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

U.S. Politics

Page 500 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
rhubroma said:
The Forbes article! Now that's rich.
You mean a pro business publication? Maybe look at the author, then unleash your pent-up vitriol.

He tried publishing in the Sierra Club Times but was turned down.

What he writes is either accurate or inaccurate. Maybe you can show us all his arguments he's gotten wrong.

Henry Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He was at the NIH and FDA from 1977 to 1994.
 
Scott SoCal said:
You mean a pro business publication? Maybe look at the author, then unleash your pent-up vitriol.

He tried publishing in the Sierra Club Times but was turned down.

What he writes is either accurate or inaccurate. Maybe you can show us all his arguments he's gotten wrong.
A medic! Now I understand.
 
Scott SoCal said:
Your problem with guns has to do with their use offensively. Defensive use is universally understandable.

Why don't you then concentrate on the offensive use? You can't and won't because that will lead to all sorts of unpleasantries relating to your political belief structure.
This is utter nonsense. Progressive democracy has been about policy that promotes civility, not incivility, in the spirit of ethical philosophy and the proverb which says that "those who live by the sword shall die by the sword."

Instead what one gets in America is a Far West mentality and a take justice into thy own hands syndrome that’s antithetical to promoting civil coexistence and for which the results are plain to see; as is all the evidence to the contrary that shows how more restrictive gun laws at once curtain their offensive use, while liberating the citizenry from the “defense paranoia.”

How liberating it is to not be paranoid about my own safety before the armed. You don’t consider the ethical, nor the collective psychological criteria.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,924
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Your problem with guns has to do with their use offensively. Defensive use is universally understandable.

Why don't you then concentrate on the offensive use? You can't and won't because that will lead to all sorts of unpleasantries relating to your political belief structure.
Bleeding heart (literally) post of the day -

I find it to be shocking, worrying, disgraceful, but tragically unsurprising, that a whole bunch of close up armed cops surrounding a single woman in a car, are unable to prevent her from driving off, and wind up killing her.

That, is so Merika.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
rhubroma said:
This is utter nonsense. Progressive democracy has been about policy that promotes civility, not incivility, in the spirit of ethical philosophy and the proverb which says that "those who live by the sword shall die by the sword."

Instead what one gets in America is a Far West mentality and a take justice into thy own hands syndrome that’s antithetical to promoting civil coexistence and for which the results are plain to see; as is all the evidence to the contrary that shows how more restrictive gun laws at once curtain their offensive use, while liberating the citizenry from the “defense paranoia.”

How liberating it is to not be paranoid about my own safety before the armed. You don’t consider the ethical, nor the collective psychological criteria.
And how is that progressive civility working out for you?

I'm not paranoid about my own safety either. And I live in that God forsaken cesspool of the USA.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
Bleeding heart (literally) post of the day -

I find it to be shocking, worrying, disgraceful, but tragically unsurprising, that a whole bunch of close up armed cops surrounding a single woman in a car, are unable to prevent her from driving off, and wind up killing her.

That, is so Merika.


Yeah, too bad she didn't kill a bunch of people first. Don't know what was so hard for her to just comply with the police.
 
Scott SoCal said:
And how is that progressive civility working out for you?

I'm not paranoid about my own safety either. And I live in that God forsaken cesspool of the USA.
Just fine thanks, aside from the usual politcal nightmare. Not paranoid? Then why do you even bring up the safety issue?

It's about envisioning and building a world we want to live in. Your cesspool is, of course, your problem and problems need solutions, my dear Scott.
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
There can be no balance then? No possibility of EPA run amok?
I would believe you wanted balance if you didn't distort by saying they have "run amok." I'm sure there are plenty of things that can be improved, but the Republican talking point that anything the government does is always like a bull tearing around a china shop is tiresome and dishonest.

Scott SoCal said:
So the EPA and it's policy makers are beyond criticism too?

I suppose if we shut down all industry and commerce we'd have the cleanest water and air you can imagine.
I'm sure if we leave it to "market principles" like many conservatives want, we will have a sh!thole of toxic mess. There is only one "market principle" and it isn't benevolence.


Scott SoCal said:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2013/01/30/the-epas-lisa-jackson-the-worst-head-of-the-worst-regulatory-agency-ever/


The list of upset business/industry/states is long. Granted, business will complain about regulations but not all of there complaints are without merit. When I say the EPA is reaching new heights of pain in the ***(ness) that doesn't mean the country does not need the EPA.

Over-regulation means over-regulation.
You do realize that there is another side to those quotes you have, right? And the other side isn't "The EPA does things arbitrarily and to hurt business." Also note that I am familiar enough with the courts to know you can find a judge to rule on any side of an argument. The issue is whether their decision will hold up on appeal, right?

Anyway, sure there are things the EPA can do better, and sure there are policies that need to be re-worked. The problem now is that your side is filling with people who believe that the best answer is to just do away with the EPA. You say you don't agree with that, but again, you are carrying the water for people who do.
 
Oct 6, 2009
4,660
0
0
A software developer's blog and screenshots of his experience with the ACA website:
"Healthcare.gov is a Technological Disaster"

I still haven't been able to log in myself to get a quote. But news reports are that the site is being taken offline this weekend to implement some fixes that are supposed to make it much better by Monday. We'll see.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
rhubroma said:
Just fine thanks, aside from the usual politcal nightmare. Not paranoid? Then why do you even bring up the safety issue?

It's about envisioning and building a world we want to live in. Your cesspool is, of course, your problem and problems need solutions, my dear Scott.
I bring up defense because I have more than a cursory understanding of human nature.

A world we want to live in? That's awesome. Let me know when it's built.
 
Mar 25, 2013
3,762
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Weapons will have their place as long as criminals have their place.

Not everyone has or carries a weapon here.
Scott SoCal said:
Your problem with guns has to do with their use offensively. Defensive use is universally understandable.

Why don't you then concentrate on the offensive use? You can't and won't because that will lead to all sorts of unpleasantries relating to your political belief structure.
Scott, I like the discussion on the shutdown and so on among yourself, Velo, Rhuboma, Amsterhammer, and Chewey. It's very informative for myself but the guns issue is a big let down on your own part.

The only reason the defensive one is used as a justification is because of their widespread use from an offensive point of view in the first place.

Criminals are in every part of the world and people still don't have the need to own a gun. I hear fruitcakes like Jesse Ventura say if he was at the Aurora cinema he would have taken the guy out. As if the first thing you think about going to it, is bringing your gun along to protect you. Give me a break. There's too much deflection going on in this issue to address it wholeheartedly.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
I would believe you wanted balance if you didn't distort by saying they have "run amok." I'm sure there are plenty of things that can be improved, but the Republican talking point that anything the government does is always like a bull tearing around a china shop is tiresome and dishonest.



I'm sure if we leave it to "market principles" like many conservatives want, we will have a sh!thole of toxic mess. There is only one "market principle" and it isn't benevolence.




You do realize that there is another side to those quotes you have, right? And the other side isn't "The EPA does things arbitrarily and to hurt business." Also note that I am familiar enough with the courts to know you can find a judge to rule on any side of an argument. The issue is whether their decision will hold up on appeal, right?

Anyway, sure there are things the EPA can do better, and sure there are policies that need to be re-worked. The problem now is that your side is filling with people who believe that the best answer is to just do away with the EPA. You say you don't agree with that, but again, you are carrying the water for people who do.
they have "run amok."
The EPA chief resigned at the beginning of the year. There was a reason.

but the Republican talking point
Any criticism from outside the group that votes correctly is invalid on its face.

This is what I mean when I say you guys don't need the GOP.

the best answer is to just do away with the EPA
It's probably not that difficult to separate the serious from the non-serious.

You say you don't agree with that, but again, you are carrying the water for people who do.
This is a pretty effective technique to stop debate. I'll defend myself that I'm not what you seem to think and it really doesn't matter. I don't think or vote the right way so I somehow carry the water for the crazies. As if there are no left wing nut cases.

Again, you say you want a sane GOP and nothing could further from the truth.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
gooner said:
Scott, I like the discussion on the shutdown and so on among yourself, Velo, Rhuboma, Amsterhammer, and Chewey. It's very informative for myself but the guns issue is a big let down on your own part.

The only reason the defensive one is used as a justification is because of their widespread use from an offensive point of view in the first place.

Criminals are in every part of the world and people still don't have the need to own a gun. I hear fruitcakes like Jesse Ventura say if he was at the Aurora cinema he would have taken the guy out. As if the first thing you think about going to it, is bringing your gun along to protect you. Give me a break. There's too much deflection going on in this issue to address it wholeheartedly.
Which someone like me wonders why don't we go after the deviant behavior? Why not admit to what we have built in the inner city and frickin fix it? It's not just a gun, it's a crack pipe, a needle, a pimp, a racket, a missing after figure, a destroyed family, a ****ty education, hopelessness and a myriad of other issues.
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
The EPA chief resigned at the beginning of the year. There was a reason.



Any criticism from outside the group that votes correctly is invalid on its face.

This is what I mean when I say you guys don't need the GOP.



It's probably not that difficult to separate the serious from the non-serious.



This is a pretty effective technique to stop debate. I'll defend myself that I'm not what you seem to think and it really doesn't matter. I don't think or vote the right way so I somehow carry the water for the crazies. As if there are no left wing nut cases.

Again, you say you want a sane GOP and nothing could further from the truth.
No, it's the content of your posts, not that you disagree. The content of your posts reads like Drudge many times.

Sure, there are rhetorical themes in my posts, but I would suggest they are no less egregious than are yours.

Now, on the subject of the Senate Democrats not compromising, turns out they agreed to a clean funding bill that was set at SEQUESTER levels. What did they get for that? Nothing.
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Which someone like me wonders why don't we go after the deviant behavior? Why not admit to what we have built in the inner city and frickin fix it? It's not just a gun, it's a crack pipe, a needle, a pimp, a racket, a missing after figure, a destroyed family, a ****ty education, hopelessness and a myriad of other issues.
Here's the thing: I am working with that population now in legal services (I've done work with that socioeconomic group in many different ways), and you know what I almost never see? Republicans working on a daily basis with that population. I've heard the "teach a man to fish" line so many times it makes me want to puke...because I don't see many R's or conservatives regularly teaching anyone anything but how to play lacrosse. Sure, there are all kinds of weekend warriors who go slum it for a day or two with their church, but the people who do the work on a day to day basis are not conservatives or Republicans.

EDIT: And the most disturbing thing is that I also see time and again that the poor are taken advantage of in legal matters because a lot of people know they can do to them what they want because the poor cannot afford attorneys. It's saddening because we are very successful helping people not because the attorneys are so freaking awesome that they rarely lose, but because they just fix things that shouldn't have been problems in the first place. That is not to say the attorneys are not fantastic; they are. But it doesn't take a magician to fix many of these problems. I will give you this though, I do see slumlords of all stripes.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,924
0
0
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
I suspect that you'll quickly find yourself in a minority of one if you start bigging up lawyers.



:p
Yea, but for pond scum, they're great pond scum, right?

In reality, I am working with people who have dedicated their lives to working with poor populations for wages slightly above what teachers get paid, so anyone who questions their moral character would be showing the worst of ignorance.
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,659
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
. . . so I somehow carry the water for the crazies. As if there are no left wing nut cases.

Again, you say you want a sane GOP and nothing could further from the truth.
yeah. Posting as a poster. Nothing mod in this. For 40 years I have watched the GOP put the lie to the Dems and make it stick, and every time it was "reverse lying". Cover your lies by saying the other guy is lying.

It has gotten so that the middle in this country is as far to the right as the middle was in Honduras and Nicaragua when the Somozas got kicked out. Waaaaaay right. When Clinton brought the fiscal recovery that he did, and some temporary middle-ground-reality finding - it was a breath of fresh air. But no, all too soon it was history, forgotten, disregarded, discounted, and Bush had his way. It wasn't only Bush - the economists, then, and today - are tending to be so far to the right that the middle isn't in the middle - and, while Greenspan was brilliant for the time - he didn't foresee the collapse either - all those guys who should have known better - but were pumping up solutions based on belief and subjective emotional platforms - all those guys who should have seen the impending collapse - but insisted on encouraging it - and Bush for going right down that moral alley - and still blaming the opposition "left".

Yeah. That's one main reason I almost never post here. I haven't got the patience or time to put up with opinions that are so overbalanced on the right that the middle is somewhere to the right of their nose and they see reality totally skewed from a one-eyed viewpoint. But, hey, Odin only had one eye, too, right? Yeah, but Odin had Huginn and Muninn.

Sorry, no need to reply, just my personal $.02. Based on 3 score and some years, and having lived and worked in 5 countries, and having watched - how many prez since the Viet war? And - don't forget - actions speak louder than words. Based on actions, and where the country actually went under the prez?
 
Mar 18, 2009
715
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
Sorry, but I find the unnecessary killing of that woman far more egregious.

The point is, Scott, they surrounded her at close quarters with weapons drawn. Why the fcuk didn't they just shoot her tires out at that point?
Suppose the woman had a trunk full of high explosives, or sarin gas, and was just about to blow up everything around her (including the police), or send a wave of toxic gas into the area. The point is: we're at war and the police had absolutely no idea of what they were dealing with. It should be obvious that anyone who attacks the White House with what seems to be car bomb is going to get killed. It's sad that this woman chose to commit suicide in this way, especially if she didn't know that's what she was doing. Still, if the police had hesitated and something horrific had happened, then everyone would be shouting "they had a clear shot and instead of shooting they hesitated!" American police can be trigger-happy, and there's no shortage of cases, recent and old, of police using horrifyingly unnecessary and lethal force in situations for no real reason. But this isn't one of those cases.
 
Scott SoCal said:
I bring up defense because I have more than a cursory understanding of human nature.

A world we want to live in? That's awesome. Let me know when it's built.
Oh and now we have Scott the doctorate in human nature. This is certainly one of your more debatable and arrogant presumptions.

To start with how about a world in which we're not still living in the revolutionary stage of democracy, under the orthodoxy of a liberal economy and in a state of incomplete civic evolution (and not merely with respect to firearms)?

What I cannot accept, however, is legislating down to the lowest common denominator, as if the State should not offer the citizenry with something to pick them up, rather than drag them down, under claims that human nature is only this and that and that there is nothing to be done other than promoting whichever means the individual sees fit to safeguard his own survival and wealth. This is a great conservative falacy and simply unbefitting of any state that calls itself advanced in today's world. Perhaps it was in the XVIII century, if that's even the case, though the entire spectrum of social revolution in the post-industrial era (the end of slavery, the end of capital punishment (in Europe), workers' rights, female suffrage, collective policies, civil rights, non-violence) has demonstrated that human nature can also be modified by the historical environment, or at least be curtained through policy changes, in short adapts to the times. At this point it becomes obligatory for the state to legislate in accordance with such an evolution and the raising of the civic bar this entails. The results can naturally never be taken for granted, as Europe for example must always remain vigilant against the recrudescence of nationalism and fascist extremism; but if the environment here is generally more civil from the perspective of weapons and violence, this is why: the bar of civility was raised. Guns were put out of action among the general population long ago to the extent they have not been in America and the results have only benefited Europeans and their society.

Nothing has been achieved to fulfillment, of course, and I dare say ever will, though there are places that have evolved more than others in this regard as far as I can tell. Lastly, I'd want to live in a society in which there is an equilibrium between individual and collective rights.
 
Scott SoCal said:
I bring up defense because I have more than a cursory understanding of human nature.

A world we want to live in? That's awesome. Let me know when it's built.
Actually, if you had more than a cursory understanding of said dynamic, you'd be aware that those terms are potentially in conflict and definitely contingent in the present moment.

Certainly as someone who makes their livelihood in the medical and insurance industries the historical constructedness of that term should be obvious to you.

Maybe that's what you're confusing with "understanding."

What you mostly demonstrate is maybe a more than cursory command of individualism--how to express it and appeal to it. Also a construct, but not the same thing.

You going to tell us all that "human nature" now is the same as it was, say, 3000 years ago? Doubtful. And you've never displayed the historical chops to pull that out.

You have yet to even evince the historical consciousness to differentiate between the conditions of the late 18th century and today.

Stick with cursory.

Passive and self serving as well. No, apparently you've got the world you want to live in. No need for anyone to bother you if that should change.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS