• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

U.S. Politics

Page 350 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
Hugh Januss said:
This thread is a lot more fun when 9 or 10 of you guys start voicing your opinions, because then there are 12 to 14 different viewpoints to consider. Not to mention enough typos to constitute a librarian's wet dream.
i SEA youre post. I also NO what YOUR doing. It is not just THERE opinions but viewpoints. Sometimes you just gota NO youre ROLL.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
hiero2 said:
Oh, and gents? Put a chill on the insults. You're making your points just fine without sinking to those levels.
This again?

Pointed out in the Mod thread as not necessary by Amsterhammer but yet the need to come in and warn? Is someone complaining / reporting? If so then they are a bunch of Pussies just as BroDeal so eloquently described. :eek:
 
Scott SoCal said:
Not to worry. We are becoming more like Europe every day. Politically and emotionally. As we descend into a Western European model we are getting all the despair that goes along with it.

AMERICANS 'SNAPPING' BY THE MILLIONS




There was a time when Amerikans were not too worried about what Europeans thought of us. But now that we are as crazy as Europe it's all anyone can talk about.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/americans-snapping-by-the-millions/
That's because generally speaking Americans worry far too damn much over things in life of little, if any, real importance - and don't get riled up over the things that are.

Who cares about the economy and work when even being affluent doesn't alter the fact that your life is a living hell, I've asked myself?

What good is having all these things and gadgets, of living in the superpower, if you'd rather be dead?

When life merely becomes an eternal struggle and competition to accumulate more, to earn more, to achieve more, to make a career and terrify the children with prompts that as adults they will only be condemned to the same existence, to the same famous "way of life" (as if there were a right way to live), without having the time for anything else - I don't say a month's vacation, but even a walk through nature just to marvel at it - then the frequent instances of self-induced fatalities, of living a stressed-out existence, are hardly surprising.

In Europe, especially in the more productive northern countries of a more puritanical and Calvinist mentality, this American mania and hell that's a product of liberalism and propelled by the need for continuous growth (even if eternal growth at the markets is the great folly of our age), as well as to remain economically on top, has been increasing the stress level of the citizenry even if probably to a lesser degree. Whereas a couple of generations ago people were, yes, poorer, but at the same time more tranquil and content with their lives and what they had.

In a recent talk I had with this elderly gentleman he said we, meaning his generation, were happier when we had less and that the level of stress and expectation he sees in the youth of today was unheard of in his time. Kids who have had more of everything than that which he was ever provided in his youth are, nevertheless, under so much pressure and feel the need to get results and start a career beyond the limits of normal, healthy expectations: to become "useful," not to society though, but to the market, to the GNP and consumer rates.

For this reason, which homo economicus has created and unloaded upon their shoulders, they aren't even able to enjoy those carefree days he remembered from his youth, preciesly because they don't have carefree days, but are tormented by this globalized modernity our economic model has created. Then the world seemed more promising and also provided more opportunities (even without a university degree as in his case); though above all less ominous and menacing, despite the recent wars and the unfolding cold one between capitalism and communism with its promise of a nuclear armageddon and without the requirement of success that's exclusively contemplated in economic terms.

This alone allows us to apprehend the advanced state of our civilization's own precipitous decline.
 
Amsterhammer said:
This is entirely my experience with Europeans too. But as we hear time and again, real Merikans don't give a flying f what anyone else thinks about the US obsession with guns.
The nice thing about it, though, is that the rest of the world doesn't give a flying f what Americans think about what it thinks about America. What they do give a flying f about, on the other hand, regards those consequences that directly impact their world that are conditions determined by how the superpower behaves.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Not surprising, we see it in this thread on a daily basis.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/21/free-market-economics-science_n_3128472.html

Those who believe in a popular conservative economic theory are also more likely to not believe in science, according to a recent study.

People who endorse free-market economics -- an economic theory, which argues the markets regulate themselves and work better without too much government intervention -- are more likely to deny climate change, according to a study published last month in Psychological Science.

“Endorsement of free-market economics predicted rejection of climate science,” the researchers wrote. “Endorsement of free markets also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer.”
When reality clashes with ideology, reality must give way.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
BillytheKid said:
Consider though, that a gun is inanimate. It is really the action of those who aim and shoot others that at the cause.
Bombs and tanks and SAMS are inanimate too. So's anthrax and nerve gas. So's a rental truck full of fertilizer. So's a nuclear weapon. All completely inanimate last time I checked. So why do we regulate and ban the private ownership and sale of those? The 2nd doesn't say anything about guns after all, it says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" - are those not arms? Course, the 2nd was written back in the 18th century when "arms" had a completely different meaning.

A car's just a big hunk of inanimate metal sitting on the road, but you have to be licensed (ie trained) and register it with the government to legally operate one. How 'bout we at least do the same for gun ownership? I mean, if you don't object to having your car registered with the gov't, surely it wouldn't bother you that your gun is too, right?
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
VeloCity said:
Not surprising, we see it in this thread on a daily basis.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/21/free-market-economics-science_n_3128472.html

When reality clashes with ideology, reality must give way.
This from those who believe inanimate objects are killers.:rolleyes:

Where's Al Gore when you need him?

Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416

Next thing you know Velo will be telling us the study of "climate change" is inexact.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
VeloCity said:
Bombs and tanks and SAMS are inanimate too. So's anthrax and nerve gas. So's a rental truck full of fertilizer. So's a nuclear weapon. All completely inanimate last time I checked. So why do we regulate and ban the private ownership and sale of those? The 2nd doesn't say anything about guns after all, it says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" - are those not arms? Course, the 2nd was written back in the 18th century when "arms" had a completely different meaning.

A car's just a big hunk of inanimate metal sitting on the road, but you have to be licensed (ie trained) and register it with the government to legally operate one. How 'bout we at least do the same for gun ownership? I mean, if you don't object to having your car registered with the gov't, surely it wouldn't bother you that your gun is too, right?
The Boston Terror suspects had no registered guns.

Massachusetts has some of the most strict gun laws in the nation.

Isn't it odd how those bent on mass killing don't follow existing laws?

You will only get what you want with the confiscation of all firearms.

Best of luck with that.
 
May 5, 2011
5,806
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
The Boston Terror suspects had no registered guns.

Massachusetts has some of the most strict gun laws in the nation.

Isn't it odd how those bent on mass killing don't follow existing laws?

You will only get what you want with the confiscation of all firearms.

Best of luck with that.
well, not to sound sarcastic, but "one of the most strict gun laws in the nation" in america is not exactly something to brag about :rolleyes::p
 
Scott SoCal said:
The Boston Terror suspects had no registered guns.

Massachusetts has some of the most strict gun laws in the nation.

Isn't it odd how those bent on mass killing don't follow existing laws?

You will only get what you want with the confiscation of all firearms.

Best of luck with that.
You are right that laws are only a deterrent to those who aren't inclined to break them.

However, there does seem to be a connection between a relatively unregulated arms market and instances of mass murder in America. Whether or not the psychosis that's behind such events is related to mass gun ownership and a certain kultur of firearms this breeds in the US would be interesting to know.

My hunch is that the more violent and unstable is the environment, the greater is the gap between rich and poor, the more excluded and isolated an increasing segment of the citizenry perceives in their own state and the more insalubrious is the "way of life" (in terms of those levels of uber-stress and consequent appeal to self-extinction – but also killing others - you evidenced before), all has a direct effect on a diffuse psychosis and hence repeated mass murder. Though drawing conclusions beyond that of a mere hunch in seeking explanations to this inquiry, which amounts to a fundamental problem in Americana today, should be the focus of both specialists and policy makers.

Though in light of all the irrationality behind Americans' passion for their guns, the lobbying power of an appalling and thoroughly mendacious NRA and the mindless reverence for an archaic constitutionality, as you say, best of luck with that.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
rhubroma said:
You are right that laws are only a deterrent to those who aren't inclined to break them.

However, there does seem to be a connection between a relatively unregulated arms market and instances of mass murder in America. Whether or not the psychosis that's behind such events is related to mass gun ownership and a certain kultur of firearms that exists in the US would be interesting to know.

My hunch is that the more violent and unstable is the environment, the greater is the gap between rich and poor, the more excluded and isolated an increasing segment of the citizenry perceives in their own state and the more insalubrious is the "way of life" (in terms of those levels of uber-stress and consequent appeal to self-extinction – but also killing others - you evidenced before), has a direct effect on a diffuse psychosis and hence repeated mass murder. Though drawing conclusions beyond that of a mere hunch in seeking explanations to this inquiry, which amounts to a fundamental problem in Americana today, should be the focus of both specialists and policy makers.
Though, as you say, best of luck with that.
Reasonable post... you feeling ok??

There is a socio-economic component to be sure. The overwhelming gun violence (suicide excluded) in the US is criminal on criminal. Oddly though, those numbers used to be much, much higher.

There are huge cause and effect issues in the inner-city that the liberal welfare state is largely responsible for. Mostly unintended consequences of enacted policy (I suppose) but the longer it continues the more cynical I get.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
pins and needles.

After reading the Boston Marathon Bombing thread where Amsterhammer put the link up for theblaze / Glenn Beck ramblings I have been checking his web site for updates. Anyone know if he has dropped the goods yet?

Glenn Beck makes the rest of the Glenn's in the world want to have a name change. :eek:
 
Glenn_Wilson said:
After reading the Boston Marathon Bombing thread where Amsterhammer put the link up for theblaze / Glenn Beck ramblings I have been checking his web site for updates. Anyone know if he has dropped the goods yet?

Glenn Beck makes the rest of the Glenn's in the world want to have a name change. :eek:
Yeah, i always find it strange that there are people who actually believes him.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,924
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Reasonable post... you feeling ok??

There is a socio-economic component to be sure. The overwhelming gun violence (suicide excluded) in the US is criminal on criminal. Oddly though, those numbers used to be much, much higher.

There are huge cause and effect issues in the inner-city that the liberal welfare state is largely responsible for. Mostly unintended consequences of enacted policy (I suppose) but the longer it continues the more cynical I get.
Don't be churlish, I would have expected you to commend the professor for his brevity today.;)

Have you ever stopped to wonder - IF the overwhelming gun violence is, as you claim, criminal on criminal, and given that the US by some considerable distance holds the world record for incarceration - over 2.5 million when I last looked - why is there so much violence in the US? Why is there so much crime in the US? Why does locking people up in such numbers only lead to profits for private contractors, and never to any reduction in the overall pattern of crime?

Is it maybe something other than 'failed liberal inner city policies'? Is there maybe something a lot more fundamentally wrong with US society, when substantial numbers of the population simply see themselves totally cut off from what is supposed to be the 'American Dream', with no hope of ever 'getting' anything unless they resort to crime?

I certainly don't have any glib solutions. There are no easy answers to any of the huge problems of US society. But, as I see opinions growing ever further apart, I quietly despair about the future.
 
Scott SoCal said:
Reasonable post... you feeling ok??

There is a socio-economic component to be sure. The overwhelming gun violence (suicide excluded) in the US is criminal on criminal. Oddly though, those numbers used to be much, much higher.

There are huge cause and effect issues in the inner-city that the liberal welfare state is largely responsible for. Mostly unintended consequences of enacted policy (I suppose) but the longer it continues the more cynical I get.
I'm always reasonable...are you feeling ok?

That the gun violence in America is overwhelmingly criminal on criminal, only means that there is a great level of criminality in the US as the over-crowded prison system attests. This is actually no different from Italy (except for the overcrowded prison system), where, on the other hand, only delinquents and mafiosi are attracted to a culture of violence and firearms. By contrast this is a more diffuse phenomena in the US.

The American inner city was a lost cause the moment the city itself became abandoned for suburbia in all but the business, municipal and down-town shopping quarters. Entire residential quarters that used to have fine row homes with walled gardens,decent public schools and a thriving small business community, became transformed into slums overnight. The mills and breweries either closed down or else were merged to larger corporate enterprises, which further accelerated urban decay in the residential neighborhoods to which they provided work and salaries. Without adequate tax revenues the urban public schools became a disaster and the consequent lack of opportunity ghetto kids grew up with, because of the failed education system and broken communities, only stimulated and enhanced gang culture and hence gang warfare. What all of this means Scott is that it wasn't because of a failed liberal welfare policy that reduced the American cities to what they are, but a liberal economic machine devised mostly by conservatives though sustained by both democrats and republicans alike. One that cares not for the actual health and welbeing of society, which can only be measured by the state of its weakest elements and not how many individuals get rich while they struggle. Liberalism rather was/is a model for economic growth and development predicated exclusively upon generating private wealth and corporate profit, without having any of the resources channeled to ameliorate the urban slums and hence social disaster thus created by them. A social disaster, moreover, that was largely determined by this economic model of choice. The left in the US to be sure (and not only in the US) following WWII made many mistakes, the most unpardonable among them having been over these past decades not resisting more vehemently the right's trend toward effecting society's destruction at the expense of making a few exceedingly rich, while by contrast it has even enthusiastically embraced the mantle of this cause.

You always like to preach "create opportunity," though the actual policies of privatization and deregulation called for by this model achieved precisely the opposite in advancing as they did the class gap between rich, middle class and poor. The poor quality of public education and an absence of health care coverage their meager earnings could neither generate in the first case, nor afford in the second one did the rest. Hence taking advantage of living on the dole, which is something that conservatives like yourself are always crying bloody murder over, has been ironically the result of a not fortuitous economic model and social policy to which their ideological world view has contributed the most in establishing. If anything, then, America needed to effect an even more generalized and radical social wellfare policy to save the inner cities, which would no doubt have decreased criminality and thus instances of street violence with firearms. Instead the politicians and contractors thought only of building sports stadiums and super highways to bring all the white folk in from suburbia to make a good living, entertain them when events provide opportunity, and then get them back home safe and sound again before nightfall, when the wild animals take over and the streets and neighborhoods as everybody knows. The urban and social disaster was now complete.

Thus came section 8, that filamentary if well-intentioned social rehabilitation policy, but what really should have taken place, and long before, were urban restoration policies (renovatio urbis) beyond those of merely building civic centers, auditoriums and stadiums to nourish corporate profit, but ones that would focus on the poor, the abandoned and those without futures.

If in many, though not all of course, European cities the culture of violence isn't nearly as desperate and acute as in their American counterparts, gun restrictions are certainly a factor in this (without a shadow of a doubt), though so too principally were those great social policies that European states offered as a safety net especially to the poorest among society and the weak, as well as the fact - perhaps because of it - they didn't experience nearly the same level of urban degradation and decline that was a devastating consequence of the American development boom of the 50's and 60's.
 
Amsterhammer said:
Don't be churlish, I would have expected you to commend the professor for his brevity today.;)

Have you ever stopped to wonder - IF the overwhelming gun violence is, as you claim, criminal on criminal, and given that the US by some considerable distance holds the world record for incarceration - over 2.5 million when I last looked - why is there so much violence in the US? Why is there so much crime in the US? Why does locking people up in such numbers only lead to profits for private contractors, and never to any reduction in the overall pattern of crime?

Is it maybe something other than 'failed liberal inner city policies'? Is there maybe something a lot more fundamentally wrong with US society, when substantial numbers of the population simply see themselves totally cut off from what is supposed to be the 'American Dream', with no hope of ever 'getting' anything unless they resort to crime?

I certainly don't have any glib solutions. There are no easy answers to any of the huge problems of US society. But, as I see opinions growing ever further apart, I quietly despair about the future.
These your excellent questions sir are ones for which he is simply not hard-wired to offer responses.

Hey, watch it on the brevity remarks. :p
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
Zam_Olyas said:
Yeah, i always find it strange that there are people who actually believes him.
Some of what he is "reporting" (I don't think what he is doing...should or is called reporting) is true is some sense.

Seems like the Saudi student was issued a student visa for somewhere in Ohio (not sure about the state) but he was living in Revere Mass. That does not make sense and then the FBI put a INA 212 3B on him with deportation to happen this Tuesday. Somehow that was changed but a person with the same name had a INA 212 3B put on them and will be deported. That is strange because if dude had NOTHING then INA would not put that down on him because it basically kicks him out and never ever can he come back the USA. Bad if you are just a student etc.

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-2006.html

Could the FBI ran into this guy out of shear luck and circumstances? It is not out of the question.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
Don't be churlish, I would have expected you to commend the professor for his brevity today.;)

Have you ever stopped to wonder - IF the overwhelming gun violence is, as you claim, criminal on criminal, and given that the US by some considerable distance holds the world record for incarceration - over 2.5 million when I last looked - why is there so much violence in the US? Why is there so much crime in the US? Why does locking people up in such numbers only lead to profits for private contractors, and never to any reduction in the overall pattern of crime?

Is it maybe something other than 'failed liberal inner city policies'? Is there maybe something a lot more fundamentally wrong with US society, when substantial numbers of the population simply see themselves totally cut off from what is supposed to be the 'American Dream', with no hope of ever 'getting' anything unless they resort to crime?

I certainly don't have any glib solutions. There are no easy answers to any of the huge problems of US society. But, as I see opinions growing ever further apart, I quietly despair about the future.
Have you ever stopped to wonder - IF the overwhelming gun violence is, as you claim, criminal on criminal, and given that the US by some considerable distance holds the world record for incarceration - over 2.5 million when I last looked - why is there so much violence in the US? Why is there so much crime in the US? Why does locking people up in such numbers only lead to profits for private contractors, and never to any reduction in the overall pattern of crime?

Yes, of course. Couple of things;

The overwhelming majority of gun violence is criminal shooting criminal and the overall gun violence stats have fallen dramatically in the last few decades.

There's much that can be fixed in the inner-city, but it won't happen overnight and it will never happen as long as there remains no political will to honestly address and correct the problems.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
This from those who believe inanimate objects are killers.:rolleyes:
So no one's ever died in a hurricane? Or from drought? Or tidal surges? Earthquakes? huh.

Where's Al Gore when you need him?
I dunno. You're the only one who ever brings up Al Gore. I suspect it's because "Al Gore" is the extent of your knowledge about climate change. Al Gore and the sun, which is hot.

Dude, we've been over this before, though I'm not surprised that you keep linking to the same old crap. Pick any arbitrary timespan and it'll show a distinct pattern - it's why the cons (esp George Will) like to say that global warming ended in 1998. Well no, it really didn't, but if you pick the highest as your starting point, no surprise that everything from that point on appears to be lower, eh? On the other hand, if you arbitrarily pick the period 1971-2000, well, it was the warmest period in 1400 years. Really odd how the deniers never pick that span.

Or how that Reuters article suggests a "pause" in warming without mentioning that 12 of the 14 warmest years have been since the "pause" began, just that the variation among those years hasn't been as high as previous decades so it's "slowed"? Arbitrary time spans of a few years or decades are meaningless whether they show ups or downs - surface temps oscillate for any number of reasons, PDOs, El Nino etc, but the overall long-term trend is the same: hotter. Some periods it'll get hotter faster, some periods it'll get hotter slower, but in either case, it's still getting hotter.

Still, you're making progress: acknowledging that something has "slowed" is at least acknowledging that something is real in the first place. And btw if you're so keen on mocking Al Gore, maybe try to avoid linking to an article quoting Bjorn Lomborg, 'k?

Next thing you know Velo will be telling us the study of "climate change" is inexact.
Nope, it is pretty exact, which is why most people with a brain and who aren't ideologically blinkered understand why it's a problem.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110113/509983main_adjusted_annual_temperature_anomalies_final.gif

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS