(Close Window)
Topic: The press and the Gifford shooting
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 10, 2011 02:12PM)
From the [url=http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2011/01/10/arizona-shooting-vitriol-coverage.html]CBC[/url]

The shooting of Democratic congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona on Saturday at the hands of a seemingly deranged gunman has ignited a wide-ranging discussion about the heated tone of U.S. political discourse.

Journalists and media personalities on both ends of the political spectrum have been weighing in on whether vitriol may have motivated accused gunman Jared Loughner, 22, to try to assassinate Giffords.

Below is a sample of some journalists' opinions.

Arizona Daily Star
[url=http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_aedb485e-c925-504a-87ad-0d5835123b59.html]Thoughts, prayers for shooting victims[/url]

In which the editors of Gabrielle Giffords's local paper call for prayers for "the innocents killed":

"There's been a lot of violent language — and some threatening behavior — surrounding political issues in this country over the last few years. … But Giffords has never let vitriol deter her from public service. She works hard to be accessible. She's shown not just willingness, but courage to engage with people who don't agree with her."

The National Review
[url=http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/256698/rhetoric-and-reality-editors]The Most Cynical Campaign[/url]

In which the editors accuse "ghoulish opportunists on the Left" of appropriating Saturday's shooting for political advantage:

"Martial imagery has been central to American politics for more than a century. Why do (former Alaska governor Sarah) Palin's critics think we say 'campaign' or 'rank-and-file'? We all use language of this sort, and no one ever before has thought it constitutes incitement.

"That said, all of us have an obligation to speak with truth and charity in making our political arguments. Not because hateful talk will drive the mentally ill to criminal acts, but because civility is a good in its own right."

New York Times
[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=1&hp]Climate of Hate[/url], by Paul Krugman

In which Krugman calls on the Republican Party to make political discourse "less toxic":

"The point is that there's room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn't any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.

"And it's the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence."

Slate.com
[url=http://www.slate.com/id/2280616/]In Defense of Inflamed Rhetoric: The awesome stupidity of the calls to tamp down political speech in the wake of the Giffords shooting[/url], by Jack Snyder

In which Snyder argues that withholding political opinion to prevent "the tiniest handful people" from reacting crazily to it "infantilizes and neuters us":

"Asking us to forever hold our tongues lest we awake their deeper demons infantilizes and neuters us and makes politicians no safer."

"Our spirited political discourse, complete with name-calling, vilification — and, yes, violent imagery — is a good thing. Better that angry people unload their fury in public than let it fester and turn septic in private. The wicked direction the American debate often takes is not a sign of danger but of freedom."

Washington Post
[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/09/AR2011010904546.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2011010904658]After Giffords tragedy, fingers point to the media model of confrontation[/url]

In which columnists Jason Horowitz and Lisa DeMoraes offer a survey of U.S. media reaction to the shootings:

"In the media marketplace, vitriol has value. Shows and outlets that emphasize confrontation, histrionics and vehement partisan slants attract ever-larger audiences than traditional news operations. And bemoaning the lack of civility in political discourse is inevitable after the Arizona tragedy, but so is a return to the hyperbole that attracts so many viewers."
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 10, 2011 02:29PM)
I liked this one ...

DrudgeReport.com:

"BRIT PAPER BLAMES 'RIGHT WING'..."

But if one actually reads the article in the Brit paper that is linked to, one finds that it doesn't. In fact, it reports what groups on both the right and left are saying about themselves, and the other. :)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 10, 2011 03:06PM)
Interesting articles, but seriously LOL @ Krugman.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Jan 10, 2011 04:27PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-10 15:29, balducci wrote:
I liked this one ...

DrudgeReport.com:

"BRIT PAPER BLAMES 'RIGHT WING'..."

But if one actually reads the article in the Brit paper that is linked to, one finds that it doesn't. In fact, it reports what groups on both the right and left are saying about themselves, and the other. :)
[/quote]

Wha-? You expect Drudge to actually read and comprehend the things he's passing judgment on?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 10, 2011 05:33PM)
Magnus,

As we now know, the shooter had stalked Representative Giffords for several years, kept a Satanic altar in his backyard (devoid of any rightwing paraphernalia), and apparently the Sheriff's office knew he had been threatening the lives of a number of Tucsonians -- but did nothing about it. There does not seem to be anything "political" about this case at all, other than the fact that the celebrity the shooter chose to target was a politician.

But the press, as you note, did have a field day. They don't always sing this tune, however. [url=http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/journalists-urged-caution-after-ft-hood-now-race-blame-palin-afte#ixzz1Ag7O3YJz]As Byron York noted:[/url]
[quote]On November 5, 2009, Maj. Nidal Hasan opened fire at a troop readiness center in Ft. Hood, Texas, killing 13 people. Within hours of the killings, the world knew that Hasan reportedly shouted "Allahu Akbar!" before he began shooting, visited websites associated with Islamist violence, wrote Internet postings justifying Muslim suicide bombings, considered U.S. forces his enemy, opposed American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as wars on Islam, and told a neighbor shortly before the shootings that he was going "to do good work for God." There was ample evidence, in other words, that the Ft. Hood attack was an act of Islamist violence.

Nevertheless, public officials, journalists, and commentators were quick to caution that the public should not "jump to conclusions" about Hasan's motive. CNN, in particular, became a forum for repeated warnings that the subject should be discussed with particular care.

"The important thing is for everyone not to jump to conclusions," said retired Gen. Wesley Clark on CNN the night of the shootings.

"We cannot jump to conclusions," said CNN's Jane Velez-Mitchell that same evening. "We have to make sure that we do not jump to any conclusions whatsoever."

"I'm on Pentagon chat room," said former CIA operative Robert Baer on CNN, also the night of the shooting. "Right now, there's messages going back and forth, saying do not jump to the conclusion this had anything to do with Islam."

The next day, President Obama underscored the rapidly-forming conventional wisdom when he told the country, "I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts." In the days that followed, CNN jouralists and guests repeatedly echoed the president's remarks.

"We can't jump to conclusions," Army Gen. George Casey said on CNN November 8. The next day, political analyst Mark Halperin urged a "transparent" investigation into the shootings "so the American people don't jump to conclusions." And when Republican Rep. Pete Hoekstra, then the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, suggested that the Ft. Hood attack was terrorism, CNN's John Roberts was quick to intervene. "Now, President Obama has asked people to be very cautious here and to not jump to conclusions," Roberts said to Hoekstra. "By saying that you believe this is an act of terror, are you jumping to a conclusion?"

Fast forward a little more than a year, to January 8, 2011. In Tucson, Arizona, a 22 year-old man named Jared Lee Loughner opened fire at a political event, gravely wounding Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, killing a federal judge and five others, and wounding 18. In the hours after the attack, little was known about Loughner beyond some bizarre and largely incomprehensible YouTube postings that, if anything, suggested he was mentally ill. Yet the network that had shown such caution in discussing the Ft. Hood shootings openly discussed the possibility that Loughner was inspired to violence by…Sarah Palin. Although there is no evidence that Loughner was in any way influenced by Palin, CNN was filled with speculation about the former Alaska governor.

After reporting that Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik had condemned what Dupnik called "the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government," CNN's Wolf Blitzer turned to congressional reporter Jessica Yellin for analysis. The sheriff "singled out some of the political rhetoric, as you point out, in creating the environment that allowed this kind of instance to happen," Yellin told Blitzer. "Even though, as you point out, this suspect is not cooperating with investigators, so we don't know the motive. President Obama also delivered that message, saying it's partly the political rhetoric that led to this.* So that's why we want to bring up one of the themes that's burning up the social media right now. On Twitter and Facebook, there is a lot of talk, in particular, about Sarah Palin. As you might recall, back in March of last year, when the health care vote was coming to the floor of the House and this was all heating up, Palin tweeted out a message on Twitter saying 'common sense conservatives, don't retreat -- instead reload.' And she referred folks to her Facebook page. On that Facebook page was a list of Democratic members she was putting in crosshairs, and Gabrielle Giffords was one of those in the crosshairs." [/quote]

The press is very quick to jump to conclusions, when the conclusions are the conclusions the press wants to promote.

Woland
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 11, 2011 01:50PM)
[quote]"As we now know, the shooter had stalked Representative Giffords for several years, kept a Satanic altar in his backyard (devoid of any rightwing paraphernalia), and apparently the Sheriff's office knew he had been threatening the lives of a number of Tucsonians -- but did nothing about it."[/quote]

Too busy chasing illegal immigrants.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 11, 2011 01:56PM)
Not that Sheriff, landmark. Sheriff Dupnik is a big fan of open borders, and in his attempts to throw sand in the eyes of the public, even opined that the shooter might have been motivated by a reaction against what he perceived were anti-immigration sentiments.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Carrie Sue (Jan 11, 2011 01:57PM)
Woland,

You're absolutely correct.

Carrie
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 11, 2011 02:24PM)
Turns out "Dupnik" is a funny insult in Polish. (If you don't have a Polish friend, go to a translating dictionary and look up "dupa".)

"When I grow up I want to be a little boy"--Joseph Heller in one of his less famous books ([i]Something Happened[/i], I think)


John
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 11, 2011 02:30PM)
Magnus,

That's odd, because unless I am mistaken, Sheriff Dupnik, when pointing out the right way to pronounce Loughner's name correctly, indicated it was a Polish name.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 11, 2011 02:40PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-11 15:30, Woland wrote:
Magnus,

That's odd, because unless I am mistaken, Sheriff Dupnik, when pointing out the right way to pronounce Loughner's name correctly, indicated it was a Polish name.

Woland
[/quote]

I asked a Polish friend; he thinks that Dupnik was being a dupnik when he said that. :lol:

I am not qualified to determine Loughner's ethnicity.

John
Message: Posted by: Scott Cram (Jan 11, 2011 02:45PM)
Long story short: The shooting was caused partially by Loughner's insane belief that the government is controlling people's minds by controlling grammar. In response, [url=http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/136895-dem-planning-bill-that-would-outlaw-threatening-lawmakers]the Democrats are introducing a bill to control grammar[/url].
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 11, 2011 03:15PM)
Scott, I agree that free speech should be protected. OTOH, weasel of the week award has to be given to the Palin aide who insisted that the gun sights were surveyors' symbols.

Woland, Has Dupnik actually endorsed open borders or is that an interpretation based on his position that local police should not be immigration officers.


John, Something Happened is my favorite Heller book. Really overlooked.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 11, 2011 03:32PM)
Well, landmark, Sheriff Dupnik advanced the theory that frustration over border enforcement might be one of the shooter's motives in an interview he gave to Megyn Kelly, in which he also admitted he had no evidence for a single one of his stated theories about the case. his general feelings on the border were summed up [url=http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_25ec5cdc-52fe-11df-8063-001cc4c03286.html]here:[/url]

[quote]Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik called the state’s new sweeping immigration law a “national embarrassment” and said he’ll only enforce it if he’s forced to.

“This law is unwise, this law is stupid, and it’s racist,” Dupnik said on Wednesday. “It’s a national embarrassment. . . If I were a Hispanic person in the state, I would be humiliated and angered. From that point of view, I think it’s morally wrong.”[/quote]

He's been called Arizona's anti-Arpaio, for what it's worth.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 11, 2011 06:28PM)
To return to the subject of press coverage of the Tucson shooting, [url=http://online.wsj.com/article/best_of_the_web_today.html]James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal had an interesting review of the New York Times editorial some of us may have seen:[/url]

[quote]After the horrific shooting spree, the editorial board of New York Times offered a voice of reasoned circumspection: "In the aftermath of this unforgivable attack, it will be important to avoid drawing prejudicial conclusions . . .," the paper counseled.

Here's how the sentence continued: ". . . from the fact that Major Hasan is an American Muslim whose parents came from the Middle East."

The Tucson Safeway massacre prompted exactly the opposite reaction. What was once known as the paper of record egged on its readers to draw invidious conclusions that are not only prejudicial but contrary to fact. In doing so, the Times has crossed a moral line.

Here is an excerpt from yesterday's editorial:

[quote] It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman's act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge. Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats. They seem to have persuaded many Americans that the government is not just misguided, but the enemy of the people.

That whirlwind has touched down most forcefully in Arizona, which Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik described after the shooting as the capital of "the anger, the hatred and the bigotry that goes on in this country." Anti-immigrant sentiment in the state, firmly opposed by Ms. Giffords, has reached the point where Latino studies programs that advocate ethnic solidarity have actually been made illegal. . . .

Now, having seen first hand the horror of political violence, Arizona should lead the nation in quieting the voices of intolerance, demanding an end to the temptations of bloodshed, and imposing sensible controls on its instruments.[/quote]

To describe the Tucson massacre as an act of "political violence" is, quite simply, a lie. It is as if, two days after the Columbine massacre, a conservative newspaper of the Times's stature had described that atrocious crime as an act of "educational violence" and used it as an occasion to denounce teachers unions. Such an editorial would be shameful and indecent even if the arguments it made were meritorious.


The New York Times has seized on a madman's act of wanton violence as an excuse to instigate a witch hunt against those it regards as its domestic foes. "Instigate" is not too strong a word here: As we noted yesterday, one of the first to point an accusatory finger at the Tea Party movement and Sarah Palin was the Times's star columnist, Paul Krugman. Less than two hours after the news of the shooting broke, he opined on the Times website: "We don't have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was."

This was speculative fantasy, irresponsible but perhaps forgivable had Krugman walked it back when the facts proved contrary to his prejudices. He did not. His Monday column evinced the same ***-the-facts attitude as the editorial did.

In the column, Krugman blames the massacre on "eliminationist rhetoric," which he defines as "suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary." He rightly asserts that "there isn't any place" for such rhetoric. But he falsely asserts that it is "coming, overwhelmingly, from the right."

He provides exactly one example: Rep. Michele Bachmann, a Minnesota Republican, "urging constituents to be 'armed and dangerous.' " Such a statement does seem problematic, although in the absence of context, and given what former Times public editor Daniel Okrent has described as Krugman's "disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults"--an observation that surely applies to nonnumeric facts as well--we are disinclined to trust Krugman's interpretation of Bachmann's statement.

In any case, the evidence Krugman offers is insufficient to establish even the existence of "eliminationist rhetoric" on the right. To be sure, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Such rhetoric does exist on the right, and we join Krugman in deploring it.

But Krugman's assertion that such rhetoric comes "overwhelmingly from the right" is at best wilfully ignorant. National Review's Jay Nordlinger runs down some examples on the left:

[quote] Even before [George W.] Bush was elected president, the kill-Bush talk and imagery started. When Governor Bush was delivering his 2000 convention speech, Craig Kilborn, a CBS talk-show host, showed him on the screen with the words "SNIPERS WANTED." Six years later, Bill Maher, the comedian-pundit, was having a conversation with John Kerry. He asked the senator what he had gotten his wife for her birthday. Kerry answered that he had taken her to Vermont. Maher said, "You could have went to New Hampshire and killed two birds with one stone." (New Hampshire is an early primary state, of course.) Kerry said, "Or I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone." (This is the same Kerry who joked in 1988, "Somebody told me the other day that the Secret Service has orders that if George Bush is shot, they're to shoot Quayle.") Also in 2006, the New York comptroller, Alan Hevesi, spoke to graduating students at Queens College. He said that his fellow Democrat, Sen. Charles Schumer, would "put a bullet between the president's eyes if he could get away with it."[/quote]

One example Nordlinger misses: Just this past October, then-Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania told the Times-Tribune of Scranton: "That [Rick] Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida. Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him." Kanjorski was defeated for re-election the following month, but he turns up today on the op-ed page of--oh, yes--the New York Times:

[quote] The House speaker, John Boehner, spoke for everyone who has been in Congress when he said that an attack against one of us is an attack against all who serve. It is also an attack against all Americans.[/quote]

Does that include Gov. Rick Scott, Mr. Kanjorski?

Left-wing eliminationist rhetoric has occasionally made its way into the very pages of the Times. Here are the jaunty opening paragraphs of a news story dated Dec. 26, 1995:

[quote] As the Rev. Al Sharpton strode through Harlem toward Sylvia's restaurant and a meeting with the boxing promoter Don King last week, the greetings of passers-by followed him down Lenox Avenue.

"Hey, Reverend Al, you going to kill Giuliani?" one man shouted, in a joking reference to the latest confrontation between Mr. Sharpton and the Mayor. Mr. Sharpton waved silently and walked on.

Giuliani," he said, "is the best press agent I ever had."[/quote]

The next paragraph puts this eliminationist rhetoric into context:

[quote] Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and others have accused Mr. Sharpton of using racially charged language that contributed to the emotional pitch of a dispute between a Jewish clothing store owner and the black owner of a record shop. They have suggested he had a responsibility to defuse the tensions that rose until a gunman set Freddy's clothing store afire Dec. 8, killing himself and seven others.[/quote]

(As an aside, it is no credit to our colleagues at Fox News Channel that Sharpton is a frequent guest on their programs.)

Another bit of eliminationist rhetoric appeared as the lead sentence of an article on the Times op-ed page in December 2009: "A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy." The author: Paul Krugman.

A March 2010 profile of Krugman in The New Yorker featured this related detail:

[quote] Once Obama won the primary, Krugman supported him. Obviously, any Democrat was better than John McCain.

"I was nervous until they finally called it on Election Night," Krugman says. "We had an Election Night party at our house, thirty or forty people."

"The econ department, the finance department, the Woodrow Wilson school," [Robin] Wells [Krugman's wife] says. "They were all very nervous, so they were grateful we were having the party, because they didn't want to be alone. We had two or three TVs set up and we had a little portable outside fire pit and we let people throw in an effigy or whatever they wanted to get rid of for the past eight years."

"One of our Italian colleagues threw in an effigy of Berlusconi."[/quote]

Burning an effigy, like burning an American flag, is constitutionally protected symbolic speech. It is also about as eliminationist as speech can get, short of a true threat or incitement. To Krugman, it is a fun party activity. It is shockingly hypocritical for such a man to deliver a pious lecture about the dangers of eliminationist rhetoric.

The Times is far from alone in responding to the Tucson massacre with false accusations and inflammatory innuendoes against its foes. We focus on the Times because it is the leader--the most authoritative voice of the left-liberal media, or what used to be called the "mainstream" media.

What accounts for this descent into madness? We think the key lies in this sentence from yesterday's Times editorial: "But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible . . ."

Particularly their supporters in the media. This echoes a comment House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer made on CBS's "Face the Nation" Sunday:

[quote] One of the things that you and I have discussed, Bob [Schieffer, the host], when--when you and I grew up, we grew up listening to a set of three major news outlets--NBC, ABC, and, of course, CBS. Most of the people like Walter Cronkite and Eric Sevareid, Huntley-Brinkley and they saw their job as to inform us of the facts and we would make a conclusion. Far too many broadcasts now and so many outlets have the intent of inciting--of inciting people to opposition, to anger, to thinking the other side is less than moral.[/quote]

The campaign of vilification against the right, led by the New York Times, is really about competition in the media industry--not commercial competition but competition for authority. When Bob Schieffer and Steny Hoyer were growing up, the New York Times had unrivaled authority to set the media's agenda, with the three major TV networks following its lead.

The ensuing decades have seen a proliferation of alternative media outlets, most notably talk radio and Fox News Channel, and a corresponding diminution of the so-called mainstream media's ability to set the boundaries of political debate.

Its authority dwindling, the New York Times is resorting to authoritarian tactics--slandering its competitors in the hope of tearing them down. Hoyer is right. Too many news outlets are busy "inciting people . . . to anger, to thinking the other side is less than moral." The worst offender, because it is the leader, is the New York Times. Decent people of whatever political stripe must say enough is enough.[/quote]
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 11, 2011 06:33PM)
Well, here's a good one: [url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/television/john-doyle/fox-news-and-the-poisoning-of-american-political-debate/article1864663/]"Fox News and the poisoning of American political debate"[/url]
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 11, 2011 07:28PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-11 19:33, balducci wrote:
Well, here's a good one: [url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/television/john-doyle/fox-news-and-the-poisoning-of-american-political-debate/article1864663/]"Fox News and the poisoning of American political debate"[/url]
[/quote]

Keith Olberman's identifying anyone as playing a significant role in "raising the volume of vitriol" and singling people out as being responsible for "the level of extremism in partisan political argument" is, in fact, a REALLY good one.

It's also kind of funny to quote Olberman in an article citing a bias at Fox, what with Olberman (A) being Olberman, and (B) hailing from MSNBC, home of Chris Matthews, who said that his job as a journalist is to make the Obama presidency a success.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 11, 2011 07:41PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-11 20:28, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-11 19:33, balducci wrote:
Well, here's a good one: [url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/television/john-doyle/fox-news-and-the-poisoning-of-american-political-debate/article1864663/]"Fox News and the poisoning of American political debate"[/url]
[/quote]

Keith Olberman's identifying anyone as playing a significant role in "raising the volume of vitriol" and singling people out as being responsible for "the level of extremism in partisan political argument" is, in fact, a REALLY good one.

It's also kind of funny to quote Olberman in an article citing a bias at Fox, what with Olberman (A) being Olberman, and (B) hailing from MSNBC, home of Chris Matthews, who said that his job as a journalist is to make the Obama presidency a success.
[/quote]
What's funny about it? Olberman and others like him are central to the point of the article. The article is making the case that Fox News took things to a new level in 1996, and paved the way for people like Olberman and Chris Matthews down the road at other networks. If Doyle couldn't give at least one example of such people at places other than Fox, there would have been no article to write.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 11, 2011 07:54PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-11 20:41, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-11 20:28, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-11 19:33, balducci wrote:
Well, here's a good one: [url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/television/john-doyle/fox-news-and-the-poisoning-of-american-political-debate/article1864663/]"Fox News and the poisoning of American political debate"[/url]
[/quote]

Keith Olberman's identifying anyone as playing a significant role in "raising the volume of vitriol" and singling people out as being responsible for "the level of extremism in partisan political argument" is, in fact, a REALLY good one.

It's also kind of funny to quote Olberman in an article citing a bias at Fox, what with Olberman (A) being Olberman, and (B) hailing from MSNBC, home of Chris Matthews, who said that his job as a journalist is to make the Obama presidency a success.
[/quote]
What's funny about it? Olberman and others like him are central to the point of the article. The article is making the case that Fox News took things to a new level in 1996, and paved the way for people like Olberman and Chris Matthews down the road at other networks. If Doyle couldn't give at least one example of such people at places other than Fox, there would have been no article to write.
[/quote]

I don't see anything in that story identifying MSNBC or Olberman as being biased. The citation to Olberman is he pointed a finger at Fox for FOX'S bias, and the next paragraph explains that that's true, too. It's Fox's fault when biased Fox hosts do it, and it's even Fox's fault when other networks do it. O'Reilly has a "blithe disregard for facts," but there's nothing remotely comparable to suggest any bias that any other media outlet has; left-wing biased is merely "alleged." It's funny, and it's funny that you don't see how it's funny.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 11, 2011 08:14PM)
Lobo, I really think you missed the point of the article, or misread it. Nowhere does it indicate that left-wing bias is merely alleged. It does not say that. Quite the opposite. Perhaps if you had the opportunity to read more of Doyle's articles over the years you would see that, or it would be plainer.

It is making the point that all of the other all-news channels are following in Fox News' steps and uses this as an example of it:

"As the news of the shootings sank in on Saturday, there was a numbness to the TV coverage – the reporting of the plain facts of what happened. Then the story evolved into something else. That happened as soon MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann took to the air to allege that Sarah Palin played a significant role in raising the volume of vitriol in the U.S. and to blame Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck of Fox News for the level of extremism in partisan political argument."

[First MSNBC was reporting facts ... then it segued into reporting (biased) allegations.]

However, the article does argue that Fox News, as the most popular and influential channel, is close to the root of the problem, and is the network that originally raised the level of vitriol out there. I mean, to the level it is nowadays.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 11, 2011 08:30PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-11 21:14, balducci wrote:

Nowhere does it indicate that left-wing bias is merely alleged. It does not say that. Quite the opposite. [/quote]

NOWHERE? ok, here's the line I was looking at that sure seems to indicate that to me:

'It (Fox) accused almost all other media of left-wing bias and presented its own clearly partisan coverage and punditry as “fair and balanced."'

Where's the "quite the opposite" indication? Where are the references to suggest that left-wing bias is actually present? The only reference I see to left-wing bias is that Fox has ACCUSED other media outlets of such bias. Moreover, the accusation has come from Fox, whose "star pundit" is identified 3 sentences later as having a "blithe disregard for facts," thereby softening the "accusations."

The Fox bias isn't an "accusation" from other organizations or commentators; they are identified as "clearly partisan"; where is the reference to left-wing bias, other than in your parenthetical annotations to the article?
Message: Posted by: ringmaster (Jan 11, 2011 08:30PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-11 14:57, Carrie Sue wrote:
Woland,

You're absolutely correct.

Carrie
[/quote]
I actually am rolling on the floor laughing.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 11, 2011 08:38PM)
Lobo, I guess we must agree to disagree. As I said, perhaps if you'd read more of Doyle's articles (his opinion pieces in particular) over the years you would see what I see.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 11, 2011 08:43PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-11 21:38, balducci wrote:
Lobo, I guess we must agree to disagree. As I said, perhaps if you'd read more of Doyle's articles (his opinion pieces in particular) over the years you would see what I see.
[/quote]

The article's only reference to left-wing bias is that Fox ACCUSED other media outlets of it. You still disagree and maintain that NOWHERE in the article does it say that the bias is alleged? Are 'accused' and 'alleged' not synonymous in this case?

Where does it make ANY reference left-wing bias other than to cite the Fox "accusations" of such bias? The article flat-out states that Fox is biased (ok, "clearly partisan"). Where does it say anything at all of the sort about other media outlets?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 11, 2011 08:53PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-11 21:43, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-11 21:38, balducci wrote:
Lobo, I guess we must agree to disagree. As I said, perhaps if you'd read more of Doyle's articles (his opinion pieces in particular) over the years you would see what I see.
[/quote]

The article's only reference to left-wing bias is that Fox ACCUSED other media outlets of it. You still disagree and maintain that NOWHERE in the article does it say that the bias is alleged? Are 'accused' and 'alleged' not synonymous in this case?

Where does it make ANY reference left-wing bias other than to cite the Fox "accusations" of such bias? The article flat-out states that Fox is biased (ok, "clearly partisan"). Where does it say anything at all of the sort about other media outlets?
[/quote]
What? Honestly, you've lost me.

Again, it starts early on by noting: "As the news of the shootings sank in on Saturday, there was a numbness to the TV coverage – the reporting of the plain facts of what happened. Then the story evolved into something else. That happened as soon MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann took to the air to allege that Sarah Palin played a significant role in raising the volume of vitriol in the U.S. and to blame Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck of Fox News for the level of extremism in partisan political argument."

Clearly it is citing an example here of Olberman at MSNBC making biased allegations. It is NOT saying that the bias of MSNBC (say, that Fox News might claim) is alleged. Rather, it is giving a concrete example of MSNBC left-wing bias right from the start.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 11, 2011 09:05PM)
I should have taken your word for it the first time; looks like a clear-cut case of agree to disagree.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 11, 2011 10:25PM)
Okay, I was avoiding zombie hunting today... but decided I have to take a shot.

As soon as someone can give me a plausible explanation of how "second amendment remedies" can be anything other than violence or threat of violence with firearms, I will agree that the violent rhetoric is less than one-sided.

By the way- no one here has really bothered to define "violent rhetoric". Here's a definition I agree with:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2011/01/what-is-violent-rhetoric#more-18397
Message: Posted by: dpe666 (Jan 11, 2011 10:45PM)
Everyone seems to be making excuses for this kid. "He is mentally ill (so am I)", "it is talk radio (no evidence that he listens to talk radio)", "it is conservatism (he is not a conservative)", "it is heavy metal music". Why can't people just say the truth? The truth is that he is evil. Pure and simple. I mean, I listen to talk radio nearly all day long. I am a conservative, and I listen to extremely heavy metal. But I never even once considered killing anyone. Look at the police picture of this kid. He is proud of what he has done. The only reason he did this is that he is evil.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 11, 2011 10:47PM)
I'm not making excuses. The blame lies with the shooter.

But I wonder- if there was no violent rhetoric coming from the media, would his target have been the same?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 11, 2011 11:16PM)
That's genius. A definition that essentially categorically exempts Democratic candidates and politicians from ever espousing "violent rhetoric," because their intended audiences are generally opposed to guns and military conflicts. So Obama must, by the same logic, get a pass for bringing a gun to a knife fight, and even the map with bullseyes - even including specified "targeted Republicans" - doesn't qualify. Sheer rhetorical genius.

It does make one wonder why a speaker as gifted as Obama, and an organization so dependent on liberal voters as the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee would risk alienating their audiences with violent imagery so antithetical to their peace-loving intended audience. They must have lost many voters with those anti-audience messages.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 11, 2011 11:24PM)
Lobo- define "second amendment remedies". I sincerely doubt any Democrat has called for anything as overt.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 12, 2011 12:16AM)
Any Democrat, or any politician? Or any major candidate?

Al Sharpton was a Democratic candidate for everything from Mayor of New York to President of the United States. Not a serious contender, but someone who has earned hundreds of thousands of votes. He led a mob chanting "No Justice, No Peace" in the immediate wake of the Yankel Rosenbaum killing. His comments with respect to the "Freddy's Fashion Mart" riot were particularly incendiary. Is he an almost-U.S. Senator? No. On the other hand, he has a history of being embraced by the Democratic party, and was a featured speaker at the 2004 DNC.
Message: Posted by: Scott Cram (Jan 12, 2011 01:04AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-11 23:47, EsnRedshirt wrote:
I'm not making excuses. The blame lies with the shooter.

But I wonder- if there was no violent rhetoric coming from the media, would his target have been the same?
[/quote]

His target has been the same since 2007, according to the Wall Street Journal:

[url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071191163461466.html]Suspect Fixated on Giffords[/url]

[quote]Accused gunman Jared Lee Loughner appeared to have been long obsessed with U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

[b]A safe at Mr. Loughner’s home contained a form letter from Ms. Giffords’ office thanking him for attending a 2007 “Congress on your Corner” event in Tucson[/b]. The safe also held an envelope with handwritten notes, including the name of Ms. Giffords, as well as “I planned ahead,” “My assassination,” and what appeared to be Mr. Loughner’s signature, according to an FBI affidavit.

Federal authorities charged Mr. Loughner on Sunday with two counts of murder, two counts of attempted murder and a count of attempting to kill a member of Congress, during a scheduled public appearance by Ms. Giffords here Saturday. More charges are expected, officials said, and Mr. Loughner, age 22, remains in federal custody. He will appear in federal court in Phoenix on Monday afternoon.

[b]Mr. Loughner had complained to a friend about how he was treated by the Arizona lawmaker during an event several years ago[/b], which aggravated Mr. Loughner, according to the friend.[/quote]

Context: Nobody outside of Alaska even knew the name Sarah Palin until Aug. 29, 2008, when John McCain announced her as his choice of running mate.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 12, 2011 01:12AM)
It doesn't necessarily have to be Sarah Palin's fault. It could be Bill O'Reilly's fault.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 12, 2011 02:10AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-11 23:47, EsnRedshirt wrote:
I'm not making excuses. The blame lies with the shooter.

But I wonder- if there was no violent rhetoric coming from the media, would his target have been the same?
[/quote]

Was the violent rhetoric against George Bush ok with you? The heat REALLY got turned up the second he won. Why is it that libs forget that there was that movie about killing him? Why is it that they forget and implicantly condone it when they dislike the person that is being villified? The left wing has raised villification of the other side to an art form, heck books are written about it.

The guy was a nut job. How is it that each side wants to try to paint him on the other side? He had no side, his mind was on Mars!

Why is it though that the media seems to py FAR less attention to the republican judge who was killed?
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jan 12, 2011 02:19AM)
For all the rethoric, it is done. The fallen are no longer with us.

If you want to blame anybody, blame the Shooter.

I am sure you are all right from your perspective.

I am sure you are all very articulate and very very strong minded with your beliefs.

I am sure you all would fight tooth and nail to defend your beliefs.

Just realize that when strong men fight...

Little kids die.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 12, 2011 02:39AM)
How does that quotation relate to the Gifford shooting?
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jan 12, 2011 03:18AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-12 03:39, LobowolfXXX wrote:
How does that quotation relate to the Gifford shooting?
[/quote]

What's done is done.

But the way things are going now... He says this. They say that.

Gun control. No gun control.

I am right, you are wrong. They are wrong, we are right.

It feels like it would escalate to the point where another crazy could get the inspiration or justification to "copycat" to prove a point.

You push this rethoric (the buzz word nowadays) far enough, someone is bound to cross the line.

He would be crazy, but he would not have been uninspired... By whichever side, it doesn't matter.

School shootings breed school shootings.

This could hit the fan at any moment if it keeps up like this.

Anyone can justify anything with anything really if they're loony enough.

That's what I am cautioning against.

But that's just my opinion.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 12, 2011 04:46AM)
Pakar Ilusi, You're right, the shooter is a lunatic who acted not from any political position, but because he is insane. But as shown in the articles I quoted, above, it was the left wing media, and many Democratic Party politicians, who immediately seized on this event in order to make political hay. Weeks before the shooting, commentators in the media openly wrote that what the President needed to restore his popularity was some kind of a mass criminal event that he could blame on the conservatives.

[url=http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2035270,00.html]Mark Halperin published in TIME magazine a month or so before the Tucson shooting:[/url]

[quote]No one wants the country to suffer another catastrophe. But when a struggling Bill Clinton was faced with the Oklahoma City bombing and a floundering George W. Bush was confronted by 9/11, they found their voices and a route to political revival.[/quote]

The shooter was not motivated or inspired by anybody's rhetoric on either side, but only one side is attempting to use this event to silence their opponents and make criticism of their leaders and their policies legally and morally impossible.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 12, 2011 04:54AM)
By the way, if there is a scandal here, it is the failure of the Tucson police to do something about this lunatic before he killed six people. [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/us/12loughner.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all]According to the New York Times:[/url]

[quote]TUCSON — The police were sent to the home where Jared L. Loughner lived with his family on more than one occasion before the attack here on Saturday that left a congresswoman fighting for her life and six others dead, the Pima County Sheriff’s Department said on Tuesday.

A spokesman, Jason Ogan, said the details of the calls were being reviewed by legal counsel and would be released as soon as the review was complete. He said he did not know what the calls were about — they could possibly have been minor, even trivial matters — or whether they involved Jared Loughner or another member of the household. [/quote]

I'll bet the sheriff and the chief of police have got their legal counsel hard at work!

Woland
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 12, 2011 08:18AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-12 05:54, Woland wrote:
By the way, if there is a scandal here, it is the failure of the Tucson police to do something about this lunatic before he killed six people. [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/us/12loughner.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all]According to the New York Times:[/url]

[quote]TUCSON — The police were sent to the home where Jared L. Loughner lived with his family on more than one occasion before the attack here on Saturday that left a congresswoman fighting for her life and six others dead, the Pima County Sheriff’s Department said on Tuesday.

A spokesman, Jason Ogan, said the details of the calls were being reviewed by legal counsel and would be released as soon as the review was complete. He said he did not know what the calls were about — they could possibly have been minor, even trivial matters — or whether they involved Jared Loughner or another member of the household. [/quote]

I'll bet the sheriff and the chief of police have got their legal counsel hard at work!

Woland
[/quote]
The other day in one of your deleted threads, if IIRC, you were blaming the parents and also saying that the police did nothing about the kid because the parents were city or state workers.

Today it turns out the police WERE doing something after all (we now know they visited the home on multiple occasions), but you are still suggesting that they failed to do anything.

Even though you don't actually know what they did or did not do. As the NYTimes notes, that information is still being collected for release to the public.

Maybe wait until facts are out before assigning blame?

Or, if you want to jump all over the police before knowing the facts, perhaps take this to the "all police are bad" thread. I'm sure that gdw and chance would appreciate the support. :) (The :) is also directed at gdw and chance.)
Message: Posted by: Chance (Jan 12, 2011 08:25AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-12 09:18, balducci wrote:
...."all police are bad"....[/quote]

I've never said that, or supported anyone who did.

But if you say it then it must be true. /snark
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 12, 2011 09:11AM)
Ask yourself these questions.

What are the names of the people who were killed?
What was the Repubican Judges name?
Time is up. Many of you don't know.

What is the name of the Dem Congresswoman who was shot?

-------------------------------SHAME ON THE NEWS MEDIA------------------------------------------
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 12, 2011 09:21AM)
Well, balducci, we'll see what comes of it. I was simply reporting what others had found out. I think the Sheriff still has a lot of 'splaining to do. The fact that the police went repeatedly to the home ***may*** indicate that they knew they had a problem. So why wasn't anything done about it?

And it is mentioned in that New York Times article, that the shooter's mother works for the Parks Department. The father is identified as a carpet layer, so the earlier report that he worked for Child Protective Services may not be current or even accurate.

The thread that was deleted was not "mine," anyway. I had probably contributed less than 5% to it.

In this thread, started by Magnus Eisengrim, we sre talking about the press coverage of the shooting.

Woland
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 12, 2011 09:26AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-12 02:04, Scott Cram wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-11 23:47, EsnRedshirt wrote:
I'm not making excuses. The blame lies with the shooter.

But I wonder- if there was no violent rhetoric coming from the media, would his target have been the same?
[/quote]

His target has been the same since 2007, according to the Wall Street Journal:

[url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071191163461466.html]Suspect Fixated on Giffords[/url]

[quote]Accused gunman Jared Lee Loughner appeared to have been long obsessed with U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

[b]A safe at Mr. Loughner’s home contained a form letter from Ms. Giffords’ office thanking him for attending a 2007 “Congress on your Corner” event in Tucson[/b]. The safe also held an envelope with handwritten notes, including the name of Ms. Giffords, as well as “I planned ahead,” “My assassination,” and what appeared to be Mr. Loughner’s signature, according to an FBI affidavit.

Federal authorities charged Mr. Loughner on Sunday with two counts of murder, two counts of attempted murder and a count of attempting to kill a member of Congress, during a scheduled public appearance by Ms. Giffords here Saturday. More charges are expected, officials said, and Mr. Loughner, age 22, remains in federal custody. He will appear in federal court in Phoenix on Monday afternoon.

[b]Mr. Loughner had complained to a friend about how he was treated by the Arizona lawmaker during an event several years ago[/b], which aggravated Mr. Loughner, according to the friend.[/quote]

Context: Nobody outside of Alaska even knew the name Sarah Palin until Aug. 29, 2008, when John McCain announced her as his choice of running mate.
[/quote]
Not sure that this is such a good argument. If he was obssessed since 2007, then one could ask, why did he choose now to do it?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 12, 2011 09:30AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-12 01:16, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Any Democrat, or any politician? Or any major candidate?

Al Sharpton was a Democratic candidate for everything from Mayor of New York to President of the United States. Not a serious contender, but someone who has earned hundreds of thousands of votes. He led a mob chanting "No Justice, No Peace" in the immediate wake of the Yankel Rosenbaum killing. His comments with respect to the "Freddy's Fashion Mart" riot were particularly incendiary. Is he an almost-U.S. Senator? No. On the other hand, he has a history of being embraced by the Democratic party, and was a featured speaker at the 2004 DNC.
[/quote]
Sharpton is a total opportunist (and acknowledged FBI informant BTW), but even at Freddy's he wasn't calling for the assassination of an elected official.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 12, 2011 09:33AM)
Woland--the "other" thread led off with a newspaper that accused Loughner of being a leftist.

Here's more:
"Showing no sign of tamping down on divisive political rhetoric in the wake of the shooting of 20 people that left six dead in Tuscon Saturday, the Tea Party Nation group e-mailed its members Sunday warning them they would be called upon to fight leftists in the days ahead and defend their movement.

TPN founder Judson Phillips, in an article linked off the e-mail "The shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and the left's attack on the Tea Party movement," described the shooter as "a leftist lunatic" and Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik as a "leftist sheriff" who "was one of the first to start in on the liberal attack." Phillips urged tea party supporters to blame liberals for the attack on centrist Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, who was shot through the head and is now fighting for her life, as a means of defending the tea party movement's recent electoral gains."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/tea-party-group-blames-leftist-for-giffords-shooting/69153/
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 12, 2011 09:42AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-12 09:25, Chance wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-12 09:18, balducci wrote:
...."all police are bad"....[/quote]

I've never said that, or supported anyone who did.

But if you say it then it must be true. /snark
[/quote]
That's why I included the :) chance. Two of them, in fact. With the parenthetical note to gdw and yourself pointing the smiley face out! I was hoping you would see that I was being sarcastic or ironic or something like that. Guess I failed. :(
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 12, 2011 09:48AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-12 10:21, Woland wrote:

Well, balducci, we'll see what comes of it. I was simply reporting what others had found out. I think the Sheriff still has a lot of 'splaining to do. The fact that the police went repeatedly to the home ***may*** indicate that they knew they had a problem. So why wasn't anything done about it?
[/quote]
Again, we don't KNOW that they did nothing about it. Perhaps they DID do something. I await the release of more information.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 12, 2011 09:56AM)
As do I, balducci, as do I.

landmark, the fact that one independent Tea Party group sent out an email is not equivalent to the barrage of pundits from the leftist media and leftist politicians who all blamed the shooting on Sarah Palin, on the House of Representatives for either attempting to repeal Obamacare or for having the Constitution read out loud, et cetera. As for that actual quote, it seems to me that based on his numerous public pronouncements before and after the shooting, Sheriff Dupnik is a extreme liberal who is using this incident to advance his agenda.

As I've said in the deleted threads several times, the shooter is a lunatic, and there is nothing political about this shooting at all. Like many such lunatics, he was obsessed with a celebrity, in this case Representative Giffords, and his obsession grew until he sprang into action. Why now, and not before? Probably has to do with the evolution of his madness, we'll have to wait to see whether he had ever been in treatment, on meds, et cetera.

Woland
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 12, 2011 10:00AM)
In the "other" thread I made a point that I'm going to repeat here, and AFAIK, no one has addressed it. While there is a lot of talk about the metaphoric nature of the gum imagery, there are definitely segments of the right who are giving it with a wink and a nod.

I'm talking about the blind eye given to [i]real guns[/i] brought to protests where the President has appeared. In NH, a guy comes with a pistol strapped to his leg to an Obama appearance; In Arizona, at another Obama event, a guy comes with a rifle slung over his shoulder and a pistol on his hip. I've been to many protests in my life, and in the past if anyone dared to do such a thing, they would be [i]immediately[/i] whisked away and looking at some very serious time. People in the President's vicinity have been arrest for wearing the wrong T-Shirt, for Pete's Sake! Now, [i]nothing[/i].

So this is about real intimidation with real guns. And I have [i]not[/i] seen conservatives talking out against this. And if O'Reilly and Hannity have spoken out against it, then I'll take it back. So, for a definite segment of the right, the "metaphor" argument is just a cover; their actions show their real intent. It's about saying [i] and showing[/i] the intention to use violence if necessary to achieve their agenda. A very definite climate has been created, and it's clear to anybody with half a brain, that this "unforseeable accident" would eventually happen, it was just a matter of time.

And I'll go out on a limb and say that for some people that was [i]exactly[/i] the intention.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 12, 2011 10:12AM)
Keeping this thread on topic, here are [url=http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/256965/rhetoric-and-perceived-status-victor-davis-hanson]Professor Victor Davis Hanson's thoughts[/url] on the press coverage of the Tucson incident:

[quote]The Left in the last 48 hours has tried to make the argument that the Tucson shootings were the result of Tea Party angst, health-care furor, talk radio, opposition to illegal immigration — almost any contemporary hot-button hoi polloi issue or any populist forum. And the more the public refuses to buy any of it, instead seeing Tucson as a madman’s evil attack on the innocent and noble, the more the liberal media seems weirdly intent on promulgating its absurd narrative.

Arguments that the liberal community is less prone to reckless speech, or has far less tolerance for those within it who use violent imagery and language than does the Right, are unconvincing. I don’t remember a Krugman column or a Sen. Patrick Leahy speech on the toxic Nicolson Baker novel, the Gabriel Range Bush assassination docudrama, the Chris Matthews CO2-pellet-in-the-face/blowing-up-of-the-“blimp” comments about Rush Limbaugh, the “I hate George Bush” embarrassment at The New Republic, Michael Moore’s preference for a red-state target on 9/11, or the Hitlerian/brownshirt accusations voiced by the likes of Al Gore, John Glenn, Robert Byrd, George Soros, and so on. So why the disconnect? Politics for sure, but I think also the double standard has something to do with style, venue, and perceived class.

If a progressive imagines killing George Bush in a tony Knopf novel or a Toronto film festival documentary, or rambles on about why he finds his president an object of hatred in a New Republic essay, or muses in the Guardian (cf. Charles Brooker: “John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. — where are you now that we need you?”), then we must certainly contextualize that hatred in a way that we do not in the crasser genres of commercial-laden talk radio, or an open-air demonstration placard. The novelist, the film-maker, the high-brow columnist, the professor can all dabble in haute couture calumny (cf. Garrison Keeler’s “brownshirts in pinstripes”); the degree-less, up-from-the-bootstraps Beck, Hannity, or Limbaugh behind a mike cannot. What is at the most atypical, out of character, or in slightly bad taste for the former must be a window into the dark soul of the latter.

So when suave, sophisticated, and cool Barack Obama talks metaphorically of knives, guns, enemies, punishing, kicking ass, relegation to the back seat, get angry, getting in their face, hostage takers, trigger fingers, tearing up, etc. we are supposed to think of it quite differently than the George Bush the swaggering Texan speaking of “dead or alive,” “smoke ’em out,” or “bring ’em on”— even if, empirically, one might find Obama’s confrontational expressions far more frequent and used far more in a domestic context against American political opponents than Bush’s Texanisms, which were spoken of radical Islamic terrorists.

In short, we are asked to believe that Sarah Palin’s use of crosshair symbols is confirmation that trigger-happy Alaskan yokels cling to their guns and incite violence, whereas sophisticated liberals, with their campaign maps replete with shooting targets on Republican districts are at most “edgy.” If a New England governor with perfect liberal credentials, like Howard Dean, M.D., blurts out, “I hate Republicans and everything they stand for,” we are supposed to see that as the slightly over the top exuberance of a progressive crusader; if a Southern counterpart from the RNC were to say the same thing of Democrats, it would be derided as confirmation of violent red-state hatred and Bull Connor–era venom.

The same relativism applies to comments on race (cf. the Biden/Reid Obama quips of 2008) and a host of other issues. In short, it is not so much what is said, but the assumed class, contextualized intent, and perceived status of the person who says it and the particular genre he employs in doing so.

In such a warped world as we are in, the suggestion that the unhinged Major Hasan drew on the ubiquitous hatred of radical Islamic imams is as irresponsible and scurrilous as it is certain that Sarah Palin fostered Jared Lee Loughner.[/quote]
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 12, 2011 10:50AM)
Woland, "Keeping this thread on topic, . . . "

Don't know if you were addressing my last post, but if so, I think it's exactly on topic. The whole argument is about whether the press language has been symbolic or not. "In short, it is not so much what is said, but the assumed class, contextualized intent, and perceived status of the person who says it and the particular genre he employs in doing so." I agree. And the context of this speech is of a country where "conservatives" are appearing [i]armed[/i] at political events. And if these people don't speak for the majority of conservatives, where is the outcry against them?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 12, 2011 12:13PM)
Is it illegal to bring a gun to a protest as mentioned above (poster did not say it was illegal I am just asking)? If so, those people who do so should be arrested and prosecuted. However if it is not and all this is just a knee jerk reaction to this incident..well do the math.

Obviously people who do not like other people to carry and pocess firearms this may seem like a great opportunity for them to push ahead their agenda for banning and owning firearms. However I would go on to use the same arguement that the pro abortion people use when confronted...it is legal now. I am not sure if it is legal for someone to bring a firearm to an event such as this.

To add to the comment about people being arrested for wearing a certain T-Shirt. I hope they sued the heck out of the police Dept and anyone else who helped to have them arrested. Even if it was inapproiate it was their right to do so and last time I checked this is The United States of America. One has to go along with the law when it works for them as well as aganist them. The people who did not like the T-shirt were within their rights to ask the individual to leave if this was a public event and or even give him a hard time by saying how stupid he looks, but as far as having him arrested or make him remove it I feel they crossed the line. I could be wrong, but I believe they violated his rights. I would imagaine the ACLU had a great time with that one. That is if it fit their agenda.

Another point I would just like to add here. Who cares what motivated this individual? He is mentally imbalanced. You might as well ask "Woody Woodpecker" what he thinks. Why are you looking for a rational explanation for his motive or actions.

I have a sad incident to relate. Around 12 years ago I had an acquitance that belonged to one of the of the local civic organizations that I also attended. A few times after meetings a few of us would get together have coffee and just chit chat. Well on more than one occasion he had commented that people look and see someone who is in business and drive a nice car and send their children to a nice private school and say to theemselves..wow that guy has it made or words to that effect as I amparaphrasing here. As the conversation progressed he made the point of saying that they do not know what problems some of these seemingly carefree people have but never mentioned any names and no one pressed the issue. So where is this going? Well he hanged himself in the basement of his business establishment. There was a note, and needless to say it expressed the problems he had whether imagined or real. Again the whole point of this is I never knew that he was talking about himself.

Should I or any of us that this was expressed to be blamed for not picking up on this and telling his wife that we feel your husband needs help? Quite honestly I did not know he was discussing himself. After the fact it was obvious and I said to myslelf, I see it now. How many here would go to ones wife, husband or son or daughter and say to them that I think your spouse or your father needs help? What kind of response do you feel you would get? I am only mentioning this because it is easy to see after the fact. The whole point being that if every time we think perhaps someone is a little off kilter are we supposed to have this person seek help? This could be the case here, but it seems like this guy was way out there. I am just saying it is easy to second guess after the fact. Even after an evaluation no telling what would have been done with him.

Do I feel sorry for him? Yes I do. But no where near as sorry as I feel for those he has affected by this senseless act. I cannot even imagine what his parents are going through at this time nor the grief of those affected by this act because of their loss.

Of all the above people mentioned he is probably the one least affected by this tragedy.

Just had to post the above.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 12, 2011 12:40PM)
Acesover,

Indeed a sad story.

landmark,

There may have been a few armed individuals, acting as individuals, at events such as the one you describe, I think I remember one case; the press was trying to portray the man with the rifle as a racist who was motivated by racial animus against the candidate . . . but when the uncropped pictures were shown, it turned out that the man with the rifle was black.

I don't know what the motivations of those people with rifles was, and I don't even know if they were conservatives. I am confident, however, that they were not trying to intimidate anyone. If anything, based on the comments of the African-American man with the rifle, they were trying to demonstrate that the peaceful expression of their Constitutionally-guaranteed right to bear arms threatens nobody.

In contrast, the leftwing protesters who attempted terroristic violence against the GOP nominating convention in 2008 were demonstrably motivated by the desire to intimidate, disenfranchise, and silence their political opponents.

Woland
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 12, 2011 01:17PM)
I guess Sarah Palin just released a seven minute and 40 second video on 'the facebook' expressing her various thoughts on the shootings.

Unfortunately, she put her foot in her mouth by using the phrase "blood libel". (Which has to do with certain religious groups killing Christian children and using their blood in ceremonies.)

To be honest, I was unaware of its historical meaning. But, I guess a large segment of the population does. And so 'blood libel' is now a news story in its own right. Isn't a speech writer or personal assistant supposed to be aware of, and catch, these things in advance?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 12, 2011 01:20PM)
Since he is both a psychiatrist and a journalist, one might expect Charles Krauthammer to have something to say about the press coverage of the Tucson shooting. [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/11/AR2011011106068.html]And he does not disappoint:[/url]

[quote]The charge: The Tucson massacre is a consequence of the "climate of hate" created by Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Obamacare opponents and sundry other liberal betes noires.

The verdict: Rarely in American political discourse has there been a charge so reckless, so scurrilous and so unsupported by evidence.

As killers go, Jared Loughner is not reticent. Yet among all his writings, postings, videos and other ravings - and in all the testimony from all the people who knew him - there is not a single reference to any of these supposed accessories to murder.

Not only is there no evidence that Loughner was impelled to violence by any of those upon whom Paul Krugman, Keith Olbermann, the New York Times, the Tucson sheriff and other rabid partisans are fixated. There is no evidence that he was responding to anything, political or otherwise, outside of his own head.

A climate of hate? This man lived within his very own private climate. "His thoughts were unrelated to anything in our world," said the teacher of Loughner's philosophy class at Pima Community College. "He was very disconnected from reality," said classmate Lydian Ali. "You know how it is when you talk to someone who's mentally ill and they're just not there?" said neighbor Jason Johnson. "It was like he was in his own world."

His ravings, said one high school classmate, were interspersed with "unnerving, long stupors of silence" during which he would "stare fixedly at his buddies," reported the Wall Street Journal. His own writings are confused, incoherent, punctuated with private numerology and inscrutable taxonomy. He warns of government brainwashing and thought control through "grammar." He was obsessed with "conscious dreaming," a fairly good synonym for hallucinations.

This is not political behavior. These are the signs of a clinical thought disorder - ideas disconnected from each other, incoherent, delusional, detached from reality.

These are all the hallmarks of a paranoid schizophrenic. And a dangerous one. A classmate found him so terrifyingly mentally disturbed that, she e-mailed friends and family, she expected to find his picture on TV after his perpetrating a mass murder. This was no idle speculation: In class "I sit by the door with my purse handy" so that she could get out fast when the shooting began.

Furthermore, the available evidence dates Loughner's fixation on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords to at least 2007, when he attended a town hall of hers and felt slighted by her response. In 2007, no one had heard of Sarah Palin. Glenn Beck was still toiling on Headline News. There was no Tea Party or health-care reform. The only climate of hate was the pervasive post-Iraq campaign of vilification of George W. Bush, nicely captured by a New Republic editor who had begun an article thus: "I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it."

Finally, the charge that the metaphors used by Palin and others were inciting violence is ridiculous. Everyone uses warlike metaphors in describing politics. When Barack Obama said at a 2008 fundraiser in Philadelphia, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," he was hardly inciting violence.

Why? Because fighting and warfare are the most routine of political metaphors. And for obvious reasons. Historically speaking, all democratic politics is a sublimation of the ancient route to power - military conquest. That's why the language persists. That's why we say without any self-consciousness such things as "battleground states" or "targeting" opponents. Indeed, the very word for an electoral contest - "campaign" - is an appropriation from warfare.

When profiles of Obama's first chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, noted that he once sent a dead fish to a pollster who displeased him, a characteristically subtle statement carrying more than a whiff of malice and murder, it was considered a charming example of excessive - and creative - political enthusiasm. When Senate candidate Joe Manchin dispensed with metaphor and simply fired a bullet through the cap-and-trade bill - while intoning, "I'll take dead aim at [it]" - he was hardly assailed with complaints about violations of civil discourse or invitations to murder.

Did Manchin push Loughner over the top? Did Emanuel's little Mafia imitation create a climate for political violence? The very questions are absurd - unless you're the New York Times and you substitute the name Sarah Palin.

The origins of Loughner's delusions are clear: mental illness. What are the origins of Krugman's? [/quote]

Very wise words.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 12, 2011 01:22PM)
Well, balducci, according to [url=http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/01/12/exclusive-alan-dershowitz-defends-sarah-palins-use-of-term-blood-libel/]Alan Dershowitz of Harvard University's Law School, Governor Palin was perfectly correct in her use of the term:[/url]

[quote]The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.[/quote]

'Nuff said.

Woland
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 12, 2011 01:31PM)
Woland, that's fine. As I said, I was unaware of the term. I just reported what was said, and how people are reacting. Even if she was correct in the term's usage, it does appear to be a touchy issue. Contrary to what Dershowitz says, I am not convinced that it is a "widely used term".

By the way, here is a conservative National Review Online columnist (who is also Jewish, I believe) arguing that the "blood libel" does not fit and was inappropriate to use. It also shows, BTW, that someone else used it in the recent discussion prior to Sarah Palin.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/256946/blood-libel-jonah-goldberg

So it appears that opinion is split on the use of the term. On both the right and the left.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 12, 2011 02:18PM)
Really, Alan "Torture is fine with me" Dershowitz has been thoroughly discredited as a plagiarist and a liar, but to take him on his own terms, when he used the phrase blood libel, it was precisely to indict the critics of the Goldstone Report as anti-semitic. And he well knows that, which makes him a slimeball. Palin I think OTOH was just ignorant and idiotic, but no big deal really to me, though her hypocrisy is telling. See for example http://www.slate.com/id/2280964/

[quote]I don't know what the motivations of those people with rifles was, and I don't even know if they were conservatives. I am confident, however, that they were not trying to intimidate anyone. If anything, based on the comments of the African-American man with the rifle, they were trying to demonstrate that the peaceful expression of their Constitutionally-guaranteed right to bear arms threatens nobody. [/quote]

I'm tempted to just let that stand as it is. That's kind of in the Wow category. They were just exuding a kind of peaceful Nirvana-gun-love-is-all-you-need kind of bliss. Kind of like when the KKK shows up in uniform, they're only doing it to show that you can wear it and have a nice peaceful event.


acesover--Is it illegal to bring a gun to a protest as mentioned above (poster did not say it was illegal I am just asking)?
In both Arizona and NH it is generally legal to carry firearms in the open, though I don't know all the nuances of the laws. However, I would think that the Secret Service has broad discretion to do what the heck they want in a situation like this. And I'll say categorically that under any other president of the last forty years, those guys would not be seeing daylight for quite a while.


And here's news of Arizona Republicans who Tea Partiers have targeted. The Republicans are scared for their lives--they don't think it's just symbolic talk:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/arizona_district_goper_resigns_i_dont_want_to_take.php?ref=tn
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 12, 2011 02:26PM)
I've not been following this since I didn't care for all the bs involved with the stories. I do have one question, initially they said he had a 9mm semi auto pistol, is that all he used? He did one hell of a lot of damage with a pistol, it's been done on a larger scale before but it seems as if I may not have heard what happened during the actual attack. Can anyone explain using fewer words than I did to ask?
Message: Posted by: Scott Cram (Jan 12, 2011 02:28PM)
OMG! Sarah Palin said "Blood libel"! Oh NOEZ! (She's been reminded that she should only use Democrat-approved tactics, such as referring to political opponents as "Hitler".)

It gets worse! Sarah Palin turned me into a newt! (I got better.)

That does it! We need to prove once and for all that Jared Loughner is a Tea Partier! If he weighs the same as a duck, he's made of wood, and therefore a Tea Partier! To the scales!

/Just maintaining this thread's current level of discourse and reason going
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 12, 2011 02:39PM)
Landmark- Arizona is a legal concealed-carry state. You don't even have to wear your gun openly.

Santa- the 9mm had an extended clip and could hold 31 bullets.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 12, 2011 03:53PM)
Thanks, balducci. I don't think it really was the "blood libel" phrase that attracted controversy, I think it was the speaker.

landmark, not everyone is "hoplophobic," i.e. inordinately afraid of weapons. To some people, such as Mrs. Woland I might add, the presence of a trustworthy armed man who she knows can reliably hit a target is downright comforting.

Regarding the rifle carrying African-American previously mentioned, [url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-5248889-504083.html]the AP reported:
[/url]
[quote]Phoenix police said the gun-toters at Monday's event, including the man carrying an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle slung over his shoulder, didn't need permits. No crimes were committed, and no one was arrested.

The man with the rifle declined to be identified but told The Arizona Republic that he was carrying the assault weapon because he could. "In Arizona, I still have some freedoms," he said.[/quote]

I think that confirms my recollection of his peaceful intentions.

Woland
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 12, 2011 04:19PM)
Okay, extended clip makes sense. Too bad someone in the audience didn't have a weapon or perhaps they could have stopped the fellow.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 12, 2011 04:24PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-12 17:19, MagicSanta wrote:
Okay, extended clip makes sense. Too bad someone in the audience didn't have a weapon or perhaps they could have stopped the fellow.
[/quote]

It is my understanding that he was tackled and restrained by audience members.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 12, 2011 04:25PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-12 15:18, landmark wrote:
Dershowitz has been thoroughly discredited as a plagiarist
[/quote]

Maybe he'll be on a ticket as VP in '12!
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 12, 2011 04:30PM)
Santa- maybe. But remember- I did say Arizona was a concealed carry state. Anyone could have had a weapon. Of course, unless they were right next to the shooter, they wouldn't even know anything was amiss until he started firing. And at that point, he could probably have still emptied his extended clip before they could draw, remove the safety, aim, and fire. (And hope they didn't miss, firing into a crowd.)
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 12, 2011 04:49PM)
Why was there no police presence?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 12, 2011 04:49PM)
There was a fellow in the convenience store who did have a CCW permit and a pistol with him. By the time he was aware of the problem outside, and was able to make a move in that direction, he explained, the shooter had already been tackled. I think he may have had a role in restraining him.

Woland
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 12, 2011 05:23PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-12 16:53, Woland wrote:

Thanks, balducci. I don't think it really was the "blood libel" phrase that attracted controversy, I think it was the speaker.
[/quote]
Well, perhaps. I suspect, like Goldman in the National Review, that a number of Jewish people really are upset about this, regardless of the speaker. Right now there are several Jewish lobby groups criticizing Palin for her choice of words (even though Palin is a strong supporter of Israel, as I understand it). If she wants ever again to run for higher office, she is going to have to avoid these "obvious" missteps. This is already news in the Israeli press, for whatever that is worth.

The following is totally unrelated to the U.S. incident but it is interesting to see that Israel presently has its own controversy over speech that incites violence.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-extreme-right-s-incitement-will-end-in-murder-1.336531

Heh. Copycats. :)
Message: Posted by: Kevin Ridgeway (Jan 12, 2011 06:01PM)
For the record, one can open carry in Arizona as well. The phrase 'concealed carry' is used quite often as a catch all for a state that allows one to carry a firearm. However, it is not the most accurate phrase to use. We split our down time between Arizona & Indiana. We are currently in Arizona and as one would assume, the news here is following the mass shooting closer than anyone.

Our 'concealed carry' permit is from Indiana. It is not however a 'concealed carry'...it is a permit to carry. The holder of said permit has the choice to carry concealed or open carry. Arizona's law is concealed carry with no permit....open carry with permit.

Hope that helps.
Kevin
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 12, 2011 06:15PM)
So you need a permit to DISPLAY that you are carrying a firearm in Arizona?

But NO permit is required if you want to conceal the fact that you are carrying a firearm from people?

I can imagine and even understand a possible line of logic behind that, but it does seem *** backwards to me.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Jan 12, 2011 06:32PM)
[quote]On 2011-01-12 19:01, Living Illusions wrote:
Arizona's law is concealed carry with no permit....open carry with permit.[/quote]
If you're in Arizona carrying a concealed gun with no permit to carry it openly, and you pull it out to use it (say, to defend yourself), have you violated the open carry law now that it's in the open?
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jan 12, 2011 06:47PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-12 19:15, balducci wrote:
So you need a permit to DISPLAY that you are carrying a firearm in Arizona?

But NO permit is required if you want to conceal the fact that you are carrying a firearm from people?

I can imagine and even understand a possible line of logic behind that, but it does seem *** backwards to me.
[/quote]

Yup, that one has always seemed odd to me. Seems like backwards logic.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 12, 2011 06:48PM)
With no desrespect to Kevin Arizona does not require an open carry permit. Some have tried to get it passed but with a few exceptions you can open carry in the state. Open being exposed or partially exposed. They have lifted the restrictions on concealed carry again with some exceptions (such as you cannot go into a bar or restaurant without a permit). You cannot take weapons everywhere you want, you must answer honestly if an officer asks if you have a weapon, if a place says no guns then there are no guns allowed, no guns on college campuses, and so forth.

Note that laws change and they may have changed open carry but being Arizona I doubt it.
Message: Posted by: Kevin Ridgeway (Jan 12, 2011 07:25PM)
MagicSanta...thanks for pointing that out. While one can carry without a permit, there are certain advantages that come with the permit. I should have been more precise.

Kevin
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 12, 2011 07:30PM)
That is correct....

In my area I'm likely the ONLY one not carrying a gun (weapon? Yes...). If you see someone walking a dog, other than me, they have a gun in case a coyote or rattle snake visits. I can't shoot 'em but I am equipped to beat and skin' 'em.
Message: Posted by: Scott Cram (Jan 12, 2011 07:59PM)
As I write this,the president is speaking at the memorial.

Boy, he's really got the crowd standing and cheering. The free t-shirts with the custom designed event logo is an interesting touch. Maybe more merchandise with the logo will be on sale after the memorial, or perhaps Oprah will make a surprise appearance and give free gifts to the people in the audience. :rolleyes:
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 12, 2011 08:46PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-12 15:28, Scott Cram wrote:
OMG! Sarah Palin said "Blood libel"! Oh NOEZ! (She's been reminded that she should only use Democrat-approved tactics, such as referring to political opponents as "Hitler".)

It gets worse! Sarah Palin turned me into a newt! (I got better.)

[/quote]
I agree Scott it's no big deal. Just pretty narcissistic, making herself out to be the victim. But no biggee as far as I'm concerned.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 12, 2011 08:52PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-12 17:25, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-12 15:18, landmark wrote:
Dershowitz has been thoroughly discredited as a plagiarist
[/quote]

Maybe he'll be on a ticket as VP in '12!
[/quote]
Actually, Lobo you might enjoy following the story. I don't have the patience now to look up the links but Google Dershowitz and Plagiarism and you'll find lots. A really slippery character IMHO.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 12, 2011 09:02PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-12 16:53, Woland wrote:

To some people, such as Mrs. Woland I might add, the presence of a trustworthy armed man who she knows can reliably hit a target is downright comforting.

Regarding the rifle carrying African-American previously mentioned, [url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-5248889-504083.html]the AP reported:
[/url]
[quote]Phoenix police said the gun-toters at Monday's event, including the man carrying an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle slung over his shoulder, didn't need permits. No crimes were committed, and no one was arrested.

The man with the rifle declined to be identified but told The Arizona Republic that he was carrying the assault weapon because he could. "In Arizona, I still have some freedoms," he said.[/quote]

I think that confirms my recollection of his peaceful intentions.

Woland
[/quote]
What part of his statement confirms his peaceful intentions? Sounds pretty much like "None of your gd business" to me. I think even Mrs. Woland might find him somewhat rude. Checking with Mrs. Landmark, she thought it was more than rude, it was aggressive.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 12, 2011 09:05PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-12 21:52, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-12 17:25, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-12 15:18, landmark wrote:
Dershowitz has been thoroughly discredited as a plagiarist
[/quote]

Maybe he'll be on a ticket as VP in '12!
[/quote]
Actually, Lobo you might enjoy following the story. I don't have the patience now to look up the links but Google Dershowitz and Plagiarism and you'll find lots. A really slippery character IMHO.
[/quote]

You're right...I just read a quick version. Definitely Movie of the Week stuff.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 12, 2011 09:12PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-12 22:02, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-12 16:53, Woland wrote:

To some people, such as Mrs. Woland I might add, the presence of a trustworthy armed man who she knows can reliably hit a target is downright comforting.

Regarding the rifle carrying African-American previously mentioned, [url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-5248889-504083.html]the AP reported:
[/url]
[quote]Phoenix police said the gun-toters at Monday's event, including the man carrying an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle slung over his shoulder, didn't need permits. No crimes were committed, and no one was arrested.

The man with the rifle declined to be identified but told The Arizona Republic that he was carrying the assault weapon because he could. "In Arizona, I still have some freedoms," he said.[/quote]

I think that confirms my recollection of his peaceful intentions.

Woland
[/quote]
What part of his statement confirms his peaceful intentions? Sounds pretty much like "None of your gd business" to me. I think even Mrs. Woland might find him somewhat rude. Checking with Mrs. Landmark, she thought it was more than rude, it was aggressive.
[/quote]

Which part confirms his "real intention" to use violence to achieve his agenda? Maybe he wanted to demonstrate that law abiding citizens can walk around with legal guns in public without triggering (pun intended) the apocalypse.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jan 12, 2011 09:34PM)
Only the police can walk round with guns here, and that excites no public debate of any kind.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 12, 2011 09:35PM)
The Black Panthers did that and got California laws changed.....the open gun totin'.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 12, 2011 09:45PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-12 22:12, LobowolfXXX wrote:


Which part confirms his "real intention" to use violence to achieve his agenda? Maybe he wanted to demonstrate that law abiding citizens can walk around with legal guns in public without triggering (pun intended) the apocalypse.
[/quote]
Do you believe that? Do you think the Secret Service/police should have left it at that?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 12, 2011 09:52PM)
Landmark, there was someone with an open weapon at a place where the secret service was responsible for security? I'm not challenging I'm just not really following all this. I could see the police tolerating it but never the secret service. Unless there were serious changes in policy any perceived threat to the president etc is not acceptable to those folks.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 12, 2011 10:20PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-12 22:45, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-12 22:12, LobowolfXXX wrote:


Which part confirms his "real intention" to use violence to achieve his agenda? Maybe he wanted to demonstrate that law abiding citizens can walk around with legal guns in public without triggering (pun intended) the apocalypse.
[/quote]
Do you believe that? Do you think the Secret Service/police should have left it at that?
[/quote]

What the Secret Service and/or police "should" do is above my pay grade; I think it's reasonable to infer, though, that if he suffered no consequences, he probably wasn't demonstrating a real intention to use violence.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 12, 2011 10:32PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-12 22:52, MagicSanta wrote:
Landmark, there was someone with an open weapon at a place where the secret service was responsible for security? I'm not challenging I'm just not really following all this. I could see the police tolerating it but never the secret service. Unless there were serious changes in policy any perceived threat to the president etc is not acceptable to those folks.
[/quote]
Presumably this is the story y'all are talking about. Contrary to what someone said earlier, I do not recall any 'cropped' pictures. I think it was plain from the start that the guy in question was African-American (not sure why that matters though).

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-08-17/politics/obama.protest.rifle_1_protesters-weapons-assault-rifle?_s=PM:POLITICS

About security, mentioned in the above article is this:

U.S. Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan acknowledged the incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona, but said he was not aware of any other recent events where protesters attended with open weapons. He said there was no indication that anyone had organized the incidents. Asked whether the individuals carrying weapons jeopardized the safety of the president, Donovan said, "Of course not."

The individuals would never have gotten in close proximity to the president, regardless of any state laws on openly carrying weapons, he said. A venue is considered a federal site when the Secret Service is protecting the president and weapons are not allowed on a federal site, he added.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 12, 2011 10:42PM)
I believe Arizona passsed a concealed carry law in 2010 that allows anyone who can legally purchase a handgun to carry it concealed.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 12, 2011 10:44PM)
I agree, the gun guys would never had gotten into the event with the secret service. The guy being black just makes it sexier for the story, he's a gun lovin' anti Obama black dude, that is good stuff for the press.

The first time I saw people totin' rifles was in Florida coming out of a Sears. It flipped me out and when I asked a guard about it he said they were coming in to make sure they got the right ammo in the hunting department. I never liked being around openly carried weapons. If I can't see 'em fine.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 13, 2011 03:39AM)
Unless I am mistaken, as of this summer, a specific permit is no longer required in Arizona in order to carry a firearm, although permits are still available to residents who wish to exercise a reciprocal right to carry in other states that recognize Arizona'z permits.

Woland
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 15, 2011 02:22PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-12 15:26, MagicSanta wrote:
I've not been following this since I didn't care for all the bs involved with the stories. I do have one question, initially they said he had a 9mm semi auto pistol, is that all he used? He did one hell of a lot of damage with a pistol, ...
[/quote]
I've seen some articles in the papers this week about Glock, the popular handgun invented by a former curtain-rod maker from Austria. How the gun was created, how it won over America, etc. Rather interesting stuff, actually. Also, apparently some models of Glocks can retail for $500+ and cost less than $100 to make. So it must be a quite profitable company. However, I think it is privately held.

(BTW, according to the articles below, JL had a 33-round clip (not 31 as someone said earlier) with his Glock.)

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_04/b4212052185280.htm

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_04/b4212000855929.htm

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/criminals-and-ordinary-americans-alike-love-their-glock-pistols/article1871531/
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 15, 2011 04:34PM)
33 rounds for a handgun, wow. Last time I had to qualify we used 9mm with a 14 round clip but we only put 13, they said always go one less to reduce the chance of jamming. I'm not a gun nut and don't follow them at all but that is a huge clip.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 15, 2011 04:38PM)
Yea but it misses the point. I could have had a billion round MAGAZINE NOT CLIP and would have not been a danger to anyone. The failing was in missing the warning signs. The guy was a nut, it is as simple as that. Everyone wants to spin this to get their particular point across and it sickens me.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 15, 2011 05:00PM)
I agree with that. I just was wondering if he had multiple weapons or clips or was just an amazing shot. I don't have guns but I'm not in favor of banning them. That kid could have filled a jar full of gas and tossed it and killed people, he could have just drove a car into them. I had just never heard of a clip larger than 14 rounds.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 15, 2011 05:47PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-15 18:00, MagicSanta wrote:

I agree with that. I just was wondering if he had multiple weapons or clips or was just an amazing shot. I don't have guns but I'm not in favor of banning them. That kid could have filled a jar full of gas and tossed it and killed people, he could have just drove a car into them. I had just never heard of a clip larger than 14 rounds.
[/quote]
Sure, also agreed. I posted the Glock articles because I remembered what you had said and because I thought what they said about the Glock and its history was interesting. (And I thought the Bruce Willis story was funny.)

But whether someone is pro-gun or anti-gun, it is still a fact that magazine size did have some significance in how this shooting incident played out. As one of the article notes: "Loughner was wrestled to the ground by onlookers ONLY when he PAUSED to insert a fresh magazine. If he had been forced to reload sooner, the odds are good there would be fewer victims." [I capitalized two words for emphasis.] I don't think anyone can reasonably argue with that. It's a fairly objective statement of what happened. If he had had a larger magazine, no doubt the victim count would have been higher. That's a statement of fact. Thankfully, there is no such thing as a "billion round magazine".

Anyway, while I wouldn't go through trouble to buy a Glock here in Canada I'd be happy to test one out in the States if I ever happen by a gun show or something. And the forthcoming book "Glock and its influence in America" might be a good read. I don't know if you noticed this in the article, but even Gabrielle Gifford is a Glock owner.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 15, 2011 06:57PM)
Darn it, now I need to get me a glock.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 15, 2011 10:54PM)
I like the way that "BLAME THE RIGHT" failed, now it is guns.

I don't think you can say one way or another if the ammo had anything to do with it. Reason? All he would have needed was another gun. Why is it when there is a problem like this people center on what they want banned or try to push an agenda? Nonsense. (not anyone here)

This happened because one nutty guy was ****ed. (A guy who was known nutty to the police, who REFUSE to release records of multiple contacts with the guy!) This nut job was ON THE RADAR and nothing was done. Maybe before the Sherrif balmes anyone he should see what his department may have done to prevent this tragedy in the first place. Maybe if this nut job did't have a gun in the first place, maybe if he was watched after all the incidents and so forth this might not have happened.

Is the solution to punish every law abiding citizen who owns a gun because of one nut job?

Yea he paused to reload. IF he had been forced to reload ODDS ARE THAT there would be fewer victims. As long as we are playing the capital for emphasis game it can be done this way as well. Nobody knows.

As I said tragedy is what this was. No doubt. Tragic that such little attention goes out to some victims, and so much to others. ALL injured or dead are equally horrifying.

What this angry nut job did was beyond horrible. To use it as political fodder to make points is sickening. (NOT anyone here mind you.) Each side is guilty of it. I think when we give up freedom because of the actions of a few nuts (whether they are terrorists or nut jobs like this) we are making a serious mistake.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 15, 2011 11:28PM)
What was with the photos in the red thong?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 15, 2011 11:33PM)
[quote]I think when we give up freedom because of the actions of a few nuts (whether they are terrorists or nut jobs like this we are making a serious mistake.[/quote]
Unfortunately that horse left the stable a long time ago.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 16, 2011 12:18AM)
Danny- I can only say this in response: when I heard about the shooting, it horrified me, but it did not surprise me.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 16, 2011 07:59AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-16 01:18, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Danny- I can only say this in response: when I heard about the shooting, it horrified me, but it did not surprise me.
[/quote]

What could that possibly mean? On second thought don't tell me. It is probably some claptrap about gun owners where you will smear all gun owners so it may be better off you don't say it.

landmark. Yep I am afraid I may be trying to close the barn door once the horse is out. Pretty sad huh?
Message: Posted by: Kevin Ridgeway (Jan 16, 2011 09:28AM)
We are gun owners. I even have a Glock. It's the 27 model, the subcompact .40 Every time there is a shooting like this, people start using emotion instead of their minds to call for more gun control.

A personal pet peeve of mine is people who believe only police officers should carry weapons. For those that believe this, let me give you a history lesson about one particular state. The following is true at least as recent as several years ago, which is the last time I checked. In the state of Indiana we have carry permits. We have two kinds...one that expires every four years and one that is for lifetime. Obviously either is only good for as long at the hsolder is in good standing with the law. In the state of Indiana, a resident with a carry permit has never committed a felony with their firearm. The same CANNOT be said for police officer in the state of Indiana. Several police officers HAVE committed felonies with their firearms. This is not stated to be anti-police. It is merely stated to show the fallacy in believing that citizens should not be allowed to own firearms.

Kevin
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 16, 2011 10:30AM)
Living Illusions,

You are right on the money. True words.

Just so happens that my main carry weapon is also a Glock 27. I have a fantastic carry holster for it, Mitch Rosen belt holster that really holds the gun well and close aganist the body
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 16, 2011 10:30AM)
Danny, Kevin- I don't own a gun, but I have friends and relatives who do. I enjoy shooting a few rounds at targets (though I only do it rarely.) I was annoyed when the Governator put restrictions on .50 caliber sniper rifles. They're a tool for the military, and a toy for the rich.

In short, I don't want to take your guns.

Now that that's out of the way, the reason I wasn't surprised, without blaming either side, was the rhetoric. I just assumed it would only be a matter of time before something like this happened. [i]However[/i], I don't want either side to just shut up and go away. We all do have valid points and arguments to make.

So let's talk constructively. What do you guys think should be done to try and stop this kind of thing in the future?

-Erik
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 16, 2011 10:39AM)
How about we stop making movies about killing a sitting president? How about we quit saying things like "Bush lied kids died"? How about we stop comparing the other side to Nazies? How about a candidate for president who does not say "If they bring a knife, we bring a gun"? Are all those pretty good ideas for a start?

Oh and in short, I don't believe for a SECOND you would be the least bit upset about taking away guns. Maybe you don't "want" to, but your feelings would not be hurt if someone did.

How about we just have something called PERSONAL RESPONSABILITY? This guy did it, HE and HE ALONE is responsible for what happens. Not every gun owner, not every citizen. How about we are indivuals and not a collective? How about we get further away from being a collective and closer to being rugged individuals? Seems to make sense to me.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 16, 2011 10:44AM)
I told my best friend (who I shoot with often) shortly after the shooting that Wal-Mart was going to get a bunch of crap about the ammo, just like K-Mart did after Columbine.

"If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns."

Let's not forget that some are also trying to blame the mental health profession since the guy wasn't in an Asylum, and yet it was not the decision of the mental health industry to drastically cut funding and shut down most of the hospitals after the invention of anti-psychotic drugs.

The blame game is stupid.
He was a crazy kid who lost his mind and did something terrible. End of story.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 16, 2011 10:49AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-16 11:39, Dannydoyle wrote:
How about we stop making movies about killing a sitting president? How about we quit saying things like "Bush lied kids died"? How about we stop comparing the other side to Nazies? How about a candidate for president who does not say "If they bring a knife, we bring a gun"? Are all those pretty good ideas for a start?
[/quote]
Danny, I'm game if you are.

And yes, I would complain if they started taking away guns. They'd be coming for my swords next ;)
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 16, 2011 10:58AM)
Bush DID lie, kids DID die.
How many people saw this movie you're talking about? Maybe three and a half? What power do they have?
Isn't the new Fox meme that the Nazis were really leftists?
The knife-gun remark was clearly an analogy, not a threat. I don't recall seeing any pictures of Obama with firearms.

I wouldn't be upset if guns were well-regulated, as the Constitution prescribes. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect much more scrutiny over who gets a gun. We do as much in order to get a driver's license.

And no, you're not allowed to make a mess, and blame the others for not cleaning it up.

As EsnRedshirt said, anyone could see this coming. It was no surprise. The pump had been well-primed. But I don't expect those who did that to take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.


If we really are serious about wanting to stop violence (and I doubt we are as a country) then the everyday glorification of it has got to stop. Non-military solutions have to be worked at. The country has to stop excusing the death and destruction it brings everyday to our own and to others.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 16, 2011 11:26AM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRCq7mv7HVM

How about just the term "tea-bagger"? Is THAT rough? How about Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, and a whole network dedicated to the slander and liabel of another party?

Oh and Bush may have been misinformed, but lied is a tough charge. Lied is an emotional response. Sorry. I know you have your anti military stance to take on everything, and now YOU use this to push it. That is part of the problem in my view.

So when someone who you agree with says inflamitory things, that is just clearly an analogy, but Sarah Palin and gun sights on districts is a threat? Come on.

Who cares how many people saw the movie, it was MADE! It was a disgrace and you don't care because it furthers your agenda. Don't you see that this is part of the problem? Yea the pump was well primed. Aparantly he had negative contact with Mrs. Gifford back in 2007. LONG before Sarah Palin or the Tea Party were on the scene. Back when the left was in charge of hate speech.

BOTH sides need to step up and stop the nonsense.

Oh and ESNRedshirt those were all things that the left has said. Did THEY have anything to do with this? I bet I can guess your answer.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 16, 2011 12:32PM)
You know, Danny, Esn and I were not surprised. And I think a whole lot of others though shocked, were not surprised. Truthfully, were you? Crazy Rhetoric + Guns = Violence. Palin's words alone are just ignorant foolishness; but together with the availability of guns is when it becomes dangerous. It's kind of like letting people who are drinking alcohol carry a gun--oh, wait I forgot that's the latest scheme the Right has to tamp down violence. The "right" to carry a weapon in a bar. All the problems in the world and that's what they come up with. I'm not saying you agree with this, because I don't know your take on it, but that's why it's hard to take these people seriously.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 16, 2011 01:03PM)
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Both by Franklin.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

–Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment, quoted by Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book

Seems as if Jefferson agreed that it prevented crime. He was nobody's fool was he?

Point is you think somehow that it is the gun that is the problem. The person is the problem. PUNISH the person properly. Not as a deterrant, as PUNISHMENT.

Oh and the crazy rheoric is on your side of the fence as I showed. YOU just want to justify it and ignore it to blame someone convienent so you can further your agenda. THAT is the problem.
Message: Posted by: Kevin Ridgeway (Jan 16, 2011 01:19PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-16 13:32, landmark wrote:
The "right" to carry a weapon in a bar. All the problems in the world and that's what they come up with. I'm not saying you agree with this, because I don't know your take on it, but that's why it's hard to take these people seriously.
[/quote]

The problem is the law of banning weapons is a bar is that it becomes all encompassing. That means if you patronize say an Applebees, Outback Steakhouse, etc AND you are NOT drinking...you still can't carry there, because they serve alcohol. What about the guy in a bar that is the designated driver? You see zero tolerance DOESN'T work. All it does is punishes the innocent, law abiding citizen, while the criminal ignores it anyways.

The real problem lies with lack of respect, personal responsibility and the downward spiral of morals...oh yeah and a soft prison system.

Kevin
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 16, 2011 01:38PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-16 14:03, Dannydoyle wrote:

Oh and the crazy rheoric is on your side of the fence as I showed. YOU just want to justify it and ignore it to blame someone convienent so you can further your agenda. THAT is the problem.
[/quote]In my new spirit of not being mean, I'm not going to point out counter-examples, because it only serves to antagonize. But please don't suggest that the rhetoric is only coming from one side. Thanks!
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 16, 2011 01:54PM)
You can't stop every individual nut job from going off in a country of over 300 million people.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 16, 2011 02:01PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-16 14:38, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-16 14:03, Dannydoyle wrote:

Oh and the crazy rheoric is on your side of the fence as I showed. YOU just want to justify it and ignore it to blame someone convienent so you can further your agenda. THAT is the problem.
[/quote]In my new spirit of not being mean, I'm not going to point out counter-examples, because it only serves to antagonize. But please don't suggest that the rhetoric is only coming from one side. Thanks!
[/quote]

Oh wait, I can point examples on each side. BUT are you going to tell me that Bush was NOT villified? He was called stupid and every name in the book, and that seemed ok with you then. I am suggesting that hateful things were said and done and nobody is exempt. Is the answer to blame and take away freedom?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 16, 2011 02:17PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-12 17:49, Woland wrote:

There was a fellow in the convenience store who did have a CCW permit and a pistol with him. By the time he was aware of the problem outside, and was able to make a move in that direction, he explained, the shooter had already been tackled. I think he may have had a role in restraining him.

Woland
[/quote]
Presumably Joe Zamudio is the guy you are referring to. He IS a hero for getting involved. But it is also more complicated and nuanced that you suggest. The shooter (Jared) was already on the ground, nearly subdued, when Zamudio tackled, nearly shot, and subdued the wrong person. Zamudio's story below:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/01/16/1983786/bystanders-action-revs-up-gun.html#ixzz1BEMhc746
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 16, 2011 02:25PM)
That would be what I would call a "complication" right?

I have to say for SELF defence I think weapons are ok. I think to intercede into a situation and perhaps not know exactly what is going on is not the best thing in the world when using guns. A mistake can be unchangeable.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 16, 2011 02:39PM)
Bush was missinformed some kids won't be born....to be raised in fanatical homes.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 16, 2011 04:15PM)
This thread has gone far from its original topic, which is fine with me. Let me add a couple of fairly random reactions:

1) Gaston Glock is a brilliant man. The story of how he bested the biggest and most experienced manufacturers in the personal weapons field should inspire all inventors and entrepreneurs.

2) The phrase "well regulated militia" in the Second Amendment, in the context of XVIIIth century usage, means "proficient," not under the kinds of controls leftists imagine. Think of Bach's "well regulated" Church music. The point of the preamble is, since we don't intend to have a standing army, we will need to rely on the citizens, called out as a militia, to defend our country; therefore, the citizens had better be proficient at arms, so we will do nothing to restrict their God-given right to defend themselves by keeping and bearing arms.

3) The National-Socialists were socialists. I wrote several long discussions of this fact in another thread, that was deleted from this forum. So I will just leave it at that. For further information, anyone with an interest in learning the truth about this fact, can look [url=http://knol.google.com/k/hitler-was-a-socialist#]here[/url] or [url=http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/08/this-article-is-published-on-internet.html]here[/url].

4)Anyone who is interested in the reality of inflammatory political rhetoric and the violence to which it leads should look [url=http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/]here[/url] and [url=http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/14/blame-righty-a-condensed-history/]here[/url].

5) With respect to Governor Palin's use of the phrase "blood label" Rabbi Shmuley Boteach had this to say in the [url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703583404576079823067585318.html]Wall Street Journal[/url]:

[quote]Despite the strong association of the term with collective Jewish guilt and concomitant slaughter, Sarah Palin has every right to use it. The expression may be used whenever an amorphous mass is collectively accused of being murderers or accessories to murder.

The abominable element of the blood libel is not that it was used to accuse Jews, but that it was used to accuse innocent Jews—their innocence, rather than their Jewishness, being the operative point. Had the Jews been guilty of any of these heinous acts, the charge would not have been a libel.

Jews did not kill Jesus. As the Roman historian Tacitus makes clear, he was murdered by Pontius Pilate, whose reign of terror in ancient Judea was so excessive, even by Roman standards, that (according to the Roman-Jewish chronicler Josephus) Rome recalled him in the year 36 due to his sadistic practices. King Herod Agrippa I, writing to the Emperor Caligula, noted Pilate's "acts of violence, plunderings . . . and continual murder of persons untried and uncondemned, and his never-ending, endless, and unbelievable cruelties, gratuitous and most grievous inhumanity."

Murder is humanity's most severe sin, and it is trivialized when an innocent party is accused of the crime—especially when that party is a collective too numerous to be defended individually. If Jews have learned anything in their long history, it is that a false indictment of murder against any group threatens every group. As Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Indeed, the belief that the concept of blood libel applies only to Jews is itself a form of reverse discrimination that should be dismissed.

Judaism rejects the idea of collective responsibility for murder, as the Hebrew Bible condemns accusations of collective guilt against Jew and non-Jew alike. "The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him" (Ezekiel 18).

How unfortunate that some have chosen to compound a national tragedy by politicizing the murder of six innocent lives and the attempted assassination of a congresswoman.

To be sure, America should embrace civil political discourse for its own sake, and no political faction should engage in demonizing rhetoric. But promoting this high principle by simultaneously violating it and engaging in a blood libel against innocent parties is both irresponsible and immoral. [/quote]

6) Even the reliably leftist New York Times columnist, [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/opinion/15blow.html?scp=3&sq=charles%20m%20blow&st=cse]Charles Blow[/url], wrote in his weekly column yesterday, that the left had jumped the shark on the issue of whether political rhetoric had motivated the shooter:

[quote]Within hours of the shooting, there was a full-fledged witch hunt to link the shooter to the right.

“I saw Goody Proctor with the devil! Oh, I mean Jared Lee Loughner! Yes him. With the devil!”

The only problem is that there was no evidence then, and even now, that overheated rhetoric from the right had anything to do with the shooting. (In fact, a couple of people who said they knew him have described him as either apolitical or “quite liberal.”) The picture emerging is of a sad and lonely soul slowly, and publicly, slipping into insanity.

I have written about violent rhetoric before, and I’m convinced that it’s poisonous to our politics, that the preponderance of it comes from the right, and that it has the potential to manifest in massacres like the one in Tucson.

But I also know that potential, possibility and even plausibility are not proof.

The American people know it, too. According to a USA Today/Gallup poll released Wednesday, 42 percent of those asked said that political rhetoric was not a factor at all in the shooting, 22 percent said that it was a minor factor and 20 percent said that it was a major factor. Furthermore, most agreed that focusing on conservative rhetoric as a link in the shooting was “not a legitimate point but mostly an attempt to use the tragedy to make conservatives look bad.” And nearly an equal number of people said that Republicans, the Tea Party and Democrats had all “gone too far in using inflammatory language” to criticize their opponents.

Great. So the left overreacts and overreaches and it only accomplishes two things: fostering sympathy for its opponents and nurturing a false equivalence within the body politic. Well done, Democrats.

Now we’ve settled into the by-any-means-necessary argument: anything that gets us to focus on the rhetoric and tamp it down is a good thing. But a wrong in the service of righteousness is no less wrong, no less corrosive, no less a menace to the very righteousness it’s meant to support.

You can’t claim the higher ground in a pit of quicksand.

Concocting connections to advance an argument actually weakens it. The argument for tonal moderation has been done a tremendous disservice by those who sought to score political points in the absence of proof. [/quote]

7) The emphasis on political motivation is entirely wrong. The shooter is a schizophrenic who was motivated by his own madness, not anybody's political rhetoric. [url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2011/01/the_real_issue_in_arizona_schi.html]As quoted in the Washington Post, here's what forensic psychiatrist Stephen Marder had to say[/url]:

[quote]Although the percentage of schizophrenics who commit violent crimes is small, their violence tends to be more "bizarre, unpredictable and with a focus often on celebrities," according to Marder. That is because of the nature of the disease. Schizophrenics are sometimes plagued by "self-referential thinking," which converts ordinary events or experiences into episodes with personalized, "special meaning." For a schizophrenic, the TV is not merely on. The TV is speaking to him. This makes the illness incredibly difficult for "tormented" family members who are trying to help the loved one, only to see interactions converted into diabolical threats and dangers in the patient's mind.

In that regard, an interaction with a politician or celebrity can set a schizophrenic on "a mission." Marder declined to speak on the Loughner case specifically. When I gave a hypothetical, "Would an interaction with a famous figure who gives the schizophrenic a disappointing response be a trigger for violence?" He answered without hesitation, "yes."[/quote]

There's more in that interview that's worth reading, but the point is that we don't need more laws to control guns, we need to control schizophrenics who are issuing death threats and frightening the people around them, as the Tucson shooter was, for months before this final crime.

Rather than deal with the real problem people who cause the problems, we have a tendency to try to create blanket prescriptions that cover anyone. A similar thing happens with airline security in the United States. Rather than focus on actually identifying and stopping terrorists, we focus on screening everyone for possible weapons. The terrorists of course just develop new weapons . . . and we keep trying to prevent the most recent previous attack . . . unless eventually an unarmed terrorist or group of terrorists will cause some mischief, and then finally we may focus on identifying the people who are going to be problems.

Of course, even then, we won't "jump to conlusions." As [url=http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/journalists-urged-caution-after-ft-hood-now-race-blame-palin-afte]Byron York wrote[/url]:

[quote]On November 5, 2009, Maj. Nidal Hasan opened fire at a troop readiness center in Ft. Hood, Texas, killing 13 people. Within hours of the killings, the world knew that Hasan reportedly shouted "Allahu Akbar!" before he began shooting, visited websites associated with Islamist violence, wrote Internet postings justifying Muslim suicide bombings, considered U.S. forces his enemy, opposed American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as wars on Islam, and told a neighbor shortly before the shootings that he was going "to do good work for God." There was ample evidence, in other words, that the Ft. Hood attack was an act of Islamist violence.

Nevertheless, public officials, journalists, and commentators were quick to caution that the public should not "jump to conclusions" about Hasan's motive. CNN, in particular, became a forum for repeated warnings that the subject should be discussed with particular care.

"The important thing is for everyone not to jump to conclusions," said retired Gen. Wesley Clark on CNN the night of the shootings.

"We cannot jump to conclusions," said CNN's Jane Velez-Mitchell that same evening. "We have to make sure that we do not jump to any conclusions whatsoever."

"I'm on Pentagon chat room," said former CIA operative Robert Baer on CNN, also the night of the shooting. "Right now, there's messages going back and forth, saying do not jump to the conclusion this had anything to do with Islam."

The next day, President Obama underscored the rapidly-forming conventional wisdom when he told the country, "I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts." In the days that followed, CNN jouralists and guests repeatedly echoed the president's remarks.

"We can't jump to conclusions," Army Gen. George Casey said on CNN November 8. The next day, political analyst Mark Halperin urged a "transparent" investigation into the shootings "so the American people don't jump to conclusions." And when Republican Rep. Pete Hoekstra, then the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, suggested that the Ft. Hood attack was terrorism, CNN's John Roberts was quick to intervene. "Now, President Obama has asked people to be very cautious here and to not jump to conclusions," Roberts said to Hoekstra. "By saying that you believe this is an act of terror, are you jumping to a conclusion?"

Fast forward a little more than a year, to January 8, 2011. In Tucson, Arizona, a 22 year-old man named Jared Lee Loughner opened fire at a political event, gravely wounding Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, killing a federal judge and five others, and wounding 18. In the hours after the attack, little was known about Loughner beyond some bizarre and largely incomprehensible YouTube postings that, if anything, suggested he was mentally ill. Yet the network that had shown such caution in discussing the Ft. Hood shootings openly discussed the possibility that Loughner was inspired to violence by…Sarah Palin. Although there is no evidence that Loughner was in any way influenced by Palin, CNN was filled with speculation about the former Alaska governor.

After reporting that Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik had condemned what Dupnik called "the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government," CNN's Wolf Blitzer turned to congressional reporter Jessica Yellin for analysis. The sheriff "singled out some of the political rhetoric, as you point out, in creating the environment that allowed this kind of instance to happen," Yellin told Blitzer. "Even though, as you point out, this suspect is not cooperating with investigators, so we don't know the motive. President Obama also delivered that message, saying it's partly the political rhetoric that led to this.* So that's why we want to bring up one of the themes that's burning up the social media right now. On Twitter and Facebook, there is a lot of talk, in particular, about Sarah Palin. As you might recall, back in March of last year, when the health care vote was coming to the floor of the House and this was all heating up, Palin tweeted out a message on Twitter saying 'common sense conservatives, don't retreat -- instead reload.' And she referred folks to her Facebook page. On that Facebook page was a list of Democratic members she was putting in crosshairs, and Gabrielle Giffords was one of those in the crosshairs."

Yellin noted that Palin had "posted a statement on Facebook saying that 'my sincere condolences are offered to the family of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and other victims of today's tragic shooting in Arizona. On behalf of Todd and my family, we all pray for the victims and their families and for peace and justice.'" Yellin continued: "And I should point out that Republican leaders in Washington have said that this is not a partisan issue, this is about violence, as have some tea party groups. But clearly this is a moment to talk about our political rhetoric."

"It certainly is," Blitzer agreed. "But the question is, is there any evidence that the suspected shooter in this particular case was a Sarah Palin fan, read Sarah Palin's website, was a member on Facebook, watched her tweets, or anything like that?"

"None at all," Yellin responded. "And there is no evidence that this was even inspired by rage over health care, broadly. So there is no overt connection between Sarah Palin, health care, and the [shootings]."[/quote]

That's enough for now. Go read the articles I've linked, and join me back here for more judicious and thoughtful colloquy.

Woland
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 16, 2011 04:28PM)
Not a Glock fan. They're ok, but not my favorite.
If you're talking strictly 9mm then give me a Browning Hi-Power any day.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 16, 2011 04:41PM)
I always carried a Beretta. The frame fit my hand well. I have large hands, and I am left handed and it worked well 20 years ago.

If you have the money, the Sig Sauer P220 is a fantastic 45.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 16, 2011 05:09PM)
According to the Chief of Police where I live, the problem with the Beretta is that the person facing you can actually grab the slide and pull it right off the pistol, leaving you with nothing but the receiver and magazine . . . that's why he got rid of them, and the policemen here now carry Glocks. For reliability, the Glock is hard to beat. It is an ingenious design.

Woland
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 16, 2011 05:15PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-16 17:41, Dannydoyle wrote:
If you have the money, the Sig Sauer P220 is a fantastic 45.
[/quote]

I love Sig Sauer. Didn't one of Browning's lead designers leave to work for them? I thought I heard that somewhere.
I like my 12 guage for home defense. I don't have to worry as much about aiming in the dark.
I once worked for a bail enforcement dude who reloaded his own pistol rounds using epoxy to reduce collateral damage.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 16, 2011 05:18PM)
Woland--
1) Rather than hold up the manufacturers of death machines as models to emulate, how about celebrating those who work to save lives?

2) A guy in a bar with a gun knocking back a few brewskis is not part of a well-regulated militia. He cannot be proficient nor is he acting in an organized manner with others to defend the country.

3)The Nazis were not socialists. See [url=http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm]here [/url] and [url=http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/quotations/niemoller_jews_communists_socialists.html]here [/url].

4) Right wing rhetoric and violence [url=http://pr.thinkprogress.org/2010/10/pr20101028] here [/url]and [url=http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/26762] here [/url].

5) [url=http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/01/12/la-rabbi-palin-should-retract-blood-libel-remark/]This [/url] rabbi thinks Palin's words were inappropriate.

6) Are you forgetting about the right wingers who "jumped the shark" almost immediately and accused Loughner of being a product of the [url=http://www.floppingaces.net/2011/01/13/jared-loughner-bill-ayers-reader-post/]left wing [/url], including our very own Carrie Sue?

7) Are you willing to contribute to health care for those who can't afford it, so that those with mental illness can get the proper treatment they need?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 16, 2011 05:18PM)
It occurs to me he has watched to many movies. I am not being critical here, but you are supposed to have FAR more distance than that. The move you speak of is a manuver that is far from instant and involves with one hand both pushing in a VERY small button, and throwing a lever and pulling the barrel.

"Can" it happen? I suppose. I have never heard of a story where it did that can be verrified. EVERY time I saw someone try to do it the result was dismal failure. Also it could not be done so fast as I can not have pulled the trigger. IF they can get the hand the the barrel that fast and you can't react, you don't really belong having one in the first place.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 16, 2011 05:23PM)
This barrel grabbing technique sounds like a good one for Mythbusters.
Fiction-wise, it was used by Jet Li in "Lethal Weapon 4." Interesting that some of us were just talking about those movies elsewhere...
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 16, 2011 05:57PM)
Oh come on guys, let us mellow out.

I think it is pretty much realized, except by those looking to point at some group or another, that the killings were the actions of a very disturbed guy. He may have clung to some extreme beliefs as well but that was just a manifestation of his mental problems. We are talking about a guy who posed in a thong with a gun....the party closest associated with this dude was in his head. He very well could have driven a car into the crowd and might then have killed more people, he just happened to have a gun and it went along with the whole blaze of glory thing he likely imagined. I would also think the dip didn't think he would be captured but be killed by the police. A character like this kid problem had extreme ideas but he would have developed his own anyway so you cannot blame anyone for his actions other than himself.

As for Sarah Palin using the term Blood Libel. It was a term that was the basis of anti semitic behavior going back centuries. Interestingly there are some modern people right here in the ol' USA that STILL believe Jews kill children. The term actually is older than that and I would think Palins usage was in reference to people using a lie involving violence to discredit a group, I would guess the Teaparty in this case. So while I can see it being offensive to the Jewish people I also see it as being very descriptive as for what she was implying.

The left blames the right, the right blames the left....the anarchist blames regulations.... just blame the guy who did it and put him away forever.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 16, 2011 06:33PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-16 18:23, critter wrote:
This barrel grabbing technique sounds like a good one for Mythbusters.
Fiction-wise, it was used by Jet Li in "Lethal Weapon 4." Interesting that some of us were just talking about those movies elsewhere...
[/quote]

Yea it was about as accurate as the first movie where all the cops just stand arround and let him fight the bad guy for pride LOL. Lethal Weapon movies are not the best places to fact check things.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 16, 2011 07:08PM)
Did you know the coked up lesbian porn hot blonde who dropped off the building at the beginning of Lethal Weapon 1 was the same girl who played Kelly the innocent girlfrield of Woody in the last season of Cheers?
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Jan 16, 2011 07:24PM)
[quote]On 2011-01-16 18:18, Dannydoyle wrote:
It occurs to me he has watched to many movies. I am not being critical here, but you are supposed to have FAR more distance than that. The move you speak of is a manuver that is far from instant and involves with one hand both pushing in a VERY small button, and throwing a lever and pulling the barrel.

"Can" it happen? I suppose. I have never heard of a story where it did that can be verrified. EVERY time I saw someone try to do it the result was dismal failure. Also it could not be done so fast as I can not have pulled the trigger. IF they can get the hand the the barrel that fast and you can't react, you don't really belong having one in the first place.[/quote]
In [b][i]Support Your Local Sheriff[/i][/b], [i]Walter Brennan[/i] pulls a gun on [i]James Garner[/i], who sticks his finger in the end of the barrel. [i]Garner[/i] ends up taking the gun from [i]Brennan[/i].

[b]Brennan[/b]: [i]If that gun had gone off it woulda' blowed up in my face.[/i]

[b]Garner[/b]: [i]Well, it wouldn't have done my finger a hell of a lot of good, either.[/i]
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 16, 2011 07:44PM)
Well, landmark, to take your comments in reverse order:

7) I am all in favor of proper medical care for everybody, including the mentally ill. Are you willing to see schizophrenics who make death threats against sundry potential victims locked up?

6) A posting by Carrie Sue on The Magic Café hardly has the gravitas of the almost incessant attacks on conservatives that were carried on the major networks and the major newspapers in the country.

5) I'm not going to argue rabbinical authorities with you. All I was trying to do was to point out that from news reports, Jewish reactions to Governor Palin's comments were not univocal. Marvin Hier has a long history of attacking American conservatives in general.

4) I'm not impressed with the minor incidents you link to, as indicating a climate of right wing violence in this country. Violence from the left has been much more prevalent since the 1960s.

3) The fact that the National-Socialists attacked the communists and the social-democrats, as shown in Pastor Niemoller's famous apothegm, does not prove that the National-Socialists were not socialists. Those were internecine fights. The National-Socialist program was a straightforward socialist program, emphasizing national State control of the economy, and the subordination of the individual to the needs of "the people" in every way. The other article to which you link is a typical piece of communist propaganda, and includes the statement: "In fact, socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere in the world. This may surprise some people -- after all, wasn't the Soviet Union socialist? The answer is no." That is the typical answer communist sympathizers always give when you point out to them that, without exception, every communist government in the history of the world has turned its country into a hellhole. In fact, however, socialism has been tried at the national level again, and again, and again, and again, and the results are uniformly abysmal. This article to which you link, however does admit: "After the Nazis took power in 1933, they quickly established a highly controlled war economy under the direction of Dr. Hjalmar Schacht." In fact, the National-Socialist state employed a number of economic planners larger than the number employed by Stalin; of course, the German economy was bigger. When compared to the typical leftist's fantasy of what life under socialism would be like, National-Socialist Germany does not appear to be very "socialist." But when compared to the actual results of socialism and communism in other countries, National-Socialism fits right in.

2) Of course a guy pounding beers in a tavern is not a well-regulated militiaman. To be "well-regulated" he would have to engage in regular, serious, dedicated practice. That's the only way to achieve and maintain proficiency. (That being said, the courts have repeatedly decided that the preambles to various laws do not affect the actual practical meaning of those laws. Thus, the preamble to the Second Amendment does not change its specific instructions: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There are other time-honored and legitimate reasons for a gentleman to go armed.)

1) A pistol is not a death machine. It is a life machine. It is there to protect your life, your family's lives, and the lives of the innocent weak who would otherwise be mercilessly preyed upon by evil men. I know you will probably never see it that way, but that's the way it is. I think it is fitting and proper to celebrate the ingenuity of Gaston Glock, the rigorous technical work of Nikolai Makarov, and the sheer technological genius of John Moses Browning.

Woland
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 16, 2011 07:52PM)
A few years ago in San Jose a coworker of mine was about to get raided in a drug bust (note, if you make $11.00 an hour buying a house and brand new corvette may be noticed). Interestingly he lived on the same street our very own Mickey Painless was raised on. The police were at a mini mart type place at the end of the street (on Pearl Ave Mickey) with the kid who was the insider informant and a genius decided he would go up and rob the two plainclothed police. One officer stuck his finger in the barrel, the guy shot, and the result was the finger poker officer lost his finger and the other officer shot and killed the robber and the bust still went down. My coworker was released because it turned out the informant was 17 and thus couldn't be part of the whole thing. So...a finger can stop yourself from getting killed but it will hurt. I do realize the bullet may have gone right through the finger, they didn't go into that.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 16, 2011 07:59PM)
Finger in the barrel [i]was[/i] done one Mythbusters. It was busted.
I would like to see the grabby thing on there though. I think that it is highly improbable.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 16, 2011 08:33PM)
With respect to how the press should handle the shooter's story, a forensic psychiatrist made some interesting observations on [url=http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/31857]ABC's Nightline:[/url]

[quote]"If we feel that civility in public discourse is going to take away mass shootings we are mistaken," said Dr. Michael Welner, a forensic psychiatrist at New York University and an ABC News consultant. "Because the one common thread in mass shooting is, what does the shooter get out of it? And the shooter recognizes that if you assassinate a political figure you will be notorious. I think John Lennon had more to do with this than Sarah Palin," said Welner.

"The available information does not answer the question of whether he is alienated and paranoid as a social deviant, or as a person descending into schizophrenia,” noted Dr. Welner. “But his representations about Congresswoman Giffords show more inspiration from the murderer of John Lennon (who likewise deemed his victim fake) and Robert DeNiro’s shaved would-be assassin in Taxi Driver (who almost killed a politician) than from scapegoats like Sarah Palin. Mass shooting and assassination are both notoriety-seeking crimes, and his actions definitely reflect planning and an anticipation of public discussion. It is a crime that so reflects pop culture and a copy cat influence,” he added.

“It is vital at this point to focus discussion not on his agenda but on the heroism of those who saved lives and the utter meaninglessness and sadness of the deaths of those he murdered. I will mention his name as little as possible and would urge the responsible press to follow suit. Let others not identify with the attention he is gaining from nothing more than his capacity to ruin life around him.” As for the nature of the attack, Dr. Welner counseled, “my professional experience has taught me that you learn most by studying the initial point of attack. Congresswoman Giffords is a political figure, but above all she was a celebrity accessible to him. Her being female may also prove to be relevant in a crime that is so often found in sexually inept men who blame everyone else for their failure in manhood and choose spectacle destruction as a deviant outlet.[/quote]

You can see the interview at the link.

Woland
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 16, 2011 08:59PM)
Sigh. Woland- unless you have a tendancy to go for hikes in areas frequented by mountain lions or rattlesnakes, there is only one purpose for a handgun: to kill another person.

"No!" you may argue, "Self-defense!" What is self defense? Shooting someone who is threatening you- an act that will likely kill them.

I have no problem with people owning guns- but they need to be honest with themselves as to exactly what they own that gun for.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 16, 2011 09:01PM)
That cop proved putting in a finger will cost you at least a finger.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 16, 2011 09:05PM)
Ask yourself this question.

Who can buy a gun?

Answer:

You have to be 18 or older to purchase a rifle or shotgun;
You have to be 21 or older to purchase a handgun;
You must buy your gun from a federally-licensed dealer in your state;
You must submit to a background check that the dealer will arrange, using an FBI database

Did you read the fourth statement? If not before you go any further read it.

You must submit to a background check that the dealer will arrange, using an FBI database.

So now if you are on file as a felon or have had an arrest for any serious crime or mentally incompetent and are filed with the FBI you are not going to be permitted to purchase a gun. Simple enough and very logical.

So why are some of these people not on the FBI's radar? Can a doctor report a mentally incompetent to the FBI or is the HIPA law preventing it? Do the local police and sheriff's dept report an individual if said individual has been reported to be a threat to someone or has madae terrorist threats to individuals? Do they even wriite him up locally?

Now if you are going to say that he got it illegally well that is another matter isn't it? Only shows that if criminals want guns they can get them and no amount of laws will prevent it. The laws will only prevent the law abiding citizen from pocessing a gun because they do not want to break the law. The criminal does not care about the law...or did you forget he is a criminal? Criminals break laws. Laws mean nothing to them. Their busniess is breaking laws. Go figure.

So I guess the answer is to pass more laws that the criminal will ignore while punishing the law abiding citizen. Does that make sense to you?
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 16, 2011 09:22PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-16 22:05, acesover wrote:
Can a doctor report a mentally incompetent to the FBI or is the HIPA law preventing it?
[/quote]

If you mean Psychiatric or Psychological doctor then I can give the condensed answer to this:
To report a client they have to have reported a specific target and have a specific and realistic plan, as well as the means to carry out the act. If those criteria aren't met then no we can't talk about it.
If they are met then we have to report it.
Message: Posted by: spatlind (Jan 16, 2011 09:37PM)
Meh
Message: Posted by: spatlind (Jan 16, 2011 09:38PM)
Sorry, in case I wasn't clear - meh
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 16, 2011 09:55PM)
The guy who shot up a bar in Berkeley a few years ago bought a gun from a dealer who tried not to sell it to him. The shop owner, when he checked with whoever they check with, told them that he thought the guy was unstable and the owner was told if he didn't sell him the gun the buyer could sue him and that he could lose his license. So much for that.

Again I am not a gun guy, don't like'em, so I am not one of those screaming about the second admendment types. It is obvious that the legal owner of legally purchased weapons will never ever use them other than in hunting or target shooting. They lie their arses off about protecting themselves and property with guns but they are virtually harmless people with the capability not to be but that isn't likely. I know if I'm ever some place where a nut is killing people I hope that someone with a gun IS there....that way I can take it from the wuss and shoot the culprit since most gun nuts ain't gut the gumption to use 'em....I on the other hand don't have 'em cuz I am too likely to use it.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 16, 2011 09:58PM)
What ever happened to "We reserve the right to refuse service to anybody"?

Okay- we really need to revisit gun control laws. I don't want to take anyone's guns away, but come on- does anyone here really think it's okay to make people sell firearms to someone who's obviously mentally unhinged?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 16, 2011 10:15PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-16 22:22, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-16 22:05, acesover wrote:
Can a doctor report a mentally incompetent to the FBI or is the HIPA law preventing it?
[/quote]

If you mean Psychiatric or Psychological doctor then I can give the condensed answer to this:
To report a client they have to have reported a specific target and have a specific and realistic plan, as well as the means to carry out the act. If those criteria aren't met then no we can't talk about it.
If they are met then we have to report it.
[/quote]

Thanks for that information.

Just curious how do you determine if someones plan is realistic or not? Do they acatually have to submit a plan? Suppose they just tell you that they are going to shoot someone? How do you decide?
Message: Posted by: Scott Cram (Jan 16, 2011 10:16PM)
Here's a real-world reaction to the post-shooting spin.

This weekend, I saw a performer here in Vegas whose version of the blister trick had a topical twist. On the drawing of his hand, he asked someone to draw a crosshair on any finger, stating, "As we've recently learned, crosshairs are like voodoo dolls, in that they have seemingly magical powers to cause harm over great distances." It was laughs all around.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 16, 2011 10:17PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-16 23:16, Scott Cram wrote:
Here's a real-world reaction to the post-shooting spin.

This weekend, I saw a performer here in Vegas whose version of the blister trick had a topical twist. On the drawing of his hand, he asked someone to draw a crosshair on any finger, stating, "As we've recently learned, crosshairs are like voodoo dolls, in that they have seemingly magical powers to cause harm over great distances." It was laughs all around.
[/quote]

Nice!
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 16, 2011 10:21PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-16 22:58, EsnRedshirt wrote:
What ever happened to "We reserve the right to refuse service to anybody"?

Okay- we really need to revisit gun control laws. I don't want to take anyone's guns away, but come on- does anyone here really think it's okay to make people sell firearms to someone who's obviously mentally unhinged?
[/quote]


I guess this is where it gets sticky. It is their constitutional right. Wow talk about a catach 22.

If you just look up at the post critter made he says as profewssionals they must decide whether the person has a real plan and they are professionals. Whereas you propose a store clerk can make the same decision. I am not disputing your logic here. Just that it shows how confusing this can get. Very interesting.

Heck 11:20..Good night going to turn in early this evening. Maybe read my Nook.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 16, 2011 10:25PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-16 22:05, acesover wrote:

So why are some of these people not on the FBI's radar? Can a doctor report a mentally incompetent to the FBI or is the HIPA law preventing it? Do the local police and sheriff's dept report an individual if said individual has been reported to be a threat to someone or has madae terrorist threats to individuals? Do they even wriite him up locally?
[/quote]
Something more about the subject here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0110/Why-Jared-Loughner-was-allowed-to-buy-a-gun

The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits the possession of firearms by the mentally ill. So why was Mr. Loughner able to guy a gun?

The ability to own a firearm is a constitutionally protected right, and depriving someone of that right involves a legal process. Under the 1968 law, a person must be declared mentally unfit by a court or have been committed to a mental institution to lose his or her right to possess firearms.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 16, 2011 10:30PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-16 23:15, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-16 22:22, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-16 22:05, acesover wrote:
Can a doctor report a mentally incompetent to the FBI or is the HIPA law preventing it?
[/quote]

If you mean Psychiatric or Psychological doctor then I can give the condensed answer to this:
To report a client they have to have reported a specific target and have a specific and realistic plan, as well as the means to carry out the act. If those criteria aren't met then no we can't talk about it.
If they are met then we have to report it.
[/quote]

Thanks for that information.

Just curious how do you determine if someones plan is realistic or not? Do they acatually have to submit a plan? Suppose they just tell you that they are going to shoot someone? How do you decide?
[/quote]

Well, if they say they're going to shoot someone, but don't own a gun or have money to buy one, then the plan is not realistic so we don't have to report it. If they have a gun then we do.
The rule came about because there was a patient who told his shrink his exact plan to kill this girl and the shrink kept it confidential, and then the guy carried out his plan.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 16, 2011 10:32PM)
Tarasoff v. U.C. Regents
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 16, 2011 10:41PM)
In the Berkeley case people were angry at the gun shot owner, who I think was in Oakland, and demanded he lose his license for selling the guy the gun and it came out about the owner not wanting too. I guess it was a contitutional issue.

Now I don't remember the circumstance but when the gunman went after 101 California law offices in San Francisco THEN a bunch of movement was made in additional controls because all of a sudden it became very real to a bunch of lawyers.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 17, 2011 04:30AM)
Tarasoff is an interesting precedent. Courts have held that it applies only to mental health workers, not even to physicians in general, but it is widely taught as a good general rule.

Woland
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 17, 2011 09:37AM)
Woland--

7) I have no trouble with people who are an immediate threat to themselves or others lives to be placed under proper medical treatment. I don't know what you mean by locking up, but I'm not in favor of prison for mentally ill people. Anybody who has been involved with mental health agencies knows that there have been constant cuts to their budgets due to inadequate public funding, so I look forward to your requests for such funding from your local representatives.

6) Carrie's accusation against the left wing linked to a posting by Joe Farrell of WND, an influential conservative source, often referenced by right wing talk radio jocks, including Michael Savage who repeated the accusation.

5) The rabbinical quotes were cherry picking by you and the Wall Street Journal. Sorry you don't like Rabbi Hier. Is the conservative leader of the Jewish [url=http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-palin-blood-libel-jews20120113,0,6783660.story]Anti-Defamation League[/url] Abraham Foxman, among others, right wing enough? He said the phrase blood libel was inappropriate.

4) The sites I linked to said this:
[quote]James von Brunn, the white supremacist who shot and killed a security guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. last year, reportedly also wanted to kill White House senior adviser David Axelrod. An anti-abortion crusader killed late-term abortion provider Dr. George Tiller in May, 2009, while just last month, the FBI arrested a self-described "Christian counterpart to Osama bin Laden" for plotting to bomb an abortion clinic. Authorities arrested nine members of the "Hutaree militia" in March for plotting a violent uprising against the federal government. A Montana Tea Party leader recently advocated violence against gays. As part of the increasing Islamophobia over the past two years, one right-wing radio host said of the proposed Islamic community center in downtown Manhattan, "I hope somebody blows it up." Just last week, in the wake of the Fox News-led backlash over NPR's decision to fire contributor Juan Williams, NPR's headquarters in Washington, DC received a bomb threat. Today, the TriCity Herald reports that a supporter for Washington state GOP U.S. Senate candidate Dino Rossi attacked a woman protesting Rossi.[/quote]

and [quote]Bourbon County campaign coordinator for Kentucky GOP Senate nominee Rand Paul, stomped on a female MoveOn.org activist's head outside a debate between Paul and his Democratic opponent Jack Conway. Profitt threw the activist, Lauren Valle, to the ground and then smashed her head to the pavement with his foot. Valle was taken to the hospital where she was treated for a concussion and a sprained arm.[/quote]

These are what you dismiss as minor incidents.

3) Socialism does not have central economic planning as a defining feature. There are many conceptions of socialism without centralized planning. Democratic socialism conceives of worker democracy in the workplace and worker ownership of the means of production. This was not the case under the Nazis. However, private enterprise and private corporate co-ordination with the government is a defining feature of right wing governments and can be seen in the Nazi enterprise. Roehm and other Nazis who advocated social welfare type programs to workers were soon liquidated. The testimony of Niemoller is important because it makes clear what the true agenda of the Nazis was by someone who was present in the society at the time. He makes clear that the agenda was the destruction of communists, socialists, and trade unionists.

2)You say "Of course a guy pounding beers in a tavern is not a well-regulated militiaman." Then why do you continue to support these so-called "rights"?

1) Really, guns are a life machine? I'll try to remember that if ever I'm shot, but I don't know if my body would agree. Instead of celebrating Glock, I'll be celebrating Martin Luther King. If we really are interested in stopping violence, we could learn much from his [url=http://www.school-for-champions.com/speeches/king_last_speech_3Apr68.htm]words and actions.[/url]
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 17, 2011 09:41AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-16 23:30, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-16 23:15, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-16 22:22, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-16 22:05, acesover wrote:
Can a doctor report a mentally incompetent to the FBI or is the HIPA law preventing it?
[/quote]

If you mean Psychiatric or Psychological doctor then I can give the condensed answer to this:
To report a client they have to have reported a specific target and have a specific and realistic plan, as well as the means to carry out the act. If those criteria aren't met then no we can't talk about it.
If they are met then we have to report it.
[/quote]

Thanks for that information.

Just curious how do you determine if someones plan is realistic or not? Do they acatually have to submit a plan? Suppose they just tell you that they are going to shoot someone? How do you decide?
[/quote]

Well, if they say they're going to shoot someone, but don't own a gun or have money to buy one, then the plan is not realistic so we don't have to report it. If they have a gun then we do.
The rule came about because there was a patient who told his shrink his exact plan to kill this girl and the shrink kept it confidential, and then the guy carried out his plan.
[/quote]


I understand what you are saying. But how the heck would you know whether they own a gun or not? How would you know they do not have money to buy one? If anything sounds unrealistic it is your responsibility to report or not to report. I am not disagreeing in what you say just that it does not make much sense and it sounds very unrealistic.

I mean does he have to show you his gun? Does he have to show you a receipt that he has a gun to prove he has one? Do you check his bank account and cookie jar to see if he has money to buy a gun? The whole concept seems flawed before you can report him. I may be missing something here. I would imagine your hands are tied but the law as you state it seems useless.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 17, 2011 10:44AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-17 10:41, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-16 23:30, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-16 23:15, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-16 22:22, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-16 22:05, acesover wrote:
Can a doctor report a mentally incompetent to the FBI or is the HIPA law preventing it?
[/quote]

If you mean Psychiatric or Psychological doctor then I can give the condensed answer to this:
To report a client they have to have reported a specific target and have a specific and realistic plan, as well as the means to carry out the act. If those criteria aren't met then no we can't talk about it.
If they are met then we have to report it.
[/quote]

Thanks for that information.

Just curious how do you determine if someones plan is realistic or not? Do they acatually have to submit a plan? Suppose they just tell you that they are going to shoot someone? How do you decide?
[/quote]

Well, if they say they're going to shoot someone, but don't own a gun or have money to buy one, then the plan is not realistic so we don't have to report it. If they have a gun then we do.
The rule came about because there was a patient who told his shrink his exact plan to kill this girl and the shrink kept it confidential, and then the guy carried out his plan.
[/quote]


I understand what you are saying. But how the heck would you know whether they own a gun or not? How would you know they do not have money to buy one? If anything sounds unrealistic it is your responsibility to report or not to report. I am not disagreeing in what you say just that it does not make much sense and it sounds very unrealistic.

I mean does he have to show you his gun? Does he have to show you a receipt that he has a gun to prove he has one? Do you check his bank account and cookie jar to see if he has money to buy a gun? The whole concept seems flawed before you can report him. I may be missing something here. I would imagine your hands are tied but the law as you state it seems useless.
[/quote]

Generally, the more specific the plan, the more credible. The case that created the rule was an example where the patient went into sufficient detail to be believable. While you're correct that in many cases, that won't be true, in some cases, it will be.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 17, 2011 10:54AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-16 23:32, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Tarasoff v. U.C. Regents
[/quote]

That's the one.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 17, 2011 10:57AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-17 10:37, landmark wrote:
Woland--

7) I have no trouble with people who are an immediate threat to themselves or others lives to be placed under proper medical treatment. I don't know what you mean by locking up, but I'm not in favor of prison for mentally ill people. Anybody who has been involved with mental health agencies knows that there have been constant cuts to their budgets due to inadequate public funding, so I look forward to your requests for such funding from your local representatives.

6) Carrie's accusation against the left wing linked to a posting by Joe Farrell of WND, an influential conservative source, often referenced by right wing talk radio jocks, including Michael Savage who repeated the accusation.

5) The rabbinical quotes were cherry picking by you and the Wall Street Journal. Sorry you don't like Rabbi Hier. Is the conservative leader of the Jewish [url=http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-palin-blood-libel-jews20120113,0,6783660.story]Anti-Defamation League[/url] Abraham Foxman, among others, right wing enough? He said the phrase blood libel was inappropriate.

4) The sites I linked to said this:
[quote]James von Brunn, the white supremacist who shot and killed a security guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. last year, reportedly also wanted to kill White House senior adviser David Axelrod. An anti-abortion crusader killed late-term abortion provider Dr. George Tiller in May, 2009, while just last month, the FBI arrested a self-described "Christian counterpart to Osama bin Laden" for plotting to bomb an abortion clinic. Authorities arrested nine members of the "Hutaree militia" in March for plotting a violent uprising against the federal government. A Montana Tea Party leader recently advocated violence against gays. As part of the increasing Islamophobia over the past two years, one right-wing radio host said of the proposed Islamic community center in downtown Manhattan, "I hope somebody blows it up." Just last week, in the wake of the Fox News-led backlash over NPR's decision to fire contributor Juan Williams, NPR's headquarters in Washington, DC received a bomb threat. Today, the TriCity Herald reports that a supporter for Washington state GOP U.S. Senate candidate Dino Rossi attacked a woman protesting Rossi.[/quote]

and [quote]Bourbon County campaign coordinator for Kentucky GOP Senate nominee Rand Paul, stomped on a female MoveOn.org activist's head outside a debate between Paul and his Democratic opponent Jack Conway. Profitt threw the activist, Lauren Valle, to the ground and then smashed her head to the pavement with his foot. Valle was taken to the hospital where she was treated for a concussion and a sprained arm.[/quote]

These are what you dismiss as minor incidents.

3) Socialism does not have central economic planning as a defining feature. There are many conceptions of socialism without centralized planning. Democratic socialism conceives of worker democracy in the workplace and worker ownership of the means of production. This was not the case under the Nazis. However, private enterprise and private corporate co-ordination with the government is a defining feature of right wing governments and can be seen in the Nazi enterprise. Roehm and other Nazis who advocated social welfare type programs to workers were soon liquidated. The testimony of Niemoller is important because it makes clear what the true agenda of the Nazis was by someone who was present in the society at the time. He makes clear that the agenda was the destruction of communists, socialists, and trade unionists.

2)You say "Of course a guy pounding beers in a tavern is not a well-regulated militiaman." Then why do you continue to support these so-called "rights"?

1) Really, guns are a life machine? I'll try to remember that if ever I'm shot, but I don't know if my body would agree. Instead of celebrating Glock, I'll be celebrating Martin Luther King. If we really are interested in stopping violence, we could learn much from his [url=http://www.school-for-champions.com/speeches/king_last_speech_3Apr68.htm]words and actions.[/url]
[/quote]


Well I won't get involved in the whole of your lengthy post but I would like to ask about your #1. Why were you shot? Were you threating someone with a baseball bat? Were you holding a broken bottle and about to slash someone with it? Were you breaking into someones house and they shot you not knowing your intentions however their wife and children were home? Were you high on drugs and breaking into someones house to feed your habit by stealing and God knows what to the inhabitants? Or did someone just decide to shot you while you were walking down the street minding your own business? The last of which is the most unlikely possibility. So just how did you get shot in your example stated in #1?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 17, 2011 11:18AM)
Off topic here but some of these gun laws remind me of the cigarette laws. Am I right in assuming that one cannot purchase cigarettes unless you are at least 18 years old? But there is no law that prevents someone younger than 18 from smoking? I can only say DUH!

So again it seems that we are punishing the seller and not the perp. By the way what happens to someone who purchases cigarettes when under age? My guess is nothing.

I guess it is just me but I see no point in such a law as not being able to purchase cigarettes when under 18. Also I feel that smoking is a horrible habit. By the way I am not a smoker. I tried it when a teenager and it got me dizzy and gave me a headache (thank God for small favors). And it only cost around 40 cents a pack then.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 17, 2011 12:07PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-16 22:05, acesover wrote:
Ask yourself this question.

Who can buy a gun?

Answer:

You have to be 18 or older to purchase a rifle or shotgun;
You have to be 21 or older to purchase a handgun;
You must buy your gun from a federally-licensed dealer in your state;
You must submit to a background check that the dealer will arrange, using an FBI database

Did you read the fourth statement? If not before you go any further read it.

You must submit to a background check that the dealer will arrange, using an FBI database.

So now if you are on file as a felon or have had an arrest for any serious crime or mentally incompetent and are filed with the FBI you are not going to be permitted to purchase a gun. Simple enough and very logical.

So why are some of these people not on the FBI's radar?
[/quote]
"In September, Mr. Loughner filled out paperwork to have his record expunged on the 2007 drug paraphernalia charge. Although he did not need to bother — he completed a diversion program, so the charge was never actually on his record — Judge Jose Luis Castillo, who handled the case in Pima County Consolidated Justice Court, said after the shooting that, in retrospect, it definitely “crossed my mind” that Mr. Loughner was worried that the charge would prevent him from buying a weapon."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/us/16loughner.html

I'm not familiar with what a diversion program is, but the above at least explains why his record was "clean" of the drug charge.

It also goes into a lot of detail about JL's activities over the past few years.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 17, 2011 12:12PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-17 12:18, acesover wrote:

So again it seems that we are punishing the seller and not the perp. By the way what happens to someone who purchases cigarettes when under age? My guess is nothing.
[/quote]
Well, your guess is wrong. :)

A few years ago, the fine for underage smoking / tobacco possession in CA was $103. It depends on the / varies by jurisdiction, of course. You can search on "underage smoking ticket" if you want to read more. For example:

[url]http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34168&page=1[/url]
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 17, 2011 12:30PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-17 13:12, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-17 12:18, acesover wrote:

So again it seems that we are punishing the seller and not the perp. By the way what happens to someone who purchases cigarettes when under age? My guess is nothing.
[/quote]
Well, your guess is wrong. :)

A few years ago, the fine for underage smoking / tobacco possession in CA was $103. It depends on the / varies by jurisdiction, of course. You can search on "underage smoking ticket" if you want to read more. For example:

[url]http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34168&page=1[/url]
[/quote]\


Thanks for that info. I am glad to hear that. I did not know there were laws that prosecuted the underage offender and not just the seller.

Not sure if such a law exists in all states (wish it did). I would hope that where it exists it is enforced. However I am sure if some officer enforces it he will be bad mouthed by many and say and asked is that all you have to do? It is a shame for the police in this situation as they are in a no win situation.

By the way this was in no way trying to derail the present topic. Just showing the fact tht some laws are meant to make people feel good rather than prevent.

More laws is not the answer. Just enforce the ones we have.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 17, 2011 01:12PM)
Well, landmark, the flap over the blood libel comment is a media-orchestrated kerfuffle, so I will not comment more about it. The examples of right-wing violence you cite are trivial compared to the terroristic onslaught of the left over the past decade. I have already linked to long lists of violent actions by leftists in the US.

Again, to repeat, the fact that the National-Socialists eliminated the communists, socialists, and communist & socialist trade unions does not prove that the National-Socialists were not socialists. The communists also eliminated independent trade unions, social democrats, and anarchists in the Soviet Union. Both totalitarian parties were simply eliminating all competition. Now the fact the the appearance of private ownership and control are preserved in Fascist and National-Socialist economies does not make them any less statist or socialist. The real control of the entire economy was seized by the state in both Fascist and National-Socialist regimes. When the Fuehrer was asked how he could consider himself a socialist without nationalizing the industries, he replied that he had nationalized the people. National-Socialist Germany and Communist Russia resembled each other far more than either resembled a free economy.

The anarcho-syndicalist "democratic socialism" you espouse is a fantasy that is dangled in front of the credulous by Bolsheviks who would as quickly turn your worker's paradise into the same sort of hellhole they create wherever they go.

As for the rights of beer drinkers generally, I hold that the rights protected by the Constitution are those with which all men are endowed by their Creator. The right to life includes the right of self defense, and that includes the right to keep and bear arms. I would no more deprive you of your right to defend yourself than I would deprive you of your right to worship according to your conscience or speak your mind according to your lights. The left however would deprive us all of all of those rights, and they have done it every time they have taken power everywhere in the world. By their works, we know them.

Unarmed, defenseless victims everywhere in the world recognize that firearms are life-saving, genocide-preventing appliances. The hoplophobia ingrained in many people prevents them from thinking clearly about this subject. Armed people wave their stars, unarmed people wear them . . .

Woland
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 17, 2011 01:21PM)
In case anyone here is still in interested in how badly the mainstream media did in reporting the initial story, there's this in the [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/us/16loughner.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=print]New York Times:[/url]

[quote]{Loughner} became intrigued by antigovernment conspiracy theories, including that the Sept. 11 attacks were perpetrated by the government and that the country’s central banking system was enslaving its citizens. His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government.[/quote]

The shooter probably never listened to Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, or Rush Limbaugh, and probably hates Sarah Palin, too. The press just made up the story they wanted you to believe.

It is a pity that so many people were so easily fooled.

Woland
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 17, 2011 01:30PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-17 14:12, Woland wrote:

Again, to repeat, the fact that the National-Socialists eliminated the communists, socialists, and communist & socialist trade unions does not prove that the National-Socialists were not socialists. The communists also eliminated independent trade unions, social democrats, and anarchists in the Soviet Union. Both totalitarian parties were simply eliminating all competition. Now the fact the the appearance of private ownership and control are preserved in Fascist and National-Socialist economies does not make them any less statist or socialist. The real control of the entire economy was seized by the state in both Fascist and National-Socialist regimes. When the Fuehrer was asked how he could consider himself a socialist without nationalizing the industries, he replied that he had nationalized the people. National-Socialist Germany and Communist Russia resembled each other far more than either resembled a free economy.
[/quote]
Woland, except for some revisionist talk show hosts and their followers and very few others, the Nazi party was far more right wing than it was left. The division between right and left is far more complicated than you appear to be stating (here or in a previously deleted thread). One way to look at it:

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/European-political-spectrum.png/558px-European-political-spectrum.png[/img]

Source: Slomp, Hans (2000). European Politics Into the Twenty-First Century: Integration and Division. Westport: Praeger. ISBN 0275968146.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 17, 2011 02:20PM)
Well, balducci, I understand that the graphic you use is the way the information is usually presented. But that division is heavily influenced by Communist agitprop against National-Socialism and Fascism. The Communists wished to obscure the similarities between the society they created and the societies created by the National-Socialists and Fascists. (Interestingly enough, National-Socialism is not found on your graphic at all.)

Rather than simply show us this sort of artificial schema which could have entities displayed on it anywhere, let's consider what elements comprise socialist economies and free economies. Make a list. Decide for yourself --based on observations of the facts on the ground, of what has actually existed in real countries, and not according to the propaganda of any of these groups who claim to tell you what their projects will mean-- what the characteristics of a free economy are, and what the characteristics of a centrally controlled socialist economy are. Decide for yourself what the political characteristics of actual real-life socialist regimes actually are.

Then look at non-Communist historical accounts of what life was like in Fascist Italy and National-Socialist Germany. Read about how their economies were managed, and how the lives of workers, peasants, and bureaucrats were organized. Then go down your checklist and decide for yourself whether National-Socialism and Fascism were more like Communism or more like free enterprise. It is very close to being a no-brainer.

Life in genocidal, racist, totalitarian National-Socialist Germany and life in genocidal, racist, totalitarian Soviet Russia were very similar. Both of these regimes were opposed to the same aspects of what they both contemptuously referred to as bourgeois capitalism. The fact that they were such bitter opponents of each other comes from the fact that they were rivals for the same ecological-political niche, not that their niches were so radically different.

Woland
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 17, 2011 02:34PM)
"The fact that they were such bitter opponents of each other comes from the fact that they were rivals for the same ecological-political niche, not that their niches were so radically different. "

Are you willing to apply the same argument to the United States and the USSR at the height of the Cold War?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 17, 2011 02:41PM)
I like that word hoplophobia, though it seems to me the gun guys are the ones that always seem to be scared of something, always need to be protected from gun-toting criminals. The majority of us do fine without them.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 17, 2011 03:00PM)
Well, landmark, identifying the Communists and the National-Socialists as internecine rivals is not an argument, it is an observation. From the standpoint of China, I suppose, one might see the USA and the USSR as rivals, but then, the imperial regime established in ancient Chin had many socialist characteristics, as pointed out by Shafarevich. From the standpoint of a citizen in a free market, free society, the USSR was not a rival version of a similar program, but a radically different vision of the meaning of an individual's human life on earth. A vision that was very similar to the National-Socialist's vision.

Both the armed and unarmed law-abiding citizens need to be protected from criminals. The armed citizens are a little better equipped for the task, however.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Tom Bartlett (Jan 17, 2011 03:28PM)
Defending our selves from criminals is only one reason to keep and bear arms. The main reason is to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 17, 2011 03:29PM)
Ohhhhhhhhh sh!t.
Message: Posted by: Tom Bartlett (Jan 17, 2011 03:34PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-17 16:29, MagicSanta wrote:
Ohhhhhhhhh sh!t.
[/quote]

Did I do that?

:rotf:
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 17, 2011 03:38PM)
Didn't you get the talking points? Only reference self defense and hunting!
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 17, 2011 03:40PM)
Guns don't shoot people. People shoot people. And Foxes.

"Fox shoots man"

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70C5Q620110113
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 17, 2011 04:02PM)
Mr. Bartlett, you are perfectly correct. I consider that our individual and collective right to defense against a tyrannical government is a subset of our individual right to defend our selves. In the scheme of things, however, the necessity of arming the citizens against a tyrannical government was of paramount importance to the Founders.

And the world's experience during the XXth Century suggests that a tyrannical government is indeed something that we should fear.

Woland
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 17, 2011 04:41PM)
Wait a sec, backup a bit.
[quote]
On 2011-01-17 14:12, Woland wrote:
Unarmed, defenseless victims everywhere in the world recognize that firearms are life-saving, genocide-preventing appliances. The hoplophobia ingrained in many people prevents them from thinking clearly about this subject. [b]Armed people wave their stars, unarmed people wear them . . .[/b]
[/quote]I can't believe you actually went there.

At any rate, what do you really think would have happened to anyone who brandished a firearm against the SS?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 17, 2011 04:45PM)
They would'a been dead with a gun in their hand?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 17, 2011 05:00PM)
Guns don't kill people, bullets do. It is the gun that makes the go really fast though.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 17, 2011 05:02PM)
EsnRedShirt,

There's a nice graphic by Oleg Volk [url=http://www.a-human-right.com/](who maintains an excellent informational website here)[/url] that goes with that idea:

[img]http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/d/28218-4/colors3print.jpg[/img]

By the time the National-Socialists had taken power, anyone who still had a weapon to brandish against them, and who brandished it, would have been killed. But just about everyone they wanted to kill was killed anyway.

The utility of an armed populace in preventing genocide is situated well before the tyrannical regime actually starts its policy of genocide. The National-Socialists were very careful to disarm those they intended to eliminate, but the actual process of elimination started very slowly, and very gently, and years after the forced disarmament had taken place.

Woland
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 17, 2011 05:03PM)
Yeah.... Most people with guns would stand there shaking while the bad guy walked up and took it off 'em and slapped 'em silly.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 17, 2011 05:10PM)
Yep. He went there.
Woland, you're comparing the nation of Israel to armed civilians during WW2. I'm not really sure that's a valid analogy.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 17, 2011 05:30PM)
It's not an analogy. It's about attitude.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 17, 2011 05:33PM)
I'm not really aware of a big civilian fight against the Nazis, the militaries had enough issues trying to fight back, maybe the exception being Russia, not sure. Israel is a different animal. There is a definate and understandable military presence there and because of their situation the populace would have to fight, and will, should the need come along. Israel is also frustrating because it is hard to hit on a girl who has an automatic rifle....I tried, never even got a smile out of her.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 17, 2011 09:25PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-17 17:02, Woland wrote:
Mr. Bartlett, you are perfectly correct. I consider that our individual and collective right to defense against a tyrannical government is a subset of our individual right to defend our selves. In the scheme of things, however, the necessity of arming the citizens against a tyrannical government was of paramount importance to the Founders.

And the world's experience during the XXth Century suggests that a tyrannical government is indeed something that we should fear.

Woland
[/quote]
But your defense of the 16-year Pinochet regime and the Argentine junta shows that you don't fear tyrannical governments, only governments that don't allow US investment.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 17, 2011 09:30PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-17 18:33, MagicSanta wrote:
I'm not really aware of a big civilian fight against the Nazis, the militaries had enough issues trying to fight back, maybe the exception being Russia, not sure. Israel is a different animal. There is a definate and understandable military presence there and because of their situation the populace would have to fight, and will, should the need come along. Israel is also frustrating because it is hard to hit on a girl who has an automatic rifle....I tried, never even got a smile out of her.
[/quote]

A friend gave me a Krav Maga book for Christmas that has a really good story about a family of Jews fighting a group of Nazis with Krav Maga. Kicked the snot out of them. They weren't killed though because the Nazis didn't want anyone to know that thier master race soldiers got whooped by "Sie Juden."
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 17, 2011 10:52PM)
Oh man. I agree about Argentina back in 'the day'. I love Chile, I love the people, everything about it. Pinochet was not a good guy but he did do some things that brought Chile up to speed as far as transportation and agriculture go. After the initial ouster of Allende there were too many killed (I think about 1500 to 3000) and a lot were rounded up and there were mistakes etc. made. The police though, after a few years and getting into the early 80s, were not heavy handed, the schools were good, and the people worked hard toward growing Chile. I've been in parts of the world, including Latin America, where people were vanishing, the police would come down on anyone who they thought were against the leadership, I've seen military wade through crowds with bats and shove rifles into peoples faces for no reason. Chile was a wonderland compared to some of those other places and is a partner to the United States and provide great produce, wine, and otherp products and materials.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 18, 2011 12:48AM)
Great a perfectly good bullet joke shot to hell. Thanks guys.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 18, 2011 12:55AM)
It was a perfectly good joke....
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 18, 2011 01:31AM)
Thanks, now I will stop pouting.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 18, 2011 05:36AM)
Well, landmark, I am disappointed that you chose to attack me instead of addressing the points under discussion, but of course I am used to ad hominem argumentation from my long years on the hard left.

I don't think that in my posts here and there on threads in this forum I ever said that I "supported" the Pinochet regime. What I said was:

1) The Pinochet coup d'etat was a last-ditch attempt to prevent Allende and his Cuban advisors from establishing a Marxist-Leninist "dictatorship of the proletariat" in Chile.

2) The total number of persons killed during & after the coup d'etat is estimated to be about 2,000, most of them killed in the immediate fighting. That is less than 1% of the numbers executed by Marxist-Leninists after their establishment of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" anywhere. Those on the left who denounce Pinochet as a mass murderer are curiously silent when it comes to Che Guevara & Fidel (10 thousand or more), Pol Pot and his gang of Sorbonne graduates (5 million), let alone Lenin (millions), Stalin (tens of millions), and Mao Tse-tung (50 - 100 million).

3) The Pinochet regime was a temporary extra-constitutional emergency remedy - a caretaker government. When the voters of Chile expressed in an open plebiscite, their desire to return to electoral, civilian government, General Pinochet quietly stepped down. Has any Marxist-Leninist dictator ever done the same?

4) The results also speak for themselves. Chile is prosperous and free. In our hemisphere, Cuba is a miserable wreckage, and Venezuela is heading down the tubes. It has nothing to do with US investment. It has to do with the universal formula for economic prosperity: free markets in material goods and labor, respect for private property, and respect for the rights of the individual. Put those principles into action, and your country will be rich; do the opposite, and you will all be equal in grinding poverty. What is it that you want for the working man, anyway?

None of that makes me a "supporter" of General Pinochet or his government. Those are just the facts of the situation.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 18, 2011 06:11AM)
Let me add a little thought experiment.

If German military officers had not waited until 1944 to try to dislodge the National-Socialist regime, but had overthrown the Fuehrer in 1934, in the process killing 2 or 3 thousand of his fanatic followers, would that have been a bad thing?

If the Russian military had been willing to guarantee Finnish sovereignty and accept Finnish aid in capturing St. Petersburg and overthrowing the Bolshevik regime in 1919, and in the process killed 2 or 3 thousand of Lenin's fanatic followers, would that have been a bad thing?

That's basically what General Pinochet did.

Woland
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 18, 2011 08:10AM)
I love how you know all of this. Are you a googler or do you really have all this knowledge stored in your brain?

Because I am sure I can find these exact thoughts by googling. Are these your thoughts or someone elses?

Bet you do not know General Pinochet's wifes maiden name. :)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 18, 2011 08:15AM)
Here is a thought of my very own. If the law against killing people didn't stop the guy, how the hell would a law against a gun purchase stop the guy?

What I mean is that he already was set on murder, is a gun charge going to stop him? I mean the left needs a new playbook. They have run every play from it in this situation and it is pathetic.

First club out of the bag "BLAME THE RIGHT and talk radio". Did it, blew it turns out he hated Bush. OOPS. No matter move forward because this after all is a tragedy and emotions are high so we can take this opportunity to get gun control going. Now we run that play for as much yardage as possible. Demonise the gun owners and especially the manufacturers.

I think we NEED to change the debate. Starting with this nonsense playbook that has a play entitled "you never want to let a crisis go to waste, you can do great things during a crisis". Why is it we are not talking about changing THAT side of the debate?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 18, 2011 08:16AM)
Woland--I'm still curious about your "long years on the hard left." What year exactly did you turn reactionary?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 18, 2011 08:24AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-18 09:15, Dannydoyle wrote:
Here is a thought of my very own. If the law against killing people didn't stop the guy, how the hell would a law against a gun purchase stop the guy?

What I mean is that he already was set on murder, is a gun charge going to stop him? I mean the left needs a new playbook. They have run every play from it in this situation and it is pathetic.

First club out of the bag "BLAME THE RIGHT and talk radio". Did it, blew it turns out he hated Bush. OOPS. No matter move forward because this after all is a tragedy and emotions are high so we can take this opportunity to get gun control going. Now we run that play for as much yardage as possible. Demonise the gun owners and especially the manufacturers.

I think we NEED to change the debate. Starting with this nonsense playbook that has a play entitled "you never want to let a crisis go to waste, you can do great things during a crisis". Why is it we are not talking about changing THAT side of the debate?
[/quote]
The bullet joke was funny. And true. I'm fine with banning ammunition.

Lots of the far right were anti-Bush. Take a look at some of the militia type literature. The sum of his videos and book list indicate if anything a strong anti-government libertarian bent.

Sorry, but this is a crisis the gun guys caused.

And absolutely the manufacturers are partly to blame. There's a long history of gun manufacturers encouraging the illegal distribution of guns.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 18, 2011 08:31AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-18 07:11, Woland wrote:
Let me add a little thought experiment.

If German military officers had not waited until 1944 to try to dislodge the National-Socialist regime, but had overthrown the Fuehrer in 1934, in the process killing 2 or 3 thousand of his fanatic followers, would that have been a bad thing?

If the Russian military had been willing to guarantee Finnish sovereignty and accept Finnish aid in capturing St. Petersburg and overthrowing the Bolshevik regime in 1919, and in the process killed 2 or 3 thousand of Lenin's fanatic followers, would that have been a bad thing?

That's basically what General Pinochet did.

Woland
[/quote]
Yes, that makes you a supporter of Pinochet. Curious why you deny it? I'm sorry that you think I am submitting ad hominem attacks. I am only clarifying your position based on what you have posted here.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 18, 2011 10:19AM)
Well, landmark, instead of debating whether or not I am a "supporter" or General Pinochet's coup, how about answering the questions posed in my "thought experiment"?

Would it have been a good thing if the OKW had deposed the National-Socialist government in 1934, even at the price of establishing a temporary military dictatorship?

Would it have been a good thing if Yudenich had secured the assistance of Mannerheim, and deposed the Bolshevik government in St. Petersburg in 1919?

How would those events been different from General Pinochet's coup d'etat?

And finally, why is it not possible to recognize General Pinochet's coup d'etat for what it was, without "supporting" it? As I mentioned to you once before, I spent a sunny day in Germany back in 1973 marching in support of a "Free, Socialist, Unaligned Chile."

Woland
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 18, 2011 10:20AM)
Well, acesover, I don't know General Pinochet's wife's maiden name. But I do know that General Pinochet and President Allende were brothers in the same Masonic Lodge.

Woland
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 18, 2011 10:55AM)
I only meant by my remark that a lot of people here spout what they google. I don't. I use what I know and in many cases it is limited and only on occasion will I google something and that is usually only to jog my memory.

Just as a matter or record did you know that General Pinochet and President Allende were brothers in the same Masonic lodge or is it something you googled while researching?

To be honest I cannot even participate in this discussion as I have so little knowledge of it.

Not saying you but it is obvious that many here just google something and then spout it off as if it is something they knew all along.

It just comes across as to many self proclaimed experts. Just my opinion your milage may vary.

There are definitely history buffs and biblical scholars and poltical anaylysts among us and even some magicians, but I truly believe that no one here is an expert in all of these things and what they do is google and spout what they read.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 18, 2011 11:05AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-18 11:55, acesover wrote:
Not saying you but it is obvious that many here just google something and then spout it off as if it is something they knew all along.
[/quote]

"The Fool is one who does not know what you have just found out."
I'm gonna put that in the quote game.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 18, 2011 12:05PM)
To tell you the truth, acesover, I have known that President Allende and General Pinochet were Brothers in the same Masonic Lodge for a number of years. It is an intersting sidelight on history, and was reported in Masonic publications at the time of General Pinochet's death in 2006. In general, in my comments here, I rely on my memory for the knowledge of events that I think are important. However, I think it is better to look before you leap, and in a contentious discussion, I will often check my memory against published sources before making a statement. I think that is common courtesy. I think that researching your points and gathering evidence beforehand is a standard practice. In journalism it is called "fact checking." Many publications employ "fact checkers" to document every assertion an author may make in a submitted manuscript, including some of the seemingly obvious and mundane.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 18, 2011 12:41PM)
Just in case anyone is still reading this thread to discuss the press coverage of the Tucson shooting, you might be interested in the [url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/01/18/palin_defeated_unfair_critics_at_nyt__msnbc_108561.html]comments of former New York Mayor Ed Koch:[/url]

[quote]As I see it, in the current battle for public opinion Sarah Palin has defeated her harsh and unfair critics.

After the January 8 shooting of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords and the murder of six others in Tucson, Arizona, some television talking heads and members of the blogosphere denounced her and held her in part responsible for creating a climate of hatred that resulted in the mass attacks.

An example is Joe Scarborough and his crew on the "Morning Joe" show, which I watch and generally enjoy every morning at 6:30 a.m. when I rise to start the day. Because Palin designated Congresswoman Giffords and others for defeat in the November elections by the use of crosshairs on website maps of the Congressional districts, they blamed Palin for creating an atmosphere that caused Jared Loughner (whom everyone now recognizes as being mentally disturbed) to embark on the shooting and killing spree.

Then reason set in, led by President Obama in his now famous and widely-lauded speech in Tucson bringing the country together. Most commentators did an about-face, recognizing that the lack of civility in both speech and actions by politicians, particularly in Washington, were not the cause of the shootings. A friend of the shooter said he had no interest in politics or talk radio. Insanity was the cause of his vicious acts, not political rhetoric.

While the charge of responsibility against Palin was dropped, the Scarborough crew continued to assail her for defending herself on her website where she stated that she had been the subject of a blood libel. Her critics were incensed that she should use the term "blood libel." That was the description given by Jews to the charge of Christian clergy who falsely accused Jews of killing Christian children in order to make matzos (unleavened bread) during the Passover holiday. That libelous accusation was intended by those using it to cause pogroms that killed and injured thousands of Jews. It started in the early centuries A.D. and continues to date, according to Wikipedia. That same charge - blood libel - is now repeated by the media in Arab countries to stir up the anger of the Arab street against the Jews in Israel. The libel continues to do damage.

Today the phrase "blood libel" can be used to describe any monstrous defamation against any person, Jew or non-Jew. It was used by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon when he was falsely accused of permitting the Lebanese Christian militia to kill hundreds of defenseless and innocent Muslim men, women and children in Lebanese refugee camps. The killings were monstrous and indefensible revenge for earlier killings by Muslims of innocent Christian civilians.

Time Magazine published a story implying that Sharon was directly responsible for the massacres. He sued the magazine. At trial it was determined that the magazine story included false allegations, but since Sharon was a public figure, he received no monetary damages.

How dare Sarah Palin, cried the commentators, use that phrase to describe the criticism of her by those who blamed her for creating the atmosphere that set Loughner off in his murderous madness. Some took the position that it proved their ongoing charges that she is not an intelligent person and probably did not know what the phrase meant historically. In my opinion, she was right to denounce her critics and use blood libel to describe the unfair criticism that she had been subject to.

Here are excerpts from her statement:

[quote]"Like millions of Americans I learned of the tragic events in Arizona on Saturday, and my heart broke for the innocent victims. No words can fill the hole left by the death of an innocent, but we do mourn for the victims' families as we express our sympathy."

"Like many, I've spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event."

"Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don't like a person's vision for the country, you're free to debate that vision. If you don't like their ideas, you're free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible."

"As I said while campaigning for others last March in Arizona during a very heated primary race, ‘We know violence isn't the answer. When we take up our arms, we're talking about our vote.' Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box - as we did just two months ago, and as our Republic enables us to do again in the next election, and the next. That's who we are as Americans and how we were meant to be. Public discourse and debate isn't a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength. It is part of why America is exceptional."[/quote]

Why do I defend Palin in this case? I don't agree with her political philosophy: She is an arch conservative. I am a liberal with sanity. I know that I am setting myself up for attack when I ask, why did Emile Zola defend Dreyfus? Palin is no Dreyfus and I am certainly no Zola. But all of us have an obligation, particularly those in politics and public office, to denounce, when we can, the perpetrators of horrendous libels and stand up for those falsely charged. We should denounce unfair, false and wicked charges not only when they are made against ourselves, our friends or our political party but against those with whom we disagree. If we are to truly change the poisonous political atmosphere that we all complain of, including those who create it, we should speak up for fairness when we can.

In the 2008 presidential race when Sarah Palin's name was first offered to the public by John McCain as his running mate, I said at the time that she "scared the hell out of me." My reference was to the content of her remarks, not to her power to persuade voters.

It was McCain who lost the presidential election, not Palin. Since that time she has established that she has enormous power to persuade people. A self-made woman who rose from PTA mother to Governor of Alaska, she is one of the few speakers in public life who can fill a stadium. Her books are enormous successes. Her television program about Alaska has been a critical and economic success. When Sarah Palin addresses audiences, they rise to their feet in support and applause. She is without question a major leader of the far right faction in the Republican Party and its ally the Tea Party.

I repeat my earlier comment that she "scares the hell out of me." Nevertheless, she is entitled to fair and respectful treatment. The fools in politics today in both parties are those who think she is dumb. I've never met her, but I've always thought that she is highly intelligent but not knowledgeable in many areas and politically uninformed. I don't believe she will run for president in 2012 or that she would be elected if she did. But I do believe she is equal in ability to many of those in the Republican Party seeking that office.

Many women understand what she has done for their cause. She will not be silenced nor will she leave the heavy lifts to the men in her Party. She will not be falsely charged, remain silent, and look for others - men - to defend her. She is plucky and unafraid.

While I disagree with her and I am prepared to oppose her politically, in the spirit of longed-for civility I say, Ms. Palin you are in a certain sense an example of the American dream: You have the courage to stand up and present your vision of America to its people. Your strength and lack of fear make America stronger and are examples to be emulated by girls and boys, men and women who are themselves afraid to speak up. You provide the example that they need for self-assurance.[/quote]
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 18, 2011 12:50PM)
Woland,

Then by your post you are agreeing with me. You are paraphrasing what I just posted. Even to the point of that you look up facts to be sure you are correct before posting.

I even went on to say and I quote:
"Not saying you but it is obvious that many here just google something and then spout it off as if it is something they knew all along."

You obviously are a history buff or have a reason for knowing the information pertient to this discussion or a googler. I feel you are either a history buff or have a reason to know this information.

Definitely better to look before one leaps. However many discussions here are about ones opinion not about historical facts. An opinion is just that, an opinion. If I give my opinion I do not need to goggle to find out why I have an opinion. I already made a decision from past life experiences and my knowledge of said subject. On the contrary I have already formed an opinion and do not need support. Most of what I say here on the Café is just that, my opinion. I am not trying to sway anyone to my side. I am just stating my opinion. So as a result I do not go looking for back up help.

In the above let me quote you here:
"Let me add a little thought experiment.

If German military officers had not waited until 1944 to try to dislodge the National-Socialist regime, but had overthrown the Fuehrer in 1934, in the process killing 2 or 3 thousand of his fanatic followers, would that have been a bad thing?

If the Russian military had been willing to guarantee Finnish sovereignty and accept Finnish aid in capturing St. Petersburg and overthrowing the Bolshevik regime in 1919, and in the process killed 2 or 3 thousand of Lenin's fanatic followers, would that have been a bad thing?

That's basically what General Pinochet did." END QUOTE

I have no idea what you are asking much less give you an intelligent answer.

You go on further to say and I quote you again:
Well, landmark, instead of debating whether or not I am a "supporter" or General Pinochet's coup, how about answering the questions posed in my "thought experiment"?

Would it have been a good thing if the OKW had deposed the National-Socialist government in 1934, even at the price of establishing a temporary military dictatorship?

Would it have been a good thing if Yudenich had secured the assistance of Mannerheim, and deposed the Bolshevik government in St. Petersburg in 1919?

How would those events been different from General Pinochet's coup d'etat?

And finally, why is it not possible to recognize General Pinochet's coup d'etat for what it was, without "supporting" it? As I mentioned to you once before, I spent a sunny day in Germany back in 1973 marching in support of a "Free, Socialist, Unaligned Chile." END QUOTE

How many people here can really debate this issue with you because of your knowledge?

So having said that it would lead one to believe that many of the questions you asked are not necessairly your own but rather someone elses thoughts and questions.

Did you come up with all of these questions on your own or have they been asked over and over again by others? If all are of your own, then you are obviously very well versed in the subject matter at hand. I hope you see my point. You go far beyond just general knowledge on this subject if they are all your own.

I am just saying...
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 18, 2011 12:59PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-18 12:05, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-18 11:55, acesover wrote:
Not saying you but it is obvious that many here just google something and then spout it off as if it is something they knew all along.
[/quote]

"The Fool is one who does not know what you have just found out."
I'm gonna put that in the quote game.
[/quote]


I very much like your quote. Great Fortune Cookie material.

But would like to add. "Unless you found out you were wrong all along."
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 18, 2011 01:06PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-18 09:24, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-18 09:15, Dannydoyle wrote:
Here is a thought of my very own. If the law against killing people didn't stop the guy, how the hell would a law against a gun purchase stop the guy?

What I mean is that he already was set on murder, is a gun charge going to stop him? I mean the left needs a new playbook. They have run every play from it in this situation and it is pathetic.

First club out of the bag "BLAME THE RIGHT and talk radio". Did it, blew it turns out he hated Bush. OOPS. No matter move forward because this after all is a tragedy and emotions are high so we can take this opportunity to get gun control going. Now we run that play for as much yardage as possible. Demonise the gun owners and especially the manufacturers.

I think we NEED to change the debate. Starting with this nonsense playbook that has a play entitled "you never want to let a crisis go to waste, you can do great things during a crisis". Why is it we are not talking about changing THAT side of the debate?
[/quote]
The bullet joke was funny. And true. I'm fine with banning ammunition.

Lots of the far right were anti-Bush. Take a look at some of the militia type literature. The sum of his videos and book list indicate if anything a strong anti-government libertarian bent.

Sorry, but this is a crisis the gun guys caused.

And absolutely the manufacturers are partly to blame. There's a long history of gun manufacturers encouraging the illegal distribution of guns.
[/quote]

So when do we stop blame for others when a madman does something. Lets say she was hit with a Louisville Slugger, then what do you ban? How about ran over with a car, used a lot of gas, pushed her out a window or what not? THEN WHAT? How much can you ban for your own security, and how many of my rights do you intend to trample to do it?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 18, 2011 01:07PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-18 11:19, Woland wrote:
Well, landmark, instead of debating whether or not I am a "supporter" or General Pinochet's coup, how about answering the questions posed in my "thought experiment"?

Would it have been a good thing if the OKW had deposed the National-Socialist government in 1934, even at the price of establishing a temporary military dictatorship?

Would it have been a good thing if Yudenich had secured the assistance of Mannerheim, and deposed the Bolshevik government in St. Petersburg in 1919?

How would those events been different from General Pinochet's coup d'etat?

And finally, why is it not possible to recognize General Pinochet's coup d'etat for what it was, without "supporting" it? As I mentioned to you once before, I spent a sunny day in Germany back in 1973 marching in support of a "Free, Socialist, Unaligned Chile."

Woland
[/quote]
I'm really puzzled at your coyness here. You state a position and when I ask you to clarify, you deny it is your position. When I say you are a supporter of Pinochet, I don't mean that you personally provided him with weapons. I mean that you see the advent and reign of his government as on balance a good thing. If you don't then why are we arguing?

I would submit that the 30,000 tortured under the dictator Pinochet's regime, and the families still looking in the Chilean desert, digging up sand to find their disappeared loved ones, would disagree that it was a positive reaction. We'll never know the real number as many were dumped in the Pacific Ocean by helicopter and also were burned, because the dictator Pinochet issued orders to remove the bodies. Over a million people fled the country, and 250,000 people were detained. This NEVER happened under the democratic election of Allende. People were not murdered and tortured under Allende, and you know it. Under Pinochet there was ONE PARTY rule--and even still, with the threat of torture and disappearance over them, after 8 years, Chileans risked their lives and over 30% voted NO against Pinochet's hellhole. After 16 years, Chile was about to blow, and it took Pope John Paul II to go to Pinochet to tell him to step down as president but remain as commander in chief of the army with immunization from prosecution for all crimes.

The only way your analogy would make any sense at all in the case of Chile is if we turned it upside down, and Allende had somehow overthrown the dictator Pinochet. But unfortunately that's not what happened.

And your conversion?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 18, 2011 01:18PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-18 14:06, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-18 09:24, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-18 09:15, Dannydoyle wrote:
Here is a thought of my very own. If the law against killing people didn't stop the guy, how the hell would a law against a gun purchase stop the guy?

What I mean is that he already was set on murder, is a gun charge going to stop him? I mean the left needs a new playbook. They have run every play from it in this situation and it is pathetic.

First club out of the bag "BLAME THE RIGHT and talk radio". Did it, blew it turns out he hated Bush. OOPS. No matter move forward because this after all is a tragedy and emotions are high so we can take this opportunity to get gun control going. Now we run that play for as much yardage as possible. Demonise the gun owners and especially the manufacturers.

I think we NEED to change the debate. Starting with this nonsense playbook that has a play entitled "you never want to let a crisis go to waste, you can do great things during a crisis". Why is it we are not talking about changing THAT side of the debate?
[/quote]
The bullet joke was funny. And true. I'm fine with banning ammunition.

Lots of the far right were anti-Bush. Take a look at some of the militia type literature. The sum of his videos and book list indicate if anything a strong anti-government libertarian bent.

Sorry, but this is a crisis the gun guys caused.

And absolutely the manufacturers are partly to blame. There's a long history of gun manufacturers encouraging the illegal distribution of guns.
[/quote]

So when do we stop blame for others when a madman does something. Lets say she was hit with a Louisville Slugger, then what do you ban? How about ran over with a car, used a lot of gas, pushed her out a window or what not? THEN WHAT? How much can you ban for your own security, and how many of my rights do you intend to trample to do it?
[/quote]
I hear you Danny. We're going to have to agree to disagree. We're only repeating ourselves; I think guns are unnecessarily dangerous in a public situation and you don't. I will work towards my goal, you will work towards yours.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 18, 2011 01:39PM)
Well when you claim the problem is the blame, the hate and the rheoric only until you find out that does not further your goals and then you go right on doing EXACTLY what you said caused the problem in the first place, how serious are you to be taken? It seems as if you will say anything necessary to accomplish your goal no matter the truth of the statement.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 18, 2011 01:40PM)
Thanks, acesover.

Although someone may not have all the facts at their fingertips, you can always investigate the questions on your own, research the facts, and then come to your own conclusions -- which might be better than starting out with pre-formed opinions that are based on . . . . what?

Hypothetical questions about whether the world would have been better or worse if certain things that did not happen could have been made to happen are not unusual. In the examples I cited, I tried to provide enough historical detail to indicate that the situations I was imagining were in fact plausible. Based on our experiences in life, we all have different stores of knowledge. From previous exchanges with landmark, I thought that he would understand the allusions.

In the case of the Bolshevik Revolution, it is a fair assumption that the anti-Bolshevik forces around General Yudenich were almost strong enough to take St. Petersburg; if the Imperial Russian Generals had been willing to guarantee Finland's independence, the Finns under Mannerheim would have been willing to join the fight, and that would have probably carried the day. In any event, the destruction of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1919 would have enabled Russia to evolve into a constitutional monarchy, and tens of millions of lives might have been spared.

However, if that had happened, and the unspeakable horros of the Bolshevik regime had never happened, some on the left might now be complaining about the harsh tactics employed by the counter-revolutionaries, and bemoaning the unfortunate well-meaning radicals and revolutionaries killed in the overthrow of the communist regime.

Similarly, if he German High Command had realized in 1934 what the National-Socialist regime would do to Germany by 1945, they might have decisively overthrown the nascent dictatorship. And today, they would be castigated for their brutality, and the fact that in typical high-handed Prussian fashion, they so evilly overthrew the peacefully and legally elected German government. . . .

I believe that an analogous situation applies to Chile. Allende's Marxist-Leninist revolution was stopped in its tracks, at possibly the last possible moment, by a military coup d'etat. The horrors that Allende would have perpetrated -- the horrors that have been perpetrated by every Marxist-Leninist regime in history -- were averted. And so those who rescued Chile from those horrors now appear to many to have been brutal, unjust murderers and torturers.

Woland
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 18, 2011 01:55PM)
What we really need to do is to re-examine how we treat and care for the mentally ill in this country. Jared exhibited many of the signs of mental illness- even his friends said so- but nothing could be done, since he didn't desire treatment, and had not exhibited any of the criteria for involuntary commitment "beyond a reasonable doubt." Well, he did, but it was only discovered in retrospect.

Interesting Newsweek article on exactly this:
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/12/could-jared-loughner-have-been-committed.html
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 18, 2011 02:04PM)
Woland--
So basically your argument is "We had to destroy the village in order to save the village that wasn't destroyed, but might be destroyed though there's no evidence of that."

Those who you *think* (based on no evidence at all) "rescued" Chile did not [i]appear[/i] to have been brutal, unjust murderers and torturers, they [i]were[/i] brutal unjust murderers and torturers. The evidence is clear and copious. The National Reconciliation commissions in Chile established that. But I guess you're happy that it was only for their own good.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 18, 2011 02:09PM)
What we need to do is re examine exactly what we can do something about and what we can't do anything about. An angry lone nut is something that no matter HOW MANY laws and restrictions and how big you make the government, can not be stopped.

Too bad blame the right and IT WAS SARAH PALIN didn't work huh?
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 18, 2011 02:50PM)
Danny, did I blame anyone in my last post?
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Jan 18, 2011 02:58PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-17 16:28, Tom Bartlett wrote:
Defending our selves from criminals is only one reason to keep and bear arms. The main reason is to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government.
[/quote]

Good to see you back Tom!

Are you a tea party member? Your last sentence seems to be a common idea with those dudes.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 18, 2011 03:03PM)
Well, landmark, it was the communist playwright Jean-Paul Sartre who observed that history was made with "dirty hands." Chile was not a destroyed village by any stretch.

But since you mention it, the military action of the United States in Viet Nam was (as President Reagan said) a noble cause. And the war had been effectively and successfully turned over to the ARVN when the last American combat soldier left in 1973. It wasn't until 2 years later, when the Democratic-Party-controlled U.S. Congress turned off the funding that the Republic of South Viet Nam fell to the communists, leading to among other things 2 or 3 million refugees setting off on the high seas and across hostile borderlands . . . not to mention decades of enduring poverty for those who stayed behind . . .

Sometimes a village does have to be destroyed -- sometimes an entire city has to be destroyed -- in order to save the rest of the country.

Woland
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 18, 2011 03:40PM)
Woland--
Hmm I guess if Reagan said it was a noble cause, it must have been. Over two million Vietnamese murdered; more bombs dropped by the US on the tiny nation than the total amount of tonnage dropped in all of WW2 by all parties combined; the decimation of the agricultural countryside by Agent Orange and other deadly herbicides; a corrupt ruling elite who siphoned off money; the horrors of napalm--the burning jelly that sticks to your skin and burns you to death--falling everyday from the sky; . . . and you speak about the enduring poverty. Enduring poverty exacerbated and extended by colonial and US invasion.

And you think that the ARVN had this war won when the US left? An invading force doesn't leave on its own unless it's already roundly defeated. And the US was roundly defeated. Its own army had ceased to function.

Well I've posted this twice already, but as long as we're going to get into Vietnam, I'll post it again: MLK's speech, [url=http://eslkevin.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/april-4-1967-meet-mlk-kicking-off-his-last-year-on-earth-with-a-visit-to-the-riverside-church/]Beyond Vietnam[/url].

[quote]The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1954 — in 1945 rather — after a combined French and Japanese occupation and before the communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its reconquest of her former colony. Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not ready for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination and a government that had been established not by China — for whom the Vietnamese have no great love — but by clearly indigenous forces that included some communists. For the peasants this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives.

For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence. For nine years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive effort to recolonize Vietnam. Before the end of the war we were meeting eighty percent of the French war costs. Even before the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of their reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged them with our huge financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this tragic attempt at recolonization.

After the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come again through the Geneva Agreement. But instead there came the United States, determined that Ho should not unify the temporarily divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of the most vicious modern dictators, our chosen man, Premier Diem. The peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition, supported their extortionist landlords, and refused even to discuss reunification with the North. The peasants watched as all of this was presided over by United States influence and then by increasing numbers of United States troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem’s methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictators seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their need for land and peace.

The only change came from America as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support. All the while the people read our leaflets and received the regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move on or be destroyed by our bombs.

So they go, primarily women and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one Vietcong-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them, mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 18, 2011 05:01PM)
Ease up on Chile. What happened happened and Chile is a great place. One thing, Venezuala is also a wonderful country with great people and watch it because you are seeing how socialist destroy a people and a country.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 18, 2011 07:22PM)
Hey, gun guys, I have a question for you and I'll try to phrase it so it is understood. On cop shows they often use a semi automatic pistol that when the clip is out the sides of the barrel slide forward (it looks like) on both sides with the main barrel static and then they put the clip in, do something, and it slides back into place and looks like one expects it to look like. What type of gun is that?

I watched Hawaii Five Oh last night (Grace Park...ohhhhh yeah) and they used Glocks! See....I'm learning.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 18, 2011 10:26PM)
MagaicSanta,

If I understand what you are asking I believe you are confusing the slide with the barrel. The slide covers the barrel. The barrel is static but the slide moves rearward upon firing then back into battery chambering a round.

What I believe you are referring to as "doing something" is the slide lock lever being depressed, which releases the slide from its rearward position chambering a round. When it (slide lock lever) is depressed the slide moves forward chambering a round from a newly inserted magazine.

Jopoe this is what you meant. Hope it clears it up a little.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 18, 2011 10:30PM)
Whatever it is it is cool.

I have said this before but when they showed me how to shoot with a .45 semi auto I accidentaly pointed it at a SEAL with my finger on the trigger and got beat up for it.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 18, 2011 10:49PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-18 23:30, MagicSanta wrote:
Whatever it is it is cool.

I have said this before but when they showed me how to shoot with a .45 semi auto I accidentaly pointed it at a SEAL with my finger on the trigger and got beat up for it.
[/quote]

Understandable, especially if the pistol was in condition "0".
"0" being a chambered round with cocked hammer and safety off.

The old rule. Never point a gun at something you do not want to destroy.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 19, 2011 10:18AM)
Well, landmark, thanks for your praise of a registered Republican voter, the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. More apropos to our topic than Dr. king's comments on Viet Nam, however, might be this:

[quote]One issue on everyone's mind this Martin Luther King Jr. day was gun control. King's calls for resolving our differences through peaceful nonviolence are especially poignant after Jared Loughner gunned down six people and wounded several others in Tucson. Amid the clamor for new gun laws, its appropriate to remember King's complicated history with guns.

Most people think King would be the last person to own a gun. Yet in the mid-1950s, as the civil rights movement heated up, King kept firearms for self-protection. In fact, he even applied for a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

A recipient of constant death threats, King had armed supporters take turns guarding his home and family. He had good reason to fear that the Klan in Alabama was targeting him for assassination.

William Worthy, a journalist who covered the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, reported that once, during a visit to King's parsonage, he went to sit down on an armchair in the living room and, to his surprise, almost sat on a loaded gun. Glenn Smiley, an adviser to King, described King's home as "an arsenal."

As I found researching my new book, Gunfight, in 1956, after King's house was bombed, King applied for a concealed carry permit in Alabama. The local police had discretion to determine who was a suitable person to carry firearms. King, a clergyman whose life was threatened daily, surely met the requirements of the law, but he was rejected nevertheless. At the time, the police used any wiggle room in the law to discriminate against African Americans.

Ironically, the concealed carry permit law in Alabama was promoted by the National Rifle Association thirty years earlier. Today, the gun rights hardliners fight to eliminate permits for concealed carry, as Arizona has done. [/quote]

The article, [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/mlk-and-his-guns_b_810132.html]published at the Huffington Post[/url] of all places, is by UCLA law professor Adam Winkler.

Woland
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 19, 2011 10:47AM)
UCLA Law in the headlines! Go Powder Blue!

Never had a class with Winkler.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 19, 2011 12:30PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-18 15:50, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Danny, did I blame anyone in my last post?
[/quote]

Where did I say you did?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 19, 2011 12:49PM)
Woland--
When your home is bombed or seriously threatened with a bomb, and you know that government officials will do little to protect you, and in fact may well be in league with the bombers, then I'll support your application for a gun.

Until then, I think gun licenses should be limited to specific situations.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 19, 2011 01:12PM)
Well right now you yourself are attempting to take away our second ammendment rights. The government just pushed a bill down our throat that REQUIRED we buy a spacific service. Not bombs, but sort of "soft tyranical" in a way.

If you don't want a gun, don't have one. I don't want Sushi, but that does not mean you can't have it. Like it or not they are a right. I looked and yep they are.

What "spacific situations" should they be limited to, and where are those in the constitution?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 19, 2011 01:24PM)
Then, landmark, you think that somebody else should have the power to decide when you are sufficiently endangered to be armed? You think you should decide if I am allowed to protect myself? You think the Fulton County Sheriff should have been allowed to decide if Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. should have had a carry permit?

I'm disappointed to learn that you are willing to publicly advocate that I be stripped of my God-given, Constitutionally-protected rights. But I will defend to the death your God-given, Constitutionally-protected right to say so.

LOL.

Woland
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 19, 2011 01:35PM)
Woland--

A quick search shows that MLK Sr. was a registered Republican but also supported JFK in 1960 and was arguably instrumental in getting him elected. He was important in getting Jimmy Carter nominated in 1976.

MLK Jr. never endorsed any presidential candidate. He spoke out strongly against Barry Goldwater in 1964, although we do not know if he voted for Johnson.
He called himself a democratic socialist which suggests he was not particularly thrilled with either party. Though his niece claims he was a Republican, his son strongly denies it. No right wing blog I've referenced provides any documentation for the King jr was a Republican claim. Certainly after 1960 it seems highly dubious. Steve Klein, a senior researcher at The King Center said “I think it’s highly inaccurate to say he was a Republican because there’s really no evidence.”

In any event, I'm not sure what your point is: both parties have gone through numerous ideological changes over the last century and a half. Proclaiming that a person was a Republican or Democrat has no meaning without asking what particular party policies that person was supporting.

When it comes to race, the Republican Party has been the party of Abraham Lincoln and David Duke; the Democratic Party the party of LBJ and Strom Thurmond.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 19, 2011 01:41PM)
Wow, there's a lot of words being written about one single sentence.

Actually, there's a lot of controversy about the placement of a single comma, actually. Here's the text, as passed by Congress:
[quote]A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[/quote]

And here's the text, as ratified by the States:
[quote]A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[/quote]

Given there was no federal military at the time it was ratified, I think the question of a missing comma might be significant. It really does have the potential to change the intent. Which version is correct and what the Founding Fathers intended? That's a question I think has been debated for years, and I have no easy answer to.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 19, 2011 01:43PM)
Well, landmark, I never said that MLK Jr endorsed Barry Golwater. I said that MLK Jr was a registered Republican.

You forgot to mention that Robert Byrd, an unrepentant racist, segregationist, KKK leader, was also a prominent Democrat.

And another thing: you think that a private citizen is entitled to be armed only if government officials are unwilling to protect him. But government officials, and specifically the police, have no legal responsibility to protect any individual citizen from any individual crime. They have no liability if a crackhead breaks into your house, you call 911, and by the time the police arrive, your throat has been cut from ear to ear, even if they don't arrive fr an hour or more. I respect and value the police, and the function they fulfill is vital, but what use is help that is even only minutes away when you may be dead in seconds? The police are charged with apprehending the alleged perpetrators who will be charged with raping and murdering your wife and daughter, but if anybody is going to protect them in the instant of necessity it is you -- or themselves. (As in the recent case in Connecticut.)

Woland
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 19, 2011 01:50PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-19 14:24, Woland wrote:
Then, landmark, you think that somebody else should have the power to decide when you are sufficiently endangered to be armed?

Woland
[/quote]
If you agree that you live in a republic of law, then you are always living under the assumption that others will have the power to decide. "Somebody else" decides whether you have murdered or only killed in self-defense.

"Somebody else"-- my representatives-- have decided that driving while drunk is illegal. I don't think I or others should take it upon ourselves to decide individually when we're drunk enough.

Now if you want to ask whether my representatives are truly representative, that's a whole other question.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 19, 2011 02:02PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-19 14:43, Woland wrote:
Well, landmark, I never said that MLK Jr endorsed Barry Golwater. I said that MLK Jr was a registered Republican.[/quote] Documentation?[quote]

You forgot to mention that Robert Byrd, an unrepentant racist, segregationist, KKK leader, was also a prominent Democrat. [/quote]
Forgot? No more than I forgot George Allan, William Rehnquist, or Trent Lott. Lots of racists to go around. Really, do you have any point here whatsoever?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 19, 2011 02:17PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-19 14:41, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Wow, there's a lot of words being written about one single sentence.

Actually, there's a lot of controversy about the placement of a single comma, actually. Here's the text, as passed by Congress:
[quote]A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[/quote]

And here's the text, as ratified by the States:
[quote]A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[/quote]

Given there was no federal military at the time it was ratified, I think the question of a missing comma might be significant. It really does have the potential to change the intent. Which version is correct and what the Founding Fathers intended? That's a question I think has been debated for years, and I have no easy answer to.
[/quote]

I don't care what you do with your cama the fact is that EVERYWHERE in the Constitution that the Founders wrote THE PEOPLE they were speaking of THE PEOPLE, EVERY TIME they wrote THE STATE they meant THE STATE. Now your cama is meaningless. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Cama does not matter in the least. All that matters is they said THE PEOPLE. Why are we to believe in this one instance somehow they were being cryptic? It does not stand the giggle test.

There is no easy answer when people insist on looking at things like a placement of a cama. Fact is the answer is pretty easy but you are choosing ot make it hard for whatever reason.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 19, 2011 03:26PM)
Danny, I was referring to the comma after Militia. But on re-reading, you're right. It's not necessary. You're probably not going to like my argument, but there are still multiple ways of reading that.

Without pre-supposing my position, could you tell me what's your take on the meaning of the first half- "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State"?
What's your take on "A well-regulated Militia"?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 19, 2011 03:33PM)
With respect to the preamble of the Second Amendment, the courts have repeatedly held --and our learned member, lobowolf can correct me if I am mistaken-- that the preambles attached to a law do not override the plain stated meaning of the law itself.

Practically speaking, the issue of the individual's right to defend herself or himself in the United States has been settled.

In only 2 states, Wisconsin and Illinois, is it impossible for a private individual to obtain a concealed carry permit. The Wisconsin legislature has passed concealed carry legislation several times, only to have it vetoed by the Governor. With a new Republican Governor and a strongly Republican legislature, Wisconsin will soon establish a concealed carry law.

In 7 states, concealed carry permits are issued at the discretion of the local law enforcement official, usually the High Sheriff of the County ("may issue").

In 38 states, the Sheriff is required by law to issue a concealed carry permit to any legal resident who is neither a felon, nor a fugitive, nor a person previously determined to have a major mental illness, or certain other defined and limited disqualifications ("shall issue").

In 3 states, Alaska, Arizona, and Vermont, a specific permit is not required of a private individual who carries a firearm for her own defense.

Not that our God-given, Constitutionally-protected rights should be subject to an utilitarian standard, but rates of murder and violent crime have declined in every state that has adopted a "shall issue" concealed carry law.

Woland
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 19, 2011 03:38PM)
I'm semi suprised that Vermont has such lenient gun laws because I think of them as a pack of socialist left wing Berkeley escapees. Then again socialist left wing types are most likely to want to shoot everyone else so I guess it makes sense.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 19, 2011 03:43PM)
MagicSanta,

You posted while I was editing my message to add the parenthetical expression "it may surprise some Northeasterners to learn" with respect to Vermont. How to count Alabama is also disputed, since the law is written "May issue," but applied "shall issue."

Vermont has never required any specific permit for either open or concealed carry. From the days of the Green Mountain Boys, Vermonters have always held that self defense is a sacred human right.

And don't forget that Vermont was an independent republic from 1777 until its admission to the Union in 1791, with its own coinage, post office, and Ambassadors in Paris and the Hague.

Woland
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 19, 2011 03:44PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-19 16:33, Woland wrote:
Practically speaking, the issue of the individual's right to defend herself or himself in the United States has been settled.
[/quote]

That may remain to be seen, with a new Court. The Second Amendment as we know it survived a very shaky 5-4 decision recently.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 19, 2011 03:52PM)
Heller was decided 5-4, but I think that 8 of the 9 Justices did recognize that the Constitution does protect the individual's right to keep & bear arms. I think the dissenters were willing to allow State and Local governments more power to restrict that right.

By the way, there's another thread up on the sources of quotations. Here's one apropos for this discussion:

[quote]Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.[/quote]

Source?

Woland
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 19, 2011 04:05PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-19 16:52, Woland wrote:
Heller was decided 5-4, but I think that 8 of the 9 Justices did recognize that the Constitution does protect the individual's right to keep & bear arms. I think the dissenters were willing to allow State and Local governments more power to restrict that right.
Woland
[/quote]

There were 2 dissents; Breyer essentially took the position for the sake of argument that even within the context of the 2nd Amendment representing an individual right, the DC law was a permissible restriction.

Stevens, however, took the position that the 2nd Amendment was NOT an individual right; it's a "collective" (i.e. better be in that well-regulated state militia) right, and he was joined by the rest of the 4 justices who did not ascribe to the majority opinion. The majority opinion and each of the dissents were all on the same 5-4 split; everyone who didn't sign on to the majority opinion signed on to BOTH Stevens's and Breyer's dissents.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 19, 2011 04:47PM)
Well, it is true then that our freedom and our future is hanging by a thread . . . .
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 19, 2011 05:41PM)
In case anyone is still interested in Press coverage of the Tucson shooting, I found a transcript of Sharron Angle's actual "Second Amendment remedies" remarks. This is what she actually said:

[quote]“Our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. In fact, Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that’s not where we’re going, but you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, ‘My goodness what can we do to turn this country around?’ And I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.”[/quote]

Let's look at each of those statements:

1) Did the Founders put the Second Amendment in so that the people could protect themselves against a tyrannical government?

Yes.

That should be pretty non-controversial. From the quote by James Madison (Federalist No 46, I think) that I posted, above, if from nothing else, it should be pretty clear that the Founders thought an armed population would be a bulwark against tyranny.

2)Did Thomas Jefferson say that it would be good for a country to undergo a revolution every 20 years or so? Yes, unlike the statement that "dissent is patriotic," this is an authentic Jefferson quote from his letter to William Smith (1787):

[quote]God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. [/quote]

3) Angle said: "I hope that’s not where we’re going, but you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, ‘My goodness what can we do to turn this country around?’"

Nota bene, she started out by saying that she hopes that's not where we're going. But are there people talking about a rebellion. I think that's an accurate statement. I think those kinds of suggestions have been made. I think that flying the Gadsden Flag and using other symbols of the American Revolution can be looked on as both a nostalgic appeal to the greatness of the national character evident in those hard years, but also as an implied warning.

4) "And I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."

I think it can be argued that Angle was saying that removing Harry Reid from office would dampen the fire of those who were talking about a rebellion. I don't think she was necessarily threatening Harry Reid with anything worse than electoral defeat. The choice of words was poor, and she later clarified her point, saying "I changed my rhetoric to ‘defeat Harry Reid.’"

In any event, there is not a shred of evidence that the Tucson shooter was aware of this statement, aware of Sharron Angle, or any of the conservative agitation at all.

The shooter is a polysubstance abuser, a "truther" who was fascinated by the online video, "Zeitgeist," that claims that Christianity is a hoax, that the September Eleventh atrocities were staged by the U.S. Government, and that the currency is invalid. If he was influenced by any sort of hate-filled speech, it would have to have been the frenzied atmosphere evoked by the raving rants of Keith Olbermann, Janeane Garofalo, ALan Grayson, Ed Schultz, and others of that ilk.

I think this is another example of the fact that the journalists and commentators in this country comprise the President's 1500 assistant press secretaries.

Woland
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 19, 2011 05:53PM)
Ol' Sharon Angle....she is amazing. She proved that you can run against a fellow who only has a 9% favorable rating from the voters yet still lose because everything thinks you are nuts.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 19, 2011 05:58PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-19 18:53, MagicSanta wrote:
Ol' Sharon Angle....she is amazing. She proved that you can run against a fellow who only has a 9% favorable rating from the voters yet still lose because everything thinks you are nuts.
[/quote]
Apparently she still has her fans.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 19, 2011 06:01PM)
It's always fun to look at low approval ratings in conjunction with high incumbent reelection rates.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 19, 2011 07:37PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-19 16:26, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Danny, I was referring to the comma after Militia. But on re-reading, you're right. It's not necessary. You're probably not going to like my argument, but there are still multiple ways of reading that.

Without pre-supposing my position, could you tell me what's your take on the meaning of the first half- "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State"?
What's your take on "A well-regulated Militia"?
[/quote]

I don't get into reading things into the Constitution sorry. Not going to fall down that hole. Well regulated could easily mean an officer corps.

I can make up all sorts of stories, but we only have the evidence that they said the right of THE PEOPLE. Dude it is what it is. I know your lib tendency is to make things fit your world view, but get past that. Why would they say THE PEOPLE when they did not mean THE PEOPLE? Why in this on case am I to think they meant something else?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 19, 2011 08:51PM)
As I've said before, "well regulated" means "proficient." Nothing more than that.

Woland
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 19, 2011 08:56PM)
What about the word 'militia'? Keeping in mind I don't care of people have guns (I do get concerned if people have 40 guns and 1000 rounds of ammo and view the local grocery store as their main base if an emergency) but I always considered militia to be an organized group that drills every so often.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 19, 2011 09:21PM)
Woland said--"In 38 states, the Sheriff is required by law to issue a concealed carry permit to any legal resident who is neither a felon, nor a fugitive, nor a person previously determined to have a major mental illness, or certain other defined and limited disqualifications ("shall issue"). "

Am I right then, that in your reading of the Constitution, that these restrictions are unconstitutional?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 19, 2011 09:45PM)
I'm going to cause hate and discontent...which is expected since I'm a mega liberal. I have no problem with people owning guns but I find the insistance that every restriction is an evil contradiction to the constitution and that people actually in some dillusional world think they have any chance at all at over throwing the US govt or the govt of most countries. Ain't happening, if you try it is what is known as suicide. The thing is the NRA and pals seem to want all or nothing and eventually they will end up with nothing because as we all know a tree that bends with the wind survives, the tree that doesn't bend will snap and die. Then that tree will get infested with beetles and enviromentalist will protect it and other trees will die but that is another story.

I believe that the following is acceptable and other than the 'if we give an inch we will lose our rights!' fanatics most will also find what I think acceptable.

1. A hand gun, because it can easily be concealed, and non hunting rifles/shotguns should require a real check on the individual making the purchase and once the check is complete, even if it takes a month, then they get their weapon.

2. I may be wrong about this one but it is due to my own ignorance of fire arms. I believe a data base of the markings made on a bullet should be kept so that if a weapon is used in a crime it is like a dna or finger print data base and the weapon can be identified. The data base can be collected by the manufacturer and associated with serial numbers.

3. An individual must report the sale or gifting or theft or loss of a weapon. If they are responsible enough to own a gun they should be responsible enough to keep track of the weapon.

That is about it. I can imagine the arguments against each of these and don't feel like typing them up but if we can not only keep weapons out of the hands of criminals but also give a means to identify the weapon back to the owner if used in a crime then perhaps the likelyhood of them being used will be reduced. You can still get your guns, you true nuts can have your 100 glocks, heck you can even have a machine gun as far as I care, just enough with the whole "it ain't no ones business what I does with my gun" because it certainly is the business of some poor shlub who gets shot.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 19, 2011 10:43PM)
Anyone that thinks that they have government is delusional.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 19, 2011 10:52PM)
Quotiing MagaicSanta here: "You can still get your guns, you true nuts can have your 100 glocks, heck you can even have a machine gun as far as I care, just enough with the whole "it ain't no ones business what I does with my gun" because it certainly is the business of some poor shlub who gets shot."

First off it would seem that your mind is made up as you refer to us as "nuts". Does not seem like you really mean what you say when you say you do not care if we have 100 glocks or not. It shows a definite bias on your part.

However addressing your quote "because it certainly is the business of some poor shlub who gets shot". However it is not any of his business until he gets shot any more than it is his business what kind of car or motorcycle I drive or boat I sail until I have an accident with him. He has no right to know or dictate how many cars I have or boats I have or bicycles I have because it is just none of his business. However if I cause harm to him with any of these vechiles that is a whole different matter. But until then I can only say, "Mind your own business".

Having 10 cars does not make it any more likely that I am going to run you over than if I have one. Having 10 guns does not increase the odds of me shooting you. But of course in your eyes if I have one, or God forbid more than one I am in your eyes a nut (you called us that). Kind of biased there aren't you?

Please do not tell us that you don't care whether we own guns or not. In other words, do not pee on my leg and tell me it is raining. Because by your posts it is obvious that it bothers you a lot. And as I said before it is none of your business how many firearms I own. It only becomes your concern if I do harm to you or possibly someone else. Then and only then is it any of your concern.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 19, 2011 11:08PM)
Having ten cars makes one a car nut, buying two guns a month and muttering about protection makes one a gun nut. I don't care if someone has a gun, I don't care if they have rifles and hunt and all that fun stuff, when someone makes guns the center of their universe and hoards them then yes I get concerned. Now if you are a gun nut tough for you perhaps you should look at why you need 40 guns.

You come to me you better use the gun because I'll take it off you and shove it up your arse then shot it. You see, I think most gun nuts are also wussies who couldn't use the things if they tried under pressure. And it IS my business. It gets a bit old to hear when ever there is a shooting that the gun was stolen....I thought you geniuses had guns to avoid getting robbed why is it they always seem to get stolen from you? Ever heard of a safe? I don't view guns any differently than drivers licenses, from your perspective people shouldn't have to get a license to drive until after they show they shouldn't have a license to drive.

Some, you it seems included, think that you should be able to own an armory full of guns and have zero responsibility to register them, have yourself checked to see if you are a nut other than when it comes to guns, or be required to safely put them away so they all don't get stolen. You don't have to be part of a militia, you don't have to show the ability to handle the weapon, you don't have to do anything just walk around and lie that your gun protected you when it didn't. It is like a meteor not hitting you and thinking it is because you have a .38 in your glove box.

So yes, I believe gun manufacturers need to fire each weapon and make a file of the marks and associate it with a serial number. That way when someone is shot they can find out who the gun was stolen from. How does that possible hurt you as a gun owner? They are not going to find your gun if the bullet isn't dug out of someones chest and it belongs to you and even if it did you'll say it was stolen and you forgot to report it and that will be that. Heck, Mr. Woland said the contitution says one needs to be proficient with a weapon, how about we make people purchasing them pass a shooting test? That seems to be in line with the constitution, then you can have your gun, put it under your pillow and when no one ever breaks in you can think it is because of that swell gun under your pillow.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 19, 2011 11:15PM)
Thus the army are nuts.

Not to mention the police. :)
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 19, 2011 11:19PM)
No, they go through training and they keep track of who has what weapons. The Army is responsible.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 19, 2011 11:19PM)
Another quote from Magic Santa:

I believe that the following is acceptable and other than the 'if we give an inch we will lose our rights!' fanatics most will also find what I think acceptable.

1. A hand gun, because it can easily be concealed, and non hunting rifles/shotguns should require a real check on the individual making the purchase and once the check is complete, even if it takes a month, then they get their weapon.

2. I may be wrong about this one but it is due to my own ignorance of fire arms. I believe a data base of the markings made on a bullet should be kept so that if a weapon is used in a crime it is like a dna or finger print data base and the weapon can be identified. The data base can be collected by the manufacturer and associated with serial numbers.

3. An individual must report the sale or gifting or theft or loss of a weapon. If they are responsible enough to own a gun they should be responsible enough to keep track of the weapon.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerning number 1. I have no issues with your thinking on this. In fact I feel even hunting guns should be required to follow suit. However I do take exception to "even if it takes a month" There should be no reason for a check to take that long.

Concerning number 2. Not a bad idea. However one must be aware that rifling can be altered on a gun making it useless in identifying the said weapon. Also it does nothing to solve the problem of the guns out there now that are not on file. That task would be insurmountable.

Concerning number 3. Again not a bad idea but also difficult to enforce. The biggest problem is selling or giving a gun to another person and not going through a gun dealer who registers all sales and transfers. I do agree that if a gun is stolen it should be reported as soon as possible, which as far as I am concerned should be immidiately. The biggest problem I see here is a gun being stolen and one not knowing it is missing.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 19, 2011 11:28PM)
Rifling is the term! I specified manufacturers because it would be impossible to make a record of those already sold and to try to do so would be a waste of time. Guns seem to be stolen all the time and no one knows it until it is used.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 19, 2011 11:34PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-20 00:19, acesover wrote:

Concerning number 1. I have no issues with your thinking on this. In fact I feel even hunting guns should be required to follow suit. However I do take exception to "even if it takes a month" There should be no reason for a check to take that long.
[/quote]
Agreed. However, it is also the case that the NRA and some politicians have put roadblocks up, cut budgets, etc., thus making effective, accurate, and timely checks next to impossible in some jurisdictions.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 19, 2011 11:49PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-20 00:08, MagicSanta wrote:
Having ten cars makes one a car nut, buying two guns a month and muttering about protection makes one a gun nut. I don't care if someone has a gun, I don't care if they have rifles and hunt and all that fun stuff, when someone makes guns the center of their universe and hoards them then yes I get concerned. Now if you are a gun nut tough for you perhaps you should look at why you need 40 guns.

You come to me you better use the gun because I'll take it off you and shove it up your arse then shot it. You see, I think most gun nuts are also wussies who couldn't use the things if they tried under pressure. And it IS my business. It gets a bit old to hear when ever there is a shooting that the gun was stolen....I thought you geniuses had guns to avoid getting robbed why is it they always seem to get stolen from you? Ever heard of a safe? I don't view guns any differently than drivers licenses, from your perspective people shouldn't have to get a license to drive until after they show they shouldn't have a license to drive.

Some, you it seems included, think that you should be able to own an armory full of guns and have zero responsibility to register them, have yourself checked to see if you are a nut other than when it comes to guns, or be required to safely put them away so they all don't get stolen. You don't have to be part of a militia, you don't have to show the ability to handle the weapon, you don't have to do anything just walk around and lie that your gun protected you when it didn't. It is like a meteor not hitting you and thinking it is because you have a .38 in your glove box.

So yes, I believe gun manufacturers need to fire each weapon and make a file of the marks and associate it with a serial number. That way when someone is shot they can find out who the gun was stolen from. How does that possible hurt you as a gun owner? They are not going to find your gun if the bullet isn't dug out of someones chest and it belongs to you and even if it did you'll say it was stolen and you forgot to report it and that will be that. Heck, Mr. Woland said the contitution says one needs to be proficient with a weapon, how about we make people purchasing them pass a shooting test? That seems to be in line with the constitution, then you can have your gun, put it under your pillow and when no one ever breaks in you can think it is because of that swell gun under your pillow.
[/quote]


You really are an arse. So anyone who has 10 cars is a car nut? They are not a collector or a buff but rather a nut. WOW! I will have to let Jay Leno and hundreds and possibly thousands of people know that MagicSanta feels you are nuts. I am sure they will care what you think.

Why do I have several guns? Well it is really again none of your business but I will say that in the last 30 years their value has increased more than 5 times their original purchase price. But that is not why I purchased them in the first place. I use and enjoy shooting them. Hope that answers your question.

When someone makes just about anything the center of their universe they have problems..such as your compulsion aganist those who have several guns.

I have to laugh If I come to you I better use my gun. That statement just shows your mentality. Trust me you could never disarm me if I had a gun and came after you. However I cannot think of a reason why I would ever do such a thing in the first place. But you must consider yourself a real bad dude, ha, ha.

As far as shooting my gun after taking it off of me I doubt that also as you would not even know where the safety is as you demonstrated your total lack of knowledge of an automataic gun a few posts back. But now you are making a silly arguement and sound like a child on a playground showing everyone here just how childish you really are.

Why the heck would I have a gun in a safe if I have it for protection in my home? I want it ascessible you ninny. I do not want to have to go to a safe and work the combination in order to get to it. Again just showing your total lack of gun knowledge.

By the way your estimate of my owning 40 guns is off. You can figure in which direction. My home protection weapons are not locked in a safe. However I do have gun safes for my other ones.

So as long as you think and feel that gun owners are wusses I would like to ask how your tour in the military went? I toured Nam on Uncle Sam and used my weapon a few times. How about you? Again you sound like a child on the playground.

Why do you assume that I feel I have no responsibility of ownership of my guns. Now you are grasping at straws and makeing up senarios. You are really beginning to sound desparate. You are a real piece of work. Do you have any other fantasies? I mean those that you can mention here. Or is it just limited to thinking that you can disarm me barehanded and shove said weapon...well I guess you get my drift.

Go buy a comic book and read it and get some more ideas and come back and post again. Because this last one of yours was truly comical.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 20, 2011 12:09AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-20 00:49, acesover wrote:

Why do I have several guns? Well it is really again none of your business but I will say that in the last 30 years their value has increased more than 5 times their original purchase price. But that is not why I purchased them in the first place. I use and enjoy shooting them. Hope that answers your question.
[/quote]
I'm happy to hear that you enjoy them.

But I am even happier to hear that you did not buy them as investments because as investments go, 5x over 30 years is lousy. Just to keep up with inflation, any investment made in 1980 would have had to nearly triple in value by now. Too bad you had not invested that money in, say, Microsoft stock (you'd be up about 300 times, not just 5). Even with an investment in a boring safe company like Procter & Gamble you would have increased your money by over 30 times.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 20, 2011 12:23AM)
Acesover I wasn't refering to you but you as a general reference not you as specific to you. Yes Jay Leno is a car nut.

My tour in the military? I was in the Fauklands during the war there (only because we happened to be the closest ones to it when it started), I was in Africa during their issues, and Beirut during the Lebannon civil war and the bombing of the marine house and was part of the heaviest bombing since the Vietnam War. We blew up sheep, cows, and at least one Syrian general. I still feel bad about the cows.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 20, 2011 03:50AM)
MagicSanta,

According to the United States Code (Title 10, A, I, 13, 311): "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."

Hope that helps,

Woland
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 20, 2011 03:53AM)
Well, landmark, with respect to whether the restrictions even "shall issue" States place on concealed carry are constitutional, let's just say that I think Vermont has the right idea. (And I hadn't noticed that Vermont was a locus of unrestricted gunfighting; that activity takes place in the most severely restricted gun controlled areas of the country, Chicago and Washington, D.C.)

Woland
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 20, 2011 05:43AM)
MagicSanta,

You mentioned this idea:

[quote]I may be wrong about this one but it is due to my own ignorance of fire arms. I believe a data base of the markings made on a bullet should be kept so that if a weapon is used in a crime it is like a dna or finger print data base and the weapon can be identified. The data base can be collected by the manufacturer and associated with serial numbers.[/quote]

Based on the experience of the State of Maryland, you are wrong about this one, LOL. They spent a king's ransom on maintaining a case fired from every firearm sold in the State (causing the major manufacturers to package such a fired case with every weapon sold, even outside of Maryland) without solving a single crime. A useless nuisance.

Moreover, the scientific data on case identification (like the data on fingerprints) is lacking. That is, there have never been the proper scientific studies to determine the performance characteristics of the test, i.e. the false negative rate, false positive rate, etc.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 20, 2011 06:05AM)
Finally, here is Eric Blair telling you all you need to know about the Press and the Tucson shooting:

[quote]The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of IngSoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever.[/quote]

Woland
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 20, 2011 08:04AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-20 01:09, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-20 00:49, acesover wrote:

Why do I have several guns? Well it is really again none of your business but I will say that in the last 30 years their value has increased more than 5 times their original purchase price. But that is not why I purchased them in the first place. I use and enjoy shooting them. Hope that answers your question.
[/quote]
I'm happy to hear that you enjoy them.

But I am even happier to hear that you did not buy them as investments because as investments go, 5x over 30 years is lousy. Just to keep up with inflation, any investment made in 1980 would have had to nearly triple in value by now. Too bad you had not invested that money in, say, Microsoft stock (you'd be up about 300 times, not just 5). Even with an investment in a boring safe company like Procter & Gamble you would have increased your money by over 30 times.
[/quote]


You are right in your assement as their being a bad investment for investment sake. However I have gotten much more enjoyment out of them over the years that I would have if I put it in stock of some sort. But even then one had better choose carefully as to which stock they choose. I would imagine General Motors was a very safe and stable stock 30 years ago. Along with several others we could mention here. Or I could have invested it in that company that ...oh wait they went under.

Then only sure thing is there are no sure things in the stock market.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 20, 2011 09:44AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-20 06:43, Woland wrote:

Based on the experience of the State of Maryland, you are wrong about this one, LOL. They spent a king's ransom on maintaining a case fired from every firearm sold in the State (causing the major manufacturers to package such a fired case with every weapon sold, even outside of Maryland) without solving a single crime. A useless nuisance.
[/quote]
The database was actually used to obtain its first murder conviction way, way back in 2005. AND it has led to other convictions since then. And the cost of the program was hardly a "king's ransom". Not stating an opinion here, just clearing up the facts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19876-2005Apr1.html

Saturday, April 2, 2005 ...

The verdict against Robert Garner, 21, marked the first time that prosecutors in Maryland have used information from a statewide ballistics database to obtain a conviction, law enforcement officials said." It has led to other convictions since then.

The casings recovered at the murder scene matched a casing that was on file with Maryland State Police, showing that the weapon was purchased by Garner's then-girlfriend (now his wife) in a Forestville store about three weeks before the killing, according to trial testimony.

"That evidence was the cornerstone of our case," said Glenn F. Ivey, the Prince George's state's attorney. "It was powerful evidence. I hope this verdict helps our efforts to have the [ballistics identification database] continued and expanded."
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 20, 2011 10:37AM)
Thanks, balducci, I wasn;t aware of that case.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 20, 2011 10:52AM)
So last night I was switching back and forth between Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity and I could not tell the difference.
They claim to be polar opposites, and yet they were both using the exact same insulting and blaming (and disinforming) tone and language, just against opposite sides.
It's all the same. It's all the same crap. They both do exactly the same things. When you go to the extreme right or left all you get are absolutists. They're all the same. There is no far right or far left, there's just far extremist garbage.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 20, 2011 11:31AM)
The problem is that they spend so much time trying to villify the other side that they lose track of what they believe.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 20, 2011 11:50AM)
Durn data bases! You see, I have suggestion and have the ability to change a position based on provided information. I'm not set in stone....
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 20, 2011 07:03PM)
Here's [url=http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/19/martin-luther-king-civil-right]another interesting comment[/url] on the Second Amendment and the Civil Rights Movement:

[quote]There’s nothing unusual about this. Many civil rights activists—including those who publicly engaged in non-violent forms of resistance—kept guns for self-defense. T.R.M. Howard, the Mississippi doctor and mutual aid leader who founded the pioneering Regional Council of Negro Leadership, slept with a Thompson submachine gun at the foot of his bed. During the murder trial that followed the horrific lynching of 14-year-old Emmett Till, Howard escorted Till’s grieving mother and various others to and from the courthouse in a heavily-armed caravan.

Similarly, John R. Salter, one of the organizers of the famous 1963 sit-ins against segregated lunch counters in Jackson, Mississippi, said he always “traveled armed” while working as a civil rights organizer in the South. “I'm alive today because of the Second Amendment and the natural right to keep and bear arms,” Salter said.[/quote]

We are a free country today because of the Second Amendment, too.

Woland
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 20, 2011 07:26PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-20 04:53, Woland wrote:
Well, landmark, with respect to whether the restrictions even "shall issue" States place on concealed carry are constitutional, let's just say that I think Vermont has the right idea. (And I hadn't noticed that Vermont was a locus of unrestricted gunfighting; that activity takes place in the most severely restricted gun controlled areas of the country, Chicago and Washington, D.C.)

Woland
[/quote]
Just to be clear then, because I don't want to mischaracterize your position, according to you, the Constitution does not allow the restriction of guns to felons, the mentally ill, and fugitives.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 20, 2011 07:33PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-20 11:52, critter wrote:
So last night I was switching back and forth between Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity and I could not tell the difference.
They claim to be polar opposites, and yet they were both using the exact same insulting and blaming (and disinforming) tone and language, just against opposite sides.
It's all the same. It's all the same crap. They both do exactly the same things. When you go to the extreme right or left all you get are absolutists. They're all the same. There is no far right or far left, there's just far extremist garbage.
[/quote]
No, it's not the same. They have two opposite opinions. You may think they have similar styles of voicing their opinions, but they are still quite opposite, and will result in very different consequences.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 20, 2011 07:43PM)
Well, landmark, restrictions like that are in place in Vermont, and I think are generally acceptable. I think it is usual under the common law for felons, for example to forfeit many civil rights and privileges. I think that in Vermont unrestricted carry is available to adults who are without the sort of disqualifications you mention. I think you need to have a driver's license or some other form of identification, too.

Note however that a law making it a crime for a criminal to do something will not prevent criminals from doing it. That's why they are criminals in the first place.

Woland
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 20, 2011 08:22PM)
Woland, but why disqualifications at all? It doesn't mention any in the Constitution though you think they are generally acceptable. Nothing about felons or the mentally ill that I can see in the Second Amendment.

Or is it open to interpretation, and the balancing of other rights, as is the First amendment and all the others?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 20, 2011 10:02PM)
Felons can not vote either, for example Bill Clinton.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 20, 2011 10:13PM)
If someone desires to harm with a gun, then they will get a gun. Also, they'll be able to get one a hell of a lot more quickly than anyone else who wants one for"legitimate" reasons, through legitimate sources.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 20, 2011 10:52PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-20 23:13, gdw wrote:

Also, they'll be able to get one a hell of a lot more quickly than anyone else who wants one for"legitimate" reasons, through legitimate sources.
[/quote]
Not necessarily. Maybe a certain subclass of hardened criminal with contacts can get a gun faster. But in many States, a citizen with a clean record can legally obtain a gun in no time at all.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 21, 2011 04:11AM)
Well, landmark, I agree that in contrast to driving a car, keeping & bearing arms is a Constitutionally-protected right, but under the common law, as I said, felons, for example, can have their rights restricted (although for the record, I note that at least some in the Democratic Party want to enfranchise felons, even felons who have not completed their sentences - but it varies State by State.) Strictly speaking, we do allow certain restrictions on free speech and even freedom of religion, but we do not require that you have a permit or a license before you speak or worship.

Woland
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 21, 2011 05:05AM)
Yes, the rights of felons vary from state to state, even voting.

(For the record, I'll note that some in the Republican Party illegally classified many non-felons as felons).

One usually needs a permit to hold a rally, and/or to use loudspeaker equipment.

The mentally ill are nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. No common law stops them from voting. Are you for allowing them to have guns?

The idea of an absolute right embedded in the Constitution is false as any Constitutional lawyer will attest to. The rights are always open to interpretation, balanced by other rights. You or I may not agree with that system, but that is the case in these United States.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 21, 2011 08:52AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-20 23:52, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-20 23:13, gdw wrote:

Also, they'll be able to get one a hell of a lot more quickly than anyone else who wants one for"legitimate" reasons, through legitimate sources.
[/quote]
Not necessarily. Maybe a certain subclass of hardened criminal with contacts can get a gun faster. But in many States, a citizen with a clean record can legally obtain a gun in no time at all.
[/quote]

This is a good point. And since we don't want to make it so ONLY that criminal subclass has guns... ahhh never mind.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 21, 2011 09:01AM)
In Washington (and I think at least most other States) anyone who has been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital can't buy a gun. The problem is that it is very hard for anyone to even get into a psychiatric hospital anymore. There's not enough space in the few asylums that are left.
Some brainiacs in the government closed the hospitals after the invention of anti-psychotic pills, assuming we wouldn't need them anymore because they'll just voluntatily take this horrible pill with awful side effects every day because it's so much better than the euphoria of a manic episode.
Prisons have sort of taken the place of asylums, but you have to have already hurt somebody to go there. And now we have prison overcrowding to contend with and... aw heck, it's a long list of issues with the whole insanity in prison thing. I won't bore you with every single detail. It's just difficult is all.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jan 21, 2011 09:10AM)
Yea the late 70's were tough on society that is for sure. (That is when msny of them were closed.)
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 21, 2011 10:37AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-20 23:52, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-20 23:13, gdw wrote:

Also, they'll be able to get one a hell of a lot more quickly than anyone else who wants one for"legitimate" reasons, through legitimate sources.
[/quote]
Not necessarily. Maybe a certain subclass of hardened criminal with contacts can get a gun faster. But in many States, a citizen with a clean record can legally obtain a gun in no time at all.
[/quote]

Define "no time," especially if one doesn't already have a permit, etc.

I'm honestly asking, as I don't know what the min wait time would be to buy a gun.

If you have no real contacts, it's still pretty east to get a gun the same day. And considering the majority of criminals, even small time, would have at least a few contacts, and remember, they are the ones they are trying to keep the guns from, they could easily get a gun by the end of the day.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 21, 2011 11:05AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-21 11:37, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-20 23:52, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-20 23:13, gdw wrote:

Also, they'll be able to get one a hell of a lot more quickly than anyone else who wants one for"legitimate" reasons, through legitimate sources.
[/quote]
Not necessarily. Maybe a certain subclass of hardened criminal with contacts can get a gun faster. But in many States, a citizen with a clean record can legally obtain a gun in no time at all.
[/quote]

Define "no time," especially if one doesn't already have a permit, etc.

I'm honestly asking, as I don't know what the min wait time would be to buy a gun.
[/quote]
Gdw, in some jurisdictions, in an hour or two at the most certainly by the end of the day. Some others might have a 2 or 3 day waiting period. In some States, you can buy a gun legally at a gun show in the amount of time it takes to buy a coffee.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 21, 2011 11:13AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-21 11:37, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-20 23:52, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-20 23:13, gdw wrote:

If someone desires to harm with a gun, then they will get a gun. Also, they'll be able to get one a hell of a lot more quickly than anyone else who wants one for"legitimate" reasons, through legitimate sources.
[/quote]
Not necessarily. Maybe a certain subclass of hardened criminal with contacts can get a gun faster. But in many States, a citizen with a clean record can legally obtain a gun in no time at all.
[/quote]

If you have no real contacts, it's still pretty east to get a gun the same day. And considering the majority of criminals, even small time, would have at least a few contacts, and remember, they are the ones they are trying to keep the guns from, they could easily get a gun by the end of the day.
[/quote]
You must run with a tough crowd, if you are so certain of all this. As I said before, I have no doubt that hardened criminals with contacts could quickly get a gun on the black / underground market. But not the average, law abiding, upstanding till then citizen, or even small time criminal, who suddenly decides to do someone serious harm. In most cases, I think it would be far easier, faster, and safer for them to buy one legally.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 21, 2011 11:37AM)
Balducci, even the small time criminal has the contacts.

****, even someone who, say, smokes pot occasionally could, with probably three phone calls find a gun.

Also, the point is not about the average law abiding, upstanding citizen, and how safe, quick, easy, it is for them to get a gun. That says nothing about keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals, you know, the people they want to keep the guns from.

It's like thinking making higher scrutiny for legal alcohol sales will keep booze out of the hands of the people stealing it.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 21, 2011 11:48AM)
GDW, I was responding to your original very general statement "If someone desires to harm with a gun, then they will get a gun."

Now you are qualifying your statement and defining what you meant by "someone". Fine, but I was still responding to your original comment.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 21, 2011 12:12PM)
We're so topical here in NVMS, it's scary! I was flipping cable channels last night, and Bowling for Columbine was on.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Jan 21, 2011 12:20PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-21 12:37, gdw wrote:
Balducci, even the small time criminal has the contacts.

Hell, even someone who, say, smokes pot occasionally could, with probably three phone calls find a gun.

[/quote]

This is incorrect. I love the idea that there is some kind of real underworld, and all the nasty, dangerous pot dealers are involved with their guns.


A friend, my only friend who owns guns, has several. He was in the army, then got out finished business at cal and is now a buddhist and never touches the guns.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 21, 2011 12:26PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-21 12:37, gdw wrote:
Balducci, even the small time criminal has the contacts.

Hell, even someone who, say, smokes pot occasionally could, with probably three phone calls find a gun.
[/quote]

I think you give criminals too much credit. I've known my share of violent crackheads who haven't been able to find a gun.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 21, 2011 01:10PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-21 12:48, balducci wrote:
GDW, I was responding to your original very general statement "If someone desires to harm with a gun, then they will get a gun."

Now you are qualifying your statement and defining what you meant by "someone". Fine, but I was still responding to your original comment.
[/quote]

I believe you brought up criminals, I was only expanding on that, with regards to how, even a pot smoker could find the contacts.

It's not that much harder for pretty much anyone. Just because many don't know how doesn't mean they couldn't do it. I honestly don't know "how" to go about "legitimately" buying a gun, that doesn't mean I couldn't do it.

That being said, considering it's the criminals that you want to keep away from guns, shouldn't we be focused on how easily they can get guns?

Those who get guns illegally don't have to deal with regulations meant to prevent them from getting guns
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 21, 2011 01:24PM)
I believe the 3 phone calls thing. I'd say an overwhelming majority. I mean, it's supposed to be 6 Degrees of Separation between two specific people; 3 degrees from someone who has a drug connection to ANYONE willing to sell a gun? Oh yeah.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 21, 2011 01:44PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-21 14:24, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I believe the 3 phone calls thing. I'd say an overwhelming majority. I mean, it's supposed to be 6 Degrees of Separation between two specific people; 3 degrees from someone who has a drug connection to ANYONE willing to sell a gun? Oh yeah.
[/quote]
Six degrees of separation if YOU KNOW how everyone should be optimally connected. And the person calculating the degrees of separation is AWARE of all of these connections, and can pick and choose the best. Even then, 6 connections is the "safe" bet.

Sure, someone (A) COULD start a chain of 3 phones calls (A-B-C-D) and be connected to a gun. But it is unlikely, as person A doesn't know who all person B knows, probably wouldn't know who C is let alone who C knows, and would likely have NO IDEA about who D might be.

In other words, the person trying to find the gun can't 'backtrack' like in the 6 degrees of separation game.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 21, 2011 02:07PM)
Person A knows a small dealer (B). Small dealers know big dealers (C). Most big dealers know SOMEONE who can come up with a gun (D). It only takes two people vouching - the dealer says it's for one of my salesman, he's cool; the small dealer says it's for one of my customers (most often friends), he's cool.

Nobody in the chain has to know anyone that anyone else in the chain knows. A asks B if he knows anyone who can get him a gun; B says no, but I probably know a guy who does. Not having any idea (or caring) whom C might contact, B asks C the same question, and probably hits much more often than not.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 21, 2011 02:14PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-21 15:07, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Person A knows a small dealer (B). Small dealers know big dealers (C). Most big dealers know SOMEONE who can come up with a gun (D). It only takes two people vouching - the dealer says it's for one of my salesman, he's cool; the small dealer says it's for one of my customers (most often friends), he's cool.
[/quote]
Would a big dealer giving a gun to a small dealer he knows be happy if that small dealer turns around and gives it to a salesman / customer, let alone a crackhead? I'm thinking not. I'm actually thinking that doing something like this might be how a small dealer could lose his franchise, if not his life.

But I live an honest, straight and narrow life, so I wouldn't really know. :)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 21, 2011 04:35PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-21 15:14, balducci wrote:

Would a big dealer giving a gun to a small dealer he knows be happy if that small dealer turns around and gives it to a salesman / customer, let alone a crackhead? I'm thinking not.
[/quote]

No, he'd be happy SELLING it to a small dealer knowing that the small dealer was planning on SELLING it to a salesman/customer.

I agree that most pot smokers aren't 3 phone calls away from a FREE gun.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 21, 2011 04:39PM)
FWIW, I meant "giving" to include "selling".
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 21, 2011 04:48PM)
What are the Canadian laws on guns? It is a hunting culture. What about pot? We know they let their crazies access computers.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 21, 2011 04:59PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-21 17:48, MagicSanta wrote:
What are the Canadian laws on guns? It is a hunting culture.
[/quote]
Quick description:

http://www.howtogetagun.ca/

A little more detail:

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/pol-leg/hl-fs-eng.htm
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 21, 2011 05:08PM)
I like the safety class thing. Heads would explode if they tried to pass those laws here.....
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 21, 2011 09:35PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-21 15:14, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-21 15:07, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Person A knows a small dealer (B). Small dealers know big dealers (C). Most big dealers know SOMEONE who can come up with a gun (D). It only takes two people vouching - the dealer says it's for one of my salesman, he's cool; the small dealer says it's for one of my customers (most often friends), he's cool.
[/quote]
Would a big dealer giving a gun to a small dealer he knows be happy if that small dealer turns around and gives it to a salesman / customer, let alone a crackhead? I'm thinking not. I'm actually thinking that doing something like this might be how a small dealer could lose his franchise, if not his life.

But I live an honest, straight and narrow life, so I wouldn't really know. :)
[/quote]


Are you guys fiction writers? I am sure a big dealer will not jeporadize his license and possible jail time to make a few dollars. Where do you get these ideas? Once a dealer registers a gun in his inventory it is there permentaly until removed legally with the correct paperwork leving a paper trail.

However if you are talking about two people buying a gun between themselves and bypass a dealer that is a different matter. If you are saying the a small dealer and a large dealer are acting as middle man all I can say is that both of them are just criminals and plain stupid risking the liecnses and possible prison. So again you are talking about criminals not people obeying the law. These people are known as criminals and criminals do not obey the law. Just proves the point of what we have said in the past. Honest law abiding citizens are not the problem.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 21, 2011 10:09PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-21 22:35, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-21 15:14, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-21 15:07, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Person A knows a small dealer (B). Small dealers know big dealers (C). Most big dealers know SOMEONE who can come up with a gun (D). It only takes two people vouching - the dealer says it's for one of my salesman, he's cool; the small dealer says it's for one of my customers (most often friends), he's cool.
[/quote]
Would a big dealer giving a gun to a small dealer he knows be happy if that small dealer turns around and gives it to a salesman / customer, let alone a crackhead? I'm thinking not. I'm actually thinking that doing something like this might be how a small dealer could lose his franchise, if not his life.

But I live an honest, straight and narrow life, so I wouldn't really know. :)
[/quote]


Are you guys fiction writers? I am sure a big dealer will not jeporadize his license and possible jail time to make a few dollars. Where do you get these ideas? Once a dealer registers a gun in his inventory it is there permentaly until removed legally with the correct paperwork leving a paper trail.

However if you are talking about two people buying a gun between themselves and bypass a dealer that is a different matter. If you are saying the a small dealer and a large dealer are acting as middle man all I can say is that both of them are just criminals and plain stupid risking the liecnses and possible prison. So again you are talking about criminals not people obeying the law. These people are known as criminals and criminals do not obey the law. Just proves the point of what we have said in the past. Honest law abiding citizens are not the problem.
[/quote]

We're talking about DRUG dealers who, by definition, are criminals. Track back to GDW: "even someone who, say, smokes pot occasionally could, with probably three phone calls find a gun." The whole point of this little digression is to explore how difficult it is to get a gun OUTSIDE legal channels.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 21, 2011 10:13PM)
Balducci,

Just as a side note being a canadian you wil not be able to purchase a handgun inthe US so you better bring yours from canada when you explode as you mention in a previous post.

I failed to see where you mentioned how much the enforcing those gun laws is working out. I understand that back in 95 the cost was supposed to be 2 million and I believe it is now in excess of 1 billion. A slight miscalculation or Canadian math not sure which. I am sure you have an explanation.

Just don't explode. :)
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 21, 2011 10:19PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-21 22:35, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-21 15:14, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-21 15:07, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Person A knows a small dealer (B). Small dealers know big dealers (C). Most big dealers know SOMEONE who can come up with a gun (D). It only takes two people vouching - the dealer says it's for one of my salesman, he's cool; the small dealer says it's for one of my customers (most often friends), he's cool.
[/quote]
Would a big dealer giving a gun to a small dealer he knows be happy if that small dealer turns around and gives it to a salesman / customer, let alone a crackhead? I'm thinking not. I'm actually thinking that doing something like this might be how a small dealer could lose his franchise, if not his life.

But I live an honest, straight and narrow life, so I wouldn't really know. :)
[/quote]

Are you guys fiction writers? I am sure a big dealer will not jeporadize his license and possible jail time to make a few dollars. Where do you get these ideas? Once a dealer registers a gun in his inventory it is there permentaly until removed legally with the correct paperwork leving a paper trail.
[/quote]
Who are you talking to and accusing of being fiction writers? Because it sure sounds as though you are agreeing with everything I said.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 21, 2011 10:21PM)
Acesover, they use that metric system in Canada so 2 million is a billion.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 21, 2011 10:23PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-21 23:13, acesover wrote:

I failed to see where you mentioned how much the enforcing those gun laws is working out. I understand that back in 95 the cost was supposed to be 2 million and I believe it is now in excess of 1 billion. A slight miscalculation or Canadian math not sure which. I am sure you have an explanation.
[/quote]
How do you define "working out"? Our gun murder rate is a fraction of yours. Seems it to be working out okay from my point of view.

So we spent $1 billion to protect out citizens. I guess you would rather spend HUNDREDS of billions, as you did, bailing out your bankers?

Whatever floats your boat, I do not judge.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 22, 2011 08:04AM)
I have no idea what acesover was trying to say. As mentioned, these people would not likely be dealing with registered guns.

If criminals did things legally, then these regulations might actually accomplish something.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 22, 2011 08:57AM)
Lets see now. This thread should be easy to follow. It started out with the press and the Gifford shooting, went to of course how bad our gun laws are here in the US brought to us by ouor friends in Canada. Then how the constitution is interpurted by everyone including the 2nd amendament to laws in different states to pot smokers and their abiliity to get guns from A B C D or whatever and 6 seperations.

I think we should throw into the mix abortion, gay marriage and the Bible to really complete this thread. And I wonder why people get confused with a post someone makes and to what post they were referring.

Oh and lets not forget sex change operations and the "health care bill".

Come on Carrie jump in here anytime I am sure we can bring religious differences into this (kidding Carrie :) )

I see no reason we cannot stone someone here also. :)
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 22, 2011 10:07AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-22 09:57, acesover wrote:

Lets see now. This thread should be easy to follow. It started out with the press and the Gifford shooting, went to of course how bad our gun laws are here in the US brought to us by ouor friends in Canada.
[/quote]
Gdw seems to be saying that the gun laws in the States are punishing law abiding citizens and not really preventing criminals from getting guns. Is that what you mean? Otherwise, I don't recall where any Canadian said your gun laws were bad. Several U.S. forum posters did, though, and perhaps you are confusing them with the Canadians?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 22, 2011 10:20AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-21 23:13, acesover wrote:

Just as a side note being a canadian you wil not be able to purchase a handgun inthe US so you better bring yours from canada when you explode as you mention in a previous post.
[/quote]
Apparently there are some legal (not to mention non-legal) ways for a Canadian to acquire firearms in the U.S. For example, see:

"The US passed new legislation in February 2003 which makes it illegal for a ‘non-resident alien’ to come into possession of a firearm in the US. This does NOT apply to antiques or muzzle-loading firearms, nor does it apply to Canadians with legal residency in the US or to US citizens, regardless of their residency."

http://www.international.gc.ca/controls-controles/firearms_armes_a_feu/other-autres/index.aspx
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 22, 2011 12:13PM)
I didn't think the thread was all that hard to follow, and going from the press coverage of the Arizona shooting (via the shooting itself) to gun availability didn't seem like that much of a digression to me, after more than 10 pages.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 22, 2011 02:02PM)
I wonder what the motivation behind making it illegal for nonresidential aliens to have guns.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 22, 2011 03:19PM)
Commie uprising.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 22, 2011 06:40PM)
Actually, landmark, the original motivation for British gun control legislation was in fact to disarm the working class.

Right up through the Edwardian era, that is right up to the First World War, there were no "gun control" laws in Great Britain, and (as any reader of Arthur Conan Doyle can attest) many the physician, barrister, or gentleman went about his daily business armed with his trusty revolver. Gun crime was a rarity, however, and the police themselves did not ordinarily carry firearms, borrowing them from passersby when they were needed in a pinch.

With increasing left wing agitation, gun control laws began to be passed in the 1920s, with the aim of preventing a replay of the Bolshevik Revolution in Britain.

Over the ensuing decades, gun control in Britain has become increasingly more severe, and the private possession of firearms is quite difficult. (On the other hand, noise-suppressing devices ['silencers'] are easily available, and it is considered impolite to hunt with a rifle not so equipped.)

Incidentally, the more severe British gun control has become, the more common gun crime has become.

As in other countries, preventing law-abiding citizens from arming themselves chiefly serves the purpose of ensuring that an armed criminal can threaten the use of a firearm, or use it, with impunity, and no fear of being opposed by fire.

Woland
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 22, 2011 06:52PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-22 11:20, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-21 23:13, acesover wrote:

Just as a side note being a canadian you wil not be able to purchase a handgun inthe US so you better bring yours from canada when you explode as you mention in a previous post.
[/quote]
Apparently there are some legal (not to mention non-legal) ways for a Canadian to acquire firearms in the U.S. For example, see:

"The US passed new legislation in February 2003 which makes it illegal for a ‘non-resident alien’ to come into possession of a firearm in the US. This does NOT apply to antiques or muzzle-loading firearms, nor does it apply to Canadians with legal residency in the US or to US citizens, regardless of their residency."

http://www.international.gc.ca/controls-controles/firearms_armes_a_feu/other-autres/index.aspx
[/quote]


Well we don't feel you are much of a threat with your muzzle loader or antique firearm.

Just what does "Canadian with legal residency mean"? I really do not know. How does one go about obtaining this?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 22, 2011 06:55PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-22 19:40, Woland wrote:
Actually, landmark, the original motivation for British gun control legislation was in fact to disarm the working class.[/quote]

To which laws do you refer? The 1920s firearm act does not appear to be any sort of attempt to disarm the working class; it introduced a registration system and gave police the right to restrict the issuing of permits. Or do you mean the 1937 Firearms act, which outlawed fully automatic weapons?

[quote]Right up through the Edwardian era, that is right up to the First World War, there were no "gun control" laws in Great Britain, and (as any reader of Arthur Conan Doyle can attest) many the physician, barrister, or gentleman went about his daily business armed with his trusty revolver.[/quote]

The 1903 Pistols Act prohibited the drunk and the insane from possessing pistols.

[quote] Gun crime was a rarity, however, and the police themselves did not ordinarily carry firearms, borrowing them from passersby when they were needed in a pinch.

With increasing left wing agitation, gun control laws began to be passed in the 1920s, with the aim of preventing a replay of the Bolshevik Revolution in Britain.[/quote]

Do you have a reference for this?

[quote]Over the ensuing decades, gun control in Britain has become increasingly more severe, and the private possession of firearms is quite difficult. (On the other hand, noise-suppressing devices ['silencers'] are easily available, and it is considered impolite to hunt with a rifle not so equipped.)

Incidentally, the more severe British gun control has become, the more common gun crime has become.

As in other countries, preventing law-abiding citizens from arming themselves chiefly serves the purpose of ensuring that an armed criminal can threaten the use of a firearm, or use it, with impunity, and no fear of being opposed by fire.

Woland
[/quote]

Well, I'd like to see some data on that...

John
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 22, 2011 07:16PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-22 11:20, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-21 23:13, acesover wrote:

Just as a side note being a canadian you wil not be able to purchase a handgun inthe US so you better bring yours from canada when you explode as you mention in a previous post.
[/quote]
Apparently there are some legal (not to mention non-legal) ways for a Canadian to acquire firearms in the U.S. For example, see:

"The US passed new legislation in February 2003 which makes it illegal for a ‘non-resident alien’ to come into possession of a firearm in the US. This does NOT apply to antiques or muzzle-loading firearms, nor does it apply to Canadians with legal residency in the US or to US citizens, regardless of their residency."

http://www.international.gc.ca/controls-controles/firearms_armes_a_feu/other-autres/index.aspx
[/quote]


I am not sure but I belieive that you can purchase a weapon in the US being a Canadian resident but you cannot take have it in the US. I believe you just make accomodations to have it shipped to Canada. I could be wrong about this. But if I am right you cannot acquire a gun legally in the US.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 22, 2011 07:19PM)
Good news! My town, which has no grocery store, now has a gun shop featuring Glocks! I'm gonna get me one.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 22, 2011 07:23PM)
Welcome back to the discussion, Magnus! We've strayed far from the original topic, but here goes.

My information on British gun control laws (and their lamentable effects)is derived from the work of Joyce Lee Malcolm, Professor of Law at George Mason University. She has published two books that bear on the subject, "Guns and Violence, the English Experience," Harvard University Press, 2004, and "To Keep and Bear Arms, the Origins of an Anglo-American Right," Harvard University Press, 1996.

In 2002, [url=http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome]Professor Malcolm published an article in the online journal, "Reason," which includes the following discussion:[/url]

[quote]The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted. A government study for the years 1890-92, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world. A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported that England's firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld." Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. Worse, they are increasingly ready to use them.

Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London's Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.

Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.

This sea change in English crime followed a sea change in government policies. Gun regulations have been part of a more general disarmament based on the proposition that people don't need to protect themselves because society will protect them. It also will protect their neighbors: Police advise those who witness a crime to "walk on by" and let the professionals handle it.

This is a reversal of centuries of common law that not only permitted but expected individuals to defend themselves, their families, and their neighbors when other help was not available. It was a legal tradition passed on to Americans. Personal security was ranked first among an individual's rights by William Blackstone, the great 18th-century exponent of the common law. It was a right, he argued, that no government could take away, since no government could protect the individual in his moment of need. A century later Blackstone's illustrious successor, A.V. Dicey, cautioned, "discourage self-help and loyal subjects become the slaves of ruffians."

But modern English governments have put public order ahead of the individual's right to personal safety. First the government clamped down on private possession of guns; then it forbade people to carry any article that might be used for self-defense; finally, the vigor of that self-defense was to be judged by what, in hindsight, seemed "reasonable in the circumstances."

The 1920 Firearms Act was the first serious British restriction on guns. Although crime was low in England in 1920, the government feared massive labor disruption and a Bolshevik revolution. In the circumstances, permitting the people to remain armed must have seemed an unnecessary risk. And so the new policy of disarming the public began. The Firearms Act required a would-be gun owner to obtain a certificate from the local chief of police, who was charged with determining whether the applicant had a good reason for possessing a weapon and was fit to do so. All very sensible. Parliament was assured that the intention was to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous persons. Yet from the start the law's enforcement was far more restrictive, and Home Office instructions to police -- classified until 1989 -- periodically narrowed the criteria.

At first police were instructed that it would be a good reason to have a revolver if a person "lives in a solitary house, where protection against thieves and burglars is essential, or has been exposed to definite threats to life on account of his performance of some public duty." By 1937 police were to discourage applications to possess firearms for house or personal protection. In 1964 they were told "it should hardly ever be necessary to anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person" and that "this principle should hold good even in the case of banks and firms who desire to protect valuables or large quantities of money."

In 1969 police were informed "it should never be necessary for anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person." These changes were made without public knowledge or debate. Their enforcement has consumed hundreds of thousands of police hours. Finally, in 1997 handguns were banned. Proposed exemptions for handicapped shooters and the British Olympic team were rejected.

Even more sweeping was the 1953 Prevention of Crime Act, which made it illegal to carry in a public place any article "made, adapted, or intended" for an offensive purpose "without lawful authority or excuse." Carrying something to protect yourself was branded antisocial. Any item carried for possible defense automatically became an offensive weapon. Police were given extensive power to stop and search everyone. Individuals found with offensive items were guilty until proven innocent.[/quote]

There's more at the link that is just as good.

Woland
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 22, 2011 07:28PM)
Anyway I live in the US and do not have a criminal record so I can have my guns, have a concealed carry permit and be called a gun nut by some. While it upsets some it makes me happy. And I would rather be happy than sad.

There are some laws I do not like but I have to live by them if I choose to live in the US. And I choose to live here. If I do not like said laws I see two other options. Break them and suffer the consquences or leave and find some other place that I think is better. I do not think there is a better place to live than the US. That's my story and I am sticking to it.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 22, 2011 07:44PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-22 19:40, Woland wrote:

Right up through the Edwardian era, that is right up to the First World War, there were no "gun control" laws in Great Britain, and (as any reader of Arthur Conan Doyle can attest) many the physician, barrister, or gentleman went about his daily business armed with his trusty revolver.
[/quote]
Actually, there were gun control laws in Great Britain long before WW1. E.g., the Vagrancy Act of 1824, the Pistols Act of 1903.

[quote]
On 2011-01-22 19:40, Woland wrote:

Incidentally, the more severe British gun control has become, the more common gun crime has become.
[/quote]
Well ...

First, correlation is not necessarily causation.

Second, lots of things have changed in the last 80 years, let alone the last 20, not just gun control legislation. Some of the increase in gun crime has been attributed to a change in gun crime reporting practices that went into effect circa 2001. They say the rise of gun crime in the U.K. has more to do with a rise in U.S. style gang culture in Britain than anything else. Most of the rise in gun crime comes from two or more gang member types facing off with guns, not from a person with a gun assaulting an innocent victim.

Third, the firearm-related death rate in Britain today is at something like a 10+ year low following the 1997 Firearms Act.

Some headlines will tell you that violent crime in Britain is on the rise or that it is higher there than in other countries. But, again, you have to keep in mind the different reporting practices. In Britain an affray (public fight) is considered a violent crime, while in most other countries it only counts and gets logged if a person is physically injured.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jan 22, 2011 07:47PM)
"Incidentally, the more severe British gun control has become, the more common gun crime has become.

As in other countries, preventing law-abiding citizens from arming themselves chiefly serves the purpose of ensuring that an armed criminal can threaten the use of a firearm, or use it, with impunity, and no fear of being opposed by fire."

I know nothing about British gun laws but here in Australia, where private gun ownership was never that common anyway - usually farmers had a light calibre rifle for snakes - we had very strict gun laws introduced after a terrible massacre in Tasmania.

Hand Guns are only carried by the police and some strictly monitored security personnel. Individuals can only possess them for sporting purposes and they must be secured in gun safes when not being used for that purpose. I'm not sure but I think only the military and police can have semi automatic or automatic weapons while normal rifles can be owned by anyone of sound mind, good character and no criminal record. I think anyone wishing to own one needs to state why they need it and it must be secured in a gun safe when not in use.

The laws were introduced with bipartisan support - there was a little bit of noise at the time - mainly from gunshop owners with NRA support, but it is no longer an issue and the gunshop owners lost public support by letting the NRA get involved - it was an Australian issue - not American and it was generally assumed the NRA was just protecting a market for the gun manufacturers who support them. Our gun laws do not get a mention during election campaigns and I do not remember the last time I even read a news article about them - they simply excite no public debate.

We have a very low murder rate and while some crime gangs do manage to get hold of guns, they usually use them against each other. Those inclined to murder their loved ones during domestic disputes have to use slower methods and are therefore frequently interrupted before achieving their goal.

How we have handled it works very well for us and we are, as a country, very happy with it. Anyone who suggests there is something idiotic, communist or in any other way wrong with our laws is far too full of their own BS to see the world from any but their own perspective. We are not a pacifist country. It is often forgotten that we have fought with the US in every conflict since World War 2 - Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan to name the main ones - and we have also taken the lead in regional conflicts. Different things work in different places.

We look at US gun culture in amazement but I am very careful when commenting about it because of your different circumstances. Our government (and I will remind gdw that here in Australia we regard the government as ourselves - not the enemy) was able to control gun ownership by an easily afforded buyback and amnesty - in the States there are so many guns in circulation that would be unlikely to be the case. It seems obvious to an outsider though that, as a country, it would help immensely if you could get more guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane - unfortunately it seems nothing is done because any mention of gun control is swamped by argument about the rights of ordinary citizens - to the point where some seem to think if everyone in the crowd was armed - nothing bad would happen - yeah, right! I may be assuming, but it is almost as though some think 'carrying' should be compulsory. I personally think a nation wide campaign to get guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane would have to be of some value.

Edit: just noticed while I was typing acesover said basically what I think in fewer words.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 22, 2011 07:58PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-22 20:23, Woland wrote:
Welcome back to the discussion, Magnus! We've strayed far from the original topic, but here goes.

My information on British gun control laws (and their lamentable effects)is derived from the work of Joyce Lee Malcolm, Professor of Law at George Mason University. She has published two books that bear on the subject, "Guns and Violence, the English Experience," Harvard University Press, 2004, and "To Keep and Bear Arms, the Origins of an Anglo-American Right," Harvard University Press, 1996.


[/quote]

Thanks I see the claims in the article, but I don't see any evidence. (Although fear of a Bolshevik-type uprising would probably have been sensible in 1920). I'll have to dig deeper into the sources when I get the time.

Like Destiny, I am wary of arguments that try to transport one land's culture into another land's context. Some countries just seem to have more gunplay than others, and it usually isn't clear why.

John
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 22, 2011 08:11PM)
Magnus,

I welcome your interest, and invite you to dive into Professor Malcolm's thoughtful books. She shows that the "gun culture" began in England, in the XVIth and XVIIth centuries, when non-noble, non-aristocratic subjects realized that it was necessary for them to be armed. From that origin, the practice of commoners being armed followed different paths in the different countries that developed from Britain and its colonies.

Woland
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 22, 2011 08:53PM)
We love the Australians! In fact during WW2 there was a major problem w/ Australian troops being tied up fighting elsewhere and not being available against the Japanese CUZ of England.

Perhaps if Canada ever fought for independence rather than being begged to go it alone they would have different views. They sure are not afraid to use clubs if ya know what I mean.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 22, 2011 09:03PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-22 20:28, acesover wrote:
Anyway I live in the US and do not have a criminal record so I can have my guns, have a concealed carry permit and be called a gun nut by some. While it upsets some it makes me happy. And I would rather be happy than sad.

There are some laws I do not like but I have to live by them if I choose to live in the US. And I choose to live here. If I do not like said laws I see two other options. Break them and suffer the consquences or leave and find some other place that I think is better. I do not think there is a better place to live than the US. That's my story and I am sticking to it.
[/quote]

And there are some laws that, even if you did find somewhere else to live, you would still be help to them.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 22, 2011 09:06PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-22 21:53, MagicSanta wrote:
We love the Australians! In fact during WW2 there was a major problem w/ Australian troops being tied up fighting elsewhere and not being available against the Japanese CUZ of England.

Perhaps if Canada ever fought for independence rather than being begged to go it alone they would have different views. They sure are not afraid to use clubs if ya know what I mean.
[/quote]

We did defeat the American invaders in 1812, but that's about it.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 22, 2011 09:12PM)
No, we changed our mind and since there was no Canada then, just a colony of the UK, there was no 'WE' for you. Deal w/ it. Oh, we are not giving back our fort that caused a blip in the map either....and an Aussie shot down the red baron!
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 22, 2011 09:47PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-22 21:53, MagicSanta wrote:
We love the Australians! In fact during WW2 there was a major problem w/ Australian troops being tied up fighting elsewhere and not being available against the Japanese CUZ of England.

Perhaps if Canada ever fought for independence rather than being begged to go it alone they would have different views. They sure are not afraid to use clubs if ya know what I mean.
[/quote]

Santa, are you making broad sweeping judgments of people based on the conditions (re:location) of their birth?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 22, 2011 10:10PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-22 22:12, MagicSanta wrote:
No, we changed our mind and since there was no Canada then, just a colony of the UK, there was no 'WE' for you. Deal w/ it. Oh, we are not giving back our fort that caused a blip in the map either....and an Aussie shot down the red baron!
[/quote]

Which is a bit like saying George Washington led British troops because there was no America at the time.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 22, 2011 10:35PM)
That is correct. He led colonial forces against those loyal to the crown w/in the 13 colonies seeking independence. It ended up w/ many countries fighting so in a sense it was close to being a world war as far as major powers go. We are talking real countries not other colonies in the tundra. Of course since the colonies established themselves as a united group the term American can be used. What is interesting is that some native tribes and their loyalist buddies were chased into Canada where they are now refered to as first nations though they would really be third nations. Life is neat huh?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 22, 2011 10:53PM)
Indeed. But they couldn't have been chased into Canada because it didn't exist. Maybe they went to Upper Canada. Or Lower Canada. Or maybe Rupert's Land.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 22, 2011 10:57PM)
Canada existed, just not as an independent nation.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 22, 2011 11:48PM)
Ha! You call that living?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 23, 2011 05:19AM)
Magnus,

Although whether "Canada" defeated American troops during the Napoleonic Wars is debatable, I will concede that Canada defeated a series of Fenian Raids that followed the American Civil War. In the largest invasion, more than 1,000 armed men invaded Canada with the aim of seizing the country and trading it back to Great Britain in exchange for Ireland's freedom.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 23, 2011 08:14AM)
Woland, there are two well-known Wars of 1812. The one in which America declared war on the British territories that are now Canada was quite independent of the Napoleonic wars.

The Fenian raids of 1866-1871 were a completely different matter, as you note. The Fenians were American-based terrorists.

John
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 23, 2011 08:48AM)
Magnus,

You may be right, but in my opinion, what we call "The War of 1812" in the United States was a sideshow of the Napoleonic Wars. The major casus belli for the United States was the British practice of detaining American ships and impressing Britons who had become naturalized American citizens -- and some native born Americans -- among their crews into the British Navy. This practice was directly related to the wartime needs of the British Navy in the Napoleonic Wars on the Continent. The United States also reacted against British harassment of trade with France, again part and parcel of Britain's war against France, and against British support of the remnants of the Shawnee armies who were making continual raids on American settlements.

Woland
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 23, 2011 09:43AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-22 22:03, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-22 20:28, acesover wrote:
Anyway I live in the US and do not have a criminal record so I can have my guns, have a concealed carry permit and be called a gun nut by some. While it upsets some it makes me happy. And I would rather be happy than sad.

There are some laws I do not like but I have to live by them if I choose to live in the US. And I choose to live here. If I do not like said laws I see two other options. Break them and suffer the consquences or leave and find some other place that I think is better. I do not think there is a better place to live than the US. That's my story and I am sticking to it.
[/quote]

And there are some laws that, even if you did find somewhere else to live, you would still be help to them.
[/quote]


gdw,

Not understanding your post. :confused:
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 23, 2011 12:06PM)
Even if you move elsewhere, america claims you still owe them taxes, you know, for all those services, like police, and roads that your using while not even living in the country.

I believe canada does the same.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 23, 2011 12:15PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-23 13:06, gdw wrote:
Even if you move elsewhere, america claims you still owe them taxes, you know, for all those services, like police, and roads that your using while not even living in the country.

I believe canada does the same.
[/quote]
Yes, you generally will owe taxes on the income you earned in the country. Even if you don't live there (except perhaps in special cases).

Even if you are living elsewhere but still holding onto your American (or Canadian) citizenship, you are deriving benefits from that. Like the passport, the protection it and your country's foreign embassies give you, that sort of thing.

If you don't want this, then renounce your citizenship and stop doing business in the country.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 23, 2011 01:40PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-23 13:15, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-23 13:06, gdw wrote:
Even if you move elsewhere, america claims you still owe them taxes, you know, for all those services, like police, and roads that your using while not even living in the country.

I believe canada does the same.
[/quote]
Yes, you generally will owe taxes on the income you earned in the country. Even if you don't live there (except perhaps in special cases).

Even if you are living elsewhere but still holding onto your American (or Canadian) citizenship, you are deriving benefits from that. Like the passport, the protection it and your country's foreign embassies give you, that sort of thing.

If you don't want this, then renounce your citizenship and stop doing business in the country.
[/quote]

Balducci, I believe they demand taxes on income earned abroad, meaning not from business in the usa, but I could be mistaken.
Oh, and as for renouncing citizenship, you have to pay for permission to do that too. And even then they will likely still try to get taxes for, I believe somewhere between 4-10 years after that.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 23, 2011 03:38PM)
As far as I know, only 2 countries in the world tax their citizens for earned income earned abroad and paid abroad in a foreign currency: the United States and the Philippines. And the Philippines only does it because they began their tax code by copying the United States.

Woland
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 23, 2011 04:00PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-23 16:38, Woland wrote:
As far as I know, only 2 countries in the world tax their citizens for earned income earned abroad and paid abroad in a foreign currency: the United States and the Philippines.
[/quote]
I don't know about the Philippines, but the U.S. at least has tax treaties with some countries in place. "[T]he United States allows a foreign tax credit by which income taxes paid to foreign countries can be offset against U.S. income tax liability attributable to foreign income." I have several friends who are U.S. citizens, who live and work in Canada, and have never had to pay U.S. tax due to our tax treaty.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/n07/data/07-070_1-eng.asp

Whenever a resident of one country earns income in another country - whether by carrying on business, making an investment or being employed there - there is potential for double taxation. This is because both the person's country of residence and the country where the income is earned can legitimately assert rights to tax the same income.

To prevent this double taxation, countries sign bilateral tax treaties (also known as tax conventions or double taxation agreements (DTAs)). These agreements, which become legally binding once ratified, set out which country gets to tax particular forms of income in a variety of specific situations.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 23, 2011 05:57PM)
Well, balducci, that's correct, but most countries don't tax at all their citizens' earned income that is earned abroad in foreign currencies.

Woland
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 23, 2011 06:11PM)
Good thing those guys didn't capture Canada...would have been embarrassing when the UK refused to trade Ireland for 'em.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 23, 2011 07:15PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-23 18:57, Woland wrote:

Well, balducci, that's correct, but most countries don't tax at all their citizens' earned income that is earned abroad in foreign currencies.
[/quote]
Well, Woland, from just a few minutes on the web searching it seems as though a host of countries do this, so I think it is not at all as rare as you think. Anyway, this tax stuff is way off topic.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 23, 2011 09:00PM)
I am specifically referring to earned income, earned abroad, paid in a foreign currency, in a foreign country, to a resident of that country.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 24, 2011 06:53AM)
[url=http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/01/20/man-faces-jail-after-protecting-home-from-masked-attackers/]Here's an absurd story from the Great White North:[/url]

[quote]Ian Thomson moved to a rural homestead in Southwestern Ontario to lead a quiet life investing in a little fixer-upper. Then his neighbour’s chickens began showing up on his property. He warned his neighbour, then killed one of the birds.

The incident began six years of trouble for Mr. Thomson that culminated early one Sunday morning last August when the 53-year-old former mobile-crane operator woke up to the sound of three masked men firebombing his Port Colborne, Ont., home.

“I was horrified,” he said. “I couldn’t believe it. I didn’t know what was happening. I had no idea what was going on.”

So Mr. Thomson, a former firearms instructor, grabbed one of his Smith & Wesson revolvers from his safe, loaded it and headed outside dressed in only his underwear.

“He exited his house and fired his revolver two, maybe three times, we’re not sure. Then these firebombing culprits, they ran off,” said his lawyer, Edward Burlew.

His surveillance cameras caught the attackers lobbing at least six Molotov cocktails at his house and bombing his doghouse, singeing one of his Siberian Huskies. But when Mr. Thomson handed the video footage to Niagara Regional Police, he found himself charged with careless use of a firearm.

The local Crown attorney’s office later laid a charge of pointing a firearm, along with two counts of careless storage of a firearm. The Crown has recommended Mr. Thomson go to jail, his lawyer said.

His collection of seven guns, five pistols and two rifles was seized, along with his firearms licence. Mr. Thomson said he lives in fear that his attackers will return and has taken to arming himself with a fire extinguisher.

“I don’t have enemies,” said the soft-spoken man, who now studies environmental geosciences full-time at Brock University after being injured in a workplace accident. “I don’t know that many people. I’m a quiet man. I just want to go back to my life and be able to live out my days in relative peace.”

Mr. Thomson’s is the latest in a series of high-profile cases in which people have been charged after defending their homes and businesses against criminals. Central Alberta farmer Brian Knight became a local hero after shooting a thief who was trying to steal his ATV. He pleaded guilty to criminal negligence earlier this month. In October, Toronto shopkeeper David Chen was acquitted of forcible confinement charges after he tied up a repeat shoplifter and demanded he stop raiding his grocery store.[/quote]

No word if the police bothered to investigate or charge the men who were throwing Molotov cocktails at his house!

To offer a comment inspired by Ed Harris's new film, "The Way Back," it looks like Canada is going the way of the Soviet Union, in which common criminals were considered victims of bourgeois society and given a higher status than the political prisoners deemed "enemies of the people."

Woland
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 24, 2011 07:52AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-24 07:53, Woland wrote:

No word if the police bothered to investigate or charge the men who were throwing Molotov cocktails at his house!
[/quote]
Woland, it says in the very same article you posted that they were charged:

"They charged Randy Weaver, 48, of Port Colborne, and Justin Lee, 19, of Welland, with arson in December, alleging the men and a third suspect “intentionally set the home on fire while the homeowner was inside.”"
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 24, 2011 08:50AM)
Thanks, balducci, that's good to know! My faith in Sergeant Preston is restored!
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 24, 2011 09:41AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-24 09:50, Woland wrote:
Thanks, balducci, that's good to know! My faith in Sergeant Preston is restored!
[/quote]
My pleasure. Sorry I had to dismantle your thesis about Canada "going the way of the Soviet Union, in which common criminals were considered victims of bourgeois society and given a higher status than the political prisoners deemed 'enemies of the people.'" :)
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 24, 2011 09:47AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-24 10:41, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-24 09:50, Woland wrote:
Thanks, balducci, that's good to know! My faith in Sergeant Preston is restored!
[/quote]
My pleasure. Sorry I had to dismantle your thesis about Canada "going the way of the Soviet Union, in which common criminals were considered victims of bourgeois society and given a higher status than the political prisoners deemed 'enemies of the people.'" :)
[/quote]

Geez Balducci, you're ruining our reputation.

Don't listent to him.

Viva la revolution!
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 24, 2011 01:16PM)
They do hate competition.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 24, 2011 03:00PM)
They were charged w/ attempting to violate global warming laws by starting a fire where smoke could contain toxins and a biomass (the dude).
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 24, 2011 03:09PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-24 16:00, MagicSanta wrote:
They were charged w/ attempting to violate global warming laws by starting a fire where smoke could contain toxins and a biomass (the dude).
[/quote]

Is this sarcasm? Really, I wouldn't be that surprised if there was some truth to this.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 24, 2011 04:06PM)
I can see it happening in California as well.

When my wife dies she is considered a hazard and they have to remove her defibulator before tossing her to the gators (that's how I'm sending her to her reward...gators).
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 24, 2011 05:53PM)
To stir things up a bit and get back on track--

Now that the right has conclusively agreed that Loughner is just a crazy mentally ill person, not influenced by any external violent discourse whatsoever, will they support the insanity defense for him? It will be interesting for me to find out, since most conservatives I know have in the past been against that kind of defense.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 24, 2011 05:58PM)
I believe the question is if he was aware he was violating the law. They said it could take years to try him...
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 24, 2011 06:08PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-24 18:53, landmark wrote:
To stir things up a bit and get back on track--

Now that the right has conclusively agreed that Loughner is just a crazy mentally ill person, not influenced by any external violent discourse whatsoever, will they support the insanity defense for him? It will be interesting for me to find out, since most conservatives I know have in the past been against that kind of defense.
[/quote]

I expect it won't have much of an effect. Most mental illnesses don't negate criminal liability, and the disagreement most conservatives I know have with the defense isn't that a particular defendant isn't mentally ill, but rather that his illness shouldn't excuse his actions.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 24, 2011 06:22PM)
"Most mental illnesses don't negate criminal liability."

True, if someone is suffering from say, depression, it doesn't generally absolve her from blame. I'm under the impression however that most insanity laws are dependent on whether the defendant can tell right from wrong.

The argument that the right seems to be making in this case is that Loughner was so crazy that no external political discourse could have affected him, he was too crazy even for that. I think the right will find themselves in a dilemma, since those against insanity defenses will either have to say this is a special case or give up their political get out of jail free card when it comes to provocative rhetoric.

Interestingly, Arizona has a guilty, but insane plea whereas the Federal law does not. He is now being charged under Federal law because of the shooting of Federal Judge Roll.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 24, 2011 06:37PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-24 19:22, landmark wrote:
"Most mental illnesses don't negate criminal liability."


The argument that the right seems to be making in this case is that Loughner was so crazy that no external political discourse could have affected him, he was too crazy even for that. I think the right will find themselves in a dilemma, since those against insanity defenses will either have to say this is a special case or give up their political get out of jail free card when it comes to provocative rhetoric.

[/quote]

I disagree. If I tell you to go jump off a bridge, and you do it, then 1) you're probably crazy, and 2) I'm not responsible for your actions.

If you stop along the way to rob a bank, and get survive the bridge jump, your craziness doesn't get you a pass on the bank robbery.

Moreover, as an affirmative defense, the burden would be on the defense to show by clear and convincing evidence that as a result of his mental disease or defect, he was unable to appreciate the nature or wrongfulness of his actions, which is a tough row to hoe. I haven't read too many specific details of the shooting, but for instance, any steps he may have taken to avoid bystanders from stopping him could be construed as consciousness of guilt, or the fact that he had multiple indiscriminant targets would probably cut against the plea (as opposed, say, to just targeting a specific person, and not trying to get away or show awareness of any guilt, as if voices in his head had told him that congresswoman Giffords was Satan, and he'd done a good thing by shooting her).

Saying that someone is nuts and politicians' or media hosts' comments aren't at fault for their actions is a far cry from saying they have a viable insanity defense that absolves them of criminal responsibility.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 24, 2011 06:42PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-24 19:22, landmark wrote:

Interestingly, Arizona has a guilty, but insane plea whereas the Federal law does not. He is now being charged under Federal law because of the shooting of Federal Judge Roll.
[/quote]
FWIW, just to mention in passing, I believe he was always going to be charged for that under Federal law as that particular shooting (of a Federal Judge) was a Federal offense. He will still be charged under State law for some of the other shootings. My understanding, based on what I read, was that he was charged with this Federal offense first because he had to be charged with SOMETHING within a certain number of days or else be released, and this Federal charge was viewed as one of the easiest charges on which to convict and / or set in motion.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 24, 2011 06:42PM)
I would say he knew he was up to no good when he did a farewell on his facebook or whatever it was.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 24, 2011 06:44PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-24 17:06, MagicSanta wrote:

When my wife dies she is considered a hazard and they have to remove her defibulator before tossing her to the gators (that's how I'm sending her to her reward...gators).
[/quote]
Has your wife picked out a croc yet?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 24, 2011 06:50PM)
She doesn't know yet....and it will be gators. Crocs get enough press, time for a gator to take some time in the sun. When my mother in law died I wanted to either put her in a boat w/ gas and fire burning arrows at her in Lake Tahoe or tie her to a mustang and have her dragged into the desert...but enviromental concerns kept me from doing those. My brothers ashes were put into a dumpster.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 24, 2011 07:32PM)
Santa, I almost wish I was related to you. I have no use for my body when I'm dead. Might as well have something interesting done with it.


Back to the topic, if the politicians and their rhetoric can be blamed for the actions of a nut, then no one can say anything. Look what Manson thought the Beatles were saying. You don't even need to actually say anything remotely "violent" for a crazy person to take it as "bad advice." And, unlike Manson, this guy never even said anything about what anyone else said.
What does that tell you about how much this is BS made up by everyone. They literally pulled the connection out of next to nothing.

How wonderful that they take a tragedy and take advantage of it to just attack eachother, and attack eachother over attacking eachother.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 24, 2011 07:41PM)
You need to read up on Manson.

This insanity thing is interesting. My godson plead insanity last month for his little attack on his highschool, which I found odd.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 24, 2011 07:43PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-24 19:22, landmark wrote:
...
The argument that the right seems to be making in this case is that Loughner was so crazy that no external political discourse could have affected him, he was too crazy even for that.
...
[/quote]

I haven't seen that argument. What I've seen the right say is that there is NO evidence that political discourse had ANY effect on him as there is nothing in his statements, writings, etc. that shows he was listening to anyone on the right. They've also said that his obsession with Congresswoman Giffords pre-dated Sarah Palin coming onto the political scene. They HAVE said that it appears that his motivations seem to be based on delusion more than political discourse.

Of course they've also made the point, (valid in my opinion), that the left never has a problem with uncivil discourse when it pertains to them, only when it pertains to those on the right.

Finally, I'm not sure I buy into your point that those on the right never agree with the insanity plea either. Saying that is similar to when those on the left claim that the right doesn't want ANY regulation. Not true. We believe in regulation, just not over-regulation.

Mike
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 24, 2011 07:48PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-24 18:53, landmark wrote:

Now that the right has conclusively agreed that Loughner is just a crazy mentally ill person, not influenced by any external violent discourse whatsoever, will they support the insanity defense for him? It will be interesting for me to find out, since most conservatives I know have in the past been against that kind of defense.
[/quote]
If they didn't support the insanity defense before, why would they support it now?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 24, 2011 08:50PM)
Well, landmark, judging from the shooter's own materials, and by the accounts of his acquaintances and fellow students, if he was influenced by any external political discourse, it was the hate-filled political discourse (Bushhitler, GOP-Nazis, 911-inside job, ad infinitum & ad nauseam) coming from the left.

Woland
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 24, 2011 08:54PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-24 20:41, MagicSanta wrote:
You need to read up on Manson.

. . .
[/quote]

How so? Are you so intent on being contradictory to anything I say that you get lost with your assumptions?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 24, 2011 09:02PM)
Chuck Manson didn't believe that stuff...the idea is to get others to believe your gig so you can control 'em. Manson would have the family eat from a dumpster and say how the establishment was evil then he would take a car, change cloths, and go to dinner w/ 'the establishment'. He was a pimp who knew how to use mind control.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 24, 2011 09:27PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-24 21:50, Woland wrote:

Well, landmark, judging from the shooter's own materials, and by the accounts of his acquaintances and fellow students, if he was influenced by any external political discourse, it was the hate-filled political discourse (Bushhitler, GOP-Nazis, 911-inside job, ad infinitum & ad nauseam) coming from the left.
[/quote]
Oh, good Lord, Woland ... how about Jared's right-wing federal reserve dollars are not money ideas, his pro-gold and silver talk, his language modeled after far-right anti-tax sovereign citizen David Wynn Miller, etcetera ... JL's hate-filled political discourse was peppered with elements from both the left and the right. Probably in about equal measure.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 24, 2011 09:32PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-24 22:27, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-24 21:50, Woland wrote:

Well, landmark, judging from the shooter's own materials, and by the accounts of his acquaintances and fellow students, if he was influenced by any external political discourse, it was the hate-filled political discourse (Bushhitler, GOP-Nazis, 911-inside job, ad infinitum & ad nauseam) coming from the left.
[/quote]
Oh, good Lord, Woland ... how about Jared's right-wing federal reserve dollars are not money ideas, his pro-gold and silver talk, his language modeled after far-right anti-tax sovereign citizen David Wynn Miller, etcetera ... JL's hate-filled political discourse was peppered with elements from both the left and the right. Probably in about equal measure.
[/quote]

"Probably in about equal measure."

Absolutely, very good. So why is it that all the talking heads only pointed to the political discourse on the right?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 24, 2011 09:35PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-24 22:32, rockwall wrote:

"Probably in about equal measure."

Absolutely, very good. So why is it that all the talking heads only pointed to the political discourse on the right?
[/quote]
I suppose it depends what you read and watch. I would argue that blame has NOT only pointed to the political discourse on the right, based on what I've observed. Perhaps you need to read more articles at WND and FoxNEWS?
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jan 25, 2011 08:03AM)
I vote left but I'm afraid if he didn't know it was wrong to put bullets in people and kill them, that would go against him, not for him, in my reckoning.

The parents need a public slapping too - when the chick gets it's feathers it's meant to be turfed out of the nest and learn to fend for itself. A little bit of harsh reality can be very good for snapping the overindulged out of their self delusion.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 25, 2011 09:00AM)
Destiny, from my understanding, the parents are horrified. Gifford's husband has even offered to meet with them, saying something to the effect of "They must feel terrible," and he wanted to offer them some comfort.

MagicSanta, I'm sure the old gods would approve of that method of corpse disposal. Saw a video of a "sky burial" once- the tribe laid the body in the sun and let the vultures take it back; they even offered some assistance on the larger bones by using a heavy, sharp rock.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 25, 2011 10:15AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-24 21:50, Woland wrote:
Well, landmark, judging from the shooter's own materials, and by the accounts of his acquaintances and fellow students, if he was influenced by any external political discourse, it was the hate-filled political discourse (Bushhitler, GOP-Nazis, 911-inside job, ad infinitum & ad nauseam) coming from the left.

Woland
[/quote]

The shooter's reading list included Ayn Rand. I've referenced that at least twice here, and it's on the Internet, but you repeat the lie that his reading list is left wing, when what it clearly is, is anti-government. So, I must assume one of the the following:

1) You think Ayn Rand, too, is a leftist.

2) You were unaware of the fact because the news outlets you choose to attend to have deliberately not mentioned this easily available fact (Fox may have been too busy to notice in the last few weeks).

3) You are aware of it, but want to keep making your political point even though it is unsupported by the facts.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 25, 2011 10:20AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-24 22:32, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-24 22:27, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-24 21:50, Woland wrote:

Well, landmark, judging from the shooter's own materials, and by the accounts of his acquaintances and fellow students, if he was influenced by any external political discourse, it was the hate-filled political discourse (Bushhitler, GOP-Nazis, 911-inside job, ad infinitum & ad nauseam) coming from the left.
[/quote]
Oh, good Lord, Woland ... how about Jared's right-wing federal reserve dollars are not money ideas, his pro-gold and silver talk, his language modeled after far-right anti-tax sovereign citizen David Wynn Miller, etcetera ... JL's hate-filled political discourse was peppered with elements from both the left and the right. Probably in about equal measure.
[/quote]

"Probably in about equal measure."

Absolutely, very good. So why is it that all the talking heads only pointed to the political discourse on the right?
[/quote]

There is no equivalency in this matter between the right and the left. There is [i]no one[/i] on the left with the power and audience of Beck, Limbaugh, Palin and others who have consistently [i]and unapologetically[/i] combined violent political rhetoric with a call for guns in everybody's hands. If you think there is, I'd be curious to know who you think it is.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 25, 2011 11:01AM)
The only thing you can count on is this guy costing the tax payers millions of dollars.

So not only did he devastate several famlies he is now going to waste your tax dollars.

Ask yourself:

Is he menatlly ill? Most likely.
Did he know what he was doing? Most likely.
Was it premediated? From all evidence so far gathered and reported. Most likely.
Will this drag on for years? Most likely.
Will something similar like this happen again? Most likely.
Will people talk about it and voice their opinions both for and aganist his death? Most likely.
Will all this turmoil and controversy solve anything? Most likely not.

Ask yourself also?
Can this guy ever be rehabilitated? Most likely not.
Should we house and feed him for the next 50 or 60 years or excute him? Whatever you answer is wrong, so don't bother answering.

Just some thoughts on this topic on a dreary cold Winter afternoon.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 25, 2011 11:46AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-25 12:01, acesover wrote:
The only thing you can count on is this guy costing the tax payers millions of dollars.

So not only did he devastate several famlies he is now going to waste your tax dollars.

Ask yourself:

Is he menatlly ill? Most likely.
Did he know what he was doing? Most likely.
Was it premediated? From all evidence so far gathered and reported. Most likely.
Will this drag on for years? Most likely.
Will something similar like this happen again? Most likely.
Will people talk about it and voice their opinions both for and aganist his death? Most likely.
Will all this turmoil and controversy solve anything? Most likely not.

Ask yourself also?
Can this guy ever be rehabilitated? Most likely not.
Should we house and feed him for the next 50 or 60 years or excute him? Whatever you answer is wrong, so don't bother answering.

Just some thoughts on this topic on a dreary cold Winter afternoon.
[/quote]

Unfortunately accurate...
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 25, 2011 02:55PM)
Well, landmark, that "reading list" to which you refer was taken from the shooter's YouTube page. In addition to Ayn Rand's "We the Living" (an odd choice - not one of her more well-known novels), it also included "The Communist Manifesto," the incoherent National-Socialist tract "Mein Kampf," "The Phantom Tollbooth," and "Peter Pan." It's not clear to me that he had read any of these books, or that he was in any way influenced by any of them. If the list means anything at all, it is probably in what [url=http://www.salon.com/books/laura_miller/2011/01/09/loughner_book_list]Laura Miller has discerned:[/url]

[quote]The sole ideological thread running through Loughner's list is an inchoate anti-authoritarianism. It's likely that what attracted him to "Mein Kampf" and "The Communist Manifesto" was less the political thinking in either book than their aura of the forbidden, the sensation that he was defying the adults around him by daring to read either one. The rest of his favorites -- "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," "Brave New World," "Animal Farm" and "Fahrenheit 451" -- depict deceitful and oppressive regimes committed to squelching individual initiative and thought.

It's not hard to understand why Loughner might be drawn to such narratives. A young man whose slide into paranoid schizophrenia has been noticed and addressed (Loughner was suspended from Pima Community College and administrators insisted that he get a mental health evaluation before he would be allowed to return) probably would favor literature in which maverick truth-tellers are labeled as insane or criminal by self-serving authority figures.

By including Plato's "Republic" and "Meno" on his list of favorites, Loughner could imply, as many paranoids do, that by virtue of his superior intellect he was privy to hidden knowledge of how the world really works. Casting the delusional notions in his videos in the form of logical syllogisms ("If A.D.E. is endless in year, then the years in A.D.E don't cease. A.D.E is endless in year. Therefore the years in A.D.E. don't cease.") was surely also meant to insist that they were the product of rational thought, not insanity.

But Loughner is almost certainly insane and, like the countless other mentally disturbed people who send similar ravings to media outlets around the world, his ideas would have been ignored as incoherent and irrelevant if he hadn't fired a gun into a crowd of people Saturday. The fact that he did fire that gun, however, doesn't make his delusions suddenly meaningful. It doesn't make his list of favorite books significant. Crazy people who make headlines and change history are still crazy.

By studying Loughner's book list for clues to the political leanings that somehow "drove" him to commit murder, commentators are behaving a lot like crazy people themselves. Paranoids are prone to scouring newspaper articles and the monologues of late-night comedians for imaginary coded messages that confirm their "secret knowledge" about the world. But those coded messages aren't there -- it's just random stuff with no special significance. The truth about mental illness is that it strikes without regard to political affiliation or ideological orientation, and it turns beautiful minds into nonsense factories. We can debate a social order that allows its victims access to firearms and talk about finding better ways to intervene before the minority of mentally disturbed individuals with violent impulses are able to act on those impulses. But trying to find the cause for this disease in politics, ideas or books is just plain nuts.[/quote]

It was leftists who ginned up this "issue" in order to bludgeon conservatives into silence and slander Governor Palin, and it is lefists in the "mainstream" media who continue to try to push this issue. This is a game plan that leftists have employed before to bully their opposition into silence. Leftists are trying to use the Tucson shooting just as Stalin used the assassination of Sergey Kirov, or as the Fuehrer used the assassination of Ernst vom Rath. At the moment it appears that the left has misjudged the true extent of its strength. Perhaps after the administration uses "net neutrality" rules to neutralize the internet, the mass media will be able to dominate with Newspeak unchallenged.

Woland
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 25, 2011 03:08PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-24 19:37, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-24 19:22, landmark wrote:
"Most mental illnesses don't negate criminal liability."


The argument that the right seems to be making in this case is that Loughner was so crazy that no external political discourse could have affected him, he was too crazy even for that. I think the right will find themselves in a dilemma, since those against insanity defenses will either have to say this is a special case or give up their political get out of jail free card when it comes to provocative rhetoric.

[/quote]

I disagree. If I tell you to go jump off a bridge, and you do it, then 1) you're probably crazy, and 2) I'm not responsible for your actions. . .
[/quote]

Perhaps legally not, but if your intention was not metaphorical and you provided the location of the best bridge, you would have to bear some of the responsibility. Not that any of the right wing talk show hosts or TV stars would purposely want to see any violence done. I suppose like Henry VIII they have plausible deniability.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 25, 2011 03:18PM)
[quote]
Perhaps after the administration uses "net neutrality" rules to neutralize the internet, the mass media will be able to dominate with Newspeak unchallenged.

Woland
[/quote]
As a conservative, shouldn't you be against net neutrality laws? Shouldn't ATT be allowed to charge whatever they want to whomever they want for whatever product they wish to offer, by your philosophy? I'll tell you if that goes through then we're really done for here.

I'm hoping you're using "net neutrality" in quotes as you think the proposed FCC regs are not neutral at all. If so, I agree with you on that. I think they're a big giveaway to private enterprise--who will soon be determining what sites we're allowed to see or not see.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 25, 2011 03:19PM)
Sounds right to me....
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 25, 2011 03:36PM)
Woland,

I've read the Laura Miller piece and disagree with her. Book choices, unless they fall out of the sky, are never random. They indicate [i]something[/i] about the reader. In fact, as she said, and as I indicated in my previous post, they indicate a general anti-authoritarian bent. No one is saying that reading the books caused his disease--her comment is a total straw man. What we are looking at is what kind of thoughts were running around in his head, what might his state of mind have been. But again, it wasn't leftists who brought up the book list, it was Fox News and WND, [i]who refered to it very selectively, leaving out the Ayn Rand book[/i].

And as for your continued insistence that the Nazis were left wingers (George Lincoln Rockwell must be spinning in his grave), I'm sure you recall the story sometimes attributed to Lincoln: "If you call a sheep's tail a leg, how many legs would it have? "Five." 'No, only four, calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one."
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Jan 25, 2011 03:39PM)
We shouldn't execute him
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 25, 2011 03:48PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-25 15:55, Woland wrote:
It was leftists who ginned up this "issue" in order to bludgeon conservatives into silence and slander Governor Palin, and it is lefists in the "mainstream" media who continue to try to push this issue. This is a game plan that leftists have employed before to bully their opposition into silence. Leftists are trying to use the Tucson shooting just as Stalin used the assassination of Sergey Kirov, or as the Fuehrer used the assassination of Ernst vom Rath. At the moment it appears that the left has misjudged the true extent of its strength. Perhaps after the administration uses "net neutrality" rules to neutralize the internet, the mass media will be able to dominate with Newspeak unchallenged.

Woland
[/quote]
Hey, balducci? Did I miss the last meeting? Nobody clued me in on this latest plan. Maybe Payne's just late with the Left Wing Conspiracy Newsletter again. :goof:

Woland, did you forget your tin foil hat, or have you been listening to Glenn Beck again? ;)
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 25, 2011 04:00PM)
It was a dog's tail when I heard it.

W.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jan 25, 2011 04:23PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-25 16:48, EsnRedshirt wrote:
...
Hey, balducci? Did I miss the last meeting? Nobody clued me in on this latest plan. Maybe Payne's just late with the Left Wing Conspiracy Newsletter again. :goof:
...
[/quote]

It must have got lost in the mail along with the Right Wing Conspiracy Newsletter.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 25, 2011 04:32PM)
Woland brings up accurate historical points.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 25, 2011 04:44PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-25 17:00, Woland wrote:
It was a dog's tail when I heard it.

W.
[/quote]
Interestingly I've found references to dog's tail, sheep's tail and pig's tail. It was evidently a well-known story in Lincoln's era. He probably did say something like it, though he probably didn't originate it.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 25, 2011 05:10PM)
He was probably quoting a story about someone else when he told it. But the story makes a very good point. And no matter how often communist agitprop labels the "National-Socialist German Workers' Party" was right wing, that won't make it so. I have listed, and the sources to which I have linked have provided even more details, the ways in which the National-Socialist program was explicitly anti-capitalist and anti-free-market, and the ways in which life in the Third Reich resembled life in the Soviet Union. Your counter-examples are unconvincing.

Woland
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 25, 2011 05:25PM)
Woland- left, right, socialist, fascist, communist, etc. Labels don't matter. The extremes at either end all amount to nothing less than slavery. Does it really matter if the master is the Government or the Corporation?
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 25, 2011 05:28PM)
Well there is the whole thing about Hitler making a concentrated effort to remove all actual communists from Germany immediately after siezing power, but we wouldn't want to confuse things by throwing facts into this.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jan 25, 2011 05:56PM)
Stop being mean to Woland - he's still in grieving for Joe McCarthy.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jan 25, 2011 07:05PM)
"Lest this be your future--AMERICA, WAKE UP!"

-John Birch Society magazine cartoon 'public service message.'
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 25, 2011 09:19PM)
As near as I can tell, both sides think it's very important to make 2 points.

1) People shouldn't use this as an cheap opportunity to try to score points by assigning blame to political enemies.

2) It's the other side's fault.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 25, 2011 09:53PM)
EsnRedShirt - good point, except that the "extremes" you mention aren't at both ends, they're at the same statist, leftist end. And can you give me an example of how we are enslaved by corporations?

critter, The fact that the National-Socialists competed against the Communists for the anti-capitalist, working class vote, and upon taking power, eliminated them, does not provide a whit of evidence that the National-Socialists were any the less socialist and statist. If the King of England waged war against the King of France, it doesn't make his society any the less monarchist.

Again, if you look at the way society, the economy, politics, and private as well as public life were organized and managed in Soviet Russia and National-Socialist Germany, the similarities far outweigh the differences.

Woland
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 25, 2011 10:06PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-25 22:53, Woland wrote:
EsnRedShirt - good point, except that the "extremes" you mention aren't at both ends, they're at the same statist, leftist end. And can you give me an example of how we are enslaved by corporations?[/quote]

Some people say a man is made outta mud
A poor man's made outta muscle and blood
Muscle and blood and skin and bones
A mind that's a-weak and a back that's strong

You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store

I was born one mornin' when the sun didn't shine
I picked up my shovel and I walked to the mine
I loaded sixteen tons of number nine coal
And the straw boss said "Well, a-bless my soul"

You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store

I was born one mornin', it was drizzlin' rain
Fightin' and trouble are my middle name
I was raised in the canebrake by an ol' mama lion
Cain't no-a high-toned woman make me walk the line

You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store

If you see me comin', better step aside
A lotta men didn't, a lotta men died
One fist of iron, the other of steel
If the right one don't a-get you
Then the left one will

You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 25, 2011 10:30PM)
Great song!
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 25, 2011 11:02PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-25 22:53, Woland wrote:
critter, The fact that the National-Socialists competed against the Communists for the anti-capitalist, working class vote, and upon taking power, eliminated them, does not provide a whit of evidence that the National-Socialists were any the less socialist and statist. If the King of England waged war against the King of France, it doesn't make his society any the less monarchist.
[/quote]

Wasn't evidencing anything. The statement I was responding to specifically named Communists in relation to Nazi's. If we are have to talk about those specific parties then I would prefer it be done in the correct historical context. Socialism and Communism are not interchangeable terms.
Other than just having a love of history, I don't really have a stake in this debate because I don't give a **** about name-calling and party in-fighting that has nothing to do with anything but shouting at a label.
So if you want to compare Nazi's to Socialists, Dimmycrats, or Taco Bell, I won't try to stop you.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 25, 2011 11:17PM)
They are different. Socialist are peaceful people who care about equality and rights. Once they get power they become communist and crush those that crossed them.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 26, 2011 05:54AM)
Yes, MagicSanta, from the evidence of history, that is the inevitable consequence. Communism is a form of socialism. In contrast to feudalism and socialism, a free market is based on free, individual decisions. If you want to work as a magician, you go ahead and do it, and if you can find someone to hire you, or audiences to pay you when you busk in the street, you are free to practice your profession as you see fit. Or any profession. In a centrally planned socialist economy, if you want to work as a magician, you have to be assigned to that job, and be properly credentialed by the proper bureau. If you try to work without the proper credentials, or try to earn your own way without permission, you will be deemed a parasite, and sent to the Gulag to chop wood, pave roads in the permafrost, and mine for gold. Ultimately, the socialist system is coercive. If you are willing peaceably to submit, there is no problem is there? But if you resist, or disobey, you will have to face "the ultimate justice of the people." Even if the economic decisions of the politburo cost 40 to 50 million lives due to starvation, imprisonment, and executions, as they did in China in the 1950s.

Woland
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 26, 2011 08:30AM)
"Ultimately, the socialist system is coercive. If you are willing peaceably to submit, there is no problem is there? But if you resist, or disobey, you will have to face "the ultimate justice of the people.""

This can be said of ALL governments.
If you just get the license/permit, just don't have the wrong plant, just do what we say and there will be no problem. Just don't wear your hat in court and we won't tackle you to the ground.
It's not hard, just submit. Don't blame us for forcing this on you, blame yourself for not submitting.

Government is, by its nature, coercive. Just because you can "choose" to go along peacefully, or be dragged along for not submitting, does not suddenly make it "voluntary."
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 26, 2011 08:40AM)
Gdw,

That's why the U.S. Federal Government was designed to be a limited government of enumerated powers.

And there is a difference between a government whose powers over the economy are limited to the enforcement of free contracts between economic agents, on the one hand, and a government that plans and executes all of a nation's economic life and decisions, on the other hand.

You might also be interested in the following description of what the author considered (accurately I think) to be a widespread socialist economic system in the United States during the first part of the XIXth century:

[quote]We find in the days of Sir Matthew Hale, a very singular pamphlet attributed to him. It was an attempt to prove that two healthy laborers, marrying and having in the usual time four children, could not at ordinary labor, and with ordinary wages, support their family. The nursing, washing, cooking and making clothes, would fully occupy the wife. The husband, with the chances of sickness and uncertainty of employment, would have to support four. Such is the usual and normal condition of free laborers. With six children, the oldest say twelve years of age, their condition would be worse. Or should the husband die, the family that remained would be still worse off.

There are large numbers of aged and infirm male and female laborers; so that as a class, it is obvious, we think, that under ordinary circumstances, in old countries, they are incapable of procuring a decent and comfortable support.

The wages of the poor diminish as their wants and families increase, for the care and labor of attending to the family leaves them fewer hours for profitable work.

With negro slaves, their wages invariably increase with their wants. The master increases the provision for the family as the family increases in number and helplessness. It is a beautiful example of communism, where each one receives not according to his labor, but according to his wants.[/quote]

It is indeed a beautiful example of communism. The book is "Sociology for the South" by George Fitzhugh, published by A. Morris at Richmond, Virginia, in 1854. [url=http://docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/fitzhughsoc/fitzhugh.html]You can find the entire text online here.[/url]

Woland
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 26, 2011 09:30AM)
Woland--
What a bunch of nonsense. You take the ridiculous writings of a complete crank--he advocated slavery for poor whites as well as blacks--as if they meant anything. If slavery is communism, the why did Marx condemn it? Slavery in the US was a transition between feudalism and capitalism. The plantation owners were private business people--you know, kind of like Walmart. But let's look what this crank was responding to--a new system of industrialization of labor where the worst kinds of exploitation of workers and children were occurring. In fact, this new system of industrial capitalist exploitation was so brutal, that perhaps for some, the food they received under slavery may have been more than what they could eke out on wages.

And let's not forget the company towns, where you buy your food shelter and clothing from the same boss that steals your wages in the first place.

This notion of the free market is illusory. It is in the nature of capitalism itself that there will be inevitable concentration and consolidation within, and increasingly across industries. The media and car companies are two very visible examples. And soon the cries of free enterprise by ATT and Google will destroy the Internet as "market forces" determine what we should or shouldn't see. Corporations become so powerful that they buy and sell politicians. One only has to take a quick look at Obama and Bush's advisors to understand that the business class runs the United States.

We are enslaved every day by the bankers who hold the phony mortgages, charging phony rates, media conglomerates ginning up phony wars, energy companies polluting our common air, water, land, and food. We're in the 21st century Woland, there's no need for the whip anymore. Profits will be extracted at any cost, but first they'll run lots of ads and fund lots of think tanks, and create phony media "news" outlets, to make you like it and even ask for it. We just heard a President last night give fealty to Big Business, promising to take healthcare money from the poor to give tax cuts to the rich. It's rare to hear a politician put it out there so clearly without embarrassment. So I guess if you are one of the wealthy ones, the so-called "free enterprise" corporate welfare state would serve a treat in getting even wealthier.

But the rest of us. Not so good.

But you knew all that already didn't you?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 26, 2011 09:44AM)
But, landmark, don't you see that when the government controls the entire economy, the entire country is a "company store"!

Thank you for the usual marxist mumbo-jumbo about the concentration of capital, though. It reminds me of my errant youth!

Despite what you may persist in believing, to the confounding of your own senses, life in the capitalist, free-market economies is for the average workingman, 500 to 1,000 times better than life in any of your vaunted "workers' paradises."

W.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 26, 2011 10:06AM)
"a government whose powers over the economy are limited to the enforcement of free contracts between economic agents,"

Do you think this is what the american government has remained limited to?

Also, if any group DID do just this, then they would simply be a company dealing in dispute resolution, and there's no reason it couldn't be funded by those making use of their services within their contracts.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 26, 2011 10:29AM)
Gdw,

No I don't think that the Federal government has remained true to the Constitution. By perversion of the "gneral welfare" clause and the interstate commerce clause, the Congress has created a "living Constitution" that means whatever they say it means.

It was James Madison, though who pointed out on 10 January 1794 "for his own part, that he could not undertake to lay his finger on that article in the Federal Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constitutents."

Private arbitration is a very useful and worthwhile enterprise.

W.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 26, 2011 12:16PM)
Woland--
One doesn't have to be a Marxist to understand that unregulated capitalism leads to concentration of wealth and power. There are countless examples all around us. Compare the number of media companies 25 years ago with those today; the number of computer companies; the number of car companies; the number of farms; the number of bookstores even. Look at the disparity in wealth between the richest 1% and the rest of the country over the last 25 years. You don't need [i]any[/i] philosophy whatsoever, merely your eyes to see the truth of corporate concentration. There's not a capitalist worth his salt that doesn't know it, and act on it. Please don't try and make out that this about magicians and buskers.

The game isn't called Monopoly for nothing.

But I'm still waiting to hear when and how you converted from an errant youth to a supporter of the corporate welfare state.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 26, 2011 12:19PM)
Woland,

A) Private arbitration is open to abuse. While court-appointed judges are corruptable, they can also be impeached. Similar recourse is much more difficult in the case of private arbitration.
B) Does it matter how large the company store is to whomever is forced to buy from it?
C) Your own vaulted "free-market" doesn't exist, any more than a socialist "worker's paradise" exists.
D) I'm certainly not advocating a radical shift to socialism. However, in certain areas, we are much worse off than many of the European countries. Don't think that their economies were ruined by their "socialist" health care systems, either- their downfall was engaging in transactions with corrupt multi-national "capitalist" banks.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 26, 2011 12:41PM)
I imagine a private arbitrator who committed acts that would get a judge impeached would himself become de-certified as an arbitrator.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 26, 2011 12:51PM)
But, landmark, in a free market economy there is no legal impediment if you want to start your own media company, or any other kind of company. Moreover, completely new businesses can arise in a free market economy and completely revolutionize the market. Many of the largest large-cap companies in America today simply did not even exist 50 years ago. Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Google . . . noen of these were even a twinkle in anyone's eye within living memory.

On the other hand, when the socialist academics and bureaucrats get hold of an economy, everything -- everything from the smallest kolkhoz to the biggest industrial enterprise -- becomes part of one gigantic monopoly, which also controls the press, the police, the courts, and the military. And it is legally impossible for you to create a new enterprise to fulfill any need that the brilliant socialist planners have forgotten to take care of. Such a system just doesn't work, and has failed in practice every time it has been tried.

None of the new companies and new technologies that have grown in America over the past 50 years would have appeared in a centrally controlled socialist economy. The bureaucrats would be too busy equitably dividing what was left of the economic pie after their own healthy slices had been removed from the table . . .

Some day when we get to know each other better I may reveal to you how a red-diaper baby grew up and managed to open his eyes to the beautiful reality of the real world as it is.

EsnRedShirt,

Of course private arbitration is open to abuse, and as you say, so are the courts. But a private arbitrator who abused his responsibilities would soon have no more customers and be out of business. Both parties have to agree on who will arbitrate for them....

Our economy is not a perfectly free market, but it is certainly much more free than any socialist workers' paradise, and as a direct result, provides its workers with a much higher standard of living than any socialist country. Don't get too excited about the much-vaunted benefits of socialism in Western Europe. I have family in Denmark, and some of them have died when the socialist system decided that they were too old to be worth the expenditure of any resources. Their economies have been ruined by a lack of productivity and unsustainable social spending. Which is made possible only by the security umbrella your American taxes provide for them. The Western European countries would have fallen to the Soviet Union long before it fell, had they been forced to rely only on their own defenses.

W.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 26, 2011 01:17PM)
Every single example given above of so called unregulated free markets leading to concentration of wealth and power were sustained with collusion with the government.
They all involve either government granted monopolies/oligopolies, regulations creating barriers to entry for competition that would prevent said concentration, etc.
The corporations simply can NOT do this without the use and abuse of government and having them in their pockets.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 26, 2011 01:24PM)
Yes, gdw, that is in fact quite true. That's the other side of the regulation story. In many cases, the regulations which the reformers intended to rein in the big producers, were used by the big producers to eliminate the small producers. Ultimately the problem becomes that the big producers no longer seek to produce better products for the market, but rather to better ingratiate themselves with the government. And then quality and productivity decline.

W.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 26, 2011 01:49PM)
You know, I often hear people argue that we need the government to do x,y, and z, because if we relied on private people, for example, for charity, then what happens when that's not enough?

And that's why we "need" a government. But what happens when the governments welfare is not enough?
Well, that's the great thing about taxes, unlike when people voluntarily contribute, with taxes you can just take more, and throw people in jail for not contributing.

Well, assuming that was a stable funding model, what happens when there is not enough people who want to work providing the govt "services?"

Will they eventually try to just force people to be social workers, police officers, doctors?

They make it illegal to start a competing service provider, and there is less and less motivation to take up one of these jobs.
Not so much with police, judges, politicians, etc where there's the inherent motivation of power, but, for example, in canada, there is a continual shortage of doctors.
There's almost none of the natural incentives there would be in a free market, so very little reason for doctors to stay in the country.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 26, 2011 01:52PM)
Service goes down, costs go up, and government runs to make more adjustments to bring things back, oblivious that it was their initial meddling that set them off to begin with.

It's like watching someone who time traveled, and messed up the "natural order" and is having to constantly try to course correct the universe.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 26, 2011 02:07PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-26 13:51, Woland wrote:
I have family in Denmark, and some of them have died when the socialist system decided that they were too old to be worth the expenditure of any resources.[/quote]
I'm sorry for your loss. I don't doubt what happened, but there's no guarantee the same thing would not have happened under the US system of private insurance providers, who can and do regularly deny claims and refuse to cover procedures for much the same reasons.

When my retired father-in-law was dropped from his wife's insurance, he tried to buy private insurance (he was too young to qualify for Medicare.) He expected, due to his blood pressure and cholesterol medications, that he would have to pay a substantial amount for his insurance. Instead, at company after company, he was informed that, due to those medications, he could not be covered at all. In fact, someone at the first or second company just flat out told him not to bother with anyone else, no one would cover him. He kept calling anyway, and discovered she was correct.
Under a "socialist" system, he'd have been covered.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 26, 2011 03:21PM)
Sorry to hear that, but as I suggested, his "coverage" in many a socialist system that "coverage" would not have amounted to anything other than a denial of service. Of course, it would be denied "for the common good."

W.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 26, 2011 03:29PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-26 16:21, Woland wrote:
Sorry to hear that, but as I suggested, his "coverage" in many a socialist system that "coverage" would not have amounted to anything other than a denial of service. Of course, it would be denied "for the common good."

W.
[/quote]Would you rather hear "Denied for the common good" or "Denied for the bottom line"? Seems there's not much difference... except our system's a [i]lot[/i] more expensive.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 26, 2011 04:11PM)
Reading this just makes me think back when I was told how on topic this thread was when I said it went way off topic.

So having read the last 15 or 20 posts do you think this is why Loughner went on a shooting rampage? He knew all this and just could not stand it any longer? Or will you agree this thread is way off topic?

If only Loughner could post here I am sure everyone here would like to hear his ideas on all of this. :)

Only saying it seems like most here believe they are all experts in everything from the bible to government to medicine to foreign policies, and have the answers to all of them. When ini reality for the most part it is something that they googled and now post as an example.

OK, now kill the messenger.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 26, 2011 04:19PM)
I agree that we have wandered way off topic. So?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 26, 2011 04:52PM)
Woland,

So...and you wonder why governments have a hard time doing something constructive when there are a lot more decision makers than what we have here.

So why not stay on topic.

So stop wanderinig all over the place and stick to topic. Again I said that someone googles something reads it and decide to throw it into the discussion even though it has nothing even remotely to do with said topic. Then all the other experts pick up on it.

Do any of you guys have any real world experience in politics on any level? I am not even talking state or county, but even on a local town or city level? My "guess" is probably not. Yet you get into world politics and issues. There is nothing wrong in discussing these things but many here try and come across as an expert with years of experience. Have any of you ever had to come up with a real world solution to a real issue and try and work it out? Or is this the extent of your experience to discuss and solve an issue?

My God if someone rambled like this and you were an observer, I wonder what your comments would be about their mental awareness as to what is going on around them. Would you question their attention span?

Hope that answers your, SO.

Again kill the messenger. Besides this is another topic isn't it?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 26, 2011 05:29PM)
Well, acesover, in a normal casual conversation it is not unusual for the subject to meander along and run for a while in side channels. This is a casual conversation. It is not a structured debate. In this sort of thread, there are in fact a number of different simultaneous conversations going on, and the interlocutors vary from subject to subject. I think that most of us are capable are reading through the thread and deciding when we have something we wish to add.

As a matter of interest, I do have "real world" experience in elective office, and I am involved in government at the local level. Does that disqualify me from addressing issues on a national level? I don't think so. Does it qualify me? The qualifications for President as spelled out in the Constitution are simply that the President must be a natural born citizen who has attained the age of 35 years and who has resided in the United States for 14 years.

Thank you for allowing that there is however nothing wrong with our discussion of the issues.

W.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 26, 2011 05:50PM)
In answer to your question does it disqualify you for addressing issues. As you say and I agree. Absoutely not. I also have been active on local level politics (council man 18 years retired now) but got my rear end kicked when I tried to step it up to county level. However it does not make you or I an expert but rather just people with an opinion. My comments were not in discussing but rather coming across as if we were experts in these matters. Also I would ask what exactly is an expert in these matters. I mean there are no real qualifications that probably 95% of the adult American population cannot fulfill to be president as long as they meet the age requirement.

The only purpose of my comments is that many here and at times myself included come across as experts on something that we only have a surface knowledge of the issue at hand.

This is the perfect example of how a topic gets derailed.

Honest this is not an arguement here just an observation. As we all know here I never argue. :angel: :) :angel:
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 26, 2011 08:27PM)
[quote]Woland said:"None of the new companies and new technologies that have grown in America over the past 50 years would have appeared in a centrally controlled socialist economy. The bureaucrats would be too busy equitably dividing what was left of the economic pie after their own healthy slices had been removed from the table . . ."[/quote]
I'm certainly no fan of the Soviet Union, but it's simply false to imply that they were not innovative technologically. I think Sputnik and Yuri Gagarin put that brand of complacency to pasture more than half a century ago.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 26, 2011 09:02PM)
After the brute force feats that you mention, the Soviet space program lagged far behind ours. Have you ever seen the Soyuz capsule at the Smithsonian?

Where Soviet technology really shines, however, is in the design of small arms. The Makarov pistol and the Avtomat Kalashnikov are masterpieces of industrial design that solve the particular problems posed by the situations for which they are designed exceptionally well. The Kalashnikov is the world's favorite light assault rifle, and has proven itself to be utterly reliable even when cheaply manufactured in nearly third world conditions. The Makarov pistol is less well known but is also ingenious, and has fewer than 25 total parts (I forget the exact number) including the cartridge!

But my statement is still correct. None of the new technologies that have added millions of what the President likes to call "good jobs" to our economy would have been developed in a stagnant, corrupt, inefficient socialist bureaucracy such as the Soviet Union.

W.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jan 26, 2011 09:17PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-26 10:44, Woland wrote:
But, landmark, don't you see that when the government controls the entire economy, the entire country is a "company store"!

Thank you for the usual marxist mumbo-jumbo about the concentration of capital, though. It reminds me of my errant youth!

Despite what you may persist in believing, to the confounding of your own senses, life in the capitalist, free-market economies is for the average workingman, 500 to 1,000 times better than life in any of your vaunted "workers' paradises."

W.
[/quote]

Yeah, I miss the robber barons.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 26, 2011 09:19PM)
Well, acesover, to get back on the topic that is the title of the thread, [url=http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/46961/]here are the thoughts of Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick[/url] on how the press covered the Tucson shooting, and also, as a bonus relating to one of our sub-discussions, what Glick thinks about the blood libel kerfuffle:

[quote]For Israelis, the American Left's assault on Sarah Palin and the conservative movement in the wake of Jared Loughner's murderous attack in Tucson was disturbingly familiar.

Just as the American leftist media and political leadership immediately sought to blame Palin, the Tea Party and conservative media personalities for Loughner's actions, so in 1995 their Israeli counterparts accused the Right - from then-opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu to various rabbis to the two million Israelis who protested against the so-called peace process with the PLO - of being responsible for Yitzhak Rabin's assassination.

Just as Palin and her fellow conservatives are accused of inciting the schizophrenic shooter to pull the trigger, so Netanyahu and his fellow rightists were accused of inciting the sociopathic Yigal Amir to plot and carry out his crime.

And just as it doesn't matter to the American media elites that Americans conservatives engaged in no such incitement, and that Loughner himself seemed motivated to act by a mad obsession with grammar, it didn't matter to their Israeli counterparts that Amir's closest associate and the man responsible for the most incendiary anti-Rabin propaganda was Avishai Raviv - a government agent.

Palin's characterization of the Left's appalling assault on her and her fellow conservatives as a "blood libel" was entirely accurate. Moreover, as her previous use of the term "death panels" in the healthcare debate brought clarity to an issue the Left sought to obscure, so her use of the term "blood libel" exposed the nature of the Left's behavior and highlighted its intentions.

By warning about "death panels," Palin highlighted the fly in the ointment of government healthcare. Government control will induce scarcity of healthcare and government rationing will necessarily follow. That rationing, in turn, will be undertaken by panels of government officials empowered to decide who gets what care. Her remark focused the debate on the flaws in the program in a way no other had.

In the case of her use of the term "blood libel," Palin exposed the Left's attempt to criminalize conservatives and make it impossible for conservatives to either defend themselves or pursue their alternative policy agenda. A blood libel involves two things: First, an imaginary crime; second, the accusation that an entire group of people is guilty of committing that crime that never occurred.

Classically, of course, blood libels have been used against Jews. Anti-Semites accused Jews of killing non-Jews for ritual use of their blood. Jews had murdered no one and Judaism has no ritual involving the use of human blood. Yet, repeatedly entire communities were criminalized and persecuted based on these blood libels.

By criminalizing the entire community based on false allegations regarding a never-committed crime, anti-Semites made it impossible for Jews to go on about our lives. If we sought to deny the charges, we gave them credibility. If we ignored the charges, our silence was interpreted as an admission of guilt. And so no matter what we did, the blood libel firmly attached the stench of murder to a completely innocent Jewish community.

Just as its Israeli counterpart did in the wake of Rabin's assassination, so the American Left seeks to attach a sense of criminality and violence to the American Right in order to make it socially and otherwise unpalatable to support or otherwise identify with it.

By calling the Left out for its behavior, Palin exposed its agenda. But the logic of the blood libel remained. Trusting the public's ignorance, and the liberal Jewish community's solidarity, the leftist media in the U.S. immediately condemned Palin for daring to use the term, hinted she was an anti-Semite for doing so, and argued that by defending herself, she was again inciting violence.

Many conservative thinkers and politicians have long viewed Palin as a liability. By remaining in the spotlight, they allege, Palin is helping the Left. They argue that the media have already destroyed her ability to communicate with non-conservatives. Since she is viewed as a conservative leader, by failing to shut up she is making it impossible for other potential leaders whom the media don't despise to connect with the swing voters they will need to unseat Obama in 2012.

While alluring, this position does more than harm Palin. It renders the 2012 election irrelevant.

It matters not whether these conservative thinkers support Palin. What matters is that by telling her not to defend herself from libelous attacks, they are accepting the Left's right to criminalize all conservatives. If she is not defended against a patently obscene effort to connect her to a madman's rampage in Tucson, then conservatives in the U.S. are signaling they really don't want to control U.S. policy. They are saying that if a Republican is elected in 2012, he or she will continue to implement Obama's radical policies.

In certain ways, Palin is a revolutionary leader and the Tea Party movement is a revolutionary movement. For nearly a hundred years, the Left in its various permutations has captured Western policy by controlling the elite discourse from New York and Los Angeles to London to Paris to Tel Aviv. By making it "politically incorrect" to assert claims of Western, Judeo-Christian morality or advocate robust political, economic and military policies, the Left has made it socially and professionally costly for people to think freely and believe in their countries.

What distinguishes Palin from other conservative leaders in the U.S. and makes her an important figure worldwide is her indifference to the views of the Left's opinion makers. Her capacity to steer debate in a way no other conservative politician can owes entirely to the fact that she does not seek to win over leftist elites. She seeks to unseat them.

The same can be said of the Tea Party. The reason it frightens the Left, and the Republican leaders who owe their positions to their willingness to accept the Left's basic agenda, is because it does not accept the Left's policy platform.

Today in Israel the Left is running a campaign to protect foreign-financed, anti-Zionist, Israeli registered NGOs from public scrutiny. All politicians who support an effort to publicly expose these groups' foreign funders are demonized as "anti-democratic" and "fascist."

Fearing the Left's assault, Likud ministers Dan Meridor, Michael Eitan and Benny Begin as well as Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin have sided with these radical, anti-Zionist groups against their transparency-seeking Knesset colleagues. And all four men were congratulated for their commitment to "democracy" and "liberal norms," by the media.

It doesn't matter that the Left's accusations against those demanding transparency are completely ridiculous and libelous. It doesn't matter that the Left's campaign exposes a deep-seated fear of the very democracy it fraudulently claims to value. What matters to these Likud politicians is that the media place them above their unwashed colleagues.

In many ways, modern Zionism began with the 1840 Damascus blood libel. When Syrian Christians colluded with Muslim leaders to accuse and persecute the Jewish community for the imagined crime of ritual murder, Jewish leaders in Europe and the U.S. mobilized to the defend them. This was the first instance of modern world Jewish solidarity. And it was a necessary precursor to the Jewish national liberation movement whose first stirrings were felt at that time with mass immigration to Jerusalem.

The Left's campaign against Palin is not just about Palin. If she is discredited for standing up to blood libels then no one in the U.S. or anywhere else can expect to succeed in moving past the failed and dangerous leftist policy agenda. But if she is defended, a world of possibilities opens up for all of us.[/quote]

W.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 26, 2011 09:21PM)
Steve,

If you are interested in the "robber barons," may I recommend the biography of John D. Rockefeller, "Titan."

Would it surprise you to know that after he and his partners created Standard Oil, the quality of petroleum products in the United States was better, and the price consumers paid for them less, than before Rockefeller's work?

W.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 26, 2011 09:28PM)
Around 1980 a top computer scientist came over from one of the soviet republics. He decided to stay and when asked why he was jumping ship he said that when he went to UC Berkeley they showed him a scientific calculator that was more advanced than any computer that they had developed in the USSR. They were not as advanced as they wanted others to believe tecnology or military wise.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 26, 2011 09:43PM)
Honestly I could not bring myself to read the article you posted (here are the thoughts of Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick) so I have no idea whether I agree with it or not as it is just to long.

Now I will not get myself in real trouble...like most women she talks to much.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 26, 2011 09:50PM)
Well to most, Sputnik and Gagarin were awe-inspiring, not a brute force feat. Many in the US--including conservatives--saw them as a call to revamp an outclassed educational system. To say they would not have produced what the US did is really a kind of tautology. The countries had differing national goals.

That said, Capitalism, as Marx recognized, is an important engine in innovation and wealth creation and accumulation. The point is that it is often at the cost of wages and labor stolen from workers. Additionally, as with the the companies you mentioned above, such as Microsoft and Google, after a short initial period of competition, small advantages soon grow exponentially, wiping out competition. Again, this isn't theory, anybody can see it a work in their own neighborhoods. When WalMart comes in, the local mom and pop businesses cannot afford to price their goods as competitively, and soon go under. This of course results in WalMart getting even more of the market, and becoming that much more powerful against competitors. I'm not blaming WalMart--that's just the way the capitalist system is; as in the fable, a scorpion can't help itself--it's in its nature to sting.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 26, 2011 10:03PM)
Woland--

It's kind of funny that you keep calling the blood libel debate a PR kerfuffle, and then you keep bringing it up again and again. She's not Jewish, thus she used the term incorrectly. I have yet to see anyone, including Alan Dershowitz, cite one instance of the the phrase referring to a non-Jew. It's no big deal to me other than indicative of Palin's narcissism and victim complex. End of story on that.

As for Israeli politics--well I really don't think we want to get into that here.

And death panels? Totally meant to scare people, since she has never used the term to refer to the HMO bureaucrats who in fact have [i]many[/i] times made decisions which resulted in actual deaths, not imagined ones.

But then, you knew that already.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 26, 2011 10:07PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-26 22:21, Woland wrote:
Steve,

If you are interested in the "robber barons," may I recommend the biography of John D. Rockefeller, "Titan."

Would it surprise you to know that after he and his partners created Standard Oil, the quality of petroleum products in the United States was better, and the price consumers paid for them less, than before Rockefeller's work?

W.
[/quote]
And did you know that the usefulness of cotton was greater after slaves picked it?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 26, 2011 10:17PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-26 22:43, acesover wrote:
Honestly I could not bring myself to read the article you posted
[/quote]
CliffNotes: Palin good, Left bad. Same in Israel.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 26, 2011 10:45PM)
äàí àðé áàîú çééá ìäñáéø îãåò éäåãéí ðôâòéí?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 26, 2011 10:46PM)
That's easy for you to say!
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 26, 2011 10:48PM)
I was defending my peeps in Israel....
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 26, 2011 11:33PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-26 23:03, landmark wrote:
It's no big deal to me other than indicative of Palin's narcissism... End of story on that.
[/quote]

That strikes me as a little funny; she's not the one who somehow made the Arizona shooting all about her.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 27, 2011 04:17AM)
Thanks, landmark. Now we've come to the point where acesover criticizes us for changing the topic, and you criticize us for sticking to it . . . the contradictions in your position are interesting, however.

You argue for the socialization of the entire economy, making every economic action part of one enormous enterprise, or as we used to say in the I.W.W., making the entire society "One Big Union." And yet you defend mom & pop petty capitalists whose high prices victimize the workingman and his family, and condemn a large retain enterprise that has arguably put more money in the pockets of workingmen than all of the Federal programs you could name.

W.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jan 27, 2011 04:57AM)
On the socialist/capitalist side topic I'm glad that here in Australia we are not so concerned about partisan bickering and more concerned with what works. We are a vehemently capitalist country - why would we be anything else? Nothing else has ever worked. But we don't have the animosity towards the idea of selective collectivism that appears to exist in some places - we don't have trouble with the idea of all working together as a country to common goals.

In North East Australia where I live, the sugar industry got off to a poor start back in the forties, because we were so far from the mills and markets. The farmers could not afford to build mills so the government built mills and then sold them back to collectives of farmers, at cost, over a long time. Consequently, the farmers, the farm workers, the mill workers and surrounding towns prospered and contributed wealth to the nation. In recent years, as the sugar industry has declined, farmers have sold their shares in those mills to bigger companies and the industry has consolidated.

Likewise because of the size of Australia, the small population and the distances between population centres, private railroads were a scarcity. Our governments built railroads and ran trains because it was not profitable for private companies, considering the huge outlay. however having those railways enabled private enterprise to prosper in rural areas because they could get their goods to market. Now our Queensland state government has been able to sell off much of the freight division of the state railways to private enterprise because of the booming coal industry - an industry whose success was very much dependant on state built and operated train lines and ports. Now that the ports are profitable, they have also been privatised.

I might also mention that much of the credit to Australia being the only Western country not to go into recession during the GFC is attributed to our privately owned banking sector being very strictly regulated, so that all those crazy derivatives etc were never an option here. Banks here are also required to check that their customers can afford any loans given them, and here you cannot just default on a loan and walk away from a house - here you either pay off that loan or are bankrupted and whatever you do have will go against your debt.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 27, 2011 06:20AM)
Thanks, Destiny. Australia is a great country. Australia is the only country to send troops into battle with the United States in every war we've fought in the 20th century.

W.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 27, 2011 08:06AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-27 05:17, Woland wrote:
Thanks, landmark. Now we've come to the point where acesover criticizes us for changing the topic, and you criticize us for sticking to it . . . the contradictions in your position are interesting, however.[/quote]
I think we can do both, on parallel tracks :) I was pointing out that it was you who were complaining that the media kept bringing up "blood libel" and then you referenced it yet again. [quote]

You argue for the socialization of the entire economy, making every economic action part of one enormous enterprise, or as we used to say in the I.W.W., making the entire society "One Big Union." [/quote] I've never ever argued for that. In fact I quite directly criticized Stalinism, and argued for decentralized democratic socialism. You're also mischaracterizing what One Big Union signified. The One Big Union concept as put forth by the IWW was talking about organizing workers by industry as opposed to craft or trade. It was felt that workers
could gain more leverage with employers that way. It was not about centralized economic control of the society. Indeed the IWW had many run-ins with the more Soviet style communists. [quote] And yet you defend mom & pop petty capitalists whose high prices victimize the workingman and his family, and condemn a large retain enterprise that has arguably put more money in the pockets of workingmen than all of the Federal programs you could name. [/quote]
As per your comments re Rockefeller: low prices and even better quality does not excuse stealing workers' wages and labor. It may be in the interest of the wealthy business class to divide workers and steal from some while giving some benefits to others (all the while accruing their massive profits), but a true solution seeks to stop the theft and exploitation.

And most people's moral systems would agree with this if not so abstracted and confounded by propaganda. Would you buy a shirt made in Uzbekistan made by the forced child labor of a ten year old to save a few dollars. Well I think not had you been shopping with the issue in mind, or perhaps with the child in visible range. I admit that I have probably often purchased such products because it is the whole point of modern production to obfuscate the role of the workers who produced it. BTW I was frankly shocked that FISM was held in China and was strongly against that.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 27, 2011 08:08AM)
Australia is also the only country that I would consider for a wife. Mrs. Landmark agrees.
Message: Posted by: Kevin Ridgeway (Jan 27, 2011 08:36AM)
And Australia is where my wife and I were married. We were there in 2000 for eight weeks, performing in Sydney at the 2000 Summer Olympics. We were married barefoot on the beach, just north of Sydney at Cave's Beach.

Australia holds a very dear place in our hearts. A great country.

Kevin
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 27, 2011 09:12AM)
Well, landmark, Rockefeller didn't steal anybody's wages or their labor, he paid wages for labor . . . but that goes back to Karl Marx's crazy ideas about "value."

Where Marx was right, as you mentioned, was in his characterization of the free-market economy as an incredible engine of economic growth and development. Marx highly praised capitalism for its unbelievable transformation of human society in which, from time immemorial, the fate of man had been dire, grinding poverty and in which, to borrow Hobbes's phrase, the life of man was more of ten than not nasty, brutish, and short. In praising the free market, Marx was describing something that actually existed, and reacitng to a genuine reality. When he went beyond that praise, and posited socialism as a system that would be even greater than the free market, he was describing something that never had existed, and never has existed, and IMHO never will exist. he was indulging in the sort of utopianism in which socialists always revel, even though he claimed to be criticising it and substituting for it a "scientific" socialism. But instead of "utopia," what socialism brings is a return to poverty, tyranny, and every evil you imagine there to be in the free market, magnified 1,000 times by the Party's monopoly over every single thing in the world -- totalitarianism, in short. Now you may say that you are in favor of something altogether different, a decentralized, worker-centric, anarcho-syndicalist society of happy communes and carefree workers, but that is just another utopian dream, and it is used by the real revolutionaries, the revolutionary party of the vanguard type, to gull good-hearted meliorists such as yourself into acquiescene to their insatiable drive for power. "Right deviationists" such as yourself were among the first put to the wall by the Bolsheviks, as soon as they had the power to do so.

W.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 27, 2011 09:25AM)
I'm quite aware of the Bolshevik history. I also know union workers who stood up for fair wages in the US were the first to be shot as well. What can I say--democracy and fairness are unpopular.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 27, 2011 09:46AM)
You see, landmark, in a free economy, the possibility that individuals can freely enter into economic contracts for their own individual and mutual benefit is a real possibility. Of course it can be subverted and perverted by monopolists with guns & goons -- on both sides, labor & capital. But the possibility is there. In the sort of centrally controlled economies represented by the various socialist schemes that have existed for "the common good" since the Chin Dynasty, there is ultimately no freedom, and you are only going to differentiate them by deciding you'd rather have the society controlled by a king, an emperor, the First Secretary of the Party, a Duce, or a Fuehrer. Centralized, bureaucratic control amounts to the same thing.

W.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 27, 2011 10:23AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-27 10:46, Woland wrote:
You see, landmark, in a free economy, the possibility that individuals can freely enter into economic contracts for their own individual and mutual benefit is a real possibility. Of course it can be subverted and perverted by monopolists with guns & goons . . .
[/quote]

Not saying you're saying this, but anytime people mention this idea as an argument against a truly free state, I just think how their proposed "solution" is to institutionalize one giant monopoly of goons and guns.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 27, 2011 10:36AM)
What is this "theft" of "stolen" wages or labor Landmark speaks of?! Every job I've had working for someone else was based on a voluntary agreement where I agreed to provide a certain amount of my time, and they provided many useful things without which my labor would be useless, i.e. marketing, capital, experience, etc. I've accepted the terms and conditions as a rational, free-thinking adult; if I hadn't, I was free to look for work elsewhere, try my hand at self-employment, or go hunt, fish, and/or farm for my food. I've suffered a "theft" (residential burglary). Someone(s) came into my hope and took stuff that belonged to me without consent. Agreeing to work for a particular wage (which I've done for most of my life) is a whole other thing.

I'd expect a little more from someone who was so particular about the meaning of "blood libel."
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 27, 2011 10:59AM)
Lobo--
At one time the 16 hour, 6 or 7 day week was the norm. Workers were free to engage in work on those terms or not. That is, free to be exploited or starve. Was that a voluntary agreement? Though the package is prettier, labor is not voluntary. The same choice exists--work under the employer's terms or not at all. Do you think the unemployed are merely lazy?
Conversely, the working poor, those who work a full-time job but cannot afford housing and/or adequate food, are all around us.

And you underestimate what you bring to your employers. Without your labor, marketing, capital, and experience are nothing. Do you think the CEO of BP works a hundred times harder than the guys working on the oil rigs? FIfty times as hard? Ten times as hard?

May I use your land to hunt, fish and farm on? Or will you charge me a user's fee?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 27, 2011 11:12AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-27 11:59, landmark wrote:
Lobo--
At one time the 16 hour, 6 or 7 day week was the norm. Workers were free to engage in work on those terms or not. That is, free to be exploited or starve. Was that a voluntary agreement? Though the package is prettier, labor is not voluntary. The same choice exists--work under the employer's terms or not at all. Do you think the unemployed are merely lazy?
Conversely, the working poor, those who work a full-time job but cannot afford housing and/or adequate food, are all around us.

And you underestimate what you bring to your employers. Without your labor, marketing, capital, and experience are nothing. Do you think the CEO of BP works a hundred times harder than the guys working on the oil rigs? FIfty times as hard? Ten times as hard?

May I use your land to hunt, fish and farm on? Or will you charge me a user's fee?
[/quote]

American unemployed must be very lazy, indeed...all I hear from the pro-illegal-alien camp is that they do "jobs Americans won't do."
Your choices are work or starve (or depend upon others) regardless of whether you choose to work for another person or not. It's still a choice.

There's a decent comedy called "Soul Man," in which C. Thomas Howell disguises himself as an African-American (don't ask) in order to qualify for a scholarship. When he gets found out after a semester or so, James Earl Jones says, "Well, the experience wasn't a total loss. At least now you know what it's like to be black." Howell tells him that while he experienced bigotry, discrimination, etc., he doesn't know what it's like to be black, because he always knew if he couldn't take it, or if it got to be too bad, he could always "quit" being black and go back to his previous life.

Similarly, the option to look for other work, to be unemployed, or to be self-employed, rather than stay with a particular employer, distinguishes capitalism from slavery (or theft) in a way in which the comparison in the 21st century, for 99% of employed workers in the USA, is laughable, IMO. Go back in time and tell an actual slave who gets whipped, or faces prison or death for running away, that working at Wal-Mart is a lot like slavery. I expect you'd get the same reaction that Michael Moore would get if he told an Auschwitz survivor to his face that George Bush is a lot like a Nazi.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 27, 2011 11:50AM)
Yes, lobowolf, you have correctly described what happens in a free market economy. In a centrally controlled economy, you would have no such freedom to seek employment that you thought was suited to your abilities and aspirations, but would be forced to work wherever you were assigned by the officials in charge. To use Marx's incorrect theory of value just for this discussion, if in a free market economy, the profit made by the capitalist represents some of the value that you created as a worker, which you did not receive, then in a socialist economy, the whole enterprise is similarly run by expropriating "surplus value" from the workers, and applying it to "the common good." You know, things like Lavrenti Beria's limousine and the apartment where he raped and tortured, sometimes killed women he fancied. (Sometimes he only killed their husbands.)

Does the CEO of BP work 100 times harder than a roughneck on a rig out in the Gulf? Maybe not, but his decisions have a much more significant impact on the entire company. If he makes the right decisions, the company will do well, benefitting the roughnecks, too. And if he makes the wrong decisions, the company may go out of business. That's a lot of responsibility. The shareholders probably think it is well worth their money to make sure they have the best man in the job they can. If they think they can find a better CEO for the minimum wage, they are certainly free to try, anyway.

And gdw, that was exactly the point I was trying to make about goons and guns. In a fully rationalized socialist economy, only the State has goons & guns, they have all the goons & guns, and usually a whole series of work camps and prisons to go with them.

W.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 27, 2011 12:18PM)
I think a problem here is so many people just discuss "ideals" and "extremes". That's easy- in an "ideal" world, the corporations are incorruptable, so the government (also incorruptable) doesn't need to regulate them, and everybody is paid exactly what they're worth for a job that's perfectly suited for them.

"Extremes" are easy, too- anyone can look at some of the most brutal regimes in history and say "Well, see, that form of government doesn't work."

Free Market Capitalism works- in a vacuum, free of outside influences. Socialism works, too- in a vacuum, free of corrupting influences. Anarchy could work just as well, in a vacuum. (It will end the instant that someone discovers they've got enough power to decide, "I'm taking over," and enforce their decision, but until then, it will work.)

However, nature abhors a vacuum. It's easy to point to a real-world extreme that doesn't work, then say your ideal will work, but it's not really productive. What we need is realistic solutions that work in the real world, hopefully accounting for corrupting influences in an attempt to correct them. Checks and balances.

Nobody realistically wants total socialism. Nobody realistically wants a total free market, devoid of [i]all[/i] safety regulations. Arguing as if the other side does is only counter-productive.

So... err, I was going to say "back on topic," but I've forgotten what that topic even was anymore...
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 27, 2011 01:12PM)
"Nobody realistically wants a total free market, devoid of all safety regulations. Arguing as if the other side does is only counter-productive. "

I think gdw and Woland would disagree with you there.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 27, 2011 01:15PM)
"Nobody really wants total socialism."

???

Are you sure about that.

More than one hundred million people were murdered in the XXth century by people who really wanted total socialism. It's still around today.

But no, I do not believe in anarchy, or in an entirely unregulated free market.

W.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 27, 2011 01:18PM)
Lobo--You describe Soul Man and then seem to draw no conclusion. The point is exactly that of false choices.

Woland, the surplus value doesn't go to Beria or the boss, it goes to the workers in the plant who collectively own it.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 27, 2011 01:31PM)
But, landmark, the "value" of a product has nothing to do with the labor or even the raw materials that go into it. The "value" of a product is whatever the market is willing to trade for it. Marx's "labor theory of value" is specious.

Even stipulating for the purpose of this discussion that there is such a thing as the "value" of the labor that the workers put into a product, in no socialist economy that has ever been established on this planet from the beginning of known history until the present time, has that value ever belonged to or ended up with the workingman. It alsways ends up with the ruling bureaucracy, be they imperial, monarchical, or the Party.

W.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 27, 2011 01:56PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-27 14:15, Woland wrote:
"Nobody really wants total socialism."

???

Are you sure about that.

More than one hundred million people were murdered in the XXth century by people who really wanted total socialism. It's still around today.

But no, I do not believe in anarchy, or in an entirely unregulated free market.

W.
[/quote]
Okay, fine- nobody you're arguing with on this forum right now really wants total socialism.
And then we're right back to discussing ideals and extremes instead of feasible solutions.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 27, 2011 03:12PM)
Well, EsnRedShirt, I have been defending the most feasible solution of all, all this time.

The free market is the most feasible and efrfective way of organizing economic activity -- allowing individuals to organize their own activity themselves.

Individuals making their own choices for their own reasons have powered more economic growth than any team of even the most high-powered, impressively-credentialled, governmentally empowered central planning bureaucrats ever assembled anywhere at at any time in known history.

W.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 27, 2011 03:34PM)
[img]http://picardfacepalm.com/picard-facepalm.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 27, 2011 03:36PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-27 14:18, landmark wrote:
Lobo--You describe Soul Man and then seem to draw no conclusion. The point is exactly that of false choices.

[/quote]

I thought my conclusion was clear (Don't we always, I guess?); the fact that Howell's character did have a choice meant that in no way was his situation analogous to "being black," regardless of the hardships and slights that he endured.

Similarly, the fact that employment with a given company is voluntary means that it's not "slavery" or "theft" or any other word that implies a non-consensual dealing.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 27, 2011 03:52PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-27 16:34, EsnRedshirt wrote:
[img]http://picardfacepalm.com/picard-facepalm.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

Master of deception. He is switching decks with his right hand as he touches his face. Fantastic misdirection. Or he just finished reading this thread and wonders what happened to Gifford..
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 27, 2011 04:45PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-27 16:52, acesover wrote:
Or he just finished reading this thread and wonders what happened to Gifford..
[/quote]

The great tragedy of this thread: I misspelled "Giffords" in the OP.

Get well Congresswoman Giffords.

John
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 27, 2011 04:52PM)
Not a tragedy, Magnus, your title was well understood!

And less than 3 weeks after the shooting, and a second trip to the ICU for a shunt, Representative Giffords is now in rehab. Tell me again what's wrong with American medical care?

W.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 27, 2011 05:01PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-27 17:52, Woland wrote:

And less than 3 weeks after the shooting, and a second trip to the ICU for a shunt, Representative Giffords is now in rehab. Tell me again what's wrong with American medical care?
[/quote]
Lol. You really want to go there? Seriously, nothing is wrong with the level of medical expertise. The problems mostly have to do with the cost and patchwork coverage.

I'm sure Giffords can afford her health care and the medical bills. Her government benefits might even cover it all. The other shooting victims, sadly, probably face medical bills of several (possibly 10s of) thousands of dollars each. This is above whatever their insurance might pay.

This is an interesting story from FoxNEWS on the subject:

[url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/21/tucson-aftermath-demonstrates-high-medical-cost-shootings/]Tucson Illustrates High Medical Cost of Treating Shooting Victims[/url]
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 27, 2011 05:05PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-27 17:52, Woland wrote:
Not a tragedy, Magnus, your title was well understood!

And less than 3 weeks after the shooting, and a second trip to the ICU for a shunt, Representative Giffords is now in rehab. Tell me again what's wrong with American medical care?

W.
[/quote]

It's over regulated :bg:

Seriously though, when I say I don't want regulations, that doesn't mean I don't want, or think that there wouldn't be, standards. That is, a free market is self regulated. It is regulated by the individuals making the choices of what they do and do not want to voluntarily involve themselves with.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 27, 2011 05:19PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-27 18:05, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-27 17:52, Woland wrote:
Not a tragedy, Magnus, your title was well understood!

And less than 3 weeks after the shooting, and a second trip to the ICU for a shunt, Representative Giffords is now in rehab. Tell me again what's wrong with American medical care?

W.
[/quote]

It's over regulated :bg:

Seriously though, when I say I don't want regulations, that doesn't mean I don't want, or think that there wouldn't be, standards. That is, a free market is self regulated. It is regulated by the individuals making the choices of what they do and do not want to voluntarily involve themselves with.
[/quote]

As long as they do not anger the corporations, because then they would be shot by high paid security guards. Since there's no one to punish those security guards or corporations, what with there being no public entity to do so in the new Utopia. Or is it Anarcopia?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 27, 2011 05:29PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-27 18:19, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-27 18:05, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-27 17:52, Woland wrote:
Not a tragedy, Magnus, your title was well understood!

And less than 3 weeks after the shooting, and a second trip to the ICU for a shunt, Representative Giffords is now in rehab. Tell me again what's wrong with American medical care?

W.
[/quote]

It's over regulated :bg:

Seriously though, when I say I don't want regulations, that doesn't mean I don't want, or think that there wouldn't be, standards. That is, a free market is self regulated. It is regulated by the individuals making the choices of what they do and do not want to voluntarily involve themselves with.
[/quote]

As long as they do not anger the corporations, because then they would be shot by high paid security guards. Since there's no one to punish those security guards or corporations, what with there being no public entity to do so in the new Utopia. Or is it Anarcopia?
[/quote]

:rolleyes:

Where do you get this idea?
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 27, 2011 05:38PM)
From when we were discussing crime and you said that folks could hire their own security in a cop free world. Like Blackwater.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jan 27, 2011 05:54PM)
Gdw said:
"It's over regulated

Seriously though, when I say I don't want regulations, that doesn't mean I don't want, or think that there wouldn't be, standards. That is, a free market is self regulated. It is regulated by the individuals making the choices of what they do and do not want to voluntarily involve themselves with."

Now I understand how your system works. I decide I want to be a gunshot trauma doctor. As there is no government or regulations to stand in my way or insist on training and qualification, I read a book on the matter - a book which may or may not be factual because there is noone to regulate that, but I'm not concerned because I know if the book contains errors, word will get out and it will stop selling (or more acurately, being bartered, with no government to authorise or back a currency.)

I find a boarded up shop in a mall in Tucson and as it is not being put to good use, I open a surgery. Later that day Ms Gifford, a lady advocating for a Congress on the corner, is shot by a nut who is happy without government, regulation or currency. He uses a bazooka because there is no law to confine him to a Glock.

Ms Gifford is rushed into my surgery but dies, not because of my admitted lack of qualification or ability but because the brain surgery drill I bartered for earlier in the day needs a different voltage than that connected to the shop - there is no body authorised to regulate such things. The surgery is full of media people - there's no police to keep them out - I laugh with them how the drill reminds me of when I bought Beta instead of VHS years ago.

Word gets out of my failure and in a self regulating market I can get no work because people know I am a useless brain surgeon - I move to New York and make my fortune as a beautician injecting workshop silicone into the faces of aging women. There isn't any repeat business - customers either die or are too disfigured to barter a living, but luckily there's a sucker born every minute.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 27, 2011 05:58PM)
Ha! Beta! Now that's gangsta!
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 27, 2011 07:00PM)
Your caricatures are about as accurate as saying america's system is the equivalent of the two wolves and a sheep analogy.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 27, 2011 07:05PM)
She just keepin' it rizzle.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jan 27, 2011 10:41PM)
Gdw,

I may have exaggerated for effect but I personally can't see how else your proposed Utopia would function, and please don't tell me I should read your links - if a system is so complex you can't explain the basics to me in a couple of paragraphs, I cannot take your support of the system seriously and have to suspect you are just throwing out a line hoping for a nibble. I am also aware that there are some people who are unable to accept any authority whatsoever in their lives and yet others who just like to be different, with no regard to practicality.

I really fail to understand what is so bad about the system we in the 'western democracies' have. To my way of thinking we are the healthiest, wealthiest, best informed, most free people to have ever been on the planet. Much as is wrong with our governments, there's an awful lot right. I think it is our job to think about and work on what we see as wrong, not reinvent the wheel. But then again I am sure you will have a link to show me what a burden the wheel is on your liberties...
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 27, 2011 10:49PM)
I like it...an Aussie trying to talk sense to a Canadian about the US!
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jan 27, 2011 10:59PM)
Santa
Australia has been pretending to be your friend for decades so we can take you by surprise when we invade. We sent Rupert Murdoch ahead to soften you up with Fox News. Portia de Rossi is our number one spy - Ellen is divulging all your National Security secrets every night in bed. Ellen thinks Portia can't understand her accent but Portia is nothing if not a cunning linguist.

We brainwashed Oprah while she was here, and invented a half sister in order to keep a minder near her.

I suggest you all practice saying 'Gidday.'
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 27, 2011 11:03PM)
I understand....we love Aussies y'all can invade anytime....

Hey, I saw that Murdochs yacht...he is loaded.
Message: Posted by: Kevin Ridgeway (Jan 27, 2011 11:04PM)
No worries
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 27, 2011 11:05PM)
Will we all be forced to carry giant knives and drive Subaru Outbacks? Will "Reckless Kelly" be thawed out to lead the charging hordes of great white sharks and marsupials? ****, I'm already out of Oz stereotypes.
If Australia is anything like "Crocodile Dundee" then it must be totally awesome.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 27, 2011 11:10PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-27 16:36, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-27 14:18, landmark wrote:
Lobo--You describe Soul Man and then seem to draw no conclusion. The point is exactly that of false choices.

[/quote]

I thought my conclusion was clear (Don't we always, I guess?); the fact that Howell's character did have a choice meant that in no way was his situation analogous to "being black," regardless of the hardships and slights that he endured.

Similarly, the fact that employment with a given company is voluntary means that it's not "slavery" or "theft" or any other word that implies a non-consensual dealing.
[/quote]
There may be choices available, but it doesn't mean they are fair ones. African-Americans in this country tend to be offered choices which are much less fair (e.g. you can choose to drive a fancy car, but be prepared to be arrested in your own driveway for choosing it.)

You are never, as a worker, given a fair choice. The wages you get are based on the supply of labor available, not on the value you are adding on to the raw materials of production. If unemployment goes up all of a sudden, employers can pay lower wages, and yet your skill level has not changed, you are still the same person. Therefore you are being cheated out of the true value of your work. And yes you have the choice to not work, but that is a Hobson's choice. The one thing that workers have to equalize the playing field is the right to collectively negotiate and bargain--which is precisely why the first task of the business class is to wipe out the unions. Woland's point about value being determined between buyer and seller does not affect the labor value that the worker has put in--if a seller manages to sell for a higher price today then yesterday, the additional profit goes to the shareholders, not the workers.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 27, 2011 11:10PM)
They have an aborigany woman who looks just like Oprah. Sounds like her also.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jan 27, 2011 11:15PM)
Critter,

You and I may be the only people who saw Yahoo Serious's second movie.

Most Australians live in an urban sprawl no different to the US or Canadian versions.

20 years ago there were plenty of Dundee type characters around up North where I live - Steve Irwin was a bit of a caricature (though a nice man) but there were real guys - one of the best, Malcolm Douglas, was killed in a car accident recently. When I moved to Cairns in the eighties there were cassowaries living on the hill behind me - now all gone. Occasionally a croc was moved along for loitering on a city street - now they'd send in a swat team. A lot of people are moving to the isolated tropics because it's different and then doing their best to make it the same. The world is becoming homogenised.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 27, 2011 11:19PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-28 00:15, Destiny wrote:

When I moved to Cairns in the eighties there were cassowaries living on the hill behind me - now all gone.
[/quote]
For those who, like myself, had no idea what a cassowary is:

http://www.odditycentral.com/pics/worlds-most-dangerous-bird.html
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jan 27, 2011 11:27PM)
I love cassowaries - amazing looking animal but they are truly dangerous - when I worked in wildlife shows we had stricter safety protocols for dealing with these big chickens than for the crocs.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 27, 2011 11:38PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-28 00:10, landmark wrote:
Woland's point about value being determined between buyer and seller does not affect the labor value that the worker has put in--if a seller manages to sell for a higher price today then yesterday, the additional profit goes to the shareholders, not the workers.
[/quote]

The value of a PRODUCT is determined between the buyer and the seller of that product. The value of labor is determined between the buyer (employer) and seller (employee) of that labor.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 27, 2011 11:59PM)
"The value of labor is determined between the buyer (employer) and seller (employee) of that labor."
No. That was exactly my point above. Maybe I didn't make it clear enough. The laborer's wages are determined by the [i]supply of labor available[/i], in the absence of collective bargaining. The price of labor tends to even out within an industry as no company can afford to give its competitors an edge.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 28, 2011 12:10AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-28 00:59, landmark wrote:
"The value of labor is determined between the buyer (employer) and seller (employee) of that labor."
No. That was exactly my point above. Maybe I didn't make it clear enough. The laborer's wages are determined by the [i]supply of labor available[/i], in the absence of collective bargaining. The price of labor tends to even out within an industry as no company can afford to give its competitors an edge.
[/quote]

The supply of labor is one factor in determining the value (as is the supply of anything else). There are other factors, as well. That's true both in the absence and in the presence of collective bargaining. Collective bargaining uses the threat of decreasing the supply of labor to raise the price that employers will pay for the labor, which is analogous to products that sell for a higher price when they're scarce.

The value is determined between the buyer and the seller; the supply of labor available doesn't "determine" the value of the labor - it influences the choices of the buyer and the seller as to what value to agree upon.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 28, 2011 12:16AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-28 01:10, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Collective bargaining uses the threat of decreasing the supply of labor to raise the price that employers will pay for the labor, which is analogous to products that sell for a higher price when they're scarce.
[/quote]
Perhaps I misunderstand your terms, but how does a threat of decreasing the supply of labor come into it?

They use collective bargaining where I work, and I've never heard of any such threat. I don't see how it would even be possible.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 28, 2011 12:19AM)
Threat of a strike, thus no experienced work force.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 28, 2011 12:24AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-28 01:19, MagicSanta wrote:
Threat of a strike, thus no experienced work force.
[/quote]
Okay, that's what I thought Lobo might mean.

But groups that do collective bargaining do NOT always have the right to strike.

Where I work, in a particular "industry", they do collective bargaining but the employees by law are not allowed to strike. Or work to rule. So, FWIW, collective bargaining does NOT always use the threat of decreasing the supply of labor.

Of course, maybe things are different in the U.S. I'm not familiar with your labor laws.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 28, 2011 12:30AM)
Yeah...I always thought that defeated the purpose. Then there are those like my brother in law whos 'union' decided to strike but they made too much money so they hired people to walk w/ signs while they went to work anyway. They all got fired.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 28, 2011 12:37AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-15 19:57, MagicSanta wrote:
Darn it, now I need to get me a glock.
[/quote]
Utah is trying to make the Browning M1911 the official gun of Utah.

You should call your congresspeople / senators / whatever and try to get dibs on the Glock before it is too late!
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 28, 2011 12:57AM)
Good point....

Hey, good news for libs! Sharon Angle, the woman who somehow lost to a man who only had a 9% approval rating, implied she is ready to run for president!
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 28, 2011 01:08AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-28 01:57, MagicSanta wrote:

Hey, good news for libs! Sharon Angle, the woman who somehow lost to a man who only had a 9% approval rating, implied she is ready to run for president!
[/quote]
Angle and Bachmann, now there's a ticket!
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jan 28, 2011 02:57AM)
Didn't the dude who lost to a dead man a few years ago end up appointed Attorney General or whatever you call it there?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 28, 2011 05:52AM)
Thank you, landmark, for your comment:

[quote]The wages you get are based on the supply of labor available, not on the value you are adding on to the raw materials of production. If unemployment goes up all of a sudden, employers can pay lower wages, and yet your skill level has not changed, you are still the same person. Therefore you are being cheated out of the true value of your work. [/quote]

Your statement is an illustration of one of the basic and fundamental errors in Marxist economics.

In Marx's theory, if the value of a finished product, such as a violin, is greater than the value of the raw materials, the wood, that went into making it, then that value is the result of the craftsman's labor, and should belong to him (or ultimately, in Lenin's formulation, to the Party that claims to represent his interests).

But that is not an accurate description of economic reality. In reality, nothing has a fixed value, and the economic value of products is entirely independent of whatever the cost of the raw materials and the labor that go into producing them. As lobowolf said, the value of a product is determined by the market, by what people are willing to pay for it. The worker's labor did not add value to the product. Nor did the factory owner's capital investment in land and machinery.

As Frederick Hayek pointed out, one of the many things that dooms centrally controlled socialist economies is the lack of accurate price information. The prices of things are set, in such a system, by bureaucrats. And no matter how smart they are, they can never accurately keep up with real world conditions. The opposite is true in a free market, in which the price of things is constantly being adjusted by the individual decisions of everyone in the market. Hayek gives an example. A certain animal's fur was needed in the Soviet Union to line gloves, but because the price set for the furs was too low, none were being trapped. So the bureaucrats raised the price that the state-owned enterprises would pay for the furs, and indeed, the supply increased. But it increased so fast and so far, that by the time the bureaucrats met to readjust the price downwards, the warehouses were full of unused, rotting, useless pelts.

In contrast, in a free market, as Walter Williams has described, such bureaucratic interference is unnecessary. If 3 or 4 hurricanes had hit Florida in a single season, as they did a few years ago, but in a socialist economy, in order to repair the damaged homes and other properties, a government commission would have had to go to Florida and assess the situation, determine just what the damage had been, calculate how much plywood, how many asphalt shingles, and how many carpenters and roofers would be needed. Then these supplies and these workers would have to be requisitioned and repositioned, organized and assigned to their tasks. It would take years to complete the reconstruction, and there would be colossal waste, inefficiency, and ultimately, corruption. In contrast, when those hurricanes hit Florida a few years ago, no central government or planning was needed. With increased demand, the price of plywood and the wages of carpenters in Florida immediately and automatically increased. Plywood manufacturers and wholesalers, responding to those increased prices, began shipping to their outlets in Florida. Carpenters seeking work showed up. And the work on tens of thousands of individual projects got done. Then the prices returned to lower pre-hurricane levels, the plywood was no longer preferentially shipped to Florida, and the carpenters returned home.

When you compare how quickly reconstruction took place in Mississippi, which was truly devastated by Katrina's direct hit, with how long it has taken in Louisiana, which suffered only a glancing blow, you can appreciate the relative efficiencies of letting a free market organize economic activity itself.

Marxism is based on fundamental errors and misconceptions, which is one reason that it never works.

W.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 28, 2011 08:29AM)
I may have exaggerated for effect but I personally can't see how else a world without slavery would function, and please don't tell me I should read your links - if you can't explain how everything would work, how slaves would eat, how cotton would get picked, etc in a couple of paragraphs, I cannot take your support of the system seriously and have to suspect you are just throwing out a line hoping for a nibble. I am also aware that there are some people who are unable to accept any authority whatsoever in their lives and yet others who just like to be different, with no regard to practicality.

I really fail to understand what is so bad about the system we have. To my way of thinking slaves are the healthiest, well fed, best informed, most privileged blacks compared to those still in Africa. Much as is wrong with slavery, there's much good that comes from it. Blacks are sheltered, fed and clothed. I think it is our job to think about and work on what we see as wrong, not reinvent the wheel.

I'm not saying it's the equivalent of slavery, I'm saying the reasoning you give is just as flawed as above.
Just because it could be worse doesn't mean we should just accept the system we have and just work with instead of working with something actually ethical.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 28, 2011 09:08AM)
Why are we still arguing extremes? Woland- I don't want a 'socialist' America. Neither does balducci or landmark. But the arguments by Frederick Hayek and Walter Williams are flawed- they both assume a centralized socialist economy. However, a limited, localized socialist economy doesn't work in the same way. Don't say it doesn't exist; we have them everywhere- home owners associations may 'socialize' the cost of road repair in their community, as well as lawn upkeep, exterior home repair, and in some cases, property insurance. Some cities have local health care clinics; those are socialized. In fact, California has a push to switch to a state-wide single-payer plan (never mind that someone slipped a provision into a federal law that would make it illegal.)

gdw, don't go there. Bad analogy. I can explain slavery in one sentence: "Slaves are property, and bought, sold, used, and maintained like tools." As for your "free market" theory, haven't even you admitted that there has to be some sort of regulation or restriction to keep companies from just blatantly lying? And personally, I would prefer not to have a hundred or so babies die [i]before[/i] a company goes out of business for putting melamine in its baby formula.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jan 28, 2011 09:19AM)
"Just because it could be worse doesn't mean we should just accept the system we have and just work with instead of working with something actually ethical."

I won't dignify the slave crap with a response but as to above I was not saying 'it could be worse'. I was saying IT'S NEVER BEEN BETTER - very different statements.

Have you never harboured even the slightest suspicion that our wonderful and privileged lives might be, in large part, a result of the political system we live under?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 28, 2011 09:30AM)
Woland--
Marx makes a distinction between the value added by the worker, and the price negotiated between seller and buyer.
If the laborer weren't adding value then why have a laborer in the first place? Sell the raw materials--but that doesn't happen, because the worker changes the nature of the product.

The minimization of the worker's contribution to the capitalist enterprise is one of the necessary obfuscations for the business class. This leads to the lionization of figures like Rockefeller and corporations like WalMart without taking into account the systematic exploitation of workers. It's almost as if they don't exist.

Hayek's ideas have been all the rage in conservative circles recently, but we've seen what they lead to. Hayek's theory was implemented in the dictator Pinochet's Chile with Hayek's general approval. He said, "Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism." The Chicago school of right-wing economists was always big on giving corporations and dictators plenty of rights, but the rights of ordinary people had to be carefully, and often brutally controlled. So it is hard to take the right-wingers who claim the anti-authoritarian mantle seriously. (Actually it's interesting that the many of the leftists who made the switch to conservatism like Horowitz and Radosh were the most authoritarian kinds of leftists and have now become the most authoritarian kinds of rightists). Capitalists have [i]always[/i] supported authoritarian dictators if it increased their profits, no matter what the consequences were for the people who lived there. Please read Biden's recent comments re Mubarak the dictator of Egypt for 30 years.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 28, 2011 09:49AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-28 01:10, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-28 00:59, landmark wrote:
"The value of labor is determined between the buyer (employer) and seller (employee) of that labor."
No. That was exactly my point above. Maybe I didn't make it clear enough. The laborer's wages are determined by the [i]supply of labor available[/i], in the absence of collective bargaining. The price of labor tends to even out within an industry as no company can afford to give its competitors an edge.
[/quote]

The supply of labor is one factor in determining the value (as is the supply of anything else). There are other factors, as well. That's true both in the absence and in the presence of collective bargaining. Collective bargaining uses the threat of decreasing the supply of labor to raise the price that employers will pay for the labor, which is analogous to products that sell for a higher price when they're scarce.

The value is determined between the buyer and the seller; the supply of labor available doesn't "determine" the value of the labor - it influences the choices of the buyer and the seller as to what value to agree upon.
[/quote]
Okay we're getting closer now. A negotiation with no leverage on one side, however, is not a negotiation. The only leverage that the laborer has is the withholding of his work and other laborer's work. This necessitates collective bargaining with the power to strike. Otherwise there is no reason for the negotiation to take place. WalMart does not negotiate wages; their wage structure is based on the supply of labor and what their competitors are offering--some of which, fortunately, are unionized. The lower floor is the minimum wage or in its absence, the cost it takes for a worker to be able to work.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 28, 2011 09:58AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-28 00:15, Destiny wrote:
Critter,

You and I may be the only people who saw Yahoo Serious's second movie.

Most Australians live in an urban sprawl no different to the US or Canadian versions.

20 years ago there were plenty of Dundee type characters around up North where I live - Steve Irwin was a bit of a caricature (though a nice man) but there were real guys - one of the best, Malcolm Douglas, was killed in a car accident recently. When I moved to Cairns in the eighties there were cassowaries living on the hill behind me - now all gone. Occasionally a croc was moved along for loitering on a city street - now they'd send in a swat team. A lot of people are moving to the isolated tropics because it's different and then doing their best to make it the same. The world is becoming homogenised.
[/quote]

I loved Steve Irwin. He's one of the reasons I got into biology. Then I found out being a zoologist sucks. Lousy pay for working too hard.
I was also a big fan of Yahoo Serious back in the day. Young Einstein was awesome. And the armor in Reckless Kelly, brilliant!
Around here the wild and wooly woodsmen just look for Bigfeet.
We do have grizzlies, cougars, and diamondback rattlesnakes though. I don't really count black widows because they'll just give you the tummy ache. There are moose though. Moose are scary. Wolverines and badgers. We can't really compete on deadly animals.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 28, 2011 10:55AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-28 10:08, EsnRedshirt said:
. . .
gdw, don't go there. Bad analogy. I can explain slavery in one sentence: "Slaves are property, and bought, sold, used, and maintained like tools." As for your "free market" theory, haven't even you admitted that there has to be some sort of regulation or restriction to keep companies from just blatantly lying? And personally, I would prefer not to have a hundred or so babies die [i]before[/i] a company goes out of business for putting melamine in its baby formula.
[/quote]

The point was not about describing slavery in few words, but explaining every little detail of how things would work without slaves, which has been what people demanded of me with regards to a society without coercive government. It can be explained simply, but it's been dragged out with constant questions of "well how would x work, what about y, and z?"
Then I get ragged on for not having all the answers.

How about I keep it simple.

Just like those who were slaves, in spite of claims otherwise, you own yourself. No one has any right to tell you what you can and can not do with yourself, just as you have no right to enforce what is done with or to them.
That's all I'm advocating.

What people do is up to them, and if a group wants to work together/fund a service for them all, then that's fine. Just so long as they don't force others to contribute just because of their proximity to them.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Jan 28, 2011 11:20AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-28 03:57, Destiny wrote:
Didn't the dude who lost to a dead man a few years ago end up appointed Attorney General or whatever you call it there?
[/quote]

I think you mean John Ashcroft, the big jerk
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 28, 2011 12:03PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-28 11:55, gdw wrote:
No one has any right to tell you what you can and can not do with yourself, just as you have no right to enforce what is done with or to them.
That's all I'm advocating.

What people do is up to them, and if a group wants to work together/fund a service for them all, then that's fine. Just so long as they don't force others to contribute just because of their proximity to them.
[/quote]

But this is the crucial problem. How can a society of more than a few dozen people enforce such rights? In a city of a million, what is to stop private armies (i.e. gangs) from running roughshod over unaffiliated persons?

Most libertarians at least advocate for a minimal "night-watchman" state to maintain order. But you don't seem to want togo even that far.

John
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 28, 2011 12:27PM)
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, landmark. But rather than insulting Professor Hayek by associating him with General Pinochet, and rather than adding insulting remarks about Ron Radosh and Dsvid Horowitz, who really have nothing to do with this discussion, why don't we stick to the issues and the arguments themselves? (As far as Hayek's reported quote about preferring a liberal dictator to an illiberal democratic regime, that surely can't be all that offensive to those who advocate the "dictatorship of the proletariat"," can it?)

Hayek's book, "The Road to Serfdom," would be worth your time. I think you find his ideas challenging. He shows how only the free market is a non-coercive economy, and that all centrally organized economies ultimately rest on mechanisms of coercion, including state-sanctioned violence. It is remarkable that he published such ideas in 1944, whn the prevailing opinion among economists was to favor centrally organized and controlled economies, even in the non-communist West.

The idea that the worker changes the value of the raw materials is a fanciful item of orthodox marxism, and it will not be possible for me to disabuse you of that notion.

Individual capitalists have supported authoritarian systems when they thought it would serve their interests. Workers have been gulled into supporting totalitarian dictators when they were persuaded that it would serve their interests. Those lamentable observations don't prove however that either authoritarian or totalitarian dictatorships are actually in the best interests of capitalists or workers. In fact, everybody's best interests are best served by a free market in which individuals can pursue their own dreams as they see fit.

Within the broad and gentle limits of the "night watchman" state that Magnus and I favor, of course . . . .

W.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 28, 2011 01:06PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-28 13:27, Woland wrote:
The idea that the worker changes the value of the raw materials is a fanciful item of orthodox marxism, and it will not be possible for me to disabuse you of that notion.
[/quote]
I don't think that's what he said. And I'm sure that's not what you mean. Certainly you wouldn't offer to pay a violin maker for only the cost of the wood? Besides, some refinement is needed for just about any raw material to be usable, and a worker is needed for that process. Unless you have your own foundry or lumber mill in your back yard, I guess...

However, if you're saying "what the market will bear" is the sole factor in price, you're entirely discounting the craftsman's skill. A Stradivarius recently sold for over $2 million. There's obviously some value (craftsmanship, prestige, etc.) associated with that name, otherwise the buyer would have gone to the music shop and bought one for a few hundred dollars.

On a side note, if there were no minimium wage, I'm pretty sure Wal*Mart would try to pay its employees in literal peanuts. Maybe even styrofoam ones. Companies of that size break any concept of a "free market", because they use their sheer size and resources to force all local competition out of business, then, when they're the largest employer in town, can offer what they want for labor. They, in effect, directly manipulate the entire local market- labor, goods, and all. gdw- how do you propose to prevent companies from doing things like this if there were no regulations? (Admittedly, not an ideal system, since the ideal system would, what, keep them from getting abusive like this in the first place?) By the way, as long as Wal*Marts and similar companies exist, complete deregulation would be catastrophic for anyone except the mega-company, for the exact reasons I just mentioned. They'll keep restructuring the market to their liking, and their sheer size will prevent anyone from doing anything about it.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 28, 2011 01:11PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-28 13:03, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-28 11:55, gdw wrote:
No one has any right to tell you what you can and can not do with yourself, just as you have no right to enforce what is done with or to them.
That's all I'm advocating.

What people do is up to them, and if a group wants to work together/fund a service for them all, then that's fine. Just so long as they don't force others to contribute just because of their proximity to them.
[/quote]

But this is the crucial problem. How can a society of more than a few dozen people enforce such rights? In a city of a million, what is to stop private armies (i.e. gangs) from running roughshod over unaffiliated persons?

Most libertarians at least advocate for a minimal "night-watchman" state to maintain order. But you don't seem to want togo even that far.

John
[/quote]

I used to. I'm not advocating a system absent of those services, simply one where, if one desires, they can opt out of them. One where such "services" simply aren't forced on anyone.

Woland, if a free market is truly the only non coercive system, then the restrictions of regulations and centralized control are negatives, then saying we still need a little bit of them is like saying we only need s little bit of cancer.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 28, 2011 01:14PM)
Endredshirt, if that were true then the corporations in Somalia would not have been the ones trying to reinstate a government to regulate them.

Woland, if you really are that serious about the free market, then I strongly, STRONGLY suggest reading The Market for Liberty. It's not big at all, and would seem up your ally if you support a free market that strongly.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 28, 2011 01:40PM)
Gdw- Somalia is an outlier- their transition to "free market" was hardly non-violent. The situation is better described as "anarchy", and corporations cannot succeed in such an environment; they need some basic stability- and a relatively non-violent and non-impoverished citizenry- to function.

But, I'm glad to see that even you recognize the importance of some amount of regulation.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 28, 2011 01:51PM)
Somalia is the dream world to GDW...he hopes the US becomes a Somalia.
Message: Posted by: Markymark (Jan 28, 2011 02:16PM)
Stop being silly santa...
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 28, 2011 02:27PM)
I really think this explains it all:

:bunny: :dancing: :bigdance: :banana: :carrot: :cheers:


AND LAST

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 28, 2011 02:28PM)
EsnRedShirt, the fact that a Stradivarius is "worth" $2 million dollars has nothing to do with the labor that went into it -- it is the result of the value of the perceived quality of the instrument and the fact that there are in the world market buyers who will mroe or less cheerfully plunk down $2 million to buy one. It would be worth that money regardless of the amount of effort or time that went into it.

Neither Stradivarius nor his heirs, by the way, collect a penny of that $2 million, either.

You really should investigate the history of the minimum wage. Minimum wage laws, and laws which require Federal projects to pay the equivalent of prevailing union wages, were explicitly introduced by racists who wanted to prevent black American workers from offering their services for less than white union workers. The most significant effect of minimum wage laws is to deprive workers at the lower end of the productivity scale from securing a job at all, driving up teenage unemployment in particular.

But that's just another example of how leftist policies hurt those whom leftists claim they are trying to help.

gdw, we do need a framework of laws and government. The Declaration of Independence says it well: "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." What that means is that our free society works because we value and protect the God-given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is proper and fitting for a government established by the people to safeguard and protect their private property (including their own persons, and the value of their labor), that a means be instituted for enforcing contracts freely entered into, and in general establishing a rule of laws, rather than men, so that individuals will be able to reasonably predict the outcome of their contracts and other economic arrangements. I am not prepared at this point to prefer the rule of ad-hoc gangs, no matter how well-intentioned.

W.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jan 28, 2011 03:06PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-28 15:28, Woland wrote:

Minimum wage laws, and laws which require Federal projects to pay the equivalent of prevailing union wages, were explicitly introduced by racists who wanted to prevent black American workers from offering their services for less than white union workers.

[/quote]

And yet it is somehow not racist to hire black people at a lesser wage than their white counterparts?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 28, 2011 03:08PM)
Woland--

I agree that if you think no value has been added to the piece of wood and goat intestines that becomes a violin, then nothing I say will convince you. But I think we both got our arguments out there.

Every time the minimum wage comes up for an increase, the same tired false arguments are trotted out. Well it has increased (although in real dollars I believe at this point we've actually fallen behind other periods), and it has not had an appreciable negative effect on the economy. (BTW one of the incredible shames of the US is the huge number of working poor in the US; people who work every day and still cannot afford a place to live and/or an adequate amount of food.) The unavailability of employment argument has long been answered with the almost cliche that under slavery unemployment among slaves was 0%. Spending more dollars on employees is mainly a function of increased demand for product. If an employer thinks that hiring more employees will increase his profit, then he will do so at the cheapest possible price. In other words, if the demand for hamburgers stays the same, and the government halves the minimum wage, it doesn't mean McDonalds will now hire more workers. They have no need for them since demand is the same. Rather they'll just pocket the extra profit. OTOH, one can make a case though that with a minimum wage law, workers will have more money to spend on hamburgers and thus increase demand which in turn will lead to more hiring.

I brought up Radosh and Horowitz not just to be obnoxious (though I admit to some of that). My point was to show that authoritarianism is a dimension that is orthogonal to left and right wing politics. One can switch entirely from left to right and still be in the same place on the authoritarian scale.

I highlight the link between Hayek and Pinochet not to "insult," but because Pinochet was not just any random dictator, but, along with the Argentine generales, his regime was the Chicago Boys' specific economic laboratory for their theories. The economic results have been disputed; what is not under dispute is that personal rights and liberties and lives had to be destroyed.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 28, 2011 03:12PM)
Woland- :huh: ?

Odd. I can't find a single non-biased link to back up that allegation.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 28, 2011 03:25PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-28 15:28, Woland wrote:
You really should investigate the history of the minimum wage. Minimum wage laws, and laws which require Federal projects to pay the equivalent of prevailing union wages, were explicitly introduced by racists who wanted to prevent black American workers from offering their services for less than white union workers. The most significant effect of minimum wage laws is to deprive workers at the lower end of the productivity scale from securing a job at all, driving up teenage unemployment in particular.

W.
[/quote]

I'm a little stumped by this claim. The first minimum wage laws were put in place in Australia and New Zealand in the 1890s. Minimum wage law was passed in Great Britain in 1909, with a few European jurisdictions following. Massachusetts passed the first minimum wage law in North America in 1912, with two Canadian provinces following suit by 1918.

Are you claiming that ALL of these laws were racist? Just the one in Massachusetts? Or something else?

John
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 28, 2011 03:39PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-28 15:28, Woland wrote:
. . .
gdw, we do need a framework of laws and government. The Declaration of Independence says it well: "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." What that means is that our free society works because we value and protect the God-given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is proper and fitting for a government established by the people to safeguard and protect their private property (including their own persons, and the value of their labor), that a means be instituted for enforcing contracts freely entered into, and in general establishing a rule of laws, rather than men, so that individuals will be able to reasonably predict the outcome of their contracts and other economic arrangements. I am not prepared at this point to prefer the rule of ad-hoc gangs, no matter how well-intentioned.

W.
[/quote]


Right, so instead you give the power to one giant gang, giving them a monopoly.

What you quote from the declaration merely reasserts your point rather than backing it up.
You basically said we need govt to protect our rights, see the declaration says so.

I agree we need to protect our rights, I disagree with the assertion that we need a "government" to do it.

I'd be happy if there was a government that did only that. I'd be even happier if they didn't declare themselves a monopoly, and were funded voluntarily.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 28, 2011 03:40PM)
Payne, I want to protest those companies that hire blacks at lower pay for the same job as whites. Please provide a list of them so I may avoid them....thank you.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 28, 2011 03:56PM)
Santa, probably the same companies that pay women 3/4 what they pay men.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 28, 2011 04:09PM)
Thanks for the interest in the minimum wage and prevailing wage laws. Here are some sources that have influenced my thinking about these matters.

One-time marxist economist Thomas Sowell, a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, offers [url=http://www.amatecon.com/etext/mwe/mwe.html]these comments on the effect of the minimum wage laws on lower income wage earners:[/url]

[quote] One of the simplest ways of reducing the statistical “noise” in the data is by selecting some age-group which is known to receive very low wages, so that a relatively high percentage of the people in the category chosen are earning low enough wages to be directly affected by minimum wage changes. Teenagers are an obvious choice, and nonwhite teenagers even more so. Here the serious unemployment effect of minimum wage rates has been repeatedly demonstrated by economists operating independently of one another and using different statistical methods.6

Extremely high unemployment rates among black teenagers have been so highly publicized in recent years, and so automatically attributed to employer discrimination, that certain historical facts must be noted. Large racial differences in teenage unemployment are of relatively recent vintage. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, there were no such large differences, and indeed, black youngsters 16 and 17 years old had consistently lower unemployment rates than whites in the same age brackets.7 Surely no one is going to claim that there was less employer discrimination then than now. We all know better. What was the difference, then? Minimum wages had not yet begun the rapid rise and spreading coverage which has been the dominant pattern since then.8

The unemployment effect of minimum wages can also be seen in international comparisons of countries that do and do not exempt young people from the adult minimum wage. In countries where such exemptions are slight or nonexistent—such as the United States and Canada—youth unemployment is some multiple of adult unemployment. But where there are exemptions that are large and cover a number of working years—as in England, Germany and The Netherlands9—there are no significant differences between youth unemployment rates and adult unemployment rates.10

These findings may reflect the special vulnerability of teenagers as an inexperienced and relatively unskilled group—or they may reflect the greater statistical ease of determining the facts for this group. A recent survey of minimum wage studies notes “the lack of acceptable continuing data on low-wage adults.”11 The same things known to be happening to teenagers may also be happening to other very low-wage people, who happen not to be grouped together statistically. There are some scattered clues that this is in fact the case. For example, an older study of domestic servants, before they were covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act, showed that their ranks tended to be increased in the wake of minimum wage increases, suggesting the displacement of low-skill women from other employment that was covered by the act.12

Factual studies by independent (usually academic) economists must be sharply distinguished from studies by the U. S. Department of Labor. The Labor Department itself has recently been forced to acknowledge the gap between its perennially optimistic conclusions and the consensus of independent studies, the latter “using advanced economic and statistical analyses.”13 The crudity of the Labor Department studies has been scathingly criticized by academic economists.14 However, even so, the actual numbers appearing in Labor Department studies of minimum wage effects often show employment declines in the wake of minimum wage increases, even though the stated conclusions of these very same studies may be that the minimum wage did not cost people their jobs.15 Congressman Dent is correct only in the narrowest sense when he asserts that “Not once in the history of the minimum wage has there been an adverse report” from the Labor Department about “the lessening of job opportunities.”16 In this context, such a statement is far from reassuring. It will hardly be the first clean bill of health given by an agency evaluating itself or the legislation on which its own appropriations and staff depend. This is especially unsurprising to me, as one who worked inside the Labor Department on minimum wage research, and who personally experienced the pressures to reach conclusions consistent with the department's interests. [/quote]

George Mason economics professor Walter Williams amplifies those comments with [url=http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articles/wage-28091-killers-worker.html]these:[/url]

[quote]The unemployment effect of minimum wages isn’t restricted to American Samoa. On the U.S. mainland, overall teenage unemployment stands at a record 25 percent while adult unemployment hovers around 10 percent. Also at a record high is the 50 percent unemployment rate among black teenage males.

One might ask why teen unemployment, particularly among blacks, is so much higher than adult unemployment. The answer is simple. One effect of a minimum-wage law is that of discrimination against the employment of less-preferred workers. Within the category of less-preferred workers are those with low skills. Teens are disproportionately represented among such workers and are therefore more adversely affected by minimum wages. Black teens are disproportionately represented among teens with low skills and therefore share a greater burden of minimum wages.

One of the more insidious effects of the minimum wage is that it lowers the cost of racial discrimination. In fact, minimum-wage laws are one of the most effective tools in the arsenals of racists everywhere, as demonstrated by just a couple of examples.

During South Africa’s apartheid era, its racist unions were the major supporters of minimum wages for blacks. South Africa’s Wage Board said, “The method would be to fix a minimum rate for an occupation or craft so high that no Native would likely be employed.” In the U.S., in the aftermath of a strike by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, when the arbitration board decreed that blacks and whites were to be paid equal wages, the white unionists expressed their delight. “If this course of action is followed by the company and the incentive for employing the Negro thus removed,” they said, “the strike will not have been in vain.”

Tragically, minimum wages have the unquestioned support of good-hearted, well-meaning people who become the useful idiots of charlatans, quacks and racists.[/quote]

With respect to the Davis-Bacon Act (1931) which requires the Federal government to pay the "prevailing wage" on public works projects, [url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n10_v9/ai_13531089/]Constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein writes:[/url]

[quote]The origins of the Davis-Bacon Act speak volumes. In 1927, an Alabama contractor pursuant to competitive bidding received an award to construct a Veterans' Bureau hospital on New York's Long Island. The contractor brought black construction workers from Alabama to perform the work. That provoked hostility from both white, racist building-trade unions and Rep. Robert Bacon of Long Island. They collaborated in urging federal legislation that would require payment of prevailing union wage scales on federal construction projects. A substantial or motivating factor was the shielding of all-white unions from wage competition from black workers.

In introducing the proposal that became the Davis-Bacon Act four years later, Bacon referred to the Alabama award and emphasized that "the attitude of organized labor . . . is entirely favorable to this bill." In denying that the bill was prompted solely by racial animus, Bacon betrayed at least a partial racial motivation: "The same [undercutting of union wage scales] would be true if you should bring in a lot of Mexican laborers or if you brought in any nonunion laborers from any other State."

As Bacon's bill made its way toward enactment, Rep. John J. Cochran of Missouri pointed to his receipt of "numerous complaints in recent months about Southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics getting work and bringing the employees from the South."

Similarly, Rep. Clayton Allgood of Alabama denounced "cheap colored labor . . . in competition with white labor throughout this country." Commissioner of Labor Statistics Ethelbert Stewart, in a submission to Congress, described the problem in part as "gangs of Southern Negro labor carried around from state to state."

The effect, predictably, of the Davis-Bacon Act on black construction workers was devastating, a conclusion confirmed by a recent Cato Institute publication.

As of the late 1920s, most construction unions either excluded or discriminated against blacks. For instance, the plumbers and steam fitters and sheet metal workers unions were all white, and the electrical workers and plasterers unions had but a tiny fraction of black members.

The act offered no economic incentive to hire nonunion labor. Accordingly, federal construction contractors employed generally more highly skilled white unionized workers directly through union locals. Since blacks typically were excluded from building-trade unions, the effect was to deny black workers employment on most federal construction projects. Labor Department regulations made the employment of unskilled black laborers on such projects virtually impossible.

The Davis-Bacon Act was conceived in an era of racism. The Ku Klux Klan was thriving; segregation of blacks in the military and in public life was commonplace; the U.S. Supreme Court had given its blessing to the "separate but equal" doctrine and all-white primary elections; member unions of the American Federation of Labor almost uniformly practiced some type of racial discrimination; and black leader W.E.B. Du Bois lamented in 1929 that "instead of taking the part of the Negro and helping him towards physical and economic freedom, the American labor movement from the beginning has tried to achieve freedom at the expense of the Negro."

In sum, it blinks at reality to deny that racism was a substantial or motivating factor that precipitated the Davis-Bacon Act. Under the Underwood precedent, that tainted factor defeats the constitutionality of the statute.[/quote]

Finally, with respect to the authoritarian regime of General Pinochet, the University of Chicago economics department had nothing to do with inspiring or directing his coup d'etat. Faced with an impending economic disaster, General Pinochet and his advisers had the good sense to seek counsel from people who knew something about the subject of economics, and perhaps surprisingly, they accepted the counsel they were given, and as landmark admits, the economic results are not contested. To repeat myself again, I understand that General Pinochet was an authoritarian dictator whose coup d'etat violated the Chilean Constitution and resulted in the deaths of some 2,000 people. Just bear in mind, however, that no socialist workers' paradise has ever been established without the murders of ten or one hundred times as many people, and in the case of Russia, China, the Third Reich, and Cambodia, without the murders of in the aggregate approximately 100 million people.

W.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 28, 2011 04:14PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-28 16:56, gdw wrote:
Santa, probably the same companies that pay women 3/4 what they pay men.
[/quote]


You know :confused: THOSE COMPANIES

It says it all over THOSE COMPANIES you know the ones they mean THOSE COMPANIES :confused:

Those poor underpaid blacks and women that THOSE COMPANIES take advantage.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 28, 2011 04:18PM)
For those who are interested in investigating the history of the Davis-Bacon Act further, there are two articles available on line by George Mason University law professor David Bernstein.

In Chapter IV of his book on the history of wage legislation, [url=http://mason.gmu.edu/~dbernste/davisbacon.htm]he notes:[/url]

[quote]Meanwhile, beginning in the 1910s thousands of African-American construction workers moved to cities in both the North and South. They quickly came into conflict with the building trades unions. African-American workers had never been treated well by construction unions. Many of the unions excluded African-Americans completely. Others, especially southern unions faced with large numbers of potential African-American competitors, admitted African-Americans but relegated them to second-class segregated locals. Because of grass roots resistance among white workers, however, the American Federation of Labor rarely expended energy in trying to organize African-American locals.12

Some northern and midwestern construction unions formally admitted African-Americans on equal terms, but even those unions rarely treated African-Americans fairly. For example, in 1903 white brickmasons working on a federal government construction project in Indianapolis walked off the job rather than work with an African-American member of their union, Robert Rhodes. The contractor fired Rhodes at the insistence of the strikers. Rhodes’ appealed for relief from his union local. Not only did the local deny Rhode’s appeal, it also fined him $25 for working on a non-union project before he joined the union!13

By the 1920s, most African-American building trades workers, including former union members, had given up on organized labor. They instead chose to compete with union members by taking jobs at sub-union wages.14 This decision had a salutary effect on African-Americans’ employment prospects. By 1926, a survey could locate but fourteen local unions of African-American carpenters as compared with an estimated thirty-nine in 1912, and the figure dropped again by 1929. By the late 1920s, the 340,000 member carpenters’ union had only about 600 or so African-American members. Yet despite continuous large scale migration to the North by African-Americans in general and by craft workers in particular, by 1930 the percentage of carpenters in the South who were African-American had edged up from 15% in 1910 to 17%.15

African-Americans also retained their antebellum strength in the trowel trades— bricklaying, plastering, and cement finishing—composing, for example, 61 percent of the South's plasterers and 44 percent of the plasterers and cement finishers. African-Americans were numerous enough in those fields to create their own informal training programs and to allow their employers to withstand labor boycotts by white unionists. African-Americans so dominated these fields that white unionists in unions such as the Hod Carriers and Common Building Laborers Union sometimes felt compelled to offer them equal status.16

Skilled construction unions, however, continued to exclude African-Americans nationwide; In 1928, a survey of construction unions revealed the following:

-- "Practically none" of the members of the electricians' union were African-American

-- the sheet metal workers’ union had no African-Americans among its 25,000 members

-- the plasterers’ union had only 100 African-American members among its 30,000 members, despite the presence of 6,000 African-Americans in the trade

-- the plumbers and steam fitters had "a long history of successfully maneuvering to avoid Negro membership17

The Plumbers’ and Electricians’ unions not only excluded African-Americans from membership, but, as discussed in Chapter 2, also used their control of state licensing board to try to exclude African-Americans from their fields.18

Despite the exclusion of African-Americans from craft unions, in 1930 the construction industry provided southern African-Americans with more jobs than any industry except agriculture and domestic service. Because the effects of union and educational discrimination were hardly felt in unskilled construction work, African-Americans performed most of that work. In at least six southern cities African-Americans composed more than eighty percent of the unskilled construction force. Overall, approximately 150,000 African-Americans worked in the construction industry in the late 1920s, mostly in the South. In order to protect white workers’ jobs, several southern cities passed ordinances prohibiting African-American contractors from working in white neighborhoods.19 [/quote]

He also describes the debate in Congress:

[quote]The debate in the Senate over the Davis-Bacon bill, as recorded in the Congressional Record, was only a page long, and contained no direct or indirect references to African-Americans. The House, however, was a different matter. Several representatives made direct or implicit negative references to African-American construction workers, including the following:

Mr. LaGuardia –"A contractor from Alabama was awarded the contract for the Northport Hospital, a Veterans’ Bureau hospital. I saw with my own eyes the labor that he imported there from the South and the conditions under which they were working. These unfortunate men were huddled in shacks living under most wretched conditions and being paid wages far below the standard. These unfortunate men were being exploited by the contract. Local skilled and unskilled labor were not employed. The workmanship of the cheap imported labor was of course very inferior."

Mr. Bacon -- "The unscrupulous contractor who hitherto came in with cheap, bootleg labor must now come in and pay the prevailing rate of wages in the community where the building is to be built. . ."

Mr. Bacon -- "Members of Congress have been flooded with protests from all over the country that certain Federal contractors on current jobs are bringing into local communities outside labor, cheap labor, bootleg labor. . ."

Mr. Cochran –"What would be the result if cheap labor was brought into my city? It would be resented, and trouble would result."

Mr. Allgood -- "Reference has been made to a contractor from Alabama who went to New York with bootleg labor. That is a fact. That contractor has cheap colored labor that he transports, and he puts them in cabins, and it is labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country. This bill has merit, and with the extensive building program now being entered into, it is very important that we enact this measure."50

Congress overwhelmingly passed Davis-Bacon, and President Hoover signed it into law on March 3, 1931.51 The mood of the times was quite favorable for the passage of this legislation. Davis-Bacon was not the only action taken by the federal government at the beginning of the Depression to help whites received priority in employment. Just a month before Davis-Bacon passed, the Department of Labor began to deport thousands of Mexican aliens, many of whom had been living legally in the United States for years, even decades.52

In addition to playing to racist sentiment at a time of economic hardship, the legislative history of Davis-Bacon reveals that the law appealed to pro-union legislators, to Congressmen who shared the popular (but foolish) view that unemployment could be lowered by the imposition of high wages in a deflationary environment,53 and to Congressmen who sought to ensure that pork barrel projects brought to their district in a time of mass unemployment benefitted local constituents, not itinerant workers. [/quote]

He has another short article on the Davis-Bacon act [url=http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp017.pdf]here.[/url]



W.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 28, 2011 04:38PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-28 14:40, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Gdw- Somalia is an outlier- their transition to "free market" was hardly non-violent. The situation is better described as "anarchy", and corporations cannot succeed in such an environment; they need some basic stability- and a relatively non-violent and non-impoverished citizenry- to function.

But, I'm glad to see that even you recognize the importance of some amount of regulation.
[/quote]

So which is it, corporations will take over, or they won't be able to even succeed?

In Somalia:

"Somalia has some of the best telecommunications in Africa, with a handful of companies ready to wire home or office and provide crystal-clear service, including international long distance, for about $10 a month."[20] Installation time for a land-line is just three days, while in the neighboring Kenya waiting lists are many years long.[15] In other African countries public monopolies and licensing restrictions raise prices and hamper the spread of telecommunications.[15] Abdullahi Mohammed Hussein of Telecom Somalia stated that "the government post and telecoms company used to have a monopoly but after the regime was toppled, we were free to set up our own business",[21] The World Bank reported in 2007 that only about 1.5% of the population had a telephone[18] resulting in the emergence of ten fiercely competitive telephone companies.[22] According to the CIA World Factbook, private telephone companies "offer service in most major cities" via wireless technology, charging "the lowest international rates on the continent",[3] while The New York Times has noted the private provision of mail services.[2] The Economist cited the telephone industry in anarchic Somalia as "a vivid illustration of the way in which governments…can often be more of a hindrance than a help."[23]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Somalia_%281991%E2%80%932006%29

Certainly seems like companies are managing to succeed quite well, along with providing better services at lower prices.

Although, through the 90's, Somalia was dealing with civil war in the after math of the fall of Siad Barre's government in January 1991, they still managed the improvements above, as well as improvements in many standards of living:

"Life expectancy in Somalia fell by two years from 1985 to 1990, but it has increased by five years since becoming stateless (1990-2005). Only three of the other 42
16
countries improved life expectancy as much since 1990. While Somalia’s infant mortality ranking has continued to slide, its death rate has improved, jumping from 37th to 17th since 1990. While still in the bottom 50% in cases of tuberculosis, Somalia’s relative rank has improved from 40th to 31st since the collapse of the government."

http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1861

Since 2005-06 things have started to get worse again, particularly in the matter of pirates, and other conflicts.
Hmm, what happened in the mid 2000s? Oh yeah, that's when america and surrounding countries thought they would "help:"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_Civil_War#Rise_and_fall_of_the_ICU.2C_Ethiopian_intervention.2C_and_the_TFG_.282006.E2.80.932009.29

Also, keep in mind that many of the "warlords" were being funded by the us government:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/16/AR2006051601625.html

So, if a country can manage the improvements that somalia did, during, and in the aftermath of a civil war, after, as you mention, a violent transition to pseudo anarchy, and such improvements seem to really only be hindered once governments try to intervene, and install a government, what would a country, starting in the condition of canada, or america, had a NON-violent transition? Going to market anarchy, without the civil war, and without the outside countries trying to impose their ideas.


I am NOT saying somalia is some great paradise, far from it. What I'm saying is that the civil war, american funded warlords, and outer countries invading at the behest of america just MIGHT be the problem there, not the lack of a government, and that, it would seem that the improvements they did have were in spite of the war, and because of the unregulated market.
I'm also saying that we clearly do not have to go through the war and crap to have the benefit of the market.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 28, 2011 04:40PM)
I really have to ask here.

Do you guys have jobs or just post?

I am self employed and have several income properties along with a few other things such as my billiard parlors which are really almost self running. So I have a lot of time.

But do you guys have jobs or are you self employed or what? As it seems you post all day.

Don't flame me. Just if you would please answer the question if you wish. It is really none of my business but my curious mind wants to know. INCOMING!!!
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 28, 2011 04:43PM)
Before we go much further, Woland, you stated categorically that "Minimum wage laws, and laws which require Federal projects to pay the equivalent of prevailing union wages, were explicitly introduced by racists who wanted to prevent black American workers from offering their services for less than white union workers." You have yet to provide evidence of that for minimum wage laws (it appears that you mean the US only) and have cited the Davis-Bacon act of 1931. It's not clear from what you cite that it was explicitly introduced by racists, but I do agree with one central point. Minimum wage laws do prevent the hiring of the cheapest possible labour, and this cheap labour is likely to be from an already disadvantaged group.

It's interesting that this central issue is revisited at the Café every time issues of illegal migrant workers or NAFTA come forward.

In the end, we have to make a stand one way or the other. Do we believe that giving as little as possible to the most vulnerable people is the morally right thing to do? In republican Rome it was fairly common to sell yourself into slavery to get money for your family. Are we willing to go that far?

John
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 28, 2011 04:43PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-28 17:14, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-28 16:56, gdw wrote:
Santa, probably the same companies that pay women 3/4 what they pay men.
[/quote]


You know :confused: THOSE COMPANIES

It says it all over THOSE COMPANIES you know the ones they mean THOSE COMPANIES :confused:

Those poor underpaid blacks and women that THOSE COMPANIES take advantage.
[/quote]

I am assuming you are trying to point out how the companies are to blame, rather than the government as I am prone to claim. I may be mistaken if that is what you are implying or not.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 28, 2011 04:45PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-28 17:43, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Before we go much further, Woland, you stated categorically that "Minimum wage laws, and laws which require Federal projects to pay the equivalent of prevailing union wages, were explicitly introduced by racists who wanted to prevent black American workers from offering their services for less than white union workers." You have yet to provide evidence of that for minimum wage laws (it appears that you mean the US only) and have cited the Davis-Bacon act of 1931. It's not clear from what you cite that it was explicitly introduced by racists, but I do agree with one central point. Minimum wage laws do prevent the hiring of the cheapest possible labour, and this cheap labour is likely to be from an already disadvantaged group.

It's interesting that this central issue is revisited at the Café every time issues of illegal migrant workers or NAFTA come forward.

In the end, we have to make a stand one way or the other. Do we believe that giving as little as possible to the most vulnerable people is the morally right thing to do? In republican Rome it was fairly common to sell yourself into slavery to get money for your family. Are we willing to go that far?

John
[/quote]

I'm not sure what you mean by "giving as little as possible" in this context. Are you talking about employers' paying the minimum wage?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 28, 2011 04:45PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-28 17:40, acesover wrote:
I really have to ask here.

Do you guys have jobs or just post?

I am self employed and have several income properties along with a few other things such as my billiard parlors which are really almost self running. So I have a lot of time.

But do you guys have jobs or are you self employed or what? As it seems you post all day.

Don't flame me. Just if you would please answer the question if you wish. It is really none of my business but my curious mind wants to know. INCOMING!!!
[/quote]

I'm self-employed.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 28, 2011 04:53PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-28 17:45, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[I'm not sure what you mean by "giving as little as possible" in this context. Are you talking about employers' paying the minimum wage?
[/quote]

Sorry, I was vague. I was referring to the scenarios in Woland's posts, where the minimum wage did not yet exist. And you are right: paying the minimum wage is a different form of "giving as little as possible".

John
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 28, 2011 05:03PM)
GDW, please provide a list of companies paying women less for the same position that men (white of course) also fill. I'll be honest, I have never seen it. I've heard people say it exist bit they just don't seem to know where... so do you suggest that laws be passed requiring that the pay be the same at these mystery companies or are you sticking w/ the previous statements about how you are anti minimum wage?

Acesover, I am unemployed, seemingly because black people and women will do the job for 25% less in pay, which explains the drasticly lower unemployment rate of women and black men.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 28, 2011 05:18PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-28 17:43, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-28 17:14, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-28 16:56, gdw wrote:
Santa, probably the same companies that pay women 3/4 what they pay men.
[/quote]


You know :confused: THOSE COMPANIES

It says it all over THOSE COMPANIES you know the ones they mean THOSE COMPANIES :confused:

Those poor underpaid blacks and women that THOSE COMPANIES take advantage.
[/quote]

I am assuming you are trying to point out how the companies are to blame, rather than the government as I am prone to claim. I may be mistaken if that is what you are implying or not.
[/quote]


No that is not what I am trying to point out.

I for one do not believe that the companies nor the government is at fault if such a condition even exists. To me it would seem to be the lack of good negoiating skills by those who do not get the salaries they believe they deserve regardless of color or gender. Which if it is the case shows that they are not as skilled as one might believe in their negoiatinig skills.

I am assuming you are talking about decision making positions and not unskilled labor positions. Most unskilled labor positions have a set starting rate and you advance if possible by your work ethic. However management positions are often open to negoiation, and the employer should if he or she is doing their job will hire the most qualified person to do the job at a salary dependent on the applicants negoiating skills and apptitude to fill the position.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 28, 2011 05:23PM)
I should work for Lobo as a paralegal.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jan 28, 2011 05:39PM)
Lobo,

I know you are a lawyer and self employed from previous posts.

So you have a degree and a license to steal. Just kidding honest.

I have a very high regard for lawyers as I have had to have legal councel on more than one occasion and would have been totally lost without their help. My lawyer has drawn some leases that I do not know how I got the tennants to sign but I got to love the way he worded them.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 28, 2011 05:43PM)
I was gonna' go to Somalia but I heard all the rum was gone.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 28, 2011 05:43PM)
Woland wrote--
"as landmark admits, the economic results are not contested.[re Chile]"
I have to leave but quickly, I don't believe I ever wrote that. Quite the opposite, I said there is some dispute about that.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 28, 2011 05:45PM)
I really wasn't trying to imply anything with the comment pertaining to women and men's pay. Just figured it was worth bringing up alongside paying different races less.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 28, 2011 05:51PM)
If anyone cares I work full time, self employed/contract as s video editor and effects/motion graphics artist/animator.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 28, 2011 05:54PM)
Magnus,

Let's enjoy a little reality here. Is there any employer anywhere who pays any employee more than he has to? Or more than he can afford? Herman Cain was very eloquent on this topic, back when he spoke with then President Clinton at one of the President's town hall meetings on the Clinton health insurance proposals. You can find it on YouTube, I think.

In case you hadn't noticed, consumers also pay as little as they can for everything they buy, too, which explains why an efficient, highly rationalized retailer with state-of-the-art data and inventory management technologies can become the largest employer in America by selling goods on the average 5% or 10% more cheaply than anyone else.

One of the great strengths of the free market economy is that price information is accurate and public. The availability of this information enhances competition and forces sellers to provide ever better values to their customers, and this is one of the factors that accounts for the dynamism of capitalism and the growth of capitalist economies over the past few hundred years.

Unfortunately, due to the fact that concupiscence and corruption do not magically disappear with the emergence of the "new socialist man" that the utopianists are always talking about, the elaborate wage and price controls that are the inevitable accompaniment of a centrally controlled economy end up causing massive inefficiencies and economic stagnation. You have a situation in which it was cheaper for kolkhozes in the Soviet Union to buy bread than grain for cattle feed.

You are however correct about the way these issues play out when illegal aliens in the labor force are discussed. Just last evening a black man in my community was expressing in a public meeting his concerns about the wages and (he thought) social security benefits that were being purloined, as it were, by illegal aliens who were taking jobs away from his community. On the other hand, in many of the trades in which at least the skilled illegal aliens work, particularly in the building trades, there is no question of cheaper wages. Bricklayers are paid by the job, and there is a going rate to lay 100,000 bricks, whether the bricklayers are white, black, or Mexican. Contractors seek work crews who can complete the job more quickly and efficiently, so a harder working crew will often get more work and make more money in the same time period than a more lackadaisical crew. One contractor I heard talk about this had no question in his mind as to which crews got the jobs done faster and which he therefore preferred; they were men who did not knock off early to hit the taverns or because of an impending thunderstorm . . .

Actually, the fact that we have 10 or 12 million illegal aliens who risked the law to come across the border to work in the United States seems to indicate that the plight of the non-union workingman over here really aint all that bad, doesn't it?

W.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 28, 2011 05:58PM)
Is anyone other than GDW and myself unemployed?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 28, 2011 06:15PM)
Santa, I work full time in a contract position.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 28, 2011 06:22PM)
Ohhh...a temp.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 28, 2011 06:26PM)
No, going on a year now.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 28, 2011 06:35PM)
There are companies that hire temps for years....if you are a contract employee, you are a temp! Be proud, I'd take a temp job.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 28, 2011 08:59PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-28 18:54, Woland wrote:
Magnus,

Let's enjoy a little reality here. Is there any employer anywhere who pays any employee more than he has to?
[/quote]

I suspect everyone in this thread agrees on this. It is precisely the reason for minimum wages, the right to organize, safety regulations etc. I simply do not believe that the market invariably leads to the most desirable results for the people. It often does. But sometimes, IMHO, human wisdom is required to temper the worst consequences of the market.

John
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 28, 2011 09:00PM)
Woland wrote:

"In case you hadn't noticed, consumers also pay as little as they can for everything they buy"

That is false. It has been shown time and again, that most people are irrational when it comes to money and spending. People often spend more than what they have to, e.g., because they favor certain retailers over others.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jan 29, 2011 01:56AM)
Regards employment, I suffer under the most demanding, abusive, unsympathetic boss I've ever had.

I too am self employed.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 29, 2011 08:10AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-28 22:00, balducci wrote:
Woland wrote:

"In case you hadn't noticed, consumers also pay as little as they can for everything they buy"

That is false. It has been shown time and again, that most people are irrational when it comes to money and spending. People often spend more than what they have to, e.g., because they favor certain retailers over others.
[/quote]

It has also been shown that, overall, they will favour paying less. Some will favour certain retailers, as you say, and those who pay as little as they can won't do it 100% of the time, but the majority of the time.
If this weren't the case, we wouldn't be seeing Wal-Mart being so successful.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 29, 2011 08:12AM)
Also, if all companies kept to paying as little as possible, then no one would make more than minimum wage, and every product would be the cheapest materials.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 29, 2011 09:03AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-29 09:12, gdw wrote:
Also, if all companies kept to paying as little as possible, then no one would make more than minimum wage, and every product would be the cheapest materials.
[/quote]

You are conflating two ideas. Companies do try to keep labour costs down--quite reasonably--but sometimes the market is stronger than they are. If you want a competent engineer and if there are fewer competent engineers than jobs, then they have the power to force the wage up. Nobody denies that. What is at question is whether the market is the only mechanism that ought to have an influence.

And for the record, I believe that safety laws are more defensible than allowing the market to dictate the level of safety on the workplace. Bhopal, anyone?

John
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 29, 2011 09:41AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-29 09:12, gdw wrote:
Also, if all companies kept to paying as little as possible, then no one would make more than minimum wage, and every product would be the cheapest materials.
[/quote]

Thank you! Thank you for a perfect example of why the market shouldn't be deregulated. China.
China produces shoddy merchandise for low wages but because the pay is so low the merchandise can be sold cheaper and now all anyone can afford is **** that's made in China. So, yay for lead poisoning.
Yeah, the market will regulate itself alright... right into indentured servitude.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 29, 2011 12:31PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-29 10:41, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-29 09:12, gdw wrote:
Also, if all companies kept to paying as little as possible, then no one would make more than minimum wage, and every product would be the cheapest materials.
[/quote]

Thank you! Thank you for a perfect example of why the market shouldn't be deregulated. China.
China produces shoddy merchandise for low wages but because the pay is so low the merchandise can be sold cheaper and now all anyone can afford is **** that's made in China. So, yay for lead poisoning.
Yeah, the market will regulate itself alright... right into indentured servitude.
[/quote]

So, the fact that companies willingly do MORE than the bare minimum is justification for regulation?

That sounds like the exact opposite. The market is what pushes them to do more than the minimum, not the regulations that set the minimums.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 29, 2011 02:44PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-29 13:31, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-29 10:41, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-29 09:12, gdw wrote:
Also, if all companies kept to paying as little as possible, then no one would make more than minimum wage, and every product would be the cheapest materials.
[/quote]

Thank you! Thank you for a perfect example of why the market shouldn't be deregulated. China.
China produces shoddy merchandise for low wages but because the pay is so low the merchandise can be sold cheaper and now all anyone can afford is **** that's made in China. So, yay for lead poisoning.
Yeah, the market will regulate itself alright... right into indentured servitude.
[/quote]

So, the fact that companies willingly do MORE than the bare minimum is justification for regulation?

[/quote]

Be honest. Do you REALLY think that that is what he is saying? Honestly.

John
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 29, 2011 04:12PM)
John, the post he quoted said that companies do not only pay minimum wage, or use the cheapest materials they can get away with.
He said this proves the need for regulations.

Honestly, I'm not sure what he is really intending to say.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 29, 2011 04:23PM)
Perhaps you missed his "So, yay for lead poisoning. Yeah, the market will regulate itself alright... right into indentured servitude."
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 29, 2011 04:27PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-29 17:23, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Perhaps you missed his "So, yay for lead poisoning. Yeah, the market will regulate itself alright... right into indentured servitude."
[/quote]

No, I did not miss it, but what did it have to do with what I said? You know, where I apparently made the point for him.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 29, 2011 04:33PM)
Perhaps you should read carefully (and charitably). His point is pretty clear to me: unregulated workplaces lead to low wages, low quality product, market flooding and health concerns.

But you could have figured that out on your own, I am sure.

John
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 29, 2011 04:37PM)
Everything out of China must be tested for lead it is so common.

As for unions. Worse pay, worse benefits, and worse treatment I ever received at a job was a union 'protected' (riiiiight) job. I would not join an union again and am a state where one does not have to join.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 29, 2011 04:41PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-29 10:41, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-29 09:12, gdw wrote:
Also, if all companies kept to paying as little as possible, then no one would make more than minimum wage, and every product would be the cheapest materials.
[/quote]

Thank you! Thank you for a perfect example of why the market shouldn't be deregulated. China.
China produces shoddy merchandise for low wages but because the pay is so low the merchandise can be sold cheaper and now all anyone can afford is **** that's made in China. So, yay for lead poisoning.
Yeah, the market will regulate itself alright... right into indentured servitude.
[/quote]

I thought it was pretty self explanatory. You referred to cheapest labor and materials. We have an example of a place where they do use the cheapest labor and materials. Not much of a stretch there.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 29, 2011 05:01PM)
China must be regulated or they would build toys out of arsnic and lead if it was cheaper and the managers brother sold arsnic.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 29, 2011 05:06PM)
I say that companies are NOT all "taking advantage" of their employees by paying minimum wage.

You say that this proves we need minimum wage laws.

How am I the only one who sees a disconnect between those statements?
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jan 29, 2011 05:11PM)
Santa,

You are just being silly - they would not put all the poisons into toys - they'd have nothing left for milk.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 29, 2011 05:13PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-29 18:01, MagicSanta wrote:
China must be regulated or they would build toys out of arsnic and lead if it was cheaper and the managers brother sold arsnic.
[/quote]

Yet that is exactly the type of doomsday thing people claim will happen if there weren't regulations.
Toys made of arsenic, and doctors operating with rusty drills bought at home hardware.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jan 29, 2011 05:17PM)
Gdw,

Have you noticed how difficult it's been to get rich and how many troublesome kids there are since evil interfering governments disallowed sending 12 year olds into underground coal mines for starvation wages, with the only safety cost being seed for the canary?
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jan 29, 2011 05:20PM)
Gdw,

http://allafrica.com/stories/201001280833.html

What they wouldn't give for a rusty drill bit in Somalia.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 29, 2011 05:26PM)
GDW, one year the port director of the region controlled by the San Francisco (US Customs) Paul Andrews ordered the destruction of ALL toys imported by China due to the toxins used in the plastics and paints. W/ you the lovely children would have received them as gifts.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 29, 2011 05:32PM)
Destiny, don't consider the bad, thing of the joy in a persons heart as they prepare to die when they gasp "At least....I tasted....anarchy!"
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 29, 2011 05:33PM)
The Government told them to paint them with lead to cull the herd a bit.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 29, 2011 07:48PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-29 18:06, gdw wrote:
I say that companies are NOT all "taking advantage" of their employees by paying minimum wage.

You say that this proves we need minimum wage laws.

How am I the only one who sees a disconnect between those statements?
[/quote]

No, I did not say that your statement proved it. And also, the minimum wage is not the only regulation I was talking about. I said that your statement provided the perfect scenario to connect to a real life example. The fact that the less workers are paid and the more corners are cut on materials the worse crap we get is proof that there must be a minimum standard. Or did you mean for your private Blackwater security guards to keep people safe from dangerously defective products?
Good luck with that.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 29, 2011 08:10PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-29 18:20, Destiny wrote:
Gdw,

http://allafrica.com/stories/201001280833.html

What they wouldn't give for a rusty drill bit in Somalia.
[/quote]

Destiny, health care improved quite a bit compared to pre '91. A doctors visit cost 50 cents.
Comparing wages, that is approx equivalent to $30 US. About half a days wages at minimum wage.

As for the tainted products, that seems to stem from their corrupt regulatory system, which the government is actively censoring from news and media, which would certainly go to preventing any market signals. Kind of hard for the public, being the ones that largely send such signals, to do so with the government actively keeping them uninformed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_export_recalls#Ultimate_Sanction
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 29, 2011 08:12PM)
Wikipedia? Really? What scholarly research you've chosen to support your statements.

However, your link just provides more fuel for the case for effective regulation. The dude was executed by the government for a percieved [i] failure to regulate [/i] the companies.
If the article is to be believed, he failed because he didn't regulate enough. Get it?
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jan 29, 2011 08:17PM)
Fortunately the good people of Somalia can afford dirt cheap mobile phones and better hospital care now as a result of the ransoms collected from pirated ships and kidnapped seafarers.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 29, 2011 08:39PM)
Yep I bet they are all running around now on their new peg legs with the latest fashion eye patch's and hooks.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 29, 2011 08:43PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-29 21:12, critter wrote:
Wikipedia? Really? What scholarly research you've chosen to support your statements.

However, your link just provides more fuel for the case for effective regulation. The dude was executed by the government for a percieved [i] failure to regulate [/i] the companies.
If the article is to be believed, he failed because he didn't regulate enough. Get it?
[/quote]

Critter, do you really think north american regulators are not corrupt too? They just need to get the right guy doing it, right?
Yeah, government would be a source for good if we just had the right people. If we just had the right (meaning same views as me) guy for president it would work like it's supposed to.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 29, 2011 08:47PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-29 21:17, Destiny wrote:
Fortunately the good people of Somalia can afford dirt cheap mobile phones and better hospital care now as a result of the ransoms collected from pirated ships and kidnapped seafarers.
[/quote]


Ever notice how all the piracy reports and serious concerns amped up in 05-06? What happened then again?
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jan 29, 2011 09:00PM)
I can't remember but am reasonably sure you'll have a link.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 29, 2011 09:02PM)
North American regulators? Holy smoke I just figured it out...GDW doesn't recognize countries so there is no US and Canada in his mind, just a blur.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 29, 2011 10:18PM)
Lots of Americans would love to be able to pay only $30 for a doctor's visit.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 29, 2011 10:26PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-29 21:10, gdw wrote:

Destiny, health care improved quite a bit compared to pre '91. A doctors visit cost 50 cents.
Comparing wages, that is approx equivalent to $30 US. About half a days wages at minimum wage.
[/quote]
Excuse me. Where does this 50 cents figure come from? And are you saying that was the cost of a doctor's visit in Somalia or in the U.S.?
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 29, 2011 10:57PM)
Gee, if only we had a system of checks and balances then it would almost be irrelevant whether you got the "right guy" for President.
Oh wait, we totally do!
Looks like the Chinese took care of thier "wrong guy" problem too.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 29, 2011 11:39PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-29 23:57, critter wrote:
Gee, if only we had a system of checks and balances then it would almost be irrelevant whether you got the "right guy" for President.
Oh wait, we totally do!
Looks like the Chinese took care of thier "wrong guy" problem too.
[/quote]

And gots that been working out?
How much different are things with Obama than they were with Bush?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 29, 2011 11:51PM)
Well, how different is Canada under....uh....the new guy/gal than the previous gal/guy?
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 30, 2011 12:02AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-30 00:39, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-29 23:57, critter wrote:
Gee, if only we had a system of checks and balances then it would almost be irrelevant whether you got the "right guy" for President.
Oh wait, we totally do!
Looks like the Chinese took care of thier "wrong guy" problem too.
[/quote]

And gots that been working out?
How much different are things with Obama than they were with Bush?
[/quote]

Wow. I just frickin' said it's not about one guy because we have an entire system of checks and balances.
And it's working out pretty good.
We're still the best country on the planet. I get to say whatever I want without worrying about being executed or put into a camp. I get to read whatever I want because it's available. When I drive over a pothole I can make a phone call and it will disappear within 48 hours.
And when a drunken sociopath beats my Mom, I can make a phone call and he will disappear within 24 minutes.
Yup, it's going just fine, thanks for asking.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 30, 2011 12:11AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-29 23:18, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Lots of Americans would love to be able to pay only $30 for a doctor's visit.
[/quote]

I only pay $15 for most of my doctors' visits. Sometimes I don't even have to pay that. It's called non-profit health insurance and it rocks.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jan 30, 2011 01:09AM)
Can I have some?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 30, 2011 07:39AM)
Yes. If you and enough of the rest of the country get their reps to vote for single payer insurance (basically Medicare for all).
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 30, 2011 09:23AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-30 01:02, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-30 00:39, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-29 23:57, critter wrote:
Gee, if only we had a system of checks and balances then it would almost be irrelevant whether you got the "right guy" for President.
Oh wait, we totally do!
Looks like the Chinese took care of thier "wrong guy" problem too.
[/quote]

And gots that been working out?
How much different are things with Obama than they were with Bush?
[/quote]

Wow. I just frickin' said it's not about one guy because we have an entire system of checks and balances.
And it's working out pretty good.
We're still the best country on the planet. I get to say whatever I want without worrying about being executed or put into a camp. I get to read whatever I want because it's available. When I drive over a pothole I can make a phone call and it will disappear within 48 hours.
And when a drunken sociopath beats my Mom, I can make a phone call and he will disappear within 24 minutes.
Yup, it's going just fine, thanks for asking.
[/quote]

Critter, my point was that those checks and balances maybe designed to reign in the worst, not that they stopped plenty of the things done, but that even if you get a few of the best intentioned people into government, what can they actually accomplish? How different will things really be compared to before they were there?
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 30, 2011 09:32AM)
Well plenty. There have been administrations that have made a big difference. Not always good and not always bad.

As for my insurance, it's a non-profit co-op. You could probably Google non-profit health insurance co-ops in your area. The one I use has also never had the pre-existing conditions rule. They really do rock.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 30, 2011 11:25AM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-30 10:32, critter wrote:

As for my insurance, it's a non-profit co-op. You could probably Google non-profit health insurance co-ops in your area. The one I use has also never had the pre-existing conditions rule. They really do rock.
[/quote]
Unless things have changed significantly in the last year or two, health insurance co-ops are very rare. According to this article from 2009, only two are operating in the U.S.: Group Health Cooperative of Washington and Health Partners in Minnesota. So, you might just be fortunate to live in a place where this is available.

You do mean "health insurance co-op" and not "health insurance PURCHASING co-op", right?

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/so-whats-a-health-insurance-coop-anyway/

This article (half way through) discusses health insurance co-ops that existed in America in the 1940s-1950s:

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/public-plan-or-cooperative-does-it-make-a-difference/
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 30, 2011 11:35AM)
Huh, didn't know they were so rare. Yup, co-op. That's a bummer. I wish everybody could have insurance as good as I do.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Jan 30, 2011 11:47AM)
Critter, so do I. So do I...

(And for that, people call me a socialist.)
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 30, 2011 01:11PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-30 12:35, critter wrote:
Huh, didn't know they were so rare. Yup, co-op. That's a bummer. I wish everybody could have insurance as good as I do.
[/quote]

Maybe if there weren't so many regulations creating barriers to entry, and creating an oligopoly in the insurance industry.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jan 30, 2011 01:40PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-30 14:11, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-01-30 12:35, critter wrote:
Huh, didn't know they were so rare. Yup, co-op. That's a bummer. I wish everybody could have insurance as good as I do.
[/quote]

Maybe if there weren't so many regulations creating barriers to entry, and creating an oligopoly in the insurance industry.
[/quote]

Sure. Let's open the doors wide. No need to have a cash reserve. No restrictions on how much reserve a company has. Let people offer whatever they want and collect whatever premiums they can manage. Those companies that shuffle all their premiums into numbered bank accounts offshore will be weeded out by the market. Let Ma and Pa pay whatever they can be persuaded to pay, but don't have any legislation making the insurer accountable, 'cause that's socialism.

John
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 31, 2011 07:39PM)
[quote]
On 2011-01-27 23:41, Destiny wrote:
Gdw,

I may have exaggerated for effect but I personally can't see how else your proposed Utopia would function, and please don't tell me I should read your links - if a system is so complex you can't explain the basics to me in a couple of paragraphs, I cannot take your support of the system seriously and have to suspect you are just throwing out a line hoping for a nibble.
. . .
[/quote]

Just curious, would you be able to explain the basic principles of your political views in a few sentences? I know you were referring to describing how a "system" would work, granted, I highly doubt you could describe how everything does work under any current system in as few words, but I thought this would be another thing to look at.

So, care do describe your political views?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 2, 2011 06:37PM)
http://revision3.com/pennpoint/tucsonshooting2
Message: Posted by: acesover (Feb 2, 2011 07:05PM)
Gdw don't take this the wrong way. But are you related to Jared Loughner? Because it is obvious by many of your posts that both of you are crazy and I was just wondering. A simple yes or no is sufficent without any elaboration. Just be truthful. Yes or No. You can tell us we are your friends.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 2, 2011 07:22PM)
No.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 2, 2011 07:26PM)
Are you face book pals?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 2, 2011 07:29PM)
Never heard of him before the shooting. But, yeah, I can see how posting a link condemning the nut, and saying he is responsible for what he did would make people think I'm related to, or friends with him.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 2, 2011 08:37PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-02 19:37, gdw wrote:
http://revision3.com/pennpoint/tucsonshooting2
[/quote]
Wow that was really even more boring than I expected. I stuck with it because I have respect for Penn as a magician, but that was pretty worthless. And what's the deal with the constant camera switching? Is this a typical episode of this commentary? And it really has nothing to so with his views, it was just a rambling mess.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 2, 2011 08:43PM)
Trying to take the hot spot light off ya huh? Admit it GDW...the photos foud of Jared in a thong...they were heading for you weren't they?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 2, 2011 09:03PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-02 21:37, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-02-02 19:37, gdw wrote:
http://revision3.com/pennpoint/tucsonshooting2
[/quote]
Wow that was really even more boring than I expected. I stuck with it because I have respect for Penn as a magician, but that was pretty worthless. And what's the deal with the constant camera switching? Is this a typical episode of this commentary? And it really has nothing to so with his views, it was just a rambling mess.
[/quote]

It actually had a good bit to do with his views. It was a bit of rambling on, but they aren't exactly meant to be scripted. The guy kinda wears his heart on his sleeve.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 2, 2011 09:28PM)
No, I meant my criticism had nothing to do with his views. He complains that he's not going to mention Loughner's name because it's the 9 year old girl's name that should be remembered--and then he doesn't give her name! Really, I expected a little more analysis, no matter what his position was.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Feb 2, 2011 09:49PM)
Gdw,

I believe government 'of the people, by the people, for the people' as practiced (with all it's variations and imperfections) in what are generally known as the Western Democracies has proven itself to provide it's citizens with the most free, happy, healthy, wealthy, informed lives in the history of mankind.


There is much can be argued with in all our countries, but no other system has ever, other than in theory, been demonstrated to give anyone anything like the life we lead today.

Maybe I am just spoilt living in a country as wonderful as Australia, but I think we are the luckiest people to have ever breathed air.
Message: Posted by: Mr. Mystoffelees (Feb 2, 2011 09:56PM)
Hear, hear!!!!!
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 3, 2011 05:00PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-02 22:49, Destiny wrote:
Gdw,

I believe government 'of the people, by the people, for the people' as practiced (with all it's variations and imperfections) in what are generally known as the Western Democracies has proven itself to provide it's citizens with the most free, happy, healthy, wealthy, informed lives in the history of mankind.


There is much can be argued with in all our countries, but no other system has ever, other than in theory, been demonstrated to give anyone anything like the life we lead today.

Maybe I am just spoilt living in a country as wonderful as Australia, but I think we are the luckiest people to have ever breathed air.
[/quote]

Yes, we have it pretty darn good, relative to the rest of the world. However, IF (For the sake of argument, I'm being hypothetical) the system we are under is immoral, then this says nothing more than saying "we are the freest slaves on the plane." I'm not saying we are slaves, I am just saying that being at the "top" is only relative, and does not address whether or not what we live under is "right."

Any who, that doesn't really give me any idea of what YOUR political views are. What principles you support, what you'd like to see done with/by government, what you think the purpose of government is?
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Feb 3, 2011 05:32PM)
You asked for a few sentences and now want an essay - the Western democracies, ideally, are based on capitalism with citizens guaranteed personal liberty and freedom of religion. They have sensible regulation so one persons freedom does not infringe on another.

You will notice I used the word 'ideally'. I am not Utopian. Mistakes are made and nothing is perfect.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 3, 2011 05:54PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-03 18:32, Destiny wrote:
You asked for a few sentences and now want an essay - the Western democracies, ideally, are based on capitalism with citizens guaranteed personal liberty and freedom of religion. They have sensible regulation so one persons freedom does not infringe on another.

You will notice I used the word 'ideally'. I am not Utopian. Mistakes are made and nothing is perfect.
[/quote]
I was asking for a few sentences because you criticized me for not being able to explain every facet of a system in a few sentences.

As for what I am asking, I'm not asking what system, I'm asking for your political views. Most world describe themselves as leaning left, or right, but even that doesn't tell me much, considering the range of differing views on either side.

So, what I'm asking is, what are your political views? What fundamental principles do you base those views on?
Do you have any underlying principles, or do you just hold a mix of ideas of what you think works best?

Your comments on liberty and such give me an idea, but it would still seem to hold contradictions, as most regulations ARE infringements on the freedom of others.

For me, it boils down to this, I have no place telling two consenting people what the can, or can not do with eachother in bed, so why should I have any say what they do in business between eachother?
So, what place does "the majority" have making those decisions for them?
What place do they have saying what people can contract with eachother, be it a contract of marriage, or a contract to sell some food.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Feb 3, 2011 06:17PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-03 18:54, gdw wrote:

For me, it boils down to this, I have no place telling two consenting people what the can, or can not do with eachother in bed, so why should I have any say what they do in business between eachother?
So, what place does "the majority" have making those decisions for them?
What place do they have saying what people can contract with eachother, be it a contract of marriage, or a contract to sell some food.
[/quote]
What two people alone together in bed do in bed together almost certainly involves nor affects anyone else (excepting in the case of cheating spouses).

But what two people do in business almost certainly always does involve or affect others.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 3, 2011 06:30PM)
Balducci, how do you explain this local (to me) business?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlite_Bunny_Ranch
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 3, 2011 06:36PM)
Its a Koan.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Feb 3, 2011 06:37PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-03 19:30, MagicSanta wrote:
Balducci, how do you explain this local (to me) business?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlite_Bunny_Ranch
[/quote]
That's a business, and it can and does affect more than two people. Stop trying to confuse the kid (gdw).

BTW Santa ... about those funeral arrangements you mentioned a while back, but could not act on (e.g., sending a body to the afterlife, adrift on a flaming boat / barge). I read today that Colorado allows open air funeral pyres / cremations. Apparently it may very well be the only U.S. state that does. So now you know.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 3, 2011 07:02PM)
Balducci, it affects those that chose to be involved, and thus they are also parties doing business.

Like those who choose to do business by dropping at a store.

Like future sex partners who choose to get involved. Or, heck, join in at the same time.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Feb 3, 2011 07:59PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-03 20:02, gdw wrote:

Balducci, it affects those that chose to be involved, and thus they are also parties doing business.
[/quote]
Business decisions involve and affect MANY MORE than those who choose to be involved.

Where were you during the financial meltdown? Or perhaps you have not heard of that?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 3, 2011 07:59PM)
That open air burning might be a native thing. Too late anyway, the old evil witch was buried in a cardboard coffin, which I still get grief for. Note: my mother was buried in the same model of box because it was deemed pretty and velvety and we decided not to spend a fortute on a coffin.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 3, 2011 08:10PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-03 20:59, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-02-03 20:02, gdw wrote:

Balducci, it affects those that chose to be involved, and thus they are also parties doing business.
[/quote]
Business decisions involve and affect MANY MORE than those who choose to be involved.

Where were you during the financial meltdown? Or perhaps you have not heard of that?
[/quote]

Oh, you mean when government muddled around by backing loans, with money they took from "tax" payers, causing the housing bubble in the first place? And then they bailed out a bunch of big businesses, again using your money? Yeah, that wasn't something people weren't forced into. That was ALL just individuals choosing, voluntarily, to do business, and deciding what to do with their own money.

This is my point.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Feb 3, 2011 08:35PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-03 21:10, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-02-03 20:59, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-02-03 20:02, gdw wrote:

Balducci, it affects those that chose to be involved, and thus they are also parties doing business.
[/quote]
Business decisions involve and affect MANY MORE than those who choose to be involved.

Where were you during the financial meltdown? Or perhaps you have not heard of that?
[/quote]

Oh, you mean when government muddled around by backing loans, with money they took from "tax" payers, causing the housing bubble in the first place? And then they bailed out a bunch of big businesses, again using your money? Yeah, that wasn't something people weren't forced into. That was ALL just individuals choosing, voluntarily, to do business, and deciding what to do with their own money.

This is my point.
[/quote]
No, that's not what I mean. It might be your point, but you missed mine.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 3, 2011 08:41PM)
No, I knew exactly what you were trying to point out, yet the financial crisis does nothing but show how government intervention is what makes it affect everyone else, compounded by the fact that they directly involve you via your tax money, whether you wish or not, which would be exactly the opposite of what I am advocating.

This is the same as trying to say what two people wish to do privately affects everyone, by saying that allowing gays top marry means they will be receiving benefits that they would not otherwise be receiving, and showing how this affects others.

It would not affect others if it wasn't the government being involved, as they force you to be involved.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Feb 3, 2011 11:00PM)
Gdw,

I thought I was being clear but if you need titles, I am a capitalist who leans left on some issues and right on others, though more frequently left. The United States appears more right leaning than most of the western democracies, and I think I would be, as most people, somewhere in the middle of opinion in the western democracies minus the US. That is not meant to disparage the US - as I said earlier I believe in this system of governance and economic management with all it's variations and imperfections.

I believe the job of government, in the main, is not to provide goods and services but to regulate them, based on a community consensus. That community consensus is achieved through a vote of the representatives we vote into parliament. There are plenty of exceptions I am willing to accept though. I think I've posted before about the Australian Government decades ago building sugar mills in isolated areas where noone else would and then selling them back over time at cost to cooperatives of sugar farmers - something which benefitted all involved and the country as a whole.

I believe the government has no place in the private consensual sexual activity of two adults but must regulate to ensure such behaviour IS consensual so that a weaker partner is indeed consenting, not just caving in to fear - and I believe the government should regulate a punishment for inappropriate behaviour in those cases, and that the government is best placed to enforce that punishment.

I also belive the government has a right to regulate so that members of society may not injure others through omitting to tell others something they would not necessarily know, which could injure them. Examples are that people with sexual diseases or HIV should be required to disclose that to sexual partners and only indulge in sexual activity which will not spread the infection. Companies that sell us a financial product should be regulated to explain all the conditions and ramifications of that product.

I believe if you drive a car on your farm you can drive it as fast as you like, without a seatbelt, and drunk as a skunk if you choose - though if that behaviour injures another or their property the government should have in place severe repercussions. Once you move onto public roads, provided by the community, for the community, I believe the government should be able to regulate how fast you drive, the road worthiness of the vehicle you drive and what condition you drive in.

I hope you get an idea of my beliefs from my general description and the specific examples I've given - if there is any other specific you would like me to share my beliefs about just ask, though I note when I have asked you about how specific areas would operate under an anarchic system, you have fobbed me off with links or a declaration that you were not across the detail and I could look it up.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 3, 2011 11:07PM)
It is amazing how Destiny and I are alike. There is one major difference between us of course....he isn't afraid of poisoness snakes and I am.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 4, 2011 10:43AM)
Thank you for expanding on that Destiny.
I want to say that, beside the points you were specific on, I would still have no idea where you would stand on pretty much any issue.
This is not to criticize your response, but to say that it would lead to a near endless stream of questions if I were to try to understand how you think everything should work.

For example, how is everyone supposed to be fed?

Asking me to explain how everything would work without a government is like asking someone to explained every detail of how things will work when/if we move away from oil and coal for energy.
Even if one knew what resource we would be dependant on, they could not predict every aspect of how it will be obtained, processed, transported, how each person would get it, etc.
That doesn't mean it wouldn't work. It just means that people will figure that out, and would decide for them selves via the market.

The main issue people pushed me to answer was policing. Why not health care, or food? Because most have not become dependant on the government for those things.
So, police, well just look at egypt now. People have been grouping together and defending themselves their neighbours.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Feb 4, 2011 12:12PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-04 11:43, gdw wrote:

The main issue people pushed me to answer was policing. Why not health care, or food? Because most have not become dependant on the government for those things.
[/quote]
Huh?

People are dependent on the government with respect to their health care. Even in the United States (even pre-Obama FWIW), public spending accounts for between about 45% and 56.1% of U.S. health care spending (depending on how you count it). People with private health care plans still depend on public spending for some of their health care, whether they realize it or not.

People are also dependent on government bodies to regulate and monitor various aspects of the food production and distribution.

The vast majority of people are generally satisfied with, and often even pleased with and thankful for, this.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 4, 2011 12:29PM)
[quote]

On 2011-02-04 11:43, gdw wrote
Thank you for expanding on that Destiny.
I want to say that, beside the points you were specific on, I would still have no idea where you would stand on pretty much any issue.
This is not to criticize your response, but to say that it would lead to a near endless stream of questions if I were to try to understand how you think everything should work.
[/quote]
I suspect that most people don't have a fully thought out overarching philosophy of life or politics that they think should be applied to all situations. "It depends," or "I don't know," seems perfectly legitimate and probably necessary for an evolving, learning human being facing an evolving society. Given that, it seems pretty clear to me the general direction Destiny is pointing. But I think life is an art, not a science.
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 4, 2011 01:15PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-04 13:29, landmark wrote:
But I think life is an art, not a science.
[/quote]

Much like taxidermy in that respect.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 4, 2011 02:04PM)
Yes, exactly like taxidermy. To me life is just like stuffing a big old dead moose.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Feb 4, 2011 07:28PM)
Balducci said exactly what I would have said regarding healthcare and food.

Here in Australia - remembering this country covers vast distances with sparse populations - our governments of all political persuasions have always been very proactive building transport networks so producers can get their goods to markets - rail, road, sea and air. The seaports and airports they built are basically all privatised now and the sell off to private enterprise of cargo rail has begun - but it is unlikely we would have ever had those facilities without government - we had no companies with the resources or inclination to undertake the tasks.

I really think it is useless discussing the specifics when gdw and I start from diametrically opposed positions. I believe I am part of the government by virtue of participating in public discussion and the political process. He appears to see the government as the enemy, an ever present brooding menacing threat to his petty freedoms. I do not believe we start from a point of freedom. Left to our own devices without a system that most of us are willing to abide by we would have to fight just to keep our house - if we went on holiday, we may well return to find some hobo has opened a bar in it with gdw's blessing because as we'd left the house empty for a week, it was regarded as 'finders keepers'. We would have to physically fight to regain the place and hold it. Our crops would need to be guarded against people who saw no reason not to help themselves and when we sold the crop we would only sell it to someone who had the gold then and there as there would be no recourse if they failed to honour their debt.

gdw seems to see freedom as a given - I see it as something generation after generation has fought and died for, and that we lucky ***s have inherited. The system of government we have is how they managed to secure and guarantee those freedoms. I do not mind being compelled by community consensus to wait for a green light before I cross a street. Of course consensus gets some things wrong - and it is our job to work on those things. I for example believe consenting adults should be able to do what they like in privacy, but it takes government to ensure that is the case, because for centuries there were (and there remain) those who would kill people for that. It took government a long time to get there, but eventually they did - without government I cannot picture any process which would have achieved that freedom - because it was an all prevailing majority view that homosexuality was wrong and it took progressive politicians to go ahead of the majority view and get us where we are now.

"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose..." Kriss Kristofferson

And if I can quote from my favourite Christian of all time, Kahlil Gibran:



At the city gate and by your fireside I have seen you prostrate yourself and worship your own freedom,


Even as slaves humble themselves before a tyrant and praise him though he slays them.


Ay, in the grove of the temple and in the shadow of the citadel I have seen the freest among you
wear their freedom as a yoke and a handcuff.


And my heart bled within me; for you can only be free
when even the desire of seeking freedom becomes a harness to you,
and when you cease to speak of freedom as a goal and a fulfillment.


You shall be free indeed when your days are not without a care
nor your nights without a want and a grief,


But rather when these things girdle your life and yet you rise above them
naked and unbound.


And how shall you rise beyond your days and nights unless you break the chains
which you at the dawn of your understanding have fastened around your noon hour?


In truth that which you call freedom is the strongest of these chains,
though its links glitter in the sun and dazzle the eyes.


And what is it but fragments of your own self you would discard that you may become free?


If it is an unjust law you would abolish,
that law was written with your own hand upon your own forehead.


You cannot erase it by burning your law books nor by washing the foreheads of your judges,
though you pour the sea upon them.


And if it is a despot you would dethrone,
see first that his throne erected within you is destroyed.


For how can a tyrant rule the free and the proud,
but for a tyranny in their own freedom and a shame in their won pride?


And if it is a care you would cast off,
that care has been chosen by you rather than imposed upon you
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 4, 2011 08:51PM)
Destiny, people have had to fight to obtain their freedom, yes, but only because it was taken in the first place.
Now, let's look at history and see who was doing the taking in the first place?

Also, as for your history of getting homosexuality more accepted, seriously? First off, it used to be plenty accepted in the original republic. Not that I advocate for a republic.

Then christianity became much more popular.

As for government being what got that freedom back, seriously? It took and is continuing to take people fighting against government to accomplish this. For some reason they seem to think they need to work within government, you know, the system that had and enforced the laws against homosexuality, to accomplish this.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Feb 4, 2011 09:00PM)
"Also, as for your history of getting homosexuality more accepted, seriously? First off, it used to be plenty accepted in the original republic"

Much as I believe the Greeks and Romans had a profound effect on our present day lives - there have been many societies beyond their's.

And the acceptance you speak of was very limited - I doubt we want to take the Greek glorification of the passion for a beardless boy as an example of tolerance of homosexuality - that is pederasty.

In Rome it was acceptable for the slave to drop to his knees, but not the Roman - that is sexual abuse, or if the slave was happy - prostitution.

I did not say governments got our freedoms back - I said we had no freedom before government - our lives were consumed with fighting for things government has now enabled us to take for granted.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 4, 2011 09:23PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-04 22:00, Destiny wrote:
"Also, as for your history of getting homosexuality more accepted, seriously? First off, it used to be plenty accepted in the original republic"

Much as I believe the Greeks and Romans had a profound effect on our present day lives - there have been many societies beyond their's.

And the acceptance you speak of was very limited - I doubt we want to take the Greek glorification of the passion for a beardless boy as an example of tolerance of homosexuality - that is pederasty.

In Rome it was acceptable for the slave to drop to his knees, but not the Roman - that is sexual abuse, or if the slave was happy - prostitution.

I did not say governments got our freedoms back - I said we had no freedom before government - our lives were consumed with fighting for things government has now enabled us to take for granted.
[/quote]

All things previously repressed by, surprise surprise, government.

As for Rome, emperor Nero was married to a man.
The fact that they also had sexual abuse is irrelevant to whether homosexuality was accepted.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 4, 2011 09:31PM)
GDW. Enough BS from you. I think Destiny is correct, you just want to argue....or I am correct and you are seriously off mentally. So in a paragraph explain what your prefered world would be like as it relates to government, the police, and regulations concerning corporations. It seems no one here, from what I can see, can figure out your desires based on your arguments that all your posts are misunderstood. So no more nonsense, no more back peddling...prove me wrong when I say you are a dillussional person of low intelligence w/ a thesaurus. If you need a specific questions let me know and try to focus on Canada since that is your country and thus the only one you need to worry about changing. Remember, try to limit it to a paragraph.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 4, 2011 09:40PM)
How about two sentences, Santa?

I would be happy if government stuck to just protecting peoples life, property, and rights. I would be even happier if that "government" was voluntarily funded, and allowed competition for those "services".
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 4, 2011 10:03PM)
Gee, that is clear as mud. Is your main thing that you are anti tax but pro what you get from paying them?
Message: Posted by: RS1963 (Feb 4, 2011 10:12PM)
I wish I could be king of the world for just one day. Then maybe gdw would be happy that things are the way they are now. Of course everyone else would sadly have to see what a tyrant I would be but it would only be for one day lol.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 4, 2011 10:17PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-04 23:03, MagicSanta wrote:
Gee, that is clear as mud. Is your main thing that you are anti tax but pro what you get from paying them?
[/quote]

No, it means I want to pay for the services I receive, not force others to pay for them just because the live near me.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Feb 4, 2011 11:28PM)
Gdw,

You have an exceptional talent for ignoring the points people are making and focusing in on minutiae which you hope will disprove those points.

I will try again - normal loving equal homosexual relationships were NOT acceptable. Nero was Caesar - he could do what he liked - that does not mean what he did was acceptable and in fact that he had relationships with men was used against him at the time, as it was with Caligula and others.

The relationships that appear to have been acceptable were the coercive ones - between a man and a child or slave. In fact as I mentioned earlier it was acceptable for the slave to drop to his knees but not the Roman - one of the biggest insults in Rome was to pronounce that another citizen's breath suggested he had been the passive partner in a certain act.

Homosexuality appears to have been discriminated against in many societies all over the world, without need of government proscription. Indeed in a country like Japan where there was no legal sanction against homosexuality it was still socially unacceptable and Japanese gays suffered as much discrimination as those eleswhere. It is a perfectly natural impulse to feel comfortable with people who are like you, and think that how you are, is the correct way to be. Thus minorities have and will always suffer at the hands of the majority, who are taken to be 'normal'.

It has taken increasingly better governance in the western democracies to do something about this.

Indeed, the only hope for your ideals is that a consensus would arise amongst a majority of citizens in a country that your ideas should be tried. Without the support of a government, there is no way to try and implement an absence of government - we could describe this as a catch 22 or simply let the asterisks say 'well that ****s that idea'.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 4, 2011 11:43PM)
You may be right about much you said, however, given the democratic part, the acts to protect the minority from the majority who have a negative opinion of them have required that a majority agree. In other words, most of the action of governments would be, by their nature, "behind the times" if you will.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Feb 5, 2011 12:22AM)
Ah - but as I mentioned earlier - progressive politicians have pushed ahead of majority opinion and taken the public with them.

Any sensible politician will listen to all his or her constituents - not just the like-minded. Thus they learn things other people do not and their position means they have a platform from where to be heard - some use this power wisely - some unwisely - I would argue that in the western democracies, the wise have, by and large, prevailed.

Never before in history have minorities of so many sorts been afforded equal status as the majority, in so many countries.
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 5, 2011 12:27AM)
"I'd rather us be Chinese, than a nation of unethical **** shooters."
-Eric Cartman
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 5, 2011 01:34AM)
Wait a minute...we have a Canadian AGAINST the Canadian medical care for everyone system? Well that is proof....some Canadians can hide. Come on Glen, tell us how the govt of Canada doesn't really give FREE medical like your ice encrustred bretheren love to claim.
Message: Posted by: Scott Cram (Feb 18, 2011 02:58AM)
Everyone can relax now. Using images of crosshairs against political opponents is now OK, as evidenced by the Democrats protesting in Wisconsin:

[img]http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/699/wisconsinunionprotestcr.jpg[/img]

I remember 2 weeks ago when putting crosshairs on political imagery was the worst thing in the world. Ah, well, the dogs bark and the caravan moves on.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Feb 18, 2011 09:06AM)
Scott,
I don't find that sign acceptable. I hope whoever brought it was embarassed enough by the rest of the protesters that they stopped using it and tore it up.

I can't even see who is holding it, or where, either. Is there any source for this apart from Limbaugh's site?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Feb 18, 2011 09:17AM)
EsnRedShirt,

Thank you for finding that sigh unacceptable. The situation in Wisconsin, however, is typical of the organized left's idea of "civility":

[quote]Randy Hopper is a state senator in Wisconsin. A Republican. He is now holed up with his colleagues — his Republican colleagues — in the capitol. The Democratic senators have apparently fled the state. Hopper says, “None of my colleagues from the minority party decided to come to work today.”

The Democrats are denying the Republicans the quorum necessary to vote on key fiscal legislation.

Hopper says, “I spent two years in the minority, and I came to work every day, even when I didn’t like the bills the majority was passing. I thought it was my job.” The Democrats, he says, “have relinquished their duties. The people sent them here to do a job, and they are refusing to do it. They’re in hiding. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.”

Hopper has received threatening phone calls and e-mails. These are threats of a physical nature. “We are working with law enforcement in my district. They are watching my home and my business.” Other Republicans have had their homes and businesses threatened, too. The unionists have demonstrated outside those homes and businesses.

A menacing old phrase comes to mind (and has been used by others, in talking about events in Wisconsin): We know where you live.

Hopper says, “I’ve always said that they can threaten me all they want, but it’s not going to stop me from doing what the people elected me to do.” And he says more than once, “We’re still here.” The Republicans have not run anywhere.

They have been pushed around (literally), screamed at, etc. The capitol is surrounded. The signs carried by the protesters are “vicious,” says Hopper. There are comparisons of Gov. Scott Walker to Hitler, of course. And there are other signs “I won’t describe to you.”

Hopper says, “I can’t tell you how much respect I have for my colleagues,” operating in an extremely hostile atmosphere.

I ask whether he is going home tonight, to sleep. He says, “We’re not disclosing that. My colleagues and I are not talking about that. We’re working with law enforcement” on the matter.

But “I can tell you that I’ll be here tomorrow. We will do our jobs. I said, at the beginning of this session, that what will determine the course of events here is political courage.”[/quote]

[url=http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/260040/be-republican-lawmaker-madison-jay-nordlinger]Source.[/url]

Woland
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Feb 18, 2011 11:19AM)
Woland-
Counterpoint: the state legislature is attempting to push this measure through without debate. The democrats don't even have the opportunity to filibuster... so they left to prevent a quorum.

There's even evidence the whole "crisis" was manufactured by Gov. Walker himself. Wisconsin was scheduled to have close to a $140 million dollar budget surplus this year... at least until Walker took office.

Granted, nobody should be making threats against elected officials. I should mention that when I do an image search for "Wisconsin protests", I'm seeing a lot more signs with hearts on them than with crosshairs. Are those the ones they don't want to describe?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 18, 2011 11:21AM)
That's sign has nothing to do with violent rhetoric, because it's aimed to persuade Democrats, who are generally opposed to guns.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Feb 18, 2011 11:37AM)
Lobo, it's still missing the point. Regardless of what the protester's signs say, the difference is that it's not coming from an elected official or someone trying to become one.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 18, 2011 02:23PM)
Woland, the "organized left" has never been a particularly loud voice for "civility." Justice is way more important. Like the right to bargain collectively, and the right not to have your contract broken. Remember the Malvina Reynolds song, "It Isn't Nice?" I met one of the original Freedom Riders at a friend's house last night; it's the 50th anniversary of their sit-ins, and beatings and jailings. At 72, this grandmother is still out there getting arrested and being decidedly uncivil. When the night ended, we thanked her for her courage in the face of injustice.

Destroying people's livelihoods is not civility. Deliberately creating a state deficit from a state surplus is not civility. (Walker walked into a surplus created by the former governor, and then immediately set in a tax cut for the rich in order to create a deficit.) Driving people away from public service is not civility. Republicans were elected to create jobs--they've done nothing but lay off people with perfectly good middle-class, useful jobs. But more than that, Walker's game is to take every last dollar out from working people. We are becoming a third world country. And then [i]denying the right of public employees to collective bargaining[/i]. This is extraordinary. It sounds more like Egypt than the United States, and Walker was perfectly aware of that, threatening to call out the National Guard before the protests happened.

Civility. Nice refuge. Kind of like patriotism.

And that isn't a gun sight. Per Palin, it's a surveyor's symbol.
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 18, 2011 04:01PM)
Jinkies, we're back on this?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Feb 18, 2011 04:04PM)
Well, landmark, I think that Governor Walker is asking State employees to contribute about 6% of the cost of their medical insurance plans in order to avoid layoffs. He can't print money like the Feds have been doing. But go on believing . . .

W.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 18, 2011 04:51PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-18 15:23, landmark wrote:

Civility. Nice refuge. Kind of like patriotism.


[/quote]

Patriotism was the 18th century. Nowadays, the last refuge of the scoundrel is playing the race card.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 18, 2011 04:56PM)
Same dogs chasing the sme cars LOL.

Yep it is nice to see how long civility lasted, and how one persons view of "justice" is more important.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 18, 2011 07:45PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-18 17:04, Woland wrote:
Well, landmark, I think that Governor Walker is asking State employees to contribute about 6% of the cost of their medical insurance plans in order to avoid layoffs. He can't print money like the Feds have been doing. But go on believing . . .

W.
[/quote]
No. 12% of medical costs which are scheduled to rise by 8%, and 50% of pension costs. The pension cost alone would mean a 6% cut on average in pay. For some the total cuts could be as high as one third of their salary. And to repeat Wisconsin had a [i]surplus[/i] before Walker gave away 117 million dollars to the rich. Money that didn't create a single job. Walker claims that the State will save 300 million dollars over two years--the problem is he's created a projected 3.6 billion dollar deficit. The wonderful thing is that firefighters, who were exempt from the cuts, [i]marched anyway against the cuts in solidarity with the other state workers[/i]. They understand that these cuts are essentially the same thing as a tax hike for these workers--one that is used to subsidize the tax cut for the rich. It boggles the mind. But keep on believing . . .
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 18, 2011 09:09PM)
Not that I am, in any way, defending what was done, but how is not taking money via taxes "giving" money to the rich?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 18, 2011 09:18PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-18 22:09, gdw wrote:
Not that I am, in any way, defending what was done, but how is not taking money via taxes "giving" money to the rich?
[/quote]

Probably in the same way that people talk about tax cuts being "affordable" or "subsidized." The expenditure entitlements (the things that are really being subsidized, and which may or may not be affordable) are taken as a given; the amount of money taken to pay for them...that's just details.

Of course, just about all tax cuts disproportionately benefit those who are better off; they're the ones paying the taxes.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 18, 2011 09:50PM)
Eat the rich.
Message: Posted by: Scott Cram (Feb 19, 2011 01:11AM)
Workers unionize to protect themselves from their employers. For example:

Auto workers organize to protect themselves from auto companies.

Delivery workers organize to protect themselves from delivery companies.

Wisconsin government workers organize to protect themselves from the people of Wisconsin.

[img]http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lgo5y8lsdZ1qz89o9o1_500.jpg[/img]

Of course this is what democracy looks like. That's precisely the reason the founding fathers designed the country as a constitutional representative republic.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 19, 2011 08:26AM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-18 22:09, gdw wrote:
Not that I am, in any way, defending what was done, but how is not taking money via taxes "giving" money to the rich?
[/quote]

This is because liberals and government seem to think that all money is theirs, and what they let you keep is a GIFT from a nice government. A tax cut is simply LETTING YOU KEEP YOUR OWN MONEY! But that does not work for sound bites, and does not get the base riled up now does it? So we need to use class warfare (which is all this position you point out is) and then say "oh we need civil debate". Seems as if an "H" word applies.
Message: Posted by: HerbLarry (Feb 19, 2011 08:31AM)
[quote]
Wisconsin government workers organize to protect themselves from the people of Wisconsin.

[/quote]

The people of Wisconsin are the government of Wisconsin, as in "We the people..."
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Feb 19, 2011 10:23AM)
Scott, collective bargaining has been a right of the people for years. What the media is not mentioning is that a) the unions had already made a lot of concessions, and b) there was a surplus in the state budget until the governor gave it all away to special interests to "manufacture" the "crisis". He then immediately tried to do away with collective bargaining rights, which, in and of itself, will save the state absolutely nothing. It will, however, enable them to cut benefits and salaries without hearing a single complaint from the workers. And given the current employment market, they'll keep working because the alternative is lengthy unemployment.

GDW, Danny, I think the problem is that some people equate taxes with theft. By the way, how do you reconcile increasing tax cuts with reducing the deficit? If I'm paying off my mortgage, and I decide to only budget $100 a month for the payment instead of $200 a month, I've more than doubled the amount of time it'll take to pay it off (because of interest.)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 19, 2011 11:03AM)
Equating taxes with your home budget shows how little of economics you know. There is no point, you have an idea of what you think your answer will be, you have your talking points and I am not even going to try. You will hate anything republican put forth and stick to your Keynesian economic theory because it fits the rest of your theories. Never mind how much harm it does, no no no not important you believe it LOL.

The economics of taxes is far more complicated than your over simplification of your mortgage example. The comparison is apples and hand grenades. If that is your level of understanding of economic theory, seriously no answer will help you. For whatever reason you also choose to way oversimplify the Wisconsin situation, and apply the class warfare method of arguement. I think the problem is that you want simple answers to VERY complex problems.

Let me ask you something, though I know the answer. Should the teachers union be allowed to contribute to campaigns? Let alone so heavily to one side?
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Feb 19, 2011 11:19AM)
Danny- as long as corporations can contribute, unions should be able to contribute as well. If you want to stop corporations from making political contributions, I see no problems with stopping unions from making donations, either.

I know there's no simple answers. I'm just tired of unions [i]always[/i] getting a bad rap here. The second anyone mentions corporations in a negative light, though, we get people jumping down our throats.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Feb 19, 2011 11:45AM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-19 11:23, EsnRedshirt wrote:
...
What the media is not mentioning is that a) the unions had already made a lot of concessions, and b) there was a surplus in the state budget until the governor gave it all away to special interests to "manufacture" the "crisis".
...
[/quote]

Tried to do a little research. The only place I can find this claim is from the union sites and quote from Richard Trumpka. I find that pretty suspect. Maybe that's why the media isn't mentioning it.
I did however find this article, http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-madison/wi-gov-elect-scott-walker-to-inherit-projected-3-3-billion-budget-deficit, which states that Walker was inheriting a projected 3.3 billion dollar deficit.

[quote]
...
He then immediately tried to do away with collective bargaining rights, which, in and of itself, will save the state absolutely nothing. It will, however, enable them to cut benefits and salaries without hearing a single complaint from the workers.
[/quote]

Of course these two sentences completely contradict themselves.
Message: Posted by: HerbLarry (Feb 19, 2011 12:04PM)
Unions exist for weak minded people who can't figure out they don't have to live or work in a specific location. They are afraid of freedom. Don't like the job or the pay? Get another gig! Don't like where you live? Move!
Message: Posted by: critter (Feb 19, 2011 12:09PM)
"From the labor movement; The folks who brought you the weekend."
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 19, 2011 02:11PM)
Simple, the unions refuse to accept the reality of the situation as everyone else has had to that doesn't have the same 'protections'. They need to lay off a lot of them until they reach the number they needed, and of course kick them out of the union because they are no longer employed, and then they newly unemployed can sit at home proud that they stood up for their rights. Then the former teachers can tell their new coworkers at Walmart about how they struggled by on $52000 a year, working nine months of it, with a great retirement, and how they managed to educated those kids right into the 44th worse schools in the country and how they were getting screwed.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Feb 19, 2011 03:15PM)
Rockwall,

You are correct about the false story that Wisconsin was heading for a budget surplus. It helps to check local sources. [url=http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/18/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-wisconsin-track-have-budget-sur/]According to the Wisconsin Journal Sentinel, out of Milwaukee:[/url]

[quote]Liberal MSNBC talk show host Rachel Maddow joined in Feb. 17, accusing Walker of manipulating the situation for political gain.

"Despite what you may have heard about Wisconsin’s finances, the state is on track to have a budget surplus this year," she said. "I am not kidding."

She added a kicker that is also making the rounds: Walker and fellow Republicans in the Legislature this year gave away $140 million in business tax breaks -- so if there is a deficit projected of $137 million, they created it.

Maddow and others making the claim all cite the same source for their information -- a Jan. 31, 2011 memo prepared by Robert Lang, the director of the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

It includes this line: "Our analysis indicates a general fund gross balance of $121.4 million and a net balance of $56.4 million."

We were curious about claims of a surplus based on the fiscal bureau memo.

In writing it when it was released, reporters from the Journal Sentinel and Associated Press had put the shortfall at between $78 million and $340 million. That’s the projection for the end of the fiscal year, June 30, 2011.

Walker himself has settled on $137 million as the deficit figure, a number reporters have adopted as shorthand.

We re-read the fiscal bureau memo, talked to Lang, consulted reporter Jason Stein of the Journal Sentinel’s Madison Bureau, read various news accounts and examined the issue in detail.

Our conclusion: Maddow and the others are wrong.

There is, indeed, a projected deficit that required attention, and Walker and GOP lawmakers did not create it.

More on that second point in a bit.

The confusion, it appears, stems from a section in Lang’s memo that -- read on its own -- does project a $121 million surplus in the state’s general fund as of June 30, 2011.

But the remainder of the routine memo -- consider it the fine print -- outlines $258 million in unpaid bills or expected shortfalls in programs such as Medicaid services for the needy ($174 million alone), the public defender’s office and corrections. Additionally, the state owes Minnesota $58.7 million under a discontinued tax reciprocity deal.

The result, by our math and Lang’s, is the $137 million shortfall.

It would be closer to the $340 million figure if the figure included the $200 million owed to the state’s patient compensation fund, a debt courts have declared resulted from an illegal raid on the fund under former Gov. Jim Doyle.[/quote]

Woland
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 19, 2011 03:45PM)
How can you get good class warfare going with facts?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 19, 2011 05:06PM)
They need to be understandable of the economy. Here in Nevada they were having black fridays, meaning that they would close, say, unemployment, on a Friday, and not be paid (they can use vacation of course) as a cost reduction. The new gov said that it was resulting in a loss of productivity which wasn't serving any purpose (he was right) and so he did a pay reduction for the rank and file and significant pay cut for some very over paid employees at director level. This made perfect sense considering the budgetary problems the state has. I spoke with someone at unemployment and he was a bit ticked until I told him that it is very common for companies to do pay freezes, cuts, and lay offs etc.. In fact over 20 years I had three 10% pay cuts. The alternative is to start reducing head count and I asked the guy point blank, 'would you rather be jobless right now'? He decided he could live with the pay cuts.

The protesters are fools and want to cut their own throats and if I was in charge of the state I'd cut them. You living in Wisconsin and making over 50k a year teaching, a field only a raging idiot would go into with the intention of making lots of money, and the changes they want to make still put you ahead of the general popoulation OR lose everything I'd use my noggin and take the cut.

There needs to be an overhaul of many areas that are bleeding states and cities dry (and the feds). I saw a report that the NY transit has almost 100% of it's retirees retired due to injury and thus collecting full retirement and benefits for decades longer than expected after putting far less into the coffers. Medicare fraud is rampant, my wifes arthritis doctor closed her practice w/out notice, just closed the week after Christmas. She is on medicare and the closest doctor who will accept her is an hour away and can't see her for months. The augmented insurance company pulled out of the country so medical cost for us went through the roof and I actually applied for food stamps because I'm paying close to $600 a month for prescriptions now (thank you uncle Obama!) out of pocket a lot of which is due to the fraud. Basically I have a choice weekly, medications, electricity, gas, or food. Now the people I spoke with at the shelter, the ones with multiple family members registered with the food bank to quadruple the amount of food they get, who also smoke, and talk on cell phones, and have rolls of cash on them, who get unemployment and welfare and WDC and foodstamps who run their own side businesses selling pot or working under the table and have never really worked a real job told me that if I applied with our income and output on meds and heating cost etc we might get around $300 a month because everyone there got between $350 and 500 a month. I apply and am honest on my forms, they disregards medical bills, utilities, etc....no kidding the amount of food stamps we qualified for....get ready sports fans cuz you may want to run out and apply....$6.00 a month. That is right. Somehow these scam artist are getting a few hundred a month (and most have multiple family members collecting food stamps so the are into the thousands of dollars worth a month) and I'm living on water and dried fruit and noodles and they offer six bucks worth of food stamps, keep in mind that is only for six months so we would get a grand total of $36 woth of help over the next half a year! I told them to keep it. They need to end the fraud and also to help those who need help.

Another area are the jails and prisons. First off kick every illegal alien prisoner OUT. They contribute nothing and cost plenty, give them to their home country and let them do as they will with them. If they want them running around free so be it, if they want to toss them into a pit and feed them once a week that is their cultural diverse right to do so. Let private organizations or non traditional jails take care of the low threat or no threat prisoners. Why house people who can be housed by their own families? Let the prisons serve their purpose, to be use to store threats to society not just to store people who shouldn't be locked up.

There are a lot of things that can be done, too bad there are lots of people willing to scream, moan, and point their shaking fingrs at those trying to make the cuts.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Feb 19, 2011 07:40PM)
Very intelligent comments from Joe Klein regarding the teachers unions and public sector unions in general:

"But the problem isn't only the inability to fire bad teachers--and not just bad teachers, but even those who've been caught commiting crimes and hitting on students. The problem is that we are unable to reward good teachers."

"From Franklin Roosevelt on, progressive politicians have worried about the impact of giving public employees the right to organize. There is a reason for that. The public sector is different from the private sector. When General Motors negotiates with its workers to change its pension and health care benefits system, the United Auto Workers knows that unless it sits down at the table and negotiates for real, the company could easily close shop. When the teachers union sits down with Mayor Bloomberg or Governor Walker or any other elected official, they have an unfair piece of leverage, a built-in structural dysfunction--they know that the Governor can't shut down the schools. "There's no reason for them to negotiate in good faith," former New York City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein told me this morning.

And there is a second, corrupting factor: the UAW* can't vote or campaign for new management. The Teachers Unions can and do. Far too often, new contracts have been acts of collusion rather than negotiation--with the unions wielding the extremely powerful sledgehammer of campaign contributions and eager bodies to staff phone banks, leaflet and go door to door. Essentially, public sector unions have the ability to sit on both sides of the table--their managers are their employees: another profound structural dysfunction. In some larger cities, public employees make up a disproportionate percentage of all voters, an estimated 20% in New York (and, believe me, teachers are among the most assiduous of voters). It is no wonder that politicians of both parties in union states have gifted these unions egregious benefits, especially in areas--like work rules--that don't show up in the budget."

And from Charles Lane:
"In the wake of that horrific tragedy, Americans reflected on -- and argued about -- the possible connection between the violence and today's often nasty, polarized political discourse."
"Yet today in Wisconsin, anger and vilification are once again the order of the day -- and the incivility emanates from the progressive end of the spectrum, including, no doubt, many of the same people who blamed right-wing vitriol for creating a climate of violence in Arizona. Union-backed demonstrators, furious at Republican Gov. Scott Walker's plans for reining in public-sector unions, equate him with Hosni Mubarak and Adolf Hitler, in disgusting mimickry of some Tea Party members' inflammatory linkage between Obama and the evil dictators of history. (See Photo no. 10 in this gallery) or Photo 13 in this gallery ."
"Meanwhile, progressive voices in the media fanned the flames, spreading misinformation and outright falsehoods with a zest that would make Glenn Beck blush: Gov. Walker wants to crush unions with the National Guard; he manufactured a budget crisis to justify his attack on unions; he proposed cutting union workers' pay 20 percent."

It would be hard to describe Joe Klein or Charles Lane as conservative commentators.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Feb 19, 2011 07:49PM)
#$%&*@!

For every fact, someone comes up with another fact that disproves it. This argument's pointless, the waters are so muddy nobody can see what the truth is.

I give up; one of the other liberal posters is going to have to swing by here with a sonar to resolve this.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 19, 2011 07:54PM)
OH yea more distortion is exactly what is needed.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 19, 2011 07:55PM)
I do like that Mubarak is now up there with Hitler. They are correct. There is no reason for the teachers union to improve things at schools either (my wife is a retired teacher). If they improve they can no longer claim to need to be paid more and have more time off in order to improve schools.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 19, 2011 07:56PM)
I think Redshirt would be less frustrated if he would concentrate less on class warfare and twisting facts.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 19, 2011 09:38PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-19 11:23, EsnRedshirt wrote:

GDW, Danny, I think the problem is that some people equate taxes with theft. By the way, how do you reconcile increasing tax cuts with reducing the deficit? If I'm paying off my mortgage, and I decide to only budget $100 a month for the payment instead of $200 a month, I've more than doubled the amount of time it'll take to pay it off (because of interest.)
[/quote]

Your analogy ignores that "tax cuts" refer to cuts in the RATE of taxation, not a dollar amount.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Feb 20, 2011 01:48PM)
Speaking of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, this is what he had to say about public employees and unions:

[quote]Even President Franklin Roosevelt, a friend of private-sector unionism, drew a line when it came to government workers: "Meticulous attention," the president insisted in 1937, "should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government....The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service." The reason? F.D.R. believed that "[a] strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable." Roosevelt was hardly alone in holding these views, even among the champions of organized labor. Indeed, the first president of the AFL-CIO, George Meany, believed it was "impossible to bargain collectively with the government."[/quote]

[url=http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-trouble-with-public-sector-unions]The whole article is worth reading.[/url]

Woland
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 20, 2011 04:35PM)
All your misinformation does not change the facts. Cuts in worker's pay is paying for tax cuts for those wealthier than they are. It's there in front of you. The problem is, you don't think that that's a problem.

As Warren Buffet said, "It's class warfare, my class [i]is[/i] winning, but they shouldn't be."

If he only knew how many enablers he has.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 20, 2011 04:41PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-20 17:35, landmark wrote:
All your misinformation does not change the facts. Cuts in worker's pay is paying for tax cuts for those wealthier than they are. It's there in front of you. The problem is, you don't think that that's a problem.

As Warren Buffet said, "It's class warfare, my class [i]is[/i] winning, but they shouldn't be."

If he only knew how many enablers he has.
[/quote]


It's not "misinformation"; it's the other side of the same coin, and it's the more accurate perspective. You can or cannot "afford" the things you SPEND money on. To not be able to "afford" tax cuts is a misnomer.

And in California, a hell of a lot of people in a lower class than teachers, prison guards, and other unionized public sector employees are paying for some rather ridiculous terms of their collective bargaining agreements.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 20, 2011 04:55PM)
You can afford or afford based on your priorities.
Walker decided the State could afford the tax cuts.
He decided they couldn't afford teachers and other public workers.
Class warfare.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Feb 20, 2011 04:55PM)
Not only in California.

Woland
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 20, 2011 05:01PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-20 17:55, landmark wrote:
You can afford or afford based on your priorities.
Walker decided the State could afford the tax cuts.
He decided they couldn't afford teachers and other public workers.
Class warfare.
[/quote]

Did he fire all the teachers and public workers? Maybe he decided that they could afford to pay a small percentage of the costs of their own health insurance.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 20, 2011 05:05PM)
Sorry, edit:

You can afford or not afford based on your priorities.
Walker decided the State could afford the tax cuts.
He decided they couldn't afford teachers and other public workers.
Class warfare.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 20, 2011 05:13PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-20 18:01, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-02-20 17:55, landmark wrote:
You can afford or afford based on your priorities.
Walker decided the State could afford the tax cuts.
He decided they couldn't afford teachers and other public workers.
Class warfare.
[/quote]

Did he fire all the teachers and public workers? Maybe he decided that they could afford to pay a small percentage of the costs of their own health insurance.
[/quote]

Did he raise taxes for the rich? Why didn't he think that they could afford to pay?
Class warfare.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 20, 2011 05:24PM)
Ramble and rant on and keep playing the class warafare card ala lib book rule #4. BUT the fact remains it just ain't working dude. Wake up before it is too late for everyone.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 20, 2011 06:07PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-20 18:13, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-02-20 18:01, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-02-20 17:55, landmark wrote:
You can afford or afford based on your priorities.
Walker decided the State could afford the tax cuts.
He decided they couldn't afford teachers and other public workers.
Class warfare.
[/quote]

Did he fire all the teachers and public workers? Maybe he decided that they could afford to pay a small percentage of the costs of their own health insurance.
[/quote]

Did he raise taxes for the rich? Why didn't he think that they could afford to pay?
Class warfare.
[/quote]

High taxes in the first place are a form of class warfare. Check California out if you want to see how great it works out to have high taxes and take great care of unionized government workers.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Feb 20, 2011 07:59PM)
It hasn't worked anywhere. In Greece, it has collapsed entirely. Unless they change course soon, it won't be long before California, Illinois, and Rhode Island default and are forced into bankruptcy. Illinois raised it's income tax 66%, but the Governor's new budget calls for still more borrowed billions . . . just to meet current spending . . . without even addressing the pension fund shortfalls . . . there is no end to it . . . other than hyper-inflation or bankruptcy.

Woland
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 20, 2011 08:39PM)
My favorite tactic is to refer to slowing growth as some sort of "cut".

Wake up guys. Spending is just not working. Never has and never will. At some point ya gotta pay the piper. My question is why you don't see it?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 20, 2011 08:42PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-20 21:39, Dannydoyle wrote:
My favorite tactic is to refer to slowing growth as some sort of "cut".

Wake up guys. Spending is just not working. Never has and never will. At some point ya gotta pay the piper. My question is why you don't see it?
[/quote]

Yes, I was going to ring that up. When they decide to simply raise a budget by less than they raised it the previous year, some how that translates to a "cut."
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 20, 2011 08:54PM)
It is a weird system used by some of the govt.. When I was in the service we would watch spending for eleven months because that was part of the officers gig, to control the budget, watch the ol' spending for the American people... Then at the end of September we were told to spend spend spend! Blow away any savings and all that good stuff. We would buy a new tug boat engine just to blow the budget, and did! We got new everything, all in that last month. The reason? They said that if we failed to spend the entire budget we would not get an increase to the budget for the next year. Got that? There was no reward for reducing and controlling cost and there was a benefit to not control it. This was years ago but I would think it is done the same way. How do you fix a system like that? No one has any reason to reduce cost of govt. There are so many ways to reduce the cost of doing business at every level from city to federal but they either won't or, simply, cannot do it because of laws that exist since the 30s.

Man, if I had the funds to do so I'd open a business in my wifes name (minority!) and overbid on some govt work and be in like Flynn.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 21, 2011 08:38AM)
A cut is a cut. The cut is going to the wealthy. I will agree that a cut is "growth" when you say the same for tax cuts for the poor.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Feb 21, 2011 09:10AM)
You have to pay taxes before your taxes can be reduced.

W.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 21, 2011 09:45AM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-20 21:54, MagicSanta wrote:
It is a weird system used by some of the govt.. When I was in the service we would watch spending for eleven months because that was part of the officers gig, to control the budget, watch the ol' spending for the American people... Then at the end of September we were told to spend spend spend! Blow away any savings and all that good stuff. We would buy a new tug boat engine just to blow the budget, and did! We got new everything, all in that last month. The reason? They said that if we failed to spend the entire budget we would not get an increase to the budget for the next year. Got that? There was no reward for reducing and controlling cost and there was a benefit to not control it. This was years ago but I would think it is done the same way. How do you fix a system like that? No one has any reason to reduce cost of govt. There are so many ways to reduce the cost of doing business at every level from city to federal but they either won't or, simply, cannot do it because of laws that exist since the 30s.

Man, if I had the funds to do so I'd open a business in my wifes name (minority!) and overbid on some govt work and be in like Flynn.
[/quote]

Pretty much the way most things are in gov't. The incentives are all backwards. There's a reason gov't always grows.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 21, 2011 11:25AM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-21 09:38, landmark wrote:
A cut is a cut. The cut is going to the wealthy. I will agree that a cut is "growth" when you say the same for tax cuts for the poor.
[/quote]

We're on track for it...our current president has not only asserted that it's possible to give tax cuts to people who don't pay taxes; he's claimed credit for doing so.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 21, 2011 12:43PM)
I believe my memory says that he claims to have cut taxes for 95% of Americans. I know he claimed he would. Interesting position.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Feb 21, 2011 05:46PM)
Since 95% of Americans don't pay taxes, that would be difficult. Unless by a tax 'cut', he means a benefits 'increase'.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Feb 21, 2011 07:31PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-21 18:46, rockwall wrote:
Since 95% of Americans don't pay taxes, that would be difficult. Unless by a tax 'cut', he means a benefits 'increase'.
[/quote]

Hmmm, I don't mean to say only 5% of Americans pay taxes. I mean to say that Much Less than 95% do so it would be impossible to cut taxes for 95%.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 22, 2011 08:06PM)
I believe it is actually under 50% but don't quote me.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 22, 2011 08:09PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-19 12:19, EsnRedshirt wrote:
I know there's no simple answers. I'm just tired of unions [i]always[/i] getting a bad rap here. The second anyone mentions corporations in a negative light, though, we get people jumping down our throats.
[/quote]

Really? You CONSTANTLY are on a class warfare binge trying to get people to hate corporations. Wanna know who works for coroporations? I looked it up. People.

Unions take dues, sometimes MANDETORY and if you are a republican they use YOUR MONEY to fund democratic candidates instead of letting you buy food for your kids so they starve. Nice. (See I can do that too. LOL)
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 22, 2011 08:35PM)
Redshirt, you are in an area not known for unions outside of the city....
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Feb 22, 2011 10:50PM)
I'd respond but -ack- I'm too busy trying to -gack- pull you all out of my -mmmrrff- throat!
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 23, 2011 02:28AM)
I'm serious, the valley just hasn't been a break through area for unions. They would love to be in there but other than some of the guys like Lockheed with the machinest and the glass guys it just ain't happenin'.
Message: Posted by: HerbLarry (Feb 23, 2011 08:15AM)
Meanwhile Gabrielle is speaking and likes toast.
She is able to laugh and respond to jokes, eat sushi, and when asked how she was feeling, said "I'm better".
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Feb 23, 2011 09:22AM)
Hehe- Santa, I just remembered the time when I worked in QA (video game tester, no less) and someone in the department, sick of all the overtime we were putting in, had the bright idea to try and unionize.

Let that sink in- unionized video game testers.

Now I'll wait till you stop laughing... Okay, I don't have [i]all[/i] day here. Your response is pretty much the same response he got from everybody else.

---

Hooray for Giffords! I'm glad she's making such great headway.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 23, 2011 03:47PM)
How much does a headway? About four ounce less since the attack!
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 24, 2011 01:21AM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-22 21:09, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-02-19 12:19, EsnRedshirt wrote:
I know there's no simple answers. I'm just tired of unions [i]always[/i] getting a bad rap here. The second anyone mentions corporations in a negative light, though, we get people jumping down our throats.
[/quote]

Really? You CONSTANTLY are on a class warfare binge trying to get people to hate corporations. Wanna know who works for coroporations? I looked it up. People.


[/quote]

Man, what was I thinking? UP WITH PEOPLE!
(*except if they're union workers, right?)
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 24, 2011 01:25AM)
There is nothing like an Up With People reference!
Message: Posted by: Woland (Feb 24, 2011 04:17AM)
[url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703775704576162533209090102.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion]Speaking of politicians and elected officials calling for violence:[/url]

[quote]The rhetoric around Wisconsin's government labor dispute is getting more violent. NHJournal.com reports that Rep. Michael Capuano, a Massachusetts Democrat, said this yesterday at a Boston "solidarity" rally: "I'm proud to be here with people who understand that it's more than just sending an email to get you going. Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary."

The Boston Globe reports that the union crowd responded to Capuano's exhortation with "cheers, whistles and applause" and that Capuano, issued a written semiapology: "I strongly believe in standing up for worker rights and my passion for preserving those rights may have gotten the best of me yesterday in an unscripted speech. I wish I had used different language to express my passion and I regret my choice of words."

It will not surprise you to learn that Capuano is another "civility" hypocrite. On Jan. 9, the day after a madman in Tucson, Ariz., got a little bloody, the Globe quoted him: "What the hell is going on? There's always some degree of tension in politics; everybody knows the last couple of years there's been an intentional increase in the degree of heat in political discourse. . . . If nothing else good comes out of this, I'm hoping it causes people to reconsider how they deal with things."

***

Capuano's rhetoric at yesterday's rally was not just violent but authoritarian. He urged government employees to "get a little bloody"--to commit violent acts against citizens, as if this were Libya. As we noted yesterday, public sector "collective bargaining," in which public officials "negotiate" with the unions that helped elect them, is essentially a conspiracy to steal money from taxpayers. Capuano, it seems, would like to escalate that to armed robbery.[/quote]

Woland
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Feb 24, 2011 09:09AM)
Oh brother... the WSJ's "opinion" section. Even before Murdoch bought out the WSJ and turned it into a hack rag, their "opinion" section was consistantly awful.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 24, 2011 09:45AM)
A prank call to Walker revealed the true nature of this guy. A caller pretended to be the far right wing reactionary billionaire David Koch. "Koch" suggests sending in some fake protestors as troublemakers. See Walker's response:

'Koch': We’ll back you any way we can. What we were thinking about the crowd was, uh, was planting some troublemakers.

Walker: You know, well, the only problem with that —because we thought about that. The problem—the, my only gut reaction to that is right now the lawmakers I’ve talked to have just completely had it with them, the public is not really fond of this.


So that was one their possible strategies. Only nixed it because it wasn't deemed necessary and could backfire. Evidently Walker hasn't seen the latest USA Today poll that shows 61% of the US public believes in the right of collective bargaining for public sector workers.

More here:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/02/23-2
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Feb 24, 2011 09:54AM)
By the way, without hearing broader context, I'm going to assume that "get a little bloody" refers to the possibility of protestors getting roughed up by riot police.

Given America's record with protestors, it's certainly a possible outcome.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Feb 24, 2011 12:01PM)
That's right, EsnRedShirt, ignore Capuano's call for violence, and rant on about your dislike of the newspaper.

W.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 24, 2011 12:08PM)
I think Esn offered at least a plausible explanation for the quotation other than a call for violence. I don't think it's necessarily correct, but it's a reasonable interpretation.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Feb 24, 2011 12:40PM)
Based on Representative Capuano's apology, in which that deft interpretation was not mentioned, but in which he said his "passion got the best of" him, I'd say that wasn't what the Representative was imagining. Like Frances Fox Piven, he was hoping for protester violence against the "establishment."

Meanwhile, here is a good analysis of the underlying issue from [url=http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-rise-of-the-adolescent-mind/?print=1]Victor Davis Hanson:[/url]

[quote]We live in a therapeutic age, one in which the old tragic view of our ancestors has been replaced by prolonged adolescence. Adolescents hold adult notions of consumption: they understand the comfort of a pricey car; they appreciate the status conveyed by a particular sort of handbag or sunglasses; they sense how outward consumption and refined tastes can translate into popularity and envy; and they appreciate how a slogan or world view can win acceptance among peers without worry over its validity. But they have no adult sense of acquisition, themselves not paying taxes, balancing the family budget, or worrying about household insurance, maintenance, or debt. Theirs is a world view of today or tomorrow, not of next year — or even of next week.

So adolescents throw fits when denied a hip sweater or a trip to Disneyland, concluding that it is somehow “unfair” or “mean,” without concern about the funds available to grant their agendas. We see now just that adolescent mind in Wisconsin. “They” surely can come up with the money from someone (“the rich”) somehow to pay teachers and public servants what they deserve. And what they deserve is determined not by comparable rates in private enterprise, or by market value (if the DMV clerk loses a job, does another public bureau or private company inevitably seize the opportunity to hire such a valuable worker at comparable or improved wages?), or by results produced (improved test scores, more applicants processed in an office, overhead reduced, etc.), or by what the strapped state is able to provide, but by what is deemed to be necessary to ensure an upper-middle class lifestyle. That is altogether understandable and decent, but it is entirely adolescent in a globalized economy.

Why so? In a word, the United States is not producing enough real wealth to justify a particular standard of living among its public workforce far superior to counterparts in the private sector. We are borrowing massively abroad for redistributive entitlements. We fight wars with credit cards. We talk of cap-and-trade and “climate change” without prior worry about how to fuel the United States, as we sink in perpetual debt to import well over half our oil. We have open borders and pat ourselves on our backs for the ensuing “diversity,” without worry that illegality and lack of reverence for federal laws, absence of English, no diplomas, multiculturalism instead of the melting pot, the cynicism and chauvinism of Mexico, and recessionary times are a perfect storm for a dependent, and eventually resentful, underclass extending well into a second generation, one that fumes over why things outside are not equal rather than looking within to ensure that they could be.

Who would not wish pristine 19th-century rivers to run all year long? But that same utopian rarely thinks like an adult: “I want water releases into the San Joaquin River all year long and am willing to pay more money at Whole Earth for my produce to subsidize such diversion of irrigation water; I do not wish any more derricks off Santa Barbara, so I choose to drive a Smart car rather than my Lexus SUV. And I want teachers to be able to strike, and receive $100,000 in compensation and benefits, and therefore am willing to close down a rural hospital in Wisconsin or tax the wealthy with full knowledge that many will leave the state. I insist on amnesty and open borders, and will put my children in schools where 50% do not speak English, and live in the barrios to lend my talents where needed to ensure parity for new arrivals. I want cap-and-trade and so believe that the lower middle classes should pay “skyrocketing” energy bills to subsidize such legislation.” And so on.

Finally, the adolescent thinks in a rigid, fossilized fashion in explicating the “unfairness” of it all, unable yet to process new data and adjust conclusions accordingly. So we now hear that the evil corporate/Wall Street nexus is turning us into a Republican-driven Third World — apparently unwilling to see that among the largest contributors of campaign cash were unions, and both Wall Street and international corporations favored Barack Obama in the last election, the first presidential candidate in the history of campaign financing legislation to opt out of the program in order to raise even more “fat cat” money. Just because one is a former Chicago organizer does not mean he cannot be the largest recipient of Goldman Sachs or BP donations in history. Railing against Las Vegas jet-setters does not mean that one cannot prefer Martha’s Vineyard, Vail, or Costa del Sol to Camp David.

We talk about all these “millionaires,” but fail to include a Rahm Emanuel who managed to receive several million for his apparent fiscal and investment “expertise” or the liberal Clintonite insiders who looted Fannie and Freddie in bonuses just before these agencies imploded. The Koch brother are deemed evil; George Soros and Warren Buffet enlightened billionaires about whose modes of acquisition of riches we must be indifferent. Anything that might upset the predetermined adolescent world view is simply ignored in “I don’t want to hear all this” teen-aged fashion. The adolescent plays reruns of Al Gore’s mythodramas and simply thinks away the ensuing evidence of fraud and malfeasance that seems so deeply embedded in the climate change industry. The rant and temper tantrum follow in the puerile mode of being so distasteful that someone surely must give in to stop the embarrassing disturbance.

There are lots of issues involved in Wisconsin, in the impending financial and fuel crises, and in the sense of American impotency abroad. Yet a common denominator is a national adolescence, in which we want what we have not earned. We demand the world be the way that it cannot; and we don’t wish to hear “unfair” arguments from “bad” and “mean” people.[/quote]

Woland
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 24, 2011 01:20PM)
What in the name of Ehrich Weiss does all the above nonsense have to do with stealing money from teachers to give it to corporations? Nothing.
And Al Gore, Clinton, Obama, and Emmanuel as the heros of the protesters? What has he been smoking? They've all been anti-union bashers just like himself.

Talk about adolescent fantasies: you, the peasants must pay for the wealth of the rich.

And I love the bit about how the adolescents want to "close down a rural hospital in Wisconsin or [i]tax the rich[/i]." Hanson can't even keep his own rhetoric straight anymore. So he's in effect saying that he is in favor of government funding of hospitals, as [i]if it weren't the constant [b]conservative[/b] attack that has been cutting funding for all government aid to hospitals [/i]. Remember, those guys are supposed to be against that kind of stuff. They want privatization.

I hope they pay him well, because it must take a lot of money to keep a man who writes this drivel from falling apart when he looks in the mirror.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Feb 24, 2011 01:58PM)
I guess you didn't agree . . . .
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Feb 24, 2011 02:19PM)
Woland, he's starting with the wrong premise. Posted in that other thread:
[quote]PS- public employees in Wisconsin are already making substantially less than their private sector counterparts:
http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/wisconsin_public_servants_already_face_a_compensation_penalty/
[/quote]
Turns out public sector employees are making 5% to 11% [i]less[/i] than their private sector counterparts. And that's accounting for multiple different factors.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Feb 24, 2011 02:38PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-24 14:20, landmark wrote:
What in the name of Ehrich Weiss does all the above nonsense have to do with stealing money from teachers to give it to corporations? Nothing.
And Al Gore, Clinton, Obama, and Emmanuel as the heros of the protesters? What has he been smoking? They've all been anti-union bashers just like himself.

Talk about adolescent fantasies: you, the peasants must pay for the wealth of the rich.

And I love the bit about how the adolescents want to "close down a rural hospital in Wisconsin or [i]tax the rich[/i]." Hanson can't even keep his own rhetoric straight anymore. So he's in effect saying that he is in favor of government funding of hospitals, as [i]if it weren't the constant [b]conservative[/b] attack that has been cutting funding for all government aid to hospitals [/i]. Remember, those guys are supposed to be against that kind of stuff. They want privatization.

I hope they pay him well, because it must take a lot of money to keep a man who writes this drivel from falling apart when he looks in the mirror.
[/quote]

Wait, so it's stealing when the money goes to places you don't like, but I'm guessing it's paying your share when the money goes to a cause you support?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Feb 24, 2011 02:39PM)
Yes but they can't cut the pay of the private sector. Why not charge an extra five bucks for a deer tag? That'll resolve things....they like to shoot deer in Wisconsin I hear.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 24, 2011 02:40PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-24 14:58, Woland wrote:
I guess you didn't agree . . . .
[/quote]
I would say he makes me moderately cranky. Not as bad as Thomas Friedman though.
And what's with the Frances Fox Piven thing? Are you watching too much Beck? As a former lefty, you should know that that is the most insignificant person in the world to think is the Evil Genius of the left. Bill Ayers was a much better choice. Tell Central Scripting to wise up.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Feb 24, 2011 03:07PM)
Actually, landmark, the so-called "Cloward-Piven strategy" damaged your hometown and our country far more than the bombs that were set by Billy Ayers and his compañeras.

I don't watch Glenn Beck, but if I owned a television set I probably would.

W.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 24, 2011 04:22PM)
Can anyone actually back up stealing money from teachers to pay corporations?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Feb 28, 2011 07:26PM)
Somebody was asking for an example of incivil speech by an elected representative.

[url=http://www.620wtmj.com/shows/charliesykes/117064153.html?blog=y]Well, here's an elected official speaking to another elected official:[/url]

[quote]Last Friday.... after the Assembly voted to engross the Budget Repair Bill, Hintz turned to a female colleague, Rep. Michelle Litjens and said: "You are F***king dead!"

New tone, indeed. Will he be held accountable?[/quote]

[url=http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/02/028490.php]As John Hinderaker observed:[/url]

[quote]There is a great deal of violent talk going on these days, substantially all of it by liberals. You could try to explain it by saying it is because they are losing, but conservatives didn't go postal when they were losing just a few years ago. I think there is a close correlation between anger and liberalism. Many liberals--not all, but a great many--are liberal precisely because they seethe with resentment against the world. It doesn't take much for that anger to break through, as we are seeing very often these days.[/quote]

Respectfully submitted.

Woland
Message: Posted by: landmark (Mar 1, 2011 09:41PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-24 15:38, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-02-24 14:20, landmark wrote:
What in the name of Ehrich Weiss does all the above nonsense have to do with stealing money from teachers to give it to corporations? Nothing.
And Al Gore, Clinton, Obama, and Emmanuel as the heros of the protesters? What has he been smoking? They've all been anti-union bashers just like himself.

Talk about adolescent fantasies: you, the peasants must pay for the wealth of the rich.

And I love the bit about how the adolescents want to "close down a rural hospital in Wisconsin or [i]tax the rich[/i]." Hanson can't even keep his own rhetoric straight anymore. So he's in effect saying that he is in favor of government funding of hospitals, as [i]if it weren't the constant [b]conservative[/b] attack that has been cutting funding for all government aid to hospitals [/i]. Remember, those guys are supposed to be against that kind of stuff. They want privatization.

I hope they pay him well, because it must take a lot of money to keep a man who writes this drivel from falling apart when he looks in the mirror.
[/quote]

Wait, so it's stealing when the money goes to places you don't like, but I'm guessing it's paying your share when the money goes to a cause you support?
[/quote]
It's stealing when the rich get paid with a tax cut that is of the same value of a pay cut on the not so rich. What could be more clear?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Mar 1, 2011 09:43PM)
[quote]
On 2011-02-28 20:26, Woland wrote:
Somebody was asking for an example of incivil speech by an elected representative.

[url=http://www.620wtmj.com/shows/charliesykes/117064153.html?blog=y]Well, here's an elected official speaking to another elected official:[/url]

[quote]Last Friday.... after the Assembly voted to engross the Budget Repair Bill, Hintz turned to a female colleague, Rep. Michelle Litjens and said: "You are F***king dead!"

New tone, indeed. Will he be held accountable?[/quote]



Woland
[/quote]
As accountable as Dick Cheney was when he first uttered the F-bomb in Congress.
Hintz according to your link at least apologized. Not so Cheney.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 1, 2011 09:54PM)
Is there still an Interpol arrest warrant out for Cheney?
Message: Posted by: kal (Mar 1, 2011 10:08PM)
Does this count as politics?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Mar 2, 2011 12:15AM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-01 22:41, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-02-24 15:38, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-02-24 14:20, landmark wrote:
What in the name of Ehrich Weiss does all the above nonsense have to do with stealing money from teachers to give it to corporations? Nothing.
And Al Gore, Clinton, Obama, and Emmanuel as the heros of the protesters? What has he been smoking? They've all been anti-union bashers just like himself.

Talk about adolescent fantasies: you, the peasants must pay for the wealth of the rich.

And I love the bit about how the adolescents want to "close down a rural hospital in Wisconsin or [i]tax the rich[/i]." Hanson can't even keep his own rhetoric straight anymore. So he's in effect saying that he is in favor of government funding of hospitals, as [i]if it weren't the constant [b]conservative[/b] attack that has been cutting funding for all government aid to hospitals [/i]. Remember, those guys are supposed to be against that kind of stuff. They want privatization.

I hope they pay him well, because it must take a lot of money to keep a man who writes this drivel from falling apart when he looks in the mirror.
[/quote]

Wait, so it's stealing when the money goes to places you don't like, but I'm guessing it's paying your share when the money goes to a cause you support?
[/quote]
It's stealing when the rich get paid with a tax cut that is of the same value of a pay cut on the not so rich. What could be more clear?
[/quote]

Probably lots of things could be more clear.

Is it stealing when police recover something from a thief and give it back to its original owner?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Mar 2, 2011 12:34AM)
Let's see, I thought a contract was legally binding. The public workers were the owners of that money.
The tax cuts were an exception for some, of what they were legally mandated to pay.
Pretty clear to me.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Mar 2, 2011 06:43AM)
Here's video of a mob of sleep-deprived college students, union goons, and other thugs physically threatening an elected representative of the people:

http://dane101.com/current/2011/03/01/wisconsin_gop_senator_glenn_grothman_chased_trapped_by_hecklers_saved_by_dem_rep_

This is the face of a mob.

Woland
Message: Posted by: landmark (Mar 2, 2011 07:37AM)
Lucky it wasn't Arizona huh, with people carrying guns as is their second amendment right.
What I saw was an incredible display of restraint in the face of deserved anger.
What point (minutes, seconds of the video) does it show Grothman physically attacked or physically threatened?
Not a hair on his perfect coif was touched.
If he can't stand the heat, then he definitely needs to get out of the kitchen.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Mar 2, 2011 09:22AM)
He is rescued from the mob at about 2 and a half minutes or so.

It's good to know that you are in favor of mob violence against elected officials when the mob happens to agree with you.

Your comments confirm what I have been saying all along: the left thrives on its own violence and the threat of its own violence.

W.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Mar 2, 2011 10:47AM)
That's more disinformation. He makes his way through the crowd without any physical incident whatsoever. In fact you can hear protesters at about 1:20 saying, "Don't touch him." And later they are chanting "peace, peace," specifically so that Grothman would be protected. They demand from an elected official an explanation of his actions, but he doesn't have the courage to even respond. And the hypocrisy about "threat of violence" is astounding seeing how you defend the presence of [b][i]guns[/i][/b] at political rallies.

Bit it's all good. The people are not fooled. Buyer's remorse for Walker voters.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Mar 2, 2011 12:18PM)
Well, landmark, why do you think some of the mob were shouting "don't touch him" if they weren't worried for his safety?

The presence of a gun on the person of a law-abiding citizen is no threat; physically assaulting someone is a threat.

Capisce?

W.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Mar 2, 2011 12:34PM)
That's why no one was arrested, and there isn't one second on that tape of anyone physically doing anything to Grothman. It was letting him off real easy. Capisce?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Mar 2, 2011 01:14PM)
Perhaps the reason no one was arrested has something to do with the fact that the Sheriff withdrew all deputies from the State House and there was nobody there to make an arrest.

Capisce?

W.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Mar 2, 2011 01:49PM)
Which follicle seems to be damaged?
So the army is turning against the dictator, eh?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Mar 2, 2011 01:55PM)
Say....where were all these outraged people when company after company gave employees pay cuts to avoid lay off? Seems their 'outrage' is very specific and not really a concern for the worker in general. Pack of phonies.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Mar 2, 2011 03:01PM)
Landmark, you've got to be kidding me. You really don't think that is a violent, thuggish mob? Please. If those were tea partiers chasing Jesse Jackson, Jr., you'd be hollering that they were white-sheeted, jack-booted stormtroopers. Look at the video from 2:30 to 3:30. Look at the concern on the Democratic Party legislator's face (he's the guy with the orange tee shirt under his jacket.) These people were violent thugs.

W.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Mar 2, 2011 03:12PM)
Woland, the reporters and photographers were more literally in his face than the protesters. Granted, I don't have my sound turned on, so I can't hear what's being shouted- but last I heard, shouting and protesting were still constitutionally protected speech. (According to the Supreme Court's just announced decision, this even holds true for "Rev." Fred Phelps.)
Message: Posted by: Woland (Mar 2, 2011 03:27PM)
Please, EsnRedShirt. You know full well that if you had beenng pursued to your place of work by an angry mob of right wing rednecks, you'd be here at the Café the next day screaming bloody murder. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. This is a dangerous, violent, thuggish mob. End of story.

W.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Mar 2, 2011 04:02PM)
No, it is an extremely non-violent protest. It is people at [i]their[/i] state house demanding answers. Not at all worse than say, demonstrators at an abortion clinic shouting at the women going in. These are supposed to be [i]public[/i] servants answerable to the public.

But the cowards don't feel they have to answer to the people for their actions. Meanwhile Walker breaks the law:
[quote]Wisconsin Governor Defies Court Order to Open Capitol

In a dramatic turn of events at the Wisconsin State Capitol today, Governor Scott Walker defied a court order to open the Capitol for normal business operations. . .

The order said that the respondent, Walker's Department of Administration, "shall open the Wisconsin Capitol to members of the public during business hours and at times when governmental matters, such as hearings, listening sessions and court arguments are being conducted." The Capitol had dozens of hearings scheduled Monday and Tuesday. It has long been state law to allow unfettered access to the Capitol building when legislative business was underway. Now citizens are faced with a barrage of new rules. They could see their legislator, in some instances, if they called ahead and were escorted by an aide. (Some Republican legislators could not be bothered to ferry their constituents into the Capitol building.) They could attend a committee hearing if they called the Sergeant at Arms to register in advance. All people entering the Capitol are wanded. "Even after 9-11 we never did any of this stuff," one protester in the crowd said. . .

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/03/10234/wisconsin-governor-defies-court-order-open-capitol

[/quote]
Message: Posted by: landmark (Mar 2, 2011 04:09PM)
[quote]
On 2011-03-02 14:55, MagicSanta wrote:
Say....where were all these outraged people when company after company gave employees pay cuts to avoid lay off? Seems their 'outrage' is very specific and not really a concern for the worker in general. Pack of phonies.
[/quote]
Are you serious?!?! I'm really surprised at you. Where have you been the last ten years? Do you think it was Fox News who was out there every day protesting and working for the rights of working people at the risk of their own livelihoods?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Mar 2, 2011 05:18PM)
Well, landmark, during an explosive situation, when an unruly mob of potentially violent crazies has been practically occupying the State House, a few rules to maintain order seem commonsensical. Whether a dispute between the Executive and the Judiciary means that the Governor is breaking the law, I don't know.

Do you think the President is breaking the law by continuing to have Federal agencies work on the Obamacare program in defiance of a Federal Judge who has declared the entire law null and void?

I didn't think so.

W.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Mar 2, 2011 05:45PM)
Is Landmark saying CNN was protesting? I don't watch CNN because they tried to get information on how other countries could kill American mililtary so I wasn't aware they were protesting. They must be hiding in bushes while doing so.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Mar 2, 2011 08:48PM)
Sorry. I didn't know CNN was leading the revolution. I thought we were only to take our marching orders from Frances Fox Piven.

Woland your insulting language describing the protesters is an affront to all the working people of Wisconsin who are struggling to make ends meet. But that's par for the right. Still waiting for Grothman to pull out a comb, but the fact is not a hair got mussed.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Mar 2, 2011 09:20PM)
Please, landmark, have you seen photographs or videos of the protesters? Most of them are college students, teaching assistants, and perennial protesters. The working men and women of Wisconsin have not turned out to join them en masse.

Besides, I didn't characterize all