Working on Thanksgiving--Waaaah.
Nov 26, 201301:18PM
Okay, so some bunch of whiners has decided to single out WalMart for demanding its employees work on Thanksgiving. THE HORROR!
What's going to happen when you run out of wine, realize you forgot to get any rosemary or need some condensed milk for the pumpkin pie? You'll want WalMart, or some other store, to be open.
What happens when your roasting pan breaks?
Are they planning to protest the airlines for making their employees work, taking them to see their families?
What about those police and fire departments that selfishly expect their staff to be working, to respond to your dinner brawls and cooking misadventures gone flamey?
When they get food poisoning, do they want the ER doc, interns, nurses and staff to have the day off "to be with their families"?
Perhaps DoD should shut down, vacate the missile solos, and let the ships float freely around the sea for a few days?
Maybe State Dept could tell all our foreign interests, "Sorry, we're not working today. Holiday! Stop your fighting and demands."
What about that hotel they're using to visit Grandma and Grandpa. Should it be closed, the desk staff home with their families? What's wrong with sleeping in a bus stop, or in Grandma's spare room full of used medical devices and creepy stuffed cats?
As for me, I'll be working on the meal, then loading my van, then setting up at a convention, because if I want any money, I have to go out and earn it. This doesn't bother me. It's called "life."
Interesting Graphs From a Reader
Oct 30, 201310:20AM
Which of Us Is Selfish?
Oct 25, 201311:34AM
Joel • 36 minutes agoYou choose to buy an Audi A6, a Samsung flat screen TV, an inground pool, and a trip to Europe. You don't choose to develop gallstones or appendicitis or a tooth abscess or bladder cancer or a fractured sacrum.
Health care is a necessity, NOT a luxury. 6 •Reply•Share ›
MichaelZWilliamson Joel • 17 minutes agoMy health care is a necessity. Yours is a luxury, to me.
Mine is a luxury to you.
If you argue this point, please write a check for $5000 payable to the Dept of Health and Human Services. I will see that they receive it and deposit it.
If you will not do so, you are admitting you really don't care about other people's health care.
As far as the Audi A6, I'd be happy just to replace my 1996 van, and would have, except that money is now going to additional insurance every month.
Joel MichaelZWilliamson • 15 minutes agoFind another employer that pays you more.
Why is your health care a necessity but everyone else's is a luxury? It's all about you and your needs, isn't it?
MichaelZWilliamson Joel • 2 minutes ago −Mine is a necessity because it's mine. I don't care if you have shoes.
Write that check for $5000 to HHS. If you actually care about other people's health. Or admit you're a whining, greedy, selfish little wuss.
MichaelZWilliamson Joel • a minute agoWhy don't YOU find another employer who pays more? FYI: I'm self employed. I could go to the VA, but I prefer real doctors, so I pay for them.
MichaelZWilliamson Joel • a few seconds agoSeriously. If you die tomorrow, you know who on this forum cares? No one.
If an interstate shuts down, a whole bunch of people have trouble getting food or doing business.
Your health care is only important to you. And the world does not revolve around you.
Cold, Hard Fact: No One Cares If You Die
Oct 13, 201301:53AM
At $42.8 billion per year, the Federal Highway Administration costs a smidge under $200 per person. You benefit from roads, because you drive on them, and everything you buy or use is delivered on them. There are other aspects of Federal transportation, and they're paid for by a combination of excise tax, income tax, etc. Ultimately, all those taxes are a cost of doing business, and are passed on from shipper to user to consumer—you.
What about schools? Department of Education has a budget of $69.8 billion (it's doubled in four years, by the way), which costs about $326 per person. Schools provide a skilled workforce that generate GDP, and it reduces the amount of scavenging, looting and other activity that we commonly consider crime.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/index.html (also see Wikipedia for an easier summary).
So, these are things you pay for, and derive benefit from.
Now, let's move on to health care.
The uncomfortable fact is, few individuals affect you. Immediate family, a few friends and coworkers, your employer. And through Sept 30, 2013, we didn't have millions of people dying in the streets. The system we had worked. The worst case claims of the opponents conclude that 85% of Americans had adequate coverage, which means the real case is almost certainly over 90%, which is on par with any Western nation. Let us dispense right now with (profanity for emphasis) any bullshit that "our life expectancy is 13th" or whatever. It's within a year of every other Western democracy, and that's without accounting for lifestyle issues like diet and exercise, which health care can't fix. More people come here for health care than go elsewhere.
Please keep in mind there was no requirement for any employer to provide you with health care coverage. It was entirely a choice on their part, and those who could afford to generally chose to.
They can still choose not to, and you get the bill. But now, that bill is mandatory.
So how much are you willing to pay for a human life? If it's your own, and you have 50% odds, you'd likely sell all your possessions, because they're no use to you dead. You’d probably do this for your immediate family. For a close friend, you might sell a used car or take a loan on your house. For a coworker or a local child with cancer, you might throw in fifty bucks. For the homeless guy in Pasadena who's about to die in the gutter of liver failure, you don't give a shit. Nor should you. Millions of people get sick and die every year, with no real effect on you. Close down a road, you suffer. Close down a school, you'll suffer in twenty years. Someone dies of cancer? If they're not a close acquaintance, it doesn't affect you at all.
Be honest. Would you pay $200 to save some homeless guy? You might. Once a year. What about $326? Possibly.
Would you pay $1000?
What about $10,000?
What about $100,000?
At some point we passed the threshold at which you care about another human being's life. If you want to pretend we didn't, write a check for $5000 payable to Health and Human Services, mail it to me, and I'll see that they deposit it.
Here's the problem: You've told the government they get to set that value. You no longer have a valid legal argument against paying. It doesn’t matter if you can't pay it. It's tax.
Now, they insist there will be various means of moderating the system. But liberals are notorious for having no clue how these things work. Canada's gun registration program was supposed to cost a few million dollars. It wound up over $2 billion. On this, we've already found out that the morons didn't figure that a business would actually shift employment to part time to avoid a cost it could avoid.
Here's what it's likely to cost you, now, before they find more problems and realize that since it's cheaper for a young college person earning $25,000 to pay the fine (sorry, "tax") rather than get insurance ($2535) with an $826 subsidy taken out, which you'd pay, they're probably going to do that. Which means you'll STILL be paying for the ER care, just like now. Same for the 64 year old on a marginal income ($7606). They actually pay $1729, getting a subsidy of $5877, which you pay. For every one of them getting a subsidy, one of YOU has to pay that subsidy. The money doesn't magically appear from nowhere.
You will be paying $5000 a year for someone else.
It may only be $2000. It may be $10,000. But YOU will be paying for some random stranger's care.
At what point does your employer decide they can't afford it? Keep in mind, in the real nonliberal world, a company's assets are limited, and most companies are fairly small.
When they decide they can't afford it, you pay out of pocket. If you're lucky. If you're unlucky, they say they can't afford to keep you on, and you have no job, and STILL pay out of pocket. Of course, you're then eligible for "free" care, which is good, because all the people who were getting it free were being paid on your dime.
The cold, hard fact is that public health is a matter for epidemics and immunizations, and your horrifically painful liver cancer matters not at all to 214 million people.
Nor should it.
The House today sent its tenth dinner menu to Harry Reid and Barrack 0bama.
"We'll try carrots," John Boehner said. "Harry absolutely refused to open his door to brussels sprouts or fried cabbage. Barrack gathered up his toy soldiers and ran bawling when we said we were having broccoli. We've tried stir fried squash, celery with peanut butter and even deep-fried okra. There's only so much left in the grocery."
Harry Reid said if dinner wasn't cake and ice cream, he wasn't coming to the table. He said he was willing to consider strawberry, but wouldn't even respond if it wasn't at least vanilla, with the cake having chocolate frosting.
John Boehner said, "He's not being realistic. They get to vote on the menu, but we do the shopping and the cooking. At some point, they're just going to have to eat their vegetables. Whining to their friends is not going to change that."
A Democrat Melts Down On My Wall
Oct 02, 201310:57AM
Senate Democrats passed a bill that would fund the government, including Obamacare, through Nov. 15, and vowed to accept nothing less.
Because they're reasonable and want to compromise.
Senate kills latest shutdown offer as effects begin to be felt
Senate Democrats on Tuesday voted to refuse to enter into official negotiations with the House on a spending bill, saying there can be no talks until the GOP agrees to end the shutdown that began Tuesday morning.
Want to see more from WashingtonTimes.com?
COMMENTS ON MY WALL:
Natasha: I am so sick of all these Politburo bastards. How do We the People go about withholding THEIR pay, instead of the pay of civil servants who actually had real jobs to do.
Eddie Garcia: What the fuck is there to compromise on? Nothing. Not one goddamn thing. It's settled fucking law, legitimately enacted, and upheld by the Supreme Court. When a 3 year old throws a tantrum in the store because he can't have his Hot Wheel car, I don't compromise with him. I paddle his ass and stick him in the shopping cart. And when terrorists take hostages, I don't compromise with them either. Fuck the Tea Party Republicans. This is one hundred percent on them. That's a fact. And now all your right wing buddies are going to come flying in here and bitch-whine, I don't give a fuck. It is what it is. This is irresponsible, inexcusable behavior on the part of the teahadis, and you watch and see if it doesn't cost their sorry asses dearly at the polls.
Mark: Don't forget all the memorials and such that're normally open 24/7 WITH NO PERSONNEL that have been 'closed due the shutdown'. Just to make life as messy as possible.
"He says they are considering going ahead with the trip even if the government is still on shutdown, but when he called the parks service, he was told they would face arrest. "I said, are you kidding me? You're going to arrest a 90/91-year-old veteran from seeing his memorial? If it wasn't for them it wouldn't be there. She said, 'That's correct sir.'"
When Armstrong asked for her name, he says she did not give it to him and then promptly hung up the phone."
Michael Z. Williamson: And Eddie Garcia demonstrates the maturity of a Democrat.
Immigration is established law. 0 doesn't want to enforce that.
The 2nd Amendment is established as a right by SCOTUS. The Dems don't want to abide by that.
You have no moral credibility to claim, "But it's a law!" Especially as funding for any law IS the purview of the House.
Mark: If you don't give a fuck, why are you bitching and whining and blaming it all on the Stupid Party?
Mark: Yeah, like the 'teahadi' thing. Of course, he's following the lead of the Pres and such
Lane: Bipartisan compromise means...
Robert: Actually, I don't think anyone up in D.C. even understands the concept of compromise, and I bet they can't spell it either!
Michael Z. Williamson: So, we're up to, "Anarchist," Terrorist," "Teahadi," Vandal." But the GOP are unreasonable.
How's that again?
Eddie Garcia: Nice try, Mike. It is what it is, and anyone with enough brains to blow their goddamn nose and not blinded by a failed ideology can see that.
Robert: What is is is a President who used to make his "living" in a job that demands confrontation instead of calm deliberation.
Eddie Garcia: like I said, watch what happens to the fuckers next election. I hope you like gun control.
Michael Z. Williamson: Eddie Garcia: You speak of the Dems now?
Eddie Garcia You're an idiot, Robert.
Michael Z. Williamson Name-calling. Another sign of liberal tolerance and reason.
Eddie Garcia: Nice try blaming it on the Dems. You'll find you're in a very tiny minority. The Republicans own this 100% and it's them people are pissed at.
Myer: Eddie: Oddly enough, the same arguments were made about slavery. A long, bloody war, based in part on that premise, followed.
Eddie Garcia: Yeah, when political assoles throw a temper tantrum and cost 780,000 people their paychecks, I'll call them assholes.
Michael Z. Williamson: So you ARE speaking of the Dems.
Eddie Garcia: Oh, that's a really valid comparison. Not.
Michael Z. Williamson: FYI, my wife is one of those who is not getting paid...due to the temper tantrum of the Dems.
Myer: Did you fail History, too, Eddie?
Eddie Garcia: No, I'm speaking of the ones who are responsible for this,and it is NOT the Dems, no matter how much you would like it to be.
Eddie Garcia: http://www.delawareliberal.net/2013/10/01/for-america-to-survive-the-republican-party-must-die/
Mark: Oh, of COURSE not. For instance, that medical device tax that most DEMOCRATS want to get rid of, but "We will not change anything!" says Obama and Reid. All the Stupid Party fault, of course. Because the Evil Party is without spots.
Eddie Garcia: Y'all going full retard. Never go full retard.
(I WONDER IF EDDIE IS LOOKING IN A MIRROR—MIKE)
Michael Z. Williamson Eddie: Wow, wishing for the destruction of the entire opposition, but they're "full retard." HINT: I am not a Republican.
Martin C: what I would like to know is how the republicans could possibly be benifiting from the shut down as every democrat says...the ACA only benefits the people who have not earned it
Mark: You really ought to take your own advice
Myer: Eddie, you're projecting again.
Eddie Garcia: I didn't write it, and you obviously didn't read it.
(BUT WE DID READ IT. AS TO THE OTHER, HE POSTED IT, SO HE STILL SUPPORTS IT. THROWING IT OUT THERE WITHOUT COMMENT, GIVEN HIS DIATRIBE, IS PRETTY CLEAR ENDORSEMENT, NOT CRITICISM—MIKE)
Mark: Oh, of course not! Just because the New Republic wants Obama to do a Boris Yeltsin on the house, doesn't change that the Evil Party and the socialists are of pure reason...
Eddie Garcia: I already told you what I thought.
Barry: Yknow what else is 'the law'? The budget bill that's been in place for almost 40 years, that the Senate failed to obey for years in a row.
All of this would have been avoided if the Senate had simply passed 12 appropriations bills over the past 5 years, but they didn't even hear a single one of them.
Wick: Here's a fact. If Boehmer allowed a vote on the Senate version of the continuing resolution, it would pass the House. He refuses.
Eddie Garcia: I was just getting ready to say that.
Mark: Gee, you mean he's acting just like Reid?
Michael Z. Williamson: Wick: So, if they agreed with the opposition, it would pass. Axiomatically.
But only one party is intransigent. Got it.
Oliver: Eddie, if a democratic congress had used the power of the purse to withhold funding for W's War in Iraq, and shut down the government, would that have been a "temper tantrum", too?
Jonathan: "Immigration is established law. 0 doesn't want to enforce that." But he did. Better than his predecessor.
"the 2nd Amendment is established as a right by SCOTUS. The Dems don't want to abide by that." But they have. Barely, and kicking and screaming mind you.
But do you remember when the Democrats shut down the government as part of an attempt to blackmail the Republicans into immigration reform and gun control? Yeah, me neither.
Matthew: So Congress should only vote to defund things only if you disapprove of them. If you approve, then they should rubberstamp everything because it is the law. If it's the law, then why do they need to vote on it?
Michael Z. Williamson: Jonathan: I remember the three previous times the Dems shut down the government and blamed the GOP quite well.
When it's always the other guy's fault, it's probably not.
Wick Deer Mike: that is not what I said. If the Senate version of the Continuing Resolution, the proposal would attract enough Democratic AND REPUBLICAN votes to pass.
Tamara Keel I don't know about y'all, but I'm taking advantage of the anarchy in the current government vacuum to go out and buy a real flushing toilet and a conex full of incandescent bulbs.
Michael Z. Williamson http://twitchy.com/2013/10/01/the-new-republic-has-some-advice-for-obama-from-boris-yeltsin-involving-tanks/
Who's the unreasonable side?
Davis Jr.: But the Senate Bill is illegal.
They cannot originate spending bills. If a spending bill starts in the Senate it cannot be put into law. Funny that. There's that thing called the Constitution, may want to brush up on it.
Michael Z. Williamson: Wick: That's exactly what you said. "If they accept the other side's proposal, there will be agreement."
Reid is on record stating he will not compromise.
Myer: Hey, Tamara, can I get in on that bulb score?
Mark: Hear hear!
Michael Z. Williamson: So the Dems in this thread are perfectly okay with a tax on hearing aids for children and prosthetics for disabled vets.
Michael Z. Williamson: And Congress being exempt from ACA.
Myer: It's only some other's money, Mike. Of course they're OK with it.
Cheryl: Eddie Garcia: what there is to compromise on is nothing the people are the ones in charge and we say DUMP ObamaCare we do not want it funded. So the GOP is right in doing what they are doing. Btw I am not a tea party follower. My parents which are DEMOCRATS are saying no ObamaCare. Funny thing is the ONLY reason ObamaCare passed was due I the fact he had a super majority in at the time but still couldn't get a budget passed.
Scott: The Tea Party are anarchists according to Reid. He really has NO understanding of The Constitution.
Cheryl: Eddie the only real gun control is hitting your target. Your type of gun control is making victims. I will say this your actions get a reaction. I just hope when reality bites you in the ass you don't take any innocents out with you.
Scott: ANYONE is free to NOT have a gun in their home. Don't you DARE tell me I cannot. You will lose.
Michael Z. Williamson: Now, read back at the rhetoric above.
Given that neither side is getting what they want at this moment, which side sounds more reasonable?
Cheryl: Wick: no it would not pass except in the fantasy world that runs in Reid's head or maybe Pelosi's.
Jonathan: "I remember the three previous times the Dems shut down the government and blamed the GOP quite well."
I don't remember that and am not sure what you referring too. And it is difficult to easily look it up right now, due to the intertubes being chock full of the current issue. Can you send me some details so I can look that up a bit quicker? The only two shutdowns I can name are GOP backed.
Michael Z. Williamson: Jonathan: The Dems, as now, stated that AFTER the GOP agreed with them, they'd negotiate. Much like they're doing now.
Now matter how good your PR and press is, when you say, "First agree with us and then we'll negotiate," you're the intransigent one.
It was somehow Bush Sr's fault when the Dems refused a budget and shut things down, and it was somehow Congress's fault when Clinton refused a budget and shut things down.
Now, I'd be willing to compromise and call the rules one way, each accepting blame. But when the blame changes office but remains with a party, it's a pretty clear indication the other party is being unreasonable and moving the goalposts.
And once we agree on this, we can debate how much responsibility the Dems have.
Mark Brothers Congress IS getting special treatment on the ACA
Illegally, unethically, disgustingly, and Obama's handprints are all over it
Cheryl Clark: Wick: oh yes they are exempt.
Mark: And Jonathan, check who many shutdowns happened when Reagan was President, who who was behind most all of them.
Michael Z. Williamson: Oh, I also remember the Dem temper tantrum and walkout when they didn't like election results.
Yet somehow the other side are the mean poopyheads.
There's more, but what I'm going to point out here is that almost all the name-calling and anger is on the Dem's side, and almost all the blamethrowing is, too.
When you believe that every budget dispute is solely the work of one party, you're not being reasonable, you're brainwashed. When your side starts comparing people who disagree with you in a political venue to terrorists, anyone with ANY ethics would say, "Woah! That's a bit strong!"
Think about it. NONE of the Dem supporters in that thread called Eddie out for his language.
Another thread even featured a Mussolini comparison.
So, yes, it appears to me that debate is impossible, because one side absolutely refuses to debate. Even if we accept that their position is correct, their defense of their position relies on name-calling, blame-throwing, violent rhetoric and threats.
Do we really want to follow a party that acts like spoiled children, and its cheerleaders who believe tantrums, name calling and threats are an appropriate response to disagreement, even if they do have a supportable position?
It's Always The Fault of the White GOP...in Fantasyland
Oct 01, 201309:17AM
Apparently it's all about race. I was told that a "bunch of white boys" are "standing in the way of the black guy trying to fix their mess."
1) It's called 0bamacare, not GOPcare. It's his mess. There were issues before, but this has not fixed it, won't fix it, can't fix it, and will disappear in favor of reality within the decade.
B: At this point, only the delusional still believe it's an improvement. Even 0 is trying to slow implementation, and the unions want exceptedfrom it. The only people embracing it are the leeches who won't be putting in nearly as much as they get out, and crowing about how awesome it is. And it is, for them, not for those us paying for them.
III} He's not really that black. Nor is it relevant. His skin color brings no cachet or advantage to the problem. If you believe so, you're a racist.
d] We've done this shutdown thing before, and no matter what parties are involved or where the bottleneck is, the GOP is always blamed by those causing the problem--the Dems. It is ALWAYS the Dems causing this problem, just as they cause 90% of the economic problems. (I belong to neither party. It costs me nothing to point to the failure. Sorry you don't like facts.)
5| When the Senate sees fit to do its duty and approve a budget created in the House, as is provided by the Constitution, and the White House Resident gets off the golf course and signs it, we will resume business. When Mumsy and Daddy tell you there isn't enough money for your concert ticket and name brand athletic shoes, because they need to buy food and gas, they're not being mean and unreasonable, and stamping your feet and calling them poopyheads will accomplish nothing.
F~ So it shut down. The world is still here. Shocking. Despite all the rhetoric, America didn't slide into the sea.
7; The real problem we need to address is that starry-eyed morons full of hope elected an utter fucking moron with almost no government experience and absolutely no executive experience whatsoever to be the most powerful CEO on the planet, but don't want him to be blamed for his fuckups. IOW, the same thing they accuse the private sector of, only with the entire future of the nation at stake.
H. As almost always, it was a middle class white person who played the race card.
Gun Control--the Gloves Are Coming Off
Sep 24, 201310:55AM
If you let a "liberal" (vs an actual liberal) talk long enough, eventually their racism comes out.
If you let a proponent of "reasonable" gun control talk long enough, eventually they start to admit they want a ban.
As we will see below, first they talk about how the magic cure is to repeal one of our founding amendments.
They still couch it in terms that they just need that as a tool for "reasonable" restrictions, not a ban. They want it to be a privilege.
But let's look at that: they'll allow guns for "legitimate" purposes--that means collecting, target shooting, and MAYBE hunting. IOW, recreational uses, not defensive or political uses.
So, it comes down to, "These items are so dangerous they should only be allowed as toys!"
Hell of a logic there.
Heller and McDonald have really thrown them into a tizzy. They've been trying anger and denial, and it hasn't been working. They're now onto bargaining, and their first salvo is so angry it's cute:
We need reasonable speech control. Right here, we see an example that endangers the Constitution.
Other "speech" exploits children. Certainly the Founder never foresaw the internet. They meant actual speech, and block-printed papers.
Give the risk child predators offer to children, there is simply no reason most people need internet in their home. They can go to the library, properly supervised, and their access can be logged. No one is saying you can't express yourself. We just need reasonable limits on it. Certainly we can't consider there to be a "right" to describe how to violate the law.
Ultimately we'll need to consider whether the First Amendment still applies in the modern world. This is not what the founders had in mind at all.
Do you drink alcohol? Alcohol serves no purpose except to reduce awareness, hinder decision making, reduce inhibitions and impair motor control. There is absolutely no moral justification for alcohol. There is a common factor in 90% of the avoidable deaths in America--alcohol.
The common factor in every alcohol-related incident is alcohol (recursive tautological statement for posters like the one above me, who clearly failed not only Logic 101, but likely 7th grade arithmetic).
Go ahead, explain to me why you drink and support Big Alcohol. Why aren't you moving to ban that?
HINT: Banning guns will be about as effective. Guns are a 13th century technology. You can build AK47s in a garage:
You can't possibly have the intellect to grasp this, but since I actually do know what I'm talking about, I'll say it, and you can double check anywhere you like (which you won't, because you don't want a rational debate): The easiest guns to make are like this:
Much like moonshiners were producing cheap, dangerous liquor, illegal gun builders will produce cheap submachine guns. These won't be subject to any of the 20,000 regulations the US has, and will be as common as meth.
Your proposal will be no more effective than Prohibition. If you think it's bad now (it's not), wait until it's illegal.
"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."."
- See more at: http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/why-the-assault-weapon-ban-failed-and-a-new-one-would-too#sthash.fa8oH0Su.dpuf
Do you really think you're going to get Congress, the President and 3/4 of the states to sign off o such an amendment? If so, put the crack pipe down.
If it did happen, how exactly do you plan to take my guns away? Ask nicely? How about, "no?" Are you going to try to take them from me? Unlikely. You're a pussy. Are you going to demand the police and military do it? Retired military here--again, go fuck yourself.
But that opens up the next problem. How are you going to do so when I have a right against unreasonable search and seizure? Are you going to repeal the 4th Amendment too? (Again, retired military, with an oath to defend the Constitution. That would be grounds for me to kill the parties involved. Yes, that means civil war. Yes, you'll find a lot of vets agree with me (if you don't prove you're a total pussy by blocking this because a little language hurts your feewings). And you might want to consider which side has the guns.
What about the requirement that private property not be taken for public use without due process? The Courts have repeatedly upheld that any laws cannot be ex post facto. You'll have to grandfather everything, or pay "fair market value," which, 300 million guns X $500 average value is $150 billion. Plus implementation costs.
Canada's mere "registration" scheme, estimated at a cost of a few million, ballooned into $2 billion, with 1/10th our population. So a good first order estimate is that you're going to drop a couple of trillion dollars on this scheme.
So what you're saying is, "I want to destroy the country and start a civil war because I'm totally ignorant of how our system works, selfish, whiny, and have an irrational fear of weapons and a misplaced ignorant assessment of what they do."
So here's what's going to actually happen:
You're not going to leave America, because you know you have it better here than anywhere else. If you didn't, you'd move (Which being an immigrant, I did, from a lesser society). Leaving would take fortitude, which you don't have, because you're a pussy.
You're not going to change the Constitution. You're just going to use your First Amendment rights to whine about the Second Amendment on the internet (because you're a pussy).
You're not actually going to try to take anyone's guns, because you're a pussy.
And you're probably going to block this "angry" dissent, because you're a pussy.
You're not going to actually study the law, political science, or weapons so you actually have a clue what you're talking about, because you're a lazy whiner in a very comfortable spot, enjoying your white male privilege and deathly afraid of losing it.
But you waaaaant it! It's not faaaaaiiiirrrr!
What If I Did Have A Small Penis And A Gun?
Sep 23, 201308:31PM
At some point in a debate on "gun control," the anti will run out of any logical argument. ("Logical" by their precepts.) None of their arguments can be supported by any objective criteria, and eventually, they'll be forced to face this. Since facing reality is anathema to the truly insane, they will then inevitably resort to name calling, ad hominem, and childish insults:
Responses to allegations that gun owners have small penises:
Is it "liberal" to mock someone's physical traits?
Do you believe all police, federal agents and soldiers have small penises? What is the statistical likelihood of this hypothesis?
Given that Asians have smaller penises than those with African ancestry, how does your hypothesis match the relevant firearm crime rates between the two groups?
Women don't generally have penises. What are females compensating for?
If someone were compensating for a small penis, would that be relevant, if they were not committing any harm?
You seem to spend a lot of time worrying about penises. Is there anything you'd like to tell us?
Are you completely out of logical arguments, so dick jokes are your only retort?
My penis satisfies me completely. And I can't imagine wanting sex with a gun.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/penis-map_n_3953318.html Perhaps it's American liberals who are worried about their penis size. Quite seriously. I thought I was high average, at the top of mean, but apparently I just barely break into the second deviation above the mean. Thanks for that confirmation. I feel more awesome than ever.
Kafkatrap. If I respond with proof or attempt to argue, you'll accuse me of being worried about my penis. If I ignore you, you'll childishly continue with the dick jokes until you get a response.
So, if your house is invaded, you plan to fuck the intruder to death?
I have a ruler, a camera, and $50. Would you actually like to take this bet? Or does the sour grapes metaphor apply here?
I'm sorry about your sexism, bigotry, prejudice against people, and your small penis. Three of those aren't very liberal.
Stuck On Guns, And Stuck On Stupid
Sep 23, 201308:26PM
This is why it's impossible to have a rational debate with someone irrational:
Shared publicly Sep 17, 2013
Can we have guns sensibly regulated this time?...or are the electorate going to keep letting the NRA push their redneck buttons and persuade them that they have a constitutional right to be senselessly massacred by the next total whacko fruitcake who has easy access to a gun?
No?...OK just let more innocent people die senselessly then right?...what a good idea :-/
Sep 17, 2013
You waste your time on expressing yourself to a nation hell bent on selfdestruction. American's may have many talents but selfless introspection is not amongst them.
Sep 17, 2013
I would like to hear what sensibly controls would have prevented this shooting. And please let's focus on controls surrounding the actual guns.
Sep 18, 2013
All firearms except for hunting rifles that are registered to an active farm or gun club are made illegal.
For 2 years we then impose very large fines on anyone found with a gun, we use the revenue raised from these fines to buy back firearms from those who voluntarily hand them in.
For another year we increase the fines and continue buyback and reward informants who assist in the collection of illegal firearms.
After this initial period of legal grace anyone found with a gun goes to jail for life.
This gets rid of the guns and also any crazy or criminal people who still have guns after the three year period of grace.
Also you now no longer have the hassle of proving cases against criminals...if they have a gun they are criminals by definition...so getting the bad guys off the streets suddenly becomes much more efficient.
Result a much much safer country.
Sep 18, 2013
I said sensible and would have prevented this shooting. Fails on both points.
Sep 18, 2013
+Brandon Jamison the sad thing is in a country where guns have been allowed to become as ubiquitous as they are ...this is the only sensible alternative. We just need to face the reality that the evening news confronts us with most nights of the week...or continue to delude ourselves that there is some "safe" way to allow our fellow citizens to walk around carrying murder weapons.
Your conclusion that what i suggest is crazy is causing innocent people to die every day if we do not take the appropriate level of action.
This is not a constitutional debate it is quite simply a state of emergency, it needs to be recognized as such and treated as such by any rational society.
...the question is "are we a rational society?"
Sep 18, 2013
When one wack job shuts down, our nations capital, congress, countless schools and a naval base with a freaking shotgun, the answer is no. So freaking timid...
Are you volunteering to do the first door to door search and seizure? I do not think sensible means what you think it means.
Sep 18, 2013
+Brandon Jamison but what is the alternative Brandon ? I have really tried to come up with some watered down alternative but you/I/wee have to face the reality that as long as we accept guns in our society many innocent lives will be lost because of them.
I think you are still not appreciating the seriousness of the situation. Perhaps because it seems normal to you (if you grew up in the States?).
If you did not then your opinion is highly unusual. The only way Americas situation can be seen as anything but sheer insanity is if you have drunk the 2nd amendment coolaid. This was an amendment made for cowboys and indians not modern people packed together like sardines ruled over by a government with drones and cluster bombs.
There is absolutely no justification for arming your electorate except to protect yourself from your fellow armed citizens, which i am sure you would agree is just a ridiculous situation for a rational society to put themselves in.
Sep 18, 2013
Okay a few things before we proceed.
Not a constitutional discussion? You are talking about laws correct? Is not the constitution the highest law in the land?
Cowboys and Indians? Do you mean the Indians who were here before us and not citizens of the US?
Your point made about drones and cluster bombs is exactly why we should not give power over to the government. All other rights are forfeited at that point. The sort of security you talk about already sounds like prison so why would that be a deterrent to possessing weapons?
Sep 18, 2013
+Brandon Jamison NO...absolutely no, the constitution is nowhere near as valuable as a persons common sense. The constitution was written by people not gods...even the new pope sees the possibility that god was fallible...so the idea that people hundreds of years ago would have the answers to all our problem for eternity is not reasonable...of course the constitution should be balanced against the common sense of the people.
The constitution is now in direct opposition to my and many other peoples common sense...maybe one day yours too if you trust your own judgement.
You have a choice: honour a small passage in a document written a long time ago by people from a different period and allow people to die on mass...or use your common sense and realize this amendment needs amending.
Living is safety does not sound like a prison to me, living in fear is restrictive but safety = freedom
Sep 18, 2013
Sep 18, 2013
As +Mike Williamson stated so eloquently, alcoholic beverages are responsible for a helluva lot more deaths annually than firearms including THE CHILDREN. If ya'll gun grabbers are so concerned, why not ban and prohibit alcohol, it does no one any good, is not needed, purely a recreational thing responsible for tens of thousands of deaths every year ..................... wait, that didn't work out so well.
As far as confiscation goes, better let that simmer on the backburner for another 30 years or so, still a generation away from the full benefit of the programming.
Or buy a lot more backhoes.
Sep 18, 2013
The new pope bit was classic!
Sep 18, 2013
How about we "sensibly regulate" the internet to reduce the risk of child predators? Professionals, such as me, with background checks, can have internet access at home. Non-professionals can access the internet from libraries. It's not a violation of the First Amendment--we're not telling you what you can say or look at. We're just regulating where you look at it, and logging your browser history to help tackle crime.
Are you reasonable, or are you a free speech nut who supports pedophiles?
Yesterday 10:11 AM
If I buy a bottle of wine there is no intention to cause future harm.
If I buy a gun it is the deliberate purchase of a lethal weapon that has been carefully and specifically designed to kill people. It is disingenuous in the extreme to compare things that may cause death accidentally with the use of muder weapons to deliberately slaughter innocent people.
So far this year we have had a mass shooting (more than 4 dead/injured at a time) for 250 out of 261 days!
Whilst drinking wine "may" cause unintended injury and death and certainly do, injury and death are not implicit in their use. They also can be demonstrated to to have many positive effects within society, even drinking brings millions of people happiness even though it also brings great sadness.
A gun simply brings death and destruction.
Once you take a loaded gun out of a drawer your purpose is to cause injury and death whether it is self defence or not. You don't take a gun out at a party and watch people smile or laugh...you take out a gun to kill.
If you take out another weapon (a knife?) the purpose may be the same, but it is harder (by a huge order of magnitude) to kill someone with a knife. In fact it is very hard to kill a person with anything except a gun, a gun just takes an imperceptible squeeze from an "emotional removed" distance...and a human being is lost to those who love them forever.
a 4 year old shot his sister in July !...a four year old!
thats how dangerous a gun is, have you ever seen a four year old kill someone with a glass of beer? I am afraid your arguments are made of straw and mainly serve the purpose of assuaging your own consciences for defending an indefensible position.
Honestly, you should be ashamed for hiding behind such shallow arguments.
Of course we could ban things that may lead to harm, but that would be ridiculous, what we can do is ban those things that have no purpose but to cause harm and misery.
Yesterday 10:26 AM
+Mike Williamson Not sure if you are talking to me here...but just for the record I support all reasonable regulation of things that can or may be dangerous and I also support the banning of things that are always dangerous.
My only caveat is that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it does not affect anyone else.
Going back to alcohol it should be pretty simple to identify people who are alcoholics or have addictive personalities and prohibit the sale of alcohol to them on the grounds that they will almost certainly do serious harm to someone before they die of their addiction or quit the habit.
Yesterday 12:37 PM
Before we continue, be aware that I am, in fact, an expert on the subject of weapons--25 years in the military, rated expert by Army and USAF on several weapons, served as instructor, armorer, range chief. I'm a gunsmith, bladesmith and researcher. I consult to mfrs, private clients, TV and the military. So please do not even pretend to lecture me on how dangerous anything is, when you have no idea what you are talking about.
So that's sort of the first step--if you wish to engage in debate, have some clue what you're talking about, not repeat the same tired crap. It's like a Creationist "explaining" to a geneticist why science doesn't exist because Bible
Unfortunately you live in America, where you don't get to regulate a lot of those things you want to regulate. You will have to accept this fact, no matter how unfortunate it is for you. There is nothing you can do about it. Abortions are legal, access to guns is a right, hate speech is protected and stupid people get to breed.
You will also have to accept that while your proposals sound neat on paper, even if they were Constitutional, they would not be effectively implementable.
As for straw men, you have nothing but, and most of your arguments are dishonest. If anyone should be ashamed, it's you.
Thanks for that post--you managed to hit every cliche I've addressed in the last week. When you claim to be concerned about children, YOU"RE LYING, and we know you're lying:
Oh, and being honest here--I don't give a shit how many kids die from guns. So no, I have no dishonest position to assuage.
I DO give a shit how many kids die because their parents ARE STUPID with cars, drain cleaner, guns, sports, and anything else. It's the STUPID that kills.
Yesterday 1:36 PM
+Mike Williamson You make a very good point, why should I have to lecture you on how dangerous guns are when you are so familiar with them?
Why should I or anyone need to lecture this point, it requires no lecture it is one of the most self evident statements a person could make.
I'm not lying I really DO want to take your guns from you. Where did you get the impression I did not.
Yesterday 1:58 PM
+Mark Underwood you are faced with a real problem. Your "solutions" are ones that lack any real chance of implementation. See, you can not take guns from us. Like +Louis Stell said, have had better give it another generation of brain washing before you try.
Yesterday 3:36 PM
Guns are not dangerous. That you think so is the basis of the problem. A gun is a device. It is no more dangerous than anything else.
Interestingly, none of my 260 some guns have been used to kill anyone, despite regular use.
People do stupid and dangerous things. They occasionally do so with guns, frequently with cars or booze, sometimes with the internet. People do die from all of these.
That you believe inanimate objects have intent is a problem. I would hope most people have moved past animism. A child dead from a drunk is no better than one shot. In both cases, someone has made bad choices and someone else has suffered. To that end, we have a criminal justice system that punishes PEOPLE, not devices.
If "Cars are not meant to kill," but nevertheless kill more people than the device you claim is intended to kill, it says that cars are too dangerous for people to possess.
Here's the problem on this specific issue:
"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35-36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."."
That means, for purposes of the US, you're wrong.
It doesn't matter, for Constitutional purposes, if an act is dangerous, or if a million people die. Motorcycle racing kills people, but it's legal. AIDS kills people, but unprotected sex amongst gays remains legal. Unhealthy foods kill people. Booze kills both users and bystanders, and there are ZERO nonmedical necessities for booze. It's still legal. And the attempt to make it otherwise failed miserably, as will any attempt to ban guns.
So you get the same answer as the anti-abortion crowd, anti-any particular religion crowd, anti-porn crowd or anti-gay or anti-black crowd: Go fuck yourself.
As an immigrant and veteran, I quite enjoy saying that to people who arrogate to themselves an imagined moral superiority.
And my daughter finds you amusing:
Yesterday 7:12 PM
Any country that has in its Constitution the right to bear arms lives with the consequences. As I said earlier the argument is pointless. Violence is at the core of America's foundation and nothing will change that.
This discussion is only a part of a systemic issue, the need to dominate others and how war and the realization that disconnecting from the world's gold standard meant wars/weapons could be funded by simply printing more money (a problem that has gained impetuous with the advent of GFC also caused by massive expenditure on war).
This in turn led to the business model embraced over decades a business model that argues that wars stimulate the economy.
This addiction to war resulted in the reliance weapons manufactures have to continue their business in the absence of war, consequently they must sell product to civilians.
America is totally fucked and it all stems from the addiction it has to prove its right and the need to impress others with its brutal strength. Thankfully China is wise and realizes that it only has to wait.
Yesterday 9:03 PM
Mr Underwood: The flaw in your argument is the "arms manufacturers" who make small arms do about 1/1000 the business of banks and pharmaceutical companies. Most civilian weapon makers employ 50 or less employees. They generate millions in revenue, but not billions.
And most of the companies that build LARGE weapons (tanks, planes, ships) also make commercial equivalents, in larger, simpler contracts.
Humans are prone to violence because humans have always been prone to violence, going on 7 million years now...long before Honeywell existed.
Interestingly, the death count in wars peaked around WWI-WWII, and has dropped precipitously in the developed world. Because generating income is much easier and preferable to fighting.
Most of the theories of companies creating wars for the purpose of profit fall apart when analyzed. It's simply far less profitable to fight than to engage in legitimate business.
The purpose of the 2A is to allow INDIVIDUALS to defend themselves and the state. The intent was to NOT have a standing army. For various reasons it didn't work, but there are a variety of nations in a variety of political systems that have strong militaries, all of which suck a lot of resources. Profit is absolutely not a motivation for a military.
Gold standards have advantages and disadvantages. Fiat systems have far fewer advantages, and many disadvantages. I prefer the proposal to base national currency on a variety of assets--metals, oil, real estate, agricultural production. It represents the true wealth of a nation without tying it to a resource that can lead to deflation due to scarcity, and without allowing speculative inflation.
Americans are prone to violence because they conditioned from birth. The rest of us are wired differently. Hence why this discourse is pointless.