Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
589 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 588 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,728 Year: 21,764/19,786 Month: 327/1,834 Week: 327/315 Day: 5/78 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control III
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1035
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 722 of 836 (849433)
03-09-2019 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 720 by Thugpreacha
02-27-2019 10:15 AM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
I can see your argument. My only comment is that so much of the debates that I hear on a daily basis focus on Liberals vs Conservatives, Democrats vs Republicans...etc...as if one side actually thinks of themselves as the superior human prototype. It gets tiresome to see all arguments framed this way. I mean yes...one can argue that had we no liberals, things would be different...but I would fear a society made up of nothing but conservatives. Do you see my point?
(and the reverse is true as well)

Yes I do. I was told by a moderate at another forum a long time ago that "Both wings need to beat for the eagle to fly". I like that expression, and feel that it applied up until a few decades ago. It applied with Democrats like John F. Kennedy, Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson, or (Democrat senator from my state) Wendell Ford. But it's too dangerous to apply it to today's Democrats like llhan Omar, Alexandria Cortez, or Bernie Sanders. U.S. continued existence simply isn't represented by calls for free health care, free college education, eliminating fossil fuels in 10 years etc. It's not possible for productive people in a society like that to have "liberty and pursuit of happiness".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 720 by Thugpreacha, posted 02-27-2019 10:15 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1035
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 723 of 836 (849435)
03-09-2019 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 721 by Percy
02-27-2019 12:47 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
95% of your post wasn't about gun control, but I'll respond to all of it anyway.

About 50% of it was critical thinking about the possible unintended consequences that could happen with nationwide gun control.

marc9000 writes:

Has it been 6 months yet? Oh well. close enough.

Marc, what is wrong with you? It was you who said, "Maybe I'll be back in 6 months or so, like usual. " Why are you asking me if it's been 6 months when it was you who said that?

You can't recognize a light-hearted little comment? In glancing over your reply to that message, I couldn't help but notice this bombshell of yours;

quote:
You invite the insults by going on extended and uninhibited sprees of falsity. Start saying things that are true and we'll pour accolades upon you.

Did I say anything absolutely false in my message 718? Did I not introduce you to unintended consequences, and link you to a source that you told me you approved of? How could I not hasten back here as quickly as possible and admire my accolades? But alas, I got none, I was deeply shocked and hurt, took me a whole week and a half to collect myself.

Two comments. In your age group it is natural to for people to slow down as they age.

For a minority of them yes, but the majority of them that I see would have a hard time slowing down since they never got started their whole #%*& life.

Second, what is the proper goal of people as they ease into retirement?

Nothing is defined for everyone of course, everyone has different circumstances, but the goals of those in a free society should generally be a desire to not be a burden on society.

I question your assertion that increasing numbers of people want to be idle as much as possible, but even if true if it makes them happy then who are you to question it?

I believe I have a right to question it when my tax dollars goes to prop up their idle lifestyles.

Tennis is my sport.

I played a lot of tennis (informally) in the 1970's. Kept a close eye on the big four tournaments. Loved to watch Jimmy Connors style of play.

You have casual acquaintances who make clear their political leanings?

On facebook, yes. We annoy each other at times, without getting into big arguments.

So you have a positive view of your casual conservative acquaintances and a negative view of your casual liberal acquaintances. About your criteria, who mandated that people, especially in your age group, must have ambition, and must have hobbies, let alone useful hobbies. And aside from the validity of your criteria, have you considered the possibility that your judgments are colored by your political leanings?

I wasn't necessarily referring only to my age group, and as far as "who mandated", of course no one does, but the problem I see is that people who are largely inactive often like to see active people like myself restricted in my activities by government mandates. It's a human nature thing called jealousy. It's a large part of the gun control debate. It's almost impossible for a government tyrant to take control of the masses without a percentage of the masses helping them along. Later when they lose their own freedoms that they were taking for granted, they realize their mistake, but by then it's too late.

Nearly everything we do involves fossil fuels. If you're wearing clothes while you do something then it involves fossil fuels. We need to reduce our dependence upon fossil fuels that produce greenhouse gases and increase our use of renewable non-greenhouse gas generating energy sources.

Free markets can successfully do it, government mandates, (incentives, mandates, and all the corruption that goes with it) cannot.

The rise of suburbia and the middle class created shopping malls, the Internet is killing them. Good, bad, or just change?

Good. Free markets.

The government decided decades ago that it would herd us all into small econo-box cars by regulating big, gas hog cars out of existence. So the public has now flocked to big SUV's and 4 door pickup trucks. Little doubt that overall fuel mileage has gone DOWN since the government meddled. Bad.

Government mandated change: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the end of slavery, the women's vote, rural electrification, affordable healthcare.

Social security; going broke, Medicare, Medicaid; part of our $22 trillion debt, end of slavery; Republicans, women's vote, oh do I dare touch that one (how many women vote for politicians because they're good lookin dudes?) Affordable healthcare? Can never happen, we've done far more research and development than our society can afford. Shifting around the methods of paying for it is merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Marc, I can understand resenting the insults, but you gotta admit it's pretty stupid to post a link debunking your own argument.

Snopes doesn't really "debunk" anything, since they're as liberal as any liberal source. But I was at least hoping for some accolades.

But the question remains, do you know what "socialism" or "democratic socialism" means in the context of American politics? Rather than risk another broadly wrong or irrelevant answer from you I shall provide the answer. All socialism means in American politics is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, a social safety net, affordable healthcare, jobs that pay a living wage, and restraints on unbridled capitalism.

So you see some kind of barrier, that prevents the U.S. from becoming TOO socialist? I don't think that barrier exists. A good argument can be made that "liberty and pursuit of happiness" are almost impossible to have now, with our ever increasing safety nets and illegal immigration.

You are, yet again, very confused. How do you begin with the 2nd Amendment and end with fossil fuels?

If the Democrats want the government to be involved in the future banning of fossil fuels, they're going to have to outlaw the private ownership of guns. They know they're going to have a hard time seizing older fossil fuel burning engines from an armed populace. I don't think prohibition, or the 55 mph speed limit would have ever been reversed from an unarmed populace.

No one's claiming utopia will follow the banning of guns. Guns won't be eliminated. Murders and suicides will still happen, though at a much lower rate.

Guns are simple pieces of hardware in today's technology. They can be manufactured in any basement or garage with a few basic machine tools. It would be much harder than outdoor, smoky moonshine stills were, for the government to find. Much more value, of the illegal product to be transported in car trunks. The unintended consequences of that, and many other trade-offs, could result in more deaths than we have now.

As to bias, if you're talking about news rather than opinion, the New York Times news reporting is generally straight up. For example, the current headline is Testifying to Congress, Cohen Calls Trump a ‘Racist,’ a ‘Con Man’ and a ‘Cheat’. I have no doubt that the headline is completely accurate. The link takes you to live coverage, which given that it is just a camera pointed at Cohen I assume that it, too, is completely accurate.

Sure, they can report news in a way that they can't be accused of outright lies. Everyone knows that Cohen said that, most all of the mainstream news had shouted it over and over and over and over again. Yet when Nancy Pelosi took off on her Hawaii vacation just days after the government shutdown, I watched ABC World News Tonight carefully for the next several nights, and they said not one word about that, while Trump stayed at the White House ready to negotiate. If the situation were reversed, (Democrat in White House, Republican house leader on vacation during shutdown) do ya think ABC and CNN would have had anything to say about that?

It's natural for the news media to lean left, it creates controversy and therefore ratings, but I've little doubt that they're completely bought and paid for by the Democrat party today. The omission of so much important news, (often only reported on Fox) and the trumpeting of the smallest details of Trump's life make it all too clear.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 721 by Percy, posted 02-27-2019 12:47 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 724 by ringo, posted 03-10-2019 2:27 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 725 by Thugpreacha, posted 03-10-2019 3:31 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 726 by Percy, posted 03-10-2019 8:12 PM marc9000 has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17645
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 724 of 836 (849449)
03-10-2019 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 723 by marc9000
03-09-2019 10:01 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
marc9000 writes:

U.S. continued existence simply isn't represented by calls for free health care, free college education, eliminating fossil fuels in 10 years etc. It's not possible for productive people in a society like that to have "liberty and pursuit of happiness".


If anything, it's easier to pursue happiness when you're healthy.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 723 by marc9000, posted 03-09-2019 10:01 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13344
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 725 of 836 (849451)
03-10-2019 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 723 by marc9000
03-09-2019 10:01 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
marc writes:

I wasn't necessarily referring only to my age group, and as far as "who mandated", of course no one does, but the problem I see is that people who are largely inactive often like to see active people like myself restricted in my activities by government mandates. It's a human nature thing called jealousy.

Thumbing your nose at the idle liberals is also a human nature thing called Greed. It reminds me of a Bernie Sanders joke.

I bet it grinds your gears to have to share. Let them eat cake, right?


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 723 by marc9000, posted 03-09-2019 10:01 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 727 by marc9000, posted 03-11-2019 8:19 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19046
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 726 of 836 (849460)
03-10-2019 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 723 by marc9000
03-09-2019 10:01 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
marc9000 writes:

95% of your post wasn't about gun control, but I'll respond to all of it anyway.

About 50% of it was critical thinking about the possible unintended consequences that could happen with nationwide gun control.

About 95% of it wasn't about gun control. If there was a central theme then it *was* unintended consequences, but not anything related to gun control. In a long message you mentioned gun control in only two brief paragraphs.

quote:
You invite the insults by going on extended and uninhibited sprees of falsity. Start saying things that are true and we'll pour accolades upon you.

Did I say anything absolutely false in my Message 718?

You mean were there any additional false statements beyond all the falsities I already enumerated in my reply to your Message 718? No, I think I covered just about everything that was false.

Did I not introduce you to unintended consequences,...

Given that a quick search reveals I discussed unintended consequences as far back as 2008 (and probably earlier, but that's the first reference I found with a quick search), no, you did not introduce me to unintended consequences.

...and link you to a source that you told me you approved of?

You mean your broken link to Wikipedia?

How could I not hasten back here as quickly as possible and admire my accolades?

For posting a broken link to something everyone already knows about? Are you daft?

But alas, I got none, I was deeply shocked and hurt, took me a whole week and a half to collect myself.

Again, start saying things that are true and accolades will be poured upon you and you'll actually convince people. Mocking those enumerating your falsities is just being purposefully annoying.

Two comments. In your age group it is natural to for people to slow down as they age.

For a minority of them yes, but the majority of them that I see would have a hard time slowing down since they never got started their whole #%*& life.

You're displaying the same narcissistic characteristics as your hero, praise of self and denigration of others. Everyone slows down as they age, the rate and amount is different for everyone.

Second, what is the proper goal of people as they ease into retirement?

Nothing is defined for everyone of course, everyone has different circumstances, but the goals of those in a free society should generally be a desire to not be a burden on society.

You accused people of having two primary goals in life: be as idle as possible and be entertained. I asked how it's anybody's business how people spend their time. You didn't say anything about being a burden on society. Is that your true concern, of people becoming a burden on society? What are you thinking of, specifically, that has you concerned.

I question your assertion that increasing numbers of people want to be idle as much as possible, but even if true if it makes them happy then who are you to question it?

I believe I have a right to question it when my tax dollars goes to prop up their idle lifestyles.

I don't think anyone wants our tax dollars paying people to sit around. Whose idle lifestyles are you talking about?

So you have a positive view of your casual conservative acquaintances and a negative view of your casual liberal acquaintances. About your criteria, who mandated that people, especially in your age group, must have ambition, and must have hobbies, let alone useful hobbies. And aside from the validity of your criteria, have you considered the possibility that your judgments are colored by your political leanings?

I wasn't necessarily referring only to my age group, and as far as "who mandated", of course no one does, but the problem I see is that people who are largely inactive often like to see active people like myself restricted in my activities by government mandates.

Are you crazy? Unless you're breaking laws or being a general nuisance, why would anyone care how active you are?

It's a human nature thing called jealousy.

Jealousy? Are you nuts? You think people are jealous of how active you are and so want to restrict your activity level by government mandates? Again, are you nuts?

It's a large part of the gun control debate.

It has nothing to do with gun control. It has to do with you being certifiable.

It's almost impossible for a government tyrant to take control of the masses without a percentage of the masses helping them along.

Yes - they vote them into power.

Later when they lose their own freedoms that they were taking for granted, they realize their mistake, but by then it's too late.

Paraphrasing, "First they came for the immigrants..."

Nearly everything we do involves fossil fuels. If you're wearing clothes while you do something then it involves fossil fuels. We need to reduce our dependence upon fossil fuels that produce greenhouse gases and increase our use of renewable non-greenhouse gas generating energy sources.

Free markets can successfully do it, government mandates, (incentives, mandates, and all the corruption that goes with it) cannot.

We're all for free markets, but let us not be so naive to believe that free markets are the only solution or are corruption-free, or to believe that government cannot be a solution and must be more corrupt than free markets. Solving our dependence upon fossil fuels most likely involves a partnership between government and private industry.

You are wrong that government mandates cannot help reduce our dependence upon fossil fuels. Government mandated fuel economy standards and pollution standards are a couple examples. And here's another, though unrelated to fossil fuels: government mandates were instrumental in making cars safer.

The rise of suburbia and the middle class created shopping malls, the Internet is killing them. Good, bad, or just change?

Good. Free markets.

Free markets are a good thing but not a panacea. Unbridled capitalism has its own downside. Wealth inequality today is worse than in the days of the robber barons.

The government decided decades ago that it would herd us all into small econo-box cars by regulating big, gas hog cars out of existence. So the public has now flocked to big SUV's and 4 door pickup trucks. Little doubt that overall fuel mileage has gone DOWN since the government meddled. Bad.

It makes sense that an error rate as high as yours requires you to believe every odd thought that pops into your head, and it helps that you perform no fact checking. In other words, you are wrong yet again. Overall US fuel economy has been rising: U.S. vehicle fuel economy rises to record 24.7 mpg: EPA

Government mandated change: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the end of slavery, the women's vote, rural electrification, affordable healthcare.

Social security; going broke, Medicare, Medicaid; part of our $22 trillion debt,...

So you're against Social Secure, Medicare and Medicaid? Can I assume you won't be filing for Medicare next year, or for Social Security ever?

end of slavery; Republicans,...

The examples are of successful government mandated change, not of Republican achievement. Concerning the end of slavery, did you think at all about the necessity for bipartisanship since the 13th amendment passed both Houses of Congress by more than 2/3 of the vote, and passed the legislatures of more than 2/3 of the states?

women's vote, oh do I dare touch that one (how many women vote for politicians because they're good lookin dudes?)...

I hope you realize you're being an ass.

Affordable healthcare? Can never happen, we've done far more research and development than our society can afford. Shifting around the methods of paying for it is merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

And yet despite Trump's best efforts at destroying it, we now have much more affordable healthcare than we did. And somehow or other the rest of the western world has affordable healthcare. Surely if Canada and Europe and Australia can do it the US can do it.

Marc, I can understand resenting the insults, but you gotta admit it's pretty stupid to post a link debunking your own argument.

Snopes doesn't really "debunk" anything, since they're as liberal as any liberal source. But I was at least hoping for some accolades.

Your "liberal/wrong, conservative/right" attitude is leading you astray again and again. It isn't one's politics that decides right or right but the facts. The facts say that you cited a link contradicting your own claim, and now you're disparaging your own link. Anyway, the facts say you are wrong. The US is not 3rd in murders throughout the world. It's more like 97. See List of countries by intentional homicide rate.

But the question remains, do you know what "socialism" or "democratic socialism" means in the context of American politics? Rather than risk another broadly wrong or irrelevant answer from you I shall provide the answer. All socialism means in American politics is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, a social safety net, affordable healthcare, jobs that pay a living wage, and restraints on unbridled capitalism.

So you see some kind of barrier, that prevents the U.S. from becoming TOO socialist?

In the sense of the dictionary definition there is no resemblance to what socialism means in the context of American politics. Nothing I listed remotely resembles anything in the dictionary definition of socialism, which is state ownership of business and industry. We don't have to worry about, for example, Social Security beginning a slide into state ownership of business and industry because they have nothing to do with each other. Socialism in American politics only means programs that help people, not state ownership of business and industry.

I don't think that barrier exists. A good argument can be made that "liberty and pursuit of happiness" are almost impossible to have now, with our ever increasing safety nets and illegal immigration.

If you think a good argument can be made then go ahead and make it. I'd like to see that. But before you waste your time just realize that outside of Cuba (Are any other communist countries left? Even Russia is capitalist now.) that socialism only means social programs, not state ownership of business and industry. The only reason you hear American conservatives toss around the word socialist like an epithet is that it calls to mind evil and totalitarian communist Russia, not because that's what liberals actually mean by socialism.

You are, yet again, very confused. How do you begin with the 2nd Amendment and end with fossil fuels?

If the Democrats want the government to be involved in the future banning of fossil fuels,...

Ban fossil fuels? Are you nuts? No one wants to ban fossil fuels. What I hope most people actually want is gradually reducing our dependence upon fossil fuels (even to zero should that ever become practical). That would be a good thing because the burning of fossil fuels is a significant contributor to the greenhouse gases causing climate change.

...they're going to have to outlaw the private ownership of guns.

Few want to outlaw private ownership of guns. There's no reason why people can't own hunting rifles. But handguns are responsible for most of the 40,000 annual firearm deaths, so they should be very tightly regulated (meaning training, licensing, registration, inspections and a national database), including government mandates for making them safer. And assault rifles make it too easy to kill many quickly, so they must be banned.

They know they're going to have a hard time seizing older fossil fuel burning engines from an armed populace.

You are seriously crazy. No one wants to seize old car engines. There's not enough of them to matter.

I don't think prohibition, or the 55 mph speed limit would have ever been reversed from an unarmed populace.

You are very seriously crazy. An armed populace had nothing to do with the 21st amendment or the repeal of the double nickel. Where do you get this stuff?

No one's claiming utopia will follow the banning of guns. Guns won't be eliminated. Murders and suicides will still happen, though at a much lower rate.

Guns are simple pieces of hardware in today's technology. They can be manufactured in any basement or garage with a few basic machine tools. It would be much harder than outdoor, smoky moonshine stills were, for the government to find. Much more value, of the illegal product to be transported in car trunks. The unintended consequences of that, and many other trade-offs, could result in more deaths than we have now.

You're scaremongering. The number of gun deaths is proportional to the number of guns. Reduce the number of guns and the number of gun deaths will also be reduced.

As to bias, if you're talking about news rather than opinion, the New York Times news reporting is generally straight up. For example, the current headline is Testifying to Congress, Cohen Calls Trump a ‘Racist,’ a ‘Con Man’ and a ‘Cheat’. I have no doubt that the headline is completely accurate. The link takes you to live coverage, which given that it is just a camera pointed at Cohen I assume that it, too, is completely accurate.

Sure, they can report news in a way that they can't be accused of outright lies.

The problem for your position is that you can find no evidence for it.

Everyone knows that Cohen said that, most all of the mainstream news had shouted it over and over and over and over again.

Don't forget Fox. They reported it, too.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi took off on her Hawaii vacation just days after the government shutdown, I watched ABC World News Tonight carefully for the next several nights, and they said not one word about that, while Trump stayed at the White House ready to negotiate. If the situation were reversed, (Democrat in White House, Republican house leader on vacation during shutdown) do ya think ABC and CNN would have had anything to say about that?

I wasn't even looking for news about Pelosi and knew all about her Hawaii vacation, which took place before she became Speaker. Maybe you should try getting your news from written stories instead of watching the nightly news on TV, where you'll only see the stories they can cram into a half hour. Here's an article you could have read: Nancy Pelosi Defends Government Shutdown Vacation. Here's another one from Fox News: Nancy Pelosi is vacationing at Hawaii resort during shutdown.

It's natural for the news media to lean left,...

Why is that natural? What is Fox News? What is the Washington Examiner? Are they unnatural? Today all the media is reporting that Trump wants $8.6 billion for his wall - is it left when the New York Times reports it (here) and right when Fox News reports it (here)? Do you have anything else nutty you'd like to add?

...it creates controversy and therefore ratings,...

How does reporting the news itself create controversy? Is there a controversy because the New York Times and Fox News are reporting Trump's new wall funding request? Is there anything in the reporting by either article that you find controversial?

...but I've little doubt that they're completely bought and paid for by the Democrat party today.

Yeah, but you've said a bunch of crazy stuff in this post alone, and you seem to have little doubt about that either. You're not exactly an example of good judgment or being informed.

The omission of so much important news, (often only reported on Fox) and the trumpeting of the smallest details of Trump's life make it all too clear.

You keep complaining but never provide any meaningful examples. I don't think many people cared much that Pelosi took a vacation over the holidays during Trump's contrived government shutdown. Trump think's he's God and people like you are just aiding him in his delusion.

Could we get back to gun control now?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 723 by marc9000, posted 03-09-2019 10:01 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 728 by marc9000, posted 03-11-2019 9:48 PM Percy has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1035
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 727 of 836 (849500)
03-11-2019 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 725 by Thugpreacha
03-10-2019 3:31 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
Thumbing your nose at the idle liberals is also a human nature thing called Greed. It reminds me of a Bernie Sanders joke.

Political columnist Thomas Sowell puts it this way;

quote:
“I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.”

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/2056.Thomas_Sowell

He's just being a little sarcastic there, he understands. He understands that liberals sometimes pervert words in the English language to give a false impression to uninformed people.

I bet it grinds your gears to have to share. Let them eat cake, right?

I don't think the word "share" applies to ever increasing taxation by a massive government.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 725 by Thugpreacha, posted 03-10-2019 3:31 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 729 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-11-2019 11:42 PM marc9000 has acknowledged this reply

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1035
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 728 of 836 (849501)
03-11-2019 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 726 by Percy
03-10-2019 8:12 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
Are you daft?
Are you crazy?
Are you nuts?
It has to do with you being certifiable.
I hope you realize you're being an ass.
Are you nuts?
You are seriously crazy.
You are very seriously crazy.
You're scaremongering.

Hmmm, you must not agree that Jimmy Connors style of play was good to watch.

Given that a quick search reveals I discussed unintended consequences as far back as 2008 (and probably earlier, but that's the first reference I found with a quick search), no, you did not introduce me to unintended consequences.

That is a surprise, because your opinions on gun control make it clear to me that you are not informed about them, what they could be for gun control, or what their historical significance is in other similar matters.

You accused people of having two primary goals in life: be as idle as possible and be entertained. I asked how it's anybody's business how people spend their time. You didn't say anything about being a burden on society. Is that your true concern, of people becoming a burden on society? What are you thinking of, specifically, that has you concerned.

1)An increasing laziness in the U.S. One thing I have seen up close and personal, not from myself but from someone close to me, is how recreational drug use can completely destroy a persons pride in themselves, can make them not care at all what a burden they become to their relatives and society in general.

2)Illegal immigrants coning here with no education, no knowledge of the English language, looking to get citizenship for their children if not for themselves, and find out how much free stuff they can get.

I don't think anyone wants our tax dollars paying people to sit around.

Democrats do, if they can get their votes.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/...-illegal-immigrant-voting

Whose idle lifestyles are you talking about?

In addition to illegals that the Democrat house loves, drug addicts and lazy people. They really do exist in the U.S.

Are you crazy? Unless you're breaking laws or being a general nuisance, why would anyone care how active you are?

A significant number of people get jealous of other peoples' success, to the extent they'd like to "get even" somehow, with them. You didn't know that? It's not hard to tell that 90% of Trump hatred is about jealousy of him, he's succeeded at just about everything he's done. He shows more energy than many people half his age.

We're all for free markets, but let us not be so naive to believe that free markets are the only solution or are corruption-free, or to believe that government cannot be a solution and must be more corrupt than free markets. Solving our dependence upon fossil fuels most likely involves a partnership between government and private industry.

I understand that, but you and I wouldn't agree on what the balance between the two would be. Free markets police corruption within themselves far better than government activity and mandates. Sure we have elections, but weeding out corruption in government bureaucracies takes far longer than free people making free choices in markets.

You are wrong that government mandates cannot help reduce our dependence upon fossil fuels. Government mandated fuel economy standards and pollution standards are a couple examples. And here's another, though unrelated to fossil fuels: government mandates were instrumental in making cars safer.

There are still a lot of monster 4 door pickups and SUV's running around today, and they wouldn't be nearly as numerous if the government wouldn't have legislated out full size, and even some mid-size cars back in the 1980's.

But yes, government mandates did improve fuel standards, and safety standards. But what was the cost? A moderately equipped car in 1975 (the first year for CAFE standards, cost about $5000. Today, a similarly equipped car costs about $35,000. Personal income hasn't increased seven-fold in that time. So now, fewer lower middle income people can afford new cars.

So you're against Social Secure, Medicare and Medicaid? Can I assume you won't be filing for Medicare next year, or for Social Security ever?

Since the government has helped itself to somewhere around $100,000 of my money for Social Security over my entire career, I have little choice but to try to get some of it back. I have no other retirement, I'm going to have to live to my mid-seventies to before I even break even. I intend to work as long as I'm physically able. I try to live a healthy lifestyle. I don't depend on the government for health.

I actually like the idea of Social Security, life for the elderly had to be a lot tougher in the 1920's and before. To have a certain amount to depend on until one dies, since no one knows exactly when they're going to die, works well. If memory serves though, 2042 is when I last heard it will bust. That's what I don't like about it, government can't manage it properly.

Your "liberal/wrong, conservative/right" attitude is leading you astray again and again.

Your liberal/right, conservative/wrong attitude does the same to you, only in a much more anti-Constitutional way.

The US is not 3rd in murders throughout the world. It's more like 97.

That could be, but statistics do vary from website to website. But one thing is sure, gun violence in the U.S. isn't a widespread problem throughout the entire U.S. area, it's an increasing problem in bigger, usually Democrat run cities. It's human behavior problem within those cities, not the problem of the U.S. population at large.

Socialism in American politics only means programs that help people, not state ownership of business and industry.

So it's completely impossible for the U.S. to incrementally move into state ownership of business and industry? Do you have a source that assures you of this?

Ban fossil fuels? Are you nuts? No one wants to ban fossil fuels.

So you've been missing what Alexandria Ocasio Cortez has been saying? How about Greenpeace?

https://www.greenpeace.org/...-its-game-over-for-the-climate

You are seriously crazy. No one wants to seize old car engines. There's not enough of them to matter.

THEN WHAT IS THE PLAN TO "DEFEAT CLIMATE CHANGE"? Every Democrat's main talking point constantly moans and groans about climate change, yet no one seems to ask them, and they never say, just what the list looks like that they're compiling to defeat it. It's said that "human behavior" causes climate change, so what else is there for the government to do, other than CONTROL HUMAN BEHAVIOR? I know, they can't say because they don't know yet. They won't know until they get the presidency back. And then, it will largely depend on how successful they've been with a TOTAL GUN BAN. Makes it much easier and less messy for them to control human behavior.

You are very seriously crazy. An armed populace had nothing to do with the 21st amendment or the repeal of the double nickel. Where do you get this stuff?

The same place that a lot of reasonable people get the "stuff" about how the mere presence of guns in a society can be a crime deterrent.

You're scaremongering.

Pot, meet kettle. Shrieks for gun control and global warming aren't scaremongering? Did you hear about the school children that met with Diane Feinstein a week or two ago, demanding to know what she was going to do about climate change? These poor kids are scared to death, they actually have it implied to them that snowstorms in February, tornados and hurricanes etc. are all recent things, that they never used to happen 30, 40 or 50 years ago. David Muir of ABC World News Tonight breathlessly reports on snowstorms in February, and the associated car wrecks as if this is the first time he's seen them! It's amazing to watch him do his liberal dances.

Yet did the little kids ask Di Fi about the upcoming SS bust? Of course not, they know nothing about it! It's not taught to them.

The problem for your position is that you can find no evidence for it.

There's tons of evidence for it. I think it's "Media Research Center" that documents the number of minutes they spend disparaging Republicans, while trying to make Democrats look good. Maybe in all your spare time you could check that out. I don't have time tonight.

Why is that natural?

I explained it, it creates better ratings.

What is Fox News? What is the Washington Examiner? Are they unnatural?

They are the same thing that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Glen Beck, many others are, they are a free market creation by a biased, corrupt mainstream media.

Could we get back to gun control now?

If you want to keep it so narrowly focused on little more than, "less guns, less crime" and practically nothing else, there's not much more to say on the subject.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 726 by Percy, posted 03-10-2019 8:12 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 730 by Percy, posted 03-12-2019 7:57 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 731 by Percy, posted 03-13-2019 6:39 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3779
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.3


(4)
Message 729 of 836 (849502)
03-11-2019 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 727 by marc9000
03-11-2019 8:19 PM


A bit more economic topic digression
Thumbing your nose at the idle liberals is also a human nature thing called Greed. It reminds me of a Bernie Sanders joke.

Political columnist Thomas Sowell puts it this way;

quote:
“I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.”

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/2056.Thomas_Sowell

He's just being a little sarcastic there, he understands. He understands that liberals sometimes pervert words in the English language to give a false impression to uninformed people.

It is the word "earned" that is getting perverted.

One thing in economics that really ticks me off is the inaccurate use of the term "earn" and "earned". The popular use is what you get paid, regardless of what you did to deserve that payment.

I have no problem with anyone getting paid what they truly earned. My objection is those who get paid far more than what they earned, and those who get paid far less than what they earned.

To want more payment that what you have earned is greed.

Moose

Added by edit: Re: What someone gets vs what they earn in the "Executive Pay - Good Capitalism Bad Capitalism?" topic. Look at both up and down-thread. Probably a good place for "greed" discussion to continue.

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added by edit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 727 by marc9000, posted 03-11-2019 8:19 PM marc9000 has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19046
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 730 of 836 (849515)
03-12-2019 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 728 by marc9000
03-11-2019 9:48 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
marc9000 writes:

Are you daft?
Are you crazy?
Are you nuts?
It has to do with you being certifiable.
I hope you realize you're being an ass.
Are you nuts?
You are seriously crazy.
You are very seriously crazy.
You're scaremongering.

Hmmm, you must not agree that Jimmy Connors style of play was good to watch.

You like the brash basher from Belleville, we get it. What do any of my characterizations of and reactions to your nonsense have to do with whether I enjoyed watching Connors style of play? I didn't say anything about my own play, but if it helps stop you from making these nonsensical associations then I'll add that I played college varsity and USTA tournament tennis, and I play an aggressive attacking style not all that different from Connors.

Given that a quick search reveals I discussed unintended consequences as far back as 2008 (and probably earlier, but that's the first reference I found with a quick search), no, you did not introduce me to unintended consequences.

That is a surprise, because your opinions on gun control make it clear to me that you are not informed about them, what they could be for gun control, or what their historical significance is in other similar matters.

Everything has unintended consequences because no one can predict everything that will happen in the future. But your unintended consequences for gun control do not accord with the facts.

You accused people of having two primary goals in life: be as idle as possible and be entertained. I asked how it's anybody's business how people spend their time. You didn't say anything about being a burden on society. Is that your true concern, of people becoming a burden on society? What are you thinking of, specifically, that has you concerned.

1)An increasing laziness in the U.S.

Based upon what? You're making things up again. From Turns out Americans work really hard...but some want to work harder:

quote:
Americans do work hard. Americans work an average of 34.4 hours a week, longer than their counterparts in the world's largest economies.

Many work even longer. Adults employed full time report working an average of 47 hours per week, which equates to nearly six days a week, according to Gallup. That's about an hour and a half more than they reported a decade ago.

Nearly four in 10 workers report logging 50+ hours on the job.

Americans also receive fewer vacation days than their peers elsewhere -- and they don't even take all the time they are given. U.S. workers got about 15 days off in the past year and took 14 days, according to a 2014 Expedia.com survey. Europeans are given an average of 28 days, while workers in the Asia-Pacific receive 19, though they also don't take them all.


Here's a nice chart:

So much for laziness in this country.

One thing I have seen up close and personal, not from myself but from someone close to me, is how recreational drug use can completely destroy a person's pride in themselves, can make them not care at all what a burden they become to their relatives and society in general.

Laziness and drug abuse are two completely different things. Drug abuse is a serious problem. Anyone whose drug problem has reached the point where they are a burden on their family and on society is not a recreational drug user but an addict who needs help.

2)Illegal immigrants coming here with no education, no knowledge of the English language, looking to get citizenship for their children if not for themselves, and find out how much free stuff they can get.

First, most people are opposed to illegal immigration, and the statistics on their educational levels, knowledge of English and so forth are sketchy because they try to avoid contact with anything involved with the government. But we have lots of statistics on legal immigrants. Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States tells us that about half speak English proficiently and about 30% have a bachelor's degree or higher.

I have no doubt that many permanent immigrants desire citizenship for themselves and their children. What's wrong
with that?

Immigrants are banned from using welfare for their first five years in this country. Statistics show that immigrants receive less in welfare than Americans.

I don't think anyone wants our tax dollars paying people to sit around.

Democrats do, if they can get their votes.

No, Democrats are not trying to buy votes by paying people to sit around. You can't even say who it is that is getting paid for doing all this sitting around. You're making things up again. Something random just pops into your head and puts your fingers in motion, and just like that you've produced yet another fictitious claim.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/...-illegal-immigrant-voting

I think Democrats are wrong in promoting voting by illegal immigrants, but there is no support for your contention that Democrats are buying votes with services. How would illegal immigrants draw upon government services anyway without proper documentation like a social security card and so forth? You're just making things up again. You seem to have a great many prejudices that you've made up in your own mind.

Strong arguments can be made for permitting legal immigrants to vote in state and local elections.

Whose idle lifestyles are you talking about?

In addition to illegals that the Democrat house loves,...

Given that illegal immigrants cannot draw upon assistance programs, they have to work. They're very unlikely to be idle. Where is your information coming from?

...drug addicts...

Drug addicts are people in need of help.

...and lazy people. They really do exist in the U.S.

Besides the fact that the statistics I quoted earlier show that Americans are not a lazy people, naturally under any bell shaped curve some people are going to be lazy. So what? It takes all types. Why do you care how lazy other people are? If someone wants to spend half their day in executive time watching television and sending tweets that's their business.

Are you crazy? Unless you're breaking laws or being a general nuisance, why would anyone care how active you are?

A significant number of people get jealous of other people's success, to the extent they'd like to "get even" somehow, with them. You didn't know that? It's not hard to tell that 90% of Trump hatred is about jealousy of him, he's succeeded at just about everything he's done. He shows more energy than many people half his age.

You are seriously delusional and guilty of projecting your own feelings onto others. And those observing Trump's misogynism, racism, bigotry, xenophobia, vengefulness, dishonesty, cheating, ignorance, autocratic nature, immorality and narcissism see nothing to be jealous of. They just hope his presidency ends before he ends our country as we know it.

We're all for free markets, but let us not be so naive to believe that free markets are the only solution or are corruption-free, or to believe that government cannot be a solution and must be more corrupt than free markets. Solving our dependence upon fossil fuels most likely involves a partnership between government and private industry.

I understand that, but you and I wouldn't agree on what the balance between the two would be.

The true difference between us is that any assertions I made would be supported by facts while yours would just be stuff you made up.

Free markets police corruption within themselves far better than government activity and mandates.

And how do you explain things like monopolies and companies colluding on pricing and so forth?

Sure we have elections, but weeding out corruption in government bureaucracies takes far longer than free people making free choices in markets.

You're just making things up again.

You are wrong that government mandates cannot help reduce our dependence upon fossil fuels. Government mandated fuel economy standards and pollution standards are a couple examples. And here's another, though unrelated to fossil fuels: government mandates were instrumental in making cars safer.

There are still a lot of monster 4 door pickups and SUV's running around today, and they wouldn't be nearly as numerous if the government wouldn't have legislated out full size, and even some mid-size cars back in the 1980's.

The government didn't legislate out full size cars, but CAFE standards have had a big impact on the size and mix of vehicles that car companies offer. Despite that, average fuel economy across all cars/SUVs/light trucks in the US rises every year.

But yes, government mandates did improve fuel standards, and safety standards. But what was the cost?

I don't know the precise cost, but here's a nice graph showing how car prices have risen since 1980 when not adjusted for new features and quality improvements (like antilock brakes and roll bar construction) in green, and after adjustment in orange. Prices have been fairly flat since around 1990:

A moderately equipped car in 1975 (the first year for CAFE standards, cost about $5000). Today, a similarly equipped car costs about $35,000. Personal income hasn't increased seven-fold in that time.

Your comparison is way off, plus moderately equipped cars don't cost $35,000 today - your average Camry probably costs around $25,000 by the time you've finished negotiating. There is no such thing as a $35,000 2019 car similarly equipped to a 1975 car. How much today's $35,000 car would cost if you threw out bluetooth, GPS navigation, hands-free cell phone operation, antilock brakes, maintain-distance cruise control, lane maintenance, electronic ignition, airbags, 5 mph bumpers, far better rust resistance, better fuel mileage, lower pollution, etc. etc. etc., I don't know. But if you look at that graph I posted above it should give you a rough idea. The graph only goes back to 1980, but if you extrapolate back to 1975 it looks like cars cost maybe twice as much today.

So now, fewer lower middle income people can afford new cars.

This is true. What do you think we should do? How about tax credits for car purchases for people with low incomes?

There's another rising cost of cars: maintenance and repairs. Back in the day it wasn't that hard to do all the maintenance on your own car. Replacing the oil and filter, replacing the rotor, points and plugs, adjusting the timing, replacing water pumps, brake pads and belts, all these kinds of things could be done yourself. Maintenance and repairs are much more difficult on modern cars. A friend's water pump failed last week - it cost him around $800 to have it replaced (granted that's a bit high - the water pump in his particular car is very difficult to access, so labor was much of the cost).

So poor people suffer a double whammy with modern cars: they cost more to buy, and when fixing them there are few things they can do themselves. What could be done to help them? Maybe a higher minimum wage? The minimum wage in 1969 was $1.50/hour. Adjusted for inflation that would be around $10/hour today.

So you're against Social Secure, Medicare and Medicaid? Can I assume you won't be filing for Medicare next year, or for Social Security ever?

Since the government has helped itself to somewhere around $100,000 of my money for Social Security over my entire career, I have little choice but to try to get some of it back. I have no other retirement,...

Well, that was pretty stupid. How does one live year after year to your age without realizing at some point that you need to start saving for retirement? Geez, what a mess. You've shown the same level of knowledge and judgment in your life as you've shown in discussions here. Both my kids already have 401k's, and they're less than half your age.

I'm going to have to live to my mid-seventies to before I even break even.

Delay collecting on Social Security as long as possible, until age 70 if you can, because then you'll get the biggest payout. You get 132% by retiring at age 70 of what you'd get at age 66.

I intend to work as long as I'm physically able. I try to live a healthy lifestyle.

Bollux on your healthy lifestyle. Tons of people with healthy lifestyles become ill or have accidents. There was a very recent story in the Washington Post by Tonia Ellsworth Smith, a woman with a very healthy lifestyle:

quote:
For years, I was the healthiest person I knew. I ate a healthy diet and didn’t drink, smoke or use illegal drugs. I ran marathons and ultramarathons, some as long as 100 miles. I lifted weights and went to yoga classes. I volunteered at my daughters’ school and for the local Road Runners Club. I shuttled my kids to practices and walked our dogs.

But she got pancreatic cancer at age 44, and it almost killed her (it kills 90% of people). See Like Alex Trebek, I was given a dire pancreatic cancer prognosis. I survived..

You don't control the serendipity of whether you come down with a serious disease or get in a serious accident. You don't control how fast your body breaks down as you age. Have you been able to stop the aging of your skin, the graying of your hair, the decline in your strength and stamina, the formation of cataracts, etc? No, of course not. Aging affects everyone. By the time we're 115 we're all dead. Visit an assisted living facility some time. Almost every single resident uses a walker or wheelchair, and it isn't because 99% of the residents didn't live healthy lifestyles.

I don't depend on the government for health.

So you're going to refuse Medicare? You have no money. What are you going to do if you become ill? Refuse treatment and die?

I actually like the idea of Social Security,...

Say what? You just gave me whiplash. You just referred above to Social Security helping itself to your money, making it clear it was something you didn't like. Now you're saying you like it. Inconsistent much?

...life for the elderly had to be a lot tougher in the 1920's and before.

It all depended upon whether you had family. I read The Last of the Doughboys not so long ago, consisting of interviews with the last few surviving US soldiers of WWI, all in the neighborhood of a hundred years old. One common element ran through many of the interviews: the WWI veterans lived with a family member, usually one of their children or grandchildren, who were themselves at an advanced age.

To have a certain amount to depend on until one dies, since no one knows exactly when they're going to die, works well. If memory serves though, 2042 is when I last heard it will bust. That's what I don't like about it, government can't manage it properly.

Government isn't perfect, but nothing is where people are concerned. If you're looking for perfection you're going to have to look elsewhere.

Your "liberal/wrong, conservative/right" attitude is leading you astray again and again.

Your liberal/right, conservative/wrong attitude does the same to you, only in a much more anti-Constitutional way.

You're being daft again. I'm neither liberal nor conservative. Some of my views lean one way, some the other. We disagree not because we're on opposite sides of some liberal/conservative divide but because you can't seem to get anything right.

What happened is that you quoted from a link to Snopes whose actual content contradicted you, and then when this was pointed out to you you denigrated your own link by calling it liberal. Snopes is just a fact checking site.
Facts are facts - they're neither liberal or conservative. Rebuttal doesn't consist of putting labels on things. Rebuttal is getting your facts in a row and then marshalling your arguments around the facts. You don't seem to know how to do this.

The US is not 3rd in murders throughout the world. It's more like 97.

That could be, but statistics do vary from website to website.

Sure they can vary, in the way that when my speedometer says 60 mph I might actually be doing 58 or 62, but I'm sure not doing 5 mph. Do you have any rebuttal that's worth more than a plug nickel? Face it, you were wrong in an obvious and embarrassing (but only to those if happen to have the embarrassment bone - it seems to be absent in most Trump followers) way.

But one thing is sure, gun violence in the U.S. isn't a widespread problem throughout the entire U.S. area, it's an increasing problem in bigger, usually Democrat run cities. It's human behavior problem within those cities, not the problem of the U.S. population at large.

Large cities have large numbers of firearm deaths because they have large populations. They don't necessarily have high firearm death rates. The cities with the highest firearm homicide rates (see Cities With the Most Gun Violence) tend to be smaller, like New Orleans (16.6 per 100,000), Memphis (15.0) and Birmingham (12.6). New York with the largest population has a rate of only 3.4.

That cities tend to elect Democrats is just part of the rural/urban divide. Rural regions tend to be much more conservative than urban areas.

Socialism in American politics only means programs that help people, not state ownership of business and industry.

So it's completely impossible for the U.S. to incrementally move into state ownership of business and industry? Do you have a source that assures you of this?

Are you afraid that state ownership of public transit or of roads and bridges is going to cause a slide into state ownership of business and industry? You don't, right? So why would you think running Social Security, which has nothing to do with ownership of anything, would cause such a slide. You are again making no sense. You can't seem to put two facts together to reach a conclusion, and now that I think about it, you can't even find two facts.

Ban fossil fuels? Are you nuts? No one wants to ban fossil fuels.

So you've been missing what Alexandria Ocasio Cortez has been saying?

What an asinine thing to say. Of course I know about AOC's Green New Deal, and it doesn't say anything about a ban on fossil fuels. What it does say is:

  1. the goals described in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph (1) (referred to in this resolution as the ‘‘Green New Deal goals’’) should be accomplished through a 10-year national mobilization (referred to in this resolution as the ‘‘Green New Deal mobilization’’) that will require the following goals and projects—
    ...
    1. meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources, including—
      1. by dramatically expanding and upgrading renewable power sources; and
      2. by deploying new capacity;

As you can see, AOC is stating a goal for eliminating fossil fuels, not calling for a ban, So who told you AOC wants to ban fossil fuels? Can I guess Fox News?

How about Greenpeace?

https://www.greenpeace.org/...-its-game-over-for-the-climate

What about Greenpeace? Did you read your own link? It says the world has about ten years to eliminate fossil fuel based vehicles or climate change will have picked up too much momentum to be turned aside. The scientific community is saying pretty much the same thing, which is likely where Greenpeace got their information. Where did you get your information? Can I guess Fox News again?

As I said in my previous post, everyone should want to move gradually away from fossil fuels because they contribute to the greenhouse gases causing climate change.

You are seriously crazy. No one wants to seize old car engines. There's not enough of them to matter.

THEN WHAT IS THE PLAN TO "DEFEAT CLIMATE CHANGE"?

While Trump has announced withdrawal of the US, the only plan to address climate change that many countries have signed on to is the Paris Agreement, which only calls for countries to submit their climate change goals and plans for how they hope to achieve them. It has no teeth. For example, the US cannot formally withdraw from the agreement until 2020, but we're already failing to live up to what we agreed to.

Every Democrat's main talking point constantly moans and groans about climate change, yet no one seems to ask them, and they never say, just what the list looks like that they're compiling to defeat it.

Reducing dependence upon fossil fuels is the main one.

It's said that "human behavior" causes climate change, so what else is there for the government to do, other than CONTROL HUMAN BEHAVIOR?

Governments should encourage moving away from fossil fuels.

I know, they can't say because they don't know yet.

How many times does it have to be said. We have to move away from fossil fuels.

They won't know until they get the presidency back.

They already know. We have to move away from fossil fuels.

And then, it will largely depend on how successful they've been with a TOTAL GUN BAN.

You are seriously delusional.

Makes it much easier and less messy for them to control human behavior.

It has nothing to do with controlling human behavior in any way that you mean it. The solution involves incentives for people and mandates for business that will help move us away from fossil fuels.

You are very seriously crazy. An armed populace had nothing to do with the 21st amendment or the repeal of the double nickel. Where do you get this stuff?

The same place that a lot of reasonable people get the "stuff" about how the mere presence of guns in a society can be a crime deterrent.

You are not a reasonable or even rational person, but would this "same place" be Fox News again? Anyway, correcting your mistake yet again, an armed populace had nothing to do with the 21st amendment or the repeal of the double nickel.

You're scaremongering.

Pot, meet kettle. Shrieks for gun control and global warming aren't scaremongering?

You need to look up scaremongering. Making things up to scare people into agreeing with you, like that reducing the number of guns will increase gun deaths, is scaremongering. Calling for improved gun control because studies show that the more guns the more gun deaths is reasoned argument. Calling for reduced greenhouse gas emissions because of scientific studies showing they warm the planet is reasoned argument. Do you have any data at all for your position? If so, where is it?

Did you hear about the school children that met with Diane Feinstein a week or two ago, demanding to know what she was going to do about climate change? These poor kids are scared to death, they actually have it implied to them that snowstorms in February, tornados and hurricanes etc. are all recent things, that they never used to happen 30, 40 or 50 years ago.

How is it that you are so consistently confused.

First, about Diane Feinstein, it was deplorable the way she talked to those kids about why she wasn't supporting AOC's Green New Deal.

Second, no one, including Diane Feinstein, is claiming that "snowstorms in February, tornados and hurricanes etc. are all recent things, that they never used to happen 30, 40, or 50 years ago." If you'd like to quote something somebody in a position of responsibility actually said then I'd be glad to respond, but about this all I can say is that you produce a prodigious volume of made up stuff.

David Muir of ABC World News Tonight breathlessly reports on snowstorms in February, and the associated car wrecks as if this is the first time he's seen them! It's amazing to watch him do his liberal dances.

Since when did reporting on snowstorms and car wrecks become a liberal thing? Here's a link to that broadcast, ABC World News Tonight for 2/11/19. It's the lead story. Quote something liberal. You think Fox News didn't report on the unusual weather? Oh, what do you know, they did. This is from the same day, 2/11/19: Series of winter snowstorms slam Seattle

Yet did the little kids ask Di Fi about the upcoming SS bust? Of course not, they know nothing about it! It's not taught to them.

You are very strange. The kids visiting Pelosi's office were with the Sunrise Movement, a climate advocacy organization. Why would they ask about Social Security?

The problem for your position is that you can find no evidence for it.

There's tons of evidence for it. I think it's "Media Research Center" that documents the number of minutes they spend disparaging Republicans, while trying to make Democrats look good. Maybe in all your spare time you could check that out. I don't have time tonight.

You're not even addressing the issue you yourself raised. You accused the New York Times of reporting false news in a way that prevents their being accused of outright lies. Back it up. Quote from a New York Times story where they do this.

Why is that natural?

I explained it, it creates better ratings.

Is there any subject you can't be wrong about? Fox News has the best ratings. Given that, how do you support your claim that being liberal creates even better ratings?

What is Fox News? What is the Washington Examiner? Are they unnatural?

They are the same thing that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Glen Beck, many others are, they are a free market creation by a biased, corrupt mainstream media.

Huh? You're dissing all these conservative talk show people as products of a biased, corrupt mainstream media? I agree they're biased, but I have no evidence they're corrupt, and they're certainly not part of the mainstream media, unless Premiere Networks, Fox News and whoever hosts Glenn Beck are now part of the mainstream media.

Could we get back to gun control now?

If you want to keep it so narrowly focused on little more than, "less guns, less crime" and practically nothing else, there's not much more to say on the subject.

First, you're confusing the thread's topic with a particular position.

Second, in case you think my position is "less guns, less crime," it isn't. My position is that guns are too dangerous to be in the hands of most people, and that dramatically reducing the number of guns would have an equally dramatic downward effect on the number of gun deaths.

Third, while digressions are fine, if you really have nothing left to say about the thread's topic then you really should consider tailing off your participation in this one.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 728 by marc9000, posted 03-11-2019 9:48 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 732 by marc9000, posted 03-13-2019 9:13 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19046
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 731 of 836 (849539)
03-13-2019 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 728 by marc9000
03-11-2019 9:48 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
Hey Marc, turn on your TV right away, ABC World News Tonight is blathering on about another blizzard. Liberal hearts are going crazy!

--Ted


This message is a reply to:
 Message 728 by marc9000, posted 03-11-2019 9:48 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1035
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 732 of 836 (849544)
03-13-2019 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 730 by Percy
03-12-2019 7:57 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
What do any of my characterizations of and reactions to your nonsense have to do with whether I enjoyed watching Connors style of play?

It was just a cute little way I had of grouping your insults against me all in one place. Makes it obvious to anyone paying attention how you probably violate forum rule #10 more than any other poster here.

I'm neither liberal nor conservative.

GREAT HORNY TOADS, I ALMOST FORGOT THAT! You're just Mr. Neutral, just so open minded about so many things! You've told me that before, I must have believed it then!!

Third, while digressions are fine, if you really have nothing left to say about the thread's topic then you really should consider tailing off your participation in this one.

That does seem like a pretty good idea, since gun control is going nowhere for at least the next two years. My state just started allowing concealed carry without a permit. 16 states now have it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 730 by Percy, posted 03-12-2019 7:57 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 733 by Percy, posted 03-14-2019 10:16 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19046
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 733 of 836 (849554)
03-14-2019 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 732 by marc9000
03-13-2019 9:13 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
marc9000 writes:

What do any of my characterizations of and reactions to your nonsense have to do with whether I enjoyed watching Connors style of play?

It was just a cute little way I had of grouping your insults against me all in one place. Makes it obvious to anyone paying attention how you probably violate forum rule #10 more than any other poster here.

What is the proper response to continuous violations of rule 4? Like I said, start saying things that are true and/or that make sense and the responses will change. How else does one respond to a post full of nonsense such as a demand for accolades for posting a broken link to the obvious, and paranoia like that inactive people are jealous of you and are trying to enact government mandates to restrict your active lifestyle.

I'm neither liberal nor conservative.

GREAT HORNY TOADS, I ALMOST FORGOT THAT! You're just Mr. Neutral, just so open minded about so many things! You've told me that before, I must have believed it then!!

I'm still neither liberal nor conservative, and you're not conservative. You're repeating a lot of the same stuff of people who voted for Trump, but most of that stuff isn't conservative, just nutty.

Third, while digressions are fine, if you really have nothing left to say about the thread's topic then you really should consider tailing off your participation in this one.

That does seem like a pretty good idea, since gun control is going nowhere for at least the next two years. My state just started allowing concealed carry without a permit. 16 states now have it.

And you think placing yourself in greater danger is a good thing? You know, you Kentuckians aren't trying hard enough - you have only the 14th highest rate of gun ownership in the country. Even tiny West Virginia beats you, and you'll never catch up to Alaska.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 732 by marc9000, posted 03-13-2019 9:13 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7176
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 734 of 836 (849612)
03-16-2019 4:23 AM


“Our gun laws will change”
49 killed in a white extremist massacre in New Zealand.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-47590685

I was amazed to learn that NZ allows semi-automatic weapns in the hands of ordinary people. Unlike the USA I'm pretty certain that will now change.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


Replies to this message:
 Message 735 by vimesey, posted 03-16-2019 9:30 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1017
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 735 of 836 (849613)
03-16-2019 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 734 by Tangle
03-16-2019 4:23 AM


Re: “Our gun laws will change”
Indeed. New Zealanders are generally sane, and their PM has committed to changing the law.

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 734 by Tangle, posted 03-16-2019 4:23 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7176
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 736 of 836 (849688)
03-18-2019 4:11 AM


New Zealand Cabinet have agreed to change gun law and licencing. Detailed announcements next week expect to ban semi-automatic weapons and introduce a gun amnesty.

“This ultimately means that within 10 days of this horrific act of terrorism we will have announced reforms which will, I believe, make our community safer"


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


Replies to this message:
 Message 737 by AZPaul3, posted 03-18-2019 8:35 AM Tangle has not yet responded
 Message 738 by Percy, posted 03-18-2019 8:58 AM Tangle has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019