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

U.S. Politics

Page 368 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
rhubroma said:
What has changing the legal access to guns have to do with a ban on narcotics that already exists, I asked myself? Perhaps your point is that since banning drugs hasn't eliminated them, though here the problem is of a different filamentary prohibition, we should keep the easy access to guns in place as more restrictions won't affect the numbers in circulation?

I think that the current generation is a lost cause, and not merely because of the 300,000,000 already sold, however, in the perspective of historical longue duree it is likely that a couple of generations down the road will begin to see less guns in private homes and out on the street under a differnt legal setup: which can't help but ease the social tension and instances of gun violence in America. Normally this would be viewed as a positive, though to an ideological NRA and many foolishly convinced that arming themselves makes their environment "safer" I'm certain this is deplorably not the case. In fact if you eliminate the NRA you go along way to tackling the problem. The NRA is not on Americans' side, it doesn't really care about the constitution, or even being the Paladin of a private cause: it is merely interested in its own profits and, evidently, no amount of Newtowns could ever make a difference.

You should probably look into that.
What has changing the legal access to guns have to do with a ban on narcotics that already exists, I asked myself? Perhaps your point is that since banning drugs hasn't eliminated them, though here the problem is of a different filamentary prohibition, we should keep the easy access to guns in place as more restrictions won't affect the numbers in circulation?
The trafficking of illegal narcotics are a driver in gun violence. All I'm saying is if we are going to bann guns we may as well bann drugs as well. If we bann drugs we will likely impact gun violence in other countries as well. Like Mexico for example.

It's pretty well established how well very controversial banns work. Prohibition kept liquor out of the hands of ordinary citizens and was quite effective. Same with drug laws. Probably a great blueprint of what will happen with a gun bann. Black markets?? Forget about it. Never happen.

I think that the current generation is a lost cause, and not merely because of the 300,000,000 already sold, however, in the perspective of historical longue duree it is likely that a couple of generations down the road will begin to see less guns in private homes and out on the street under a differnt legal setup: which can't help but ease the social tension and instances of gun violence in America.
Well, the left is in charge of education in the US. Just add a prolific anti-gun inculcation and: voila! In a couple of generations the issue will be solved. Maybe we can add an anti-poverty message in there too. Fix that while we are at it.

In fact if you eliminate the NRA you go along way to tackling the problem.
Bann them too. Of couse since we need to scrap the 2nd amendment we may as well modify the 1st as well. That pesky little freedom of assembly/association needs to be modified to exclude what the left doesn't approve of... you know, the NRA. Of course there are other pro gun accociations so we better round them all up and bann 'em.

The NRA is not on Americans' side, it doesn't really care about the constitution
If that's true then the NRA has much in common with the political left.

no amount of Newtowns could ever make a difference
Which gun laws being discussed would have prevented Newtown?
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
I have not read the article yet: I will. Looks interesting.

But this seems to be in direct conflict with what Velo tells us. There is no predicting when crazies are going to go off, or so we've been told. Since that can't be predicted then we need more gun laws.
It's funny to me that Republicans are now so concerned with mental illness when it is by-in-large their budget cuts that led to the dismal state of affairs, and it isn't like they were unaware of the ramifications, they just didn't care. Tax cuts are the most important thing on earth and everything else is really irrelevant contrary to their proclamations.

More evidence can be found in the fact that Mark Sanford won his special election in SC. Any conservative who voted for him, who also says they are trying to protect marriage by voting against gay marriage is a massive hypocrite. They are only keen to defend their morals circumstantially, and will justify anything if the idiot in front of them tells them he will work to cut their taxes...even an idiot who took taxpayer money and used it to fly to South America to have a roll with his mistress.
 
Scott SoCal said:
The trafficking of illegal narcotics are a driver in gun violence. All I'm saying is if we are going to bann guns we may as well bann drugs as well. If we bann drugs we will likely impact gun violence in other countries as well. Like Mexico for example.
But narcotics already are banned!?! As far as Mexico is concerned, how about stop buying their drugs so the cartel can't buy our weapons to kill Mexicans?

It's pretty well established how well very controversial banns work. Prohibition kept liquor out of the hands of ordinary citizens and was quite effective. Same with drug laws. Probably a great blueprint of what will happen with a gun bann. Black markets?? Forget about it. Never happen.
I don't classify prohibition with the US right to bear arms, which has become a mainstream market. Other than black markets.



Well, the left is in charge of education in the US. Just add a prolific anti-gun inculcation and: voila! In a couple of generations the issue will be solved. Maybe we can add an anti-poverty message in there too. Fix that while we are at it.
If the left is "in charge of education" (though I don't think so) then perhaps the right isn't very intelligent, though this is entirely an internal problem. Whereas in more civil environments most don't feel the need to own a gun. These are places where there are also less ghettoes. Perhaps there's a connection, though I don't know. Even if poverty remains, it doesn't have to come with complete exclusion: the State can play a positive role in this.


Bann them too. Of couse since we need to scrap the 2nd amendment we may as well modify the 1st as well. That pesky little freedom of assembly/association needs to be modified to exclude what the left doesn't approve of... you know, the NRA. Of course there are other pro gun accociations so we better round them all up and bann 'em.
Freedom of assembly has nothing to do with what's tolerable and what isn't (though I know you freedom fanatics think otherwise). The national socialists in Germany during the 20's, for example, were a primary example. In fact in Europe no one has the right to organize anything that promotes racial hatred as a result.

If that's true then the NRA has much in common with the political left.
The NRA only contributes to American barbarity. Live with it, I couldn't care less.



Which gun laws being discussed would have prevented Newtown?
Any which state that homes with mentally infirm can't have them.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
It's funny to me that Republicans are now so concerned with mental illness when it is by-in-large their budget cuts that led to the dismal state of affairs, and it isn't like they were unaware of the ramifications, they just didn't care. Tax cuts are the most important thing on earth and everything else is really irrelevant contrary to their proclamations.

More evidence can be found in the fact that Mark Sanford won his special election in SC. Any conservative who voted for him, who also says they are trying to protect marriage by voting against gay marriage is a massive hypocrite. They are only keen to defend their morals circumstantially.

TFF, there's more to it than just funding. There was pressure from groups more associated with the left as well as professional psychiatric associations pushing for the mainstreaming and de-stigmatizing of the mentally ill. It's been a disaster by their own admission.

But funding is a major issue, no doubt. I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that most conservative tax payers would probably agree that there is a big problem that is going to require, among other things, money to fix.

As for Sanford... yeah, I'm between chuckling and just shaking my head. If anyone ever needed more evidence of just how screwed up our political process is....
 
Scott SoCal said:
TFF, there's more to it than just funding. There was pressure from groups more associated with the left as well as professional psychiatric associations pushing for the mainstreaming and de-stigmatizing of the mentally ill. It's been a disaster by their own admission.

But funding is a major issue, no doubt. I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that most conservative tax payers would probably agree that there is a big problem that is going to require, among other things, money to fix.

As for Sanford... yeah, I'm between chuckling and just shaking my head. If anyone ever needed more evidence of just how screwed up our political process is....
There was also pressure from the pharmaceutical industry already in the 1950s.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
rhubroma said:
But narcotics already are banned!?! As far as Mexico is concerned, how about stop buying their drugs so the cartel can't buy our weapons to kill Mexicans?



I don't classify prohibition with the US right to bear arms, which has become a mainstream market. Other than black markets.





If the left is "in charge of education" (though I don't think so) then perhaps the right isn't very intelligent, though this is entirely an internal problem. Whereas in more civil environments most don't feel the need to own a gun. These are places where there are also less ghettoes. Perhaps there's a connection, though I don't know. Even if poverty remains, it doesn't have to come with complete exclusion: the State can play a positive role in this.




Freedom of assembly has nothing to do with what's tolerable and what isn't (though I know you freedom fanatics think otherwise). The national socialists in Germany during the 20's, for example, were a primary example. In fact in Europe no one has the right to organize anything that promotes racial hatred as a result.



The NRA only contributes to American barbarity. Live with it, I couldn't care less.





Any which state that homes with mentally infirm can't have them.

But narcotics already are banned!?!
Yeah, I know. How's that workin' out?

I don't classify prohibition with the US right to bear arms, which has become a mainstream market. Other than black markets.
Yeah. It's probably very unlikely for a black market to form for illegal gun purchases once they are banned.

Freedom of assembly has nothing to do with what's tolerable and what isn't (though I know you freedom fanatics think otherwise). The national socialists in Germany during the 20's, for example, were a primary example. In fact in Europe no one has the right to organize anything that promotes racial hatred as a result.
Maybe someday America will be as free as Europe. Until then, there is a constitutionally guaranteed right to associate freely. With any luck the left can get that repealed soon.

The NRA only contributes to American barbarity. Live with it, I couldn't care less.
You said the NRA does not care about the constitution. I said it has that in common with the political left. Am I wrong?

Any which state that homes with mentally infirm can't have them.
Hey, we agree on something. Question: How would you define "mentally infirm" for the purposes of preventing another Newtown?
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
aphronesis said:
There was also pressure from the pharmaceutical industry already in the 1950s.
True. That was in concert with Psychiatrists who were seeing big improvements with newer psych drugs.

Again, it appears all concerned (with the possible exception of big pharma )has admitted the actions put in motion in the early 1960's to have been a failure.
 
Scott SoCal said:
Yeah, I know. How's that workin' out?



Yeah. It's probably very unlikely for a black market to form for illegal gun purchases once they are banned.



Maybe someday America will be as free as Europe. Until then, there is a constitutionally guaranteed right to associate freely. With any luck the left can get that repealed soon.



You said the NRA does not care about the constitution. I said it has that in common with the political left. Am I wrong?



Hey, we agree on something. Question: How would you define "mentally infirm" for the purposes of preventing another Newtown?
Ok, now I get it...

Freedom only regards my appetite. Thanks.

PS: Liberalizing drugs may indeed be a way to eliminate the ferocious armed effect of gang warfare and organized crime. Just a thought.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
rhubroma said:
Ok, now I get it...

Freedom only regards my appetite. Thanks.

PS: Liberalizing drugs may indeed be a way to eliminate the ferocious armed effect of gang warfare and organized crime. Just a thought.
PS: Liberalizing drugs may indeed be a way to eliminate the ferocious armed effect of gang warfare and organized crime. Just a thought
Look, there's something else we agree on.

Once we bann guns how long do you think it will be before violence erupts to control the flow of what would be illegal? Do you think the gun trade will be any less violent than the drug trade?
 
Scott SoCal said:
Look, there's something else we agree on.

Once we bann guns how long do you think it will be before violence erupts to control the flow of what would be illegal? Do you think the gun trade will be any less violent than the drug trade?
Perhaps a few devastating wars on home soil will satiate everyone's appetite for guns. Followed by a general wellbeing.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
I'm waiting for Velo to tell me what to think... .
It's bigger than Watergate!

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/huckabee-benghazi-will-drive-obama-from-office-90964.html?hp=l20

Mike Huckabee on Monday predicted that President Barack Obama won’t finish out his second term in light of the “cover-up” of the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and the former Arkansas governor called the affair “more serious than Watergate.”
Odd though, Michelle Bachmann said that Solyndra was bigger than Watergate and numerous folks on the right like Sean Hannity said that fast-and-furious was bigger than Watergate.
but if I had to guess it will be some version of Bush's fault
Bush, no, short-sighted Rs who decided that saving a few bucks was more important than embassy security, including the Rs who are most vocal about pinning this to Obama, yep.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010. On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security." "Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country". For the past two years, House Republicans have continued to deprioritize the security forces protecting State Department personnel around the world. In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration's request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 -- cutting back on the department's request by $331 million.

Consulate personnel stationed in Benghazi had allegedly expressed concerns over their safety in the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks that killed four Americans, including Amb. Chris Stevens. Chaffetz and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, claim those concerns were ignored.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/jason-chaffetz-embassy_n_1954912.html
But the cover up! It's worse than Watergate! Hillary lied! Well someone lied! Somewhere! About something!
So desperate for a scandal, any scandal.

Whoops spoke too soon - the Malkin Award goes to Victor Davis Hanson over at National Review for his take, "Is Benghazi Becoming a Watergate, or Iran-Contra, or Both?" Impressive. Let's see if anyone can top that by working Monica Lewinsky in there somewhere.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
VeloCity said:
It's bigger than Watergate!

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/huckabee-benghazi-will-drive-obama-from-office-90964.html?hp=l20

Odd though, Michelle Bachmann said that Solyndra was bigger than Watergate and numerous folks on the right like Sean Hannity said that fast-and-furious was bigger than Watergate.

Bush, no, short-sighted Rs who decided that saving a few bucks was more important than embassy security, including the Rs who are most vocal about pinning this to Obama, yep.

But the cover up! It's worse than Watergate! Hillary lied! Well someone lied! Somewhere! About something!
So desperate for a scandal, any scandal.

Whoops spoke too soon - the Malkin Award goes to Victor Davis Hanson over at National Review for his take, "Is Benghazi Becoming a Watergate, or Iran-Contra, or Both?" Impressive. Let's see if anyone can top that by working Monica Lewinsky in there somewhere.

Wow. This is all so complicated.

All this time I thought it was just a spontaneous reaction to a silly youtube video.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
VeloCity said:
It's bigger than Watergate!

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/huckabee-benghazi-will-drive-obama-from-office-90964.html?hp=l20

Odd though, Michelle Bachmann said that Solyndra was bigger than Watergate and numerous folks on the right like Sean Hannity said that fast-and-furious was bigger than Watergate.

Bush, no, short-sighted Rs who decided that saving a few bucks was more important than embassy security, including the Rs who are most vocal about pinning this to Obama, yep.

But the cover up! It's worse than Watergate! Hillary lied! Well someone lied! Somewhere! About something!
So desperate for a scandal, any scandal.

Whoops spoke too soon - the Malkin Award goes to Victor Davis Hanson over at National Review for his take, "Is Benghazi Becoming a Watergate, or Iran-Contra, or Both?" Impressive. Let's see if anyone can top that by working Monica Lewinsky in there somewhere.
Benghazi is a tad different than getting a hummer in the white house. YMMV

Bachmann and her comments about solyndra and the Vannity man's comments on The fast and furious movie is not Benghazi. But the deflection was nice. Good work.

Benghazi is on someone not doing their job and paying attention to the information.

Everyone wanted to blame some idiot and his U-tub. :rolleyes:
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
So...about that new Heritage paper on immigration reform. Turns out the author is, well, racist.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/heritage-we-have-nothing-to-do-with-racial?ref=fpblg

The Heritage Foundation is disavowing past recommendations regarding race, IQ, and immigration from Jason Richwine, the co-author of a recent study by the group claiming undocumented immigrants would add $6.3 trillion to the deficit if granted legal status.

“This is not a work product of The Heritage Foundation. Its findings in no way reflect the positions of The Heritage Foundation," Mike Gonzales, vice president of communications at Heritage, said in a statement. "Nor do the findings affect the conclusions of our study on the cost of amnesty to the U.S. taxpayer.”

Richwine argued in a 2009 paper that immigrants should be barred based on low IQ, which he claimed would have the effect of keeping out many Hispanics in particular, who may have a "genetic" predilection towards lower intelligence.

“No one knows whether Hispanics will ever reach IQ parity with whites, but the prediction that new Hispanic immigrants will have low-IQ children and grandchildren is difficult to argue against," Richwine wrote.

He added that it may be advisable to couch these findings in less racially inflammatory terms for political purposes by referring to "skill-based" immigration.

Richwine's Heritage report claimed immigration reform would balloon the deficit primarily because undocumented immigrants would be unable to improve their education and income levels over several generations.
er, it was released by Heritage and is available on their website. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty to-the-us-taxpayer

They even defended it when Rubio publicly criticized it. Heritage prez Jim DeMint was there at the release:

Heritage President Jim DeMint joined Rector to outline the findings of the report at a news conference at 11:30 a.m. in The Heritage Foundation’s Lehrman Auditorium. Joining them was Derrick Morgan, Heritage’s vice president for domestic and economic policy.
Fun to watch them try and distance themselves as quickly as possible now. Course, did anyone really expect different when they decided they wanted a bigot like Jim DeMint to be their new director?
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Man, we apparently have a lot of low-information voters in this country.

http://www.people-press.org/2013/05/08/obama-maintains-approval-advantage-but-gop-runs-even-on-key-issues/

President Obama continues to hold a substantial advantage over congressional Republicans in public regard. Obama’s job approval is back in positive territory at 51%, after slipping to 47% in March. By comparison, just 22% approve of the job Republican leaders in Congress are doing, among the lowest approval rating for congressional leaders from either party in 20 years.

Furthermore, a record-high 80% say Obama and Republican leaders are not working together to address important issues facing the country, and by nearly two-to-one (42%-22%) more blame Republican leaders than Obama for the gridlock.

Independents are much more likely to say that Republican leaders are to blame for the lack of cooperation in Washington (39%) than Obama (20%); 17% volunteer that both are to blame.
Yep. Maybe because the Rs keep doing things like this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/08/house-to-vote-again-on-repealing-obamacare-next-week/

The House will vote again next week to repeal the 2010 health-care reform law, a decision by top Republican leaders designed in part to appease GOP freshmen lawmakers who have not had an opportunity to take a vote on the issue.

Depending on which congressional aides are asked, next week’s vote will be anywhere between the 33rd or 37th attempt to repeal all or part of the law since its passage in 2010.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
VeloCity said:
Man, we apparently have a lot of low-information voters in this country.
Yeah, I know. I made that point just this morning;

Gun crime has plunged, but Americans think it's up, says study

In less than two decades, the gun murder rate has been nearly cut in half. Other gun crimes fell even more sharply, paralleling a broader drop in violent crimes committed with or without guns. Violent crime dropped steeply during the 1990s and has fallen less dramatically since the turn of the millennium.
Despite the remarkable drop in gun crime, only 12% of Americans surveyed said gun crime had declined compared with two decades ago, according to Pew, which surveyed more than 900 adults this spring. Twenty-six percent said it had stayed the same, and 56% thought it had increased.
82% of the people in this country don't know what they are talking about when it comes to gun violence rates.

No wonder there was so much support for the toothless background check bill.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gun-crimes-pew-report-20130507,0,3022693.story
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Jon Stewart is currently taking the idiocy over Bengazi. Will post tomorrow morning.
Don't worry. The Benghazi Truther Movement will manage to find some bit of information they can weave into their conspiracy narrative. It was a lot funnier when they were coming up with elaborate blackmail theories to explain the exposure of General Patreaus' affair.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
I guess when you are printing 45 billion a month this passes for good policy;


Without much fanfare, the Department of Energy (DOE) recently updated the list of loan guarantee projects on its website. Unlike in 2008, when Barack Obama pledged to create 5 million jobs over 10 years by directing taxpayer funds toward renewable energy projects, there were no press conferences or stump speeches. But the data are nonetheless revealing: for the over $26 billion spent since 2009, DOE Section 1703 and 1705 loan guarantees have created only 2,298 permanent jobs for a cost of over $11.45 million per job.
Clearly, in terms of “bang for the buck,” government programs that coddle renewable energy are losers. In terms of jobs, the losers are the American workers who would otherwise be gainfully employed but for the tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars on the administration’s obsession with “green energy.” As the economy continues to suffer and dollars for federal programs get harder to come by, it is getting increasingly difficult to defend a program that costs so much and produces so little.
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2013/05/08/does-11-million-jobs/
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
BroDeal said:
$26B in four years? Isn't that about what Bush was spending per month Iraq?
Sounds about right.

I wasn't that excited about the 26 billion. 11.45 million per job was a bit of a hair raiser.

Good work if you can get it I guess.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS