Romney was going to win the election, that whenever someone held up genuinely scientific polls that showed the opposite, they held their hands over their eyes and spouted all these non-scientific beliefs that they were so sure were more important.

A challenge to gun advocates everywhere: if you are so certain that having guns makes people safer, why are you so afraid of funding studies that might prove your point?
I'm not afraid. I'm not an NRA member either. I don't own a gun.

You cite states but not cities. Check in to the gun laws in Chicago and D.C. Take a look a the gun violence there. Let me know how that squares with the above.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
I won't try to emulate MI's excellent debunking of this piece of absolute bovine excrement, as he covered all the salient points. But Pat, linking to "americanthinker" really is a non-no, because of all the many right wing batsh!t inane sites on the webz, this truly is one of the most nasty, virulent, up to their eyeballs in guano pages. I blow wind in their general direction.

As for the NRA, I feel about them rather like Henry II was meant to have felt about Becket. If only the organization could be 'killed off' by one hit. The way the NRA has been allowed to gain, and wield, its insidious extreme conservative influence is one of the major disgraces of Merikan society. I'd like to think that they would be the zombie's first target.
And yet it's ok for MI to hit us with info from the Center for American Progress?? Talk about bat**** crazies at Americanthinker then say nothing of the bat**** crazies at the C for AP? C'mon Amster.

I'm also extremely skeptical that the NRA terrorizes the CDC. Sorry, but I call bull**** on that.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
Scott, the NRA not only terrorizes the CDC and Congress, they have had the entire country by the balls for decades. Their agenda is far, far to the right of what I understand your own views to be. I have seen numerous Reps, conservatives, and gun owners in other places decry and condemn the role, power, and influence of the NRA. Not all on the right are wingnuts, as I have repeatedly observed.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
Scott, the NRA not only terrorizes the CDC and Congress, they have had the entire country by the balls for decades. Their agenda is far, far to the right of what I understand your own views to be. I have seen numerous Reps, conservatives, and gun owners in other places decry and condemn the role, power, and influence of the NRA. Not all on the right are wingnuts, as I have repeatedly observed.
I find it very hard to believe the NRA has that kind of juice. I realize they brandish influence but their membership is around 4 million. That's it. What's infinitely more likely is that malleable politicians know damned good and well that the vast majority of the country is pro gun rights.

But Are they better or worse than any other effective special interest group? NARAL as an example. Do they terrorize as well?
 
Scott SoCal said:
I find it very hard to believe the NRA has that kind of juice. I realize they brandish influence but their membership is around 4 million. That's it. What's infinitely more likely is that malleable politicians know damned good and well that the vast majority of the country is pro gun rights.

But Are they better or worse than any other effective special interest group? NARAL as an example. Do they terrorize as well?
The NRA has a much more expansive market share than its actual membership and hence political clout.

Once again you confuse "pro gun rights," with effecting strickter controls and keeping the guns out of peoples hands who just shouldn't have them period. If the NRA would have its way completely, every household in America would have a private arsenal.

Do even you find that sensible? Fortuitous for American society?
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but you seem to suggest they play by their own rules. That's just not so. They play the political game as well as anybody, but understand that is certainly a two way street... and everyone has seen this movie before. Amazon comes to mind.

Hell, they ask (persuasively).

Btw did you know Hillary sat on the WM BOD? Shocker, I know. But Arkansans stick together, or so it would seem.
They do play by their own rules with respect to business practices and in relation to the concessions they force out of local governments. Sure it isn't a pure take situation, but to suggest they are merely asking people anything is not reflective of their business practices in any way. And ultimately, their presence has been a detriment to many small communities.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
200,000,000 customers marching to a pied piper.

Oh, the horror.

I bet you shop there, don't you? Yep, thought so.
I know this was to Mark, but I don't. I also do support local farmer's markets every week. I buy as much locally produced food, and shop at as many small local businesses as I can reasonably do. The reason is that companies like Walmart are parasites on communities. On some level, it is impossible to avoid big boxes completely, but there are companies like Costco that have a CEO who understands the importance of his workers that I patronize.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
They do play by their own rules with respect to business practices and in relation to the concessions they force out of local governments. Sure it isn't a pure take situation, but to suggest they are merely asking people anything is not reflective of their business practices in any way. And ultimately, their presence has been a detriment to many small communities.
I realize they force smaller competitors out. Walmart did not invent the model they use.

Again, somehow the country survived when huge supermarket chains put out the local grocer.

Consumers drive this, not vice-versa.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
I know this was to Mark, but I don't. I also do support local farmer's markets every week. I buy as much locally produced food, and shop at as many small local businesses as I can reasonably do. The reason is that companies like Walmart are parasites on communities. On some level, it is impossible to avoid big boxes completely, but there are companies like Costco that have a CEO who understands the importance of his workers that I patronize.
The CEO of Costco supports all things democrat but he's responsible for very similar tactics you attribute to Walmart.

I have been to Walmart and I just don't get why they are so successful. I don't shop there either. I try and support the local business too as I own one.

But I will say this: the left hates Walmart for political reasons first and every other issue in on a very distant second tier.
 
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