The Last Homely House
General => Council of Cobra => Topic started by: SomeRandomDude on September 26, 2008, 07:03:37 PM
-
I don’t claim to be qualified to lead America in the middle of a war on terrorism. But I have enough sense to not stand up and say that we’re gonna wage cross-border attacks on our ally. Let’s tick off our ally for political gain, shall we? As McCain said, you don’t announce something like that retard (loosely paraphrased).
This guy’s abysmal foreign policy ideas scare me. A lot. Let’s announce a covert operation to the world. Oh dear, we’re coming after you, Bin Laden. Better move somewhere else. And let’s get our allies ticked off in the meantime. This guy’s just gonna botch the whole war on terror.
>:(
-
I don’t claim to be qualified to lead America in the middle of a war on terrorism. But I have enough sense to not stand up and say that we’re gonna wage cross-border attacks on our ally. Let’s tick off our ally for political gain, shall we? As McCain said, you don’t announce something like that retard (loosely paraphrased).
This guy’s abysmal foreign policy ideas scare me. A lot. Let’s announce a covert operation to the world. Oh dear, we’re coming after you, Bin Laden. Better move somewhere else. And let’s get our allies ticked off in the meantime. This guy’s just gonna botch the whole war on terror.
>:(
Which is why he should go jump out a window. ;D
-
I don’t claim to be qualified to lead America in the middle of a war on terrorism. But I have enough sense to not stand up and say that we’re gonna wage cross-border attacks on our ally. Let’s tick off our ally for political gain, shall we? As McCain said, you don’t announce something like that retard (loosely paraphrased).
This guy’s abysmal foreign policy ideas scare me. A lot. Let’s announce a covert operation to the world. Oh dear, we’re coming after you, Bin Laden. Better move somewhere else. And let’s get our allies ticked off in the meantime. This guy’s just gonna botch the whole war on terror.
>:(
Which is why he should go jump out a window. ;D
Well, no need to be nasty about it. I mean, I am well aware that Obama has demonstrated that, despite the popular opinion, he's completely incompetent in dealing with international diplomacy, foreign policy, et cetera, but that doesn't mean that he has to jump out of a window. I'm sure there's plenty of other options. Like leave all the important decisions to his more competent minions. Not that I agree with any of them, either, but at least they've got something.
-
I didn't watch the whole debate, what exactly did he say?
-
The debate went pretty much as I expected. Obama pretty much won on the economy because of McCain's support of the policies of George Bush. McCain however then stomped all over Obama on foreign policy. Pretty much how I would have expected it to go. On another note completely what do you yanks think of the economic crisis? In particular Bush's bail out plan. It seems pretty drastic but then its looking like it needs something drastic. I mean only yesterday you guys had the biggest banking collapse in US history!!! Certainly from the British point of view we need you guys to do something as what is going on over there is having really bad effects over here.
-
Are you nuts? McCain wasn't Bush policies. How is cutting pork barrel spending a Bush policy?
As for the bailout, its none of the government's business. Its a private organization, and a government takeover oversteps the boundaries of government and violates the Social Contract. Government is not supposed to be mom or dad bailing us out whenever we have a problem. Government is simply there to prevent anything criminal from happening.
-
I think that an economic crisis is the biggest threat to America (right now). Enemies within before enemies without, you know?
Plus, it also depends on how much power these guys will wield once actually in office. Checks and balances. How much of what they're saying they'll do can actually be done?
-
If we get line-item veto, a heck of a lot. Even if we don't, a heck of a lot of McCain's stuff can be done.
-
True. That's one thing I noticed. When the moderator asked Obama what things he would have to cut, he basically ignored the question and listed out a bunch of things that he wants to spend towards. Thank goodness there isn't enough money for him to to what he wants to do. (socialized HC
Overall I think it was pretty much a wash as far as who won the debate. But that in itself is a win for Obama because this debate was supposed to be 100% foreign affairs, in which he would have been slaughtered. The 50% economy helped Obama because America seems to be naive enough to follow his ideas.
-
Forgive me for being a pessimist, but the US economy is screwed. And that's been coming for a long time. Any sort of 'bailout' we try will only make things crash even worse in the long run. Or else just start pushing us closer to socialism via the government buying all the private firms.
That's what happens when a capitalist economy comes to rely almost exclusively on two things: human stupidity and debt. And the combination of the two.
(No, I'm not a Dave Ramsey nut. Honestly, he annoys me. But he is right about all that stuff.)
-
Thats the thing isn't. No one wants economic socialism but capitalism only works if people are responsible. What we are seeing now is what happens when the capitalist system is run by irresponsible, greedy or just plain stupid people.
-
Thats the thing isn't. No one wants economic socialism...
If it works, I'll take it. Socialism isn't such a bad idea, until it gets implemented by irresponsible, greedy, or just plain stupid people. That's the problem, I suppose.
What we are seeing now is what happens when the capitalist system is run by irresponsible, greedy or just plain stupid people.
90% of people.
-
Hmmm... i will have to put my stick on that and agree with what Elf_Lvr said: the problem isn´t all about what are the system you adopt but the individuals that constitute it. Obviously capitalism stimulated the development of certain aspects and socialism others (as in any form of organisation you pick) but the essential point is the human values that creates and maintain it (generaly this values tend to be reinforced by the current system).
Education and formation of critical minds is an essential aspect of a development of a better society (in my point of view) but that´s no coincidence that governaments (here in Brazil for example) put education in the last priority, and i mean qualify education not fisical buildings that makes people reproduce what is said to them as the truth.
Outside that i have my own elections (regional) going on around here, but i will try to keep an eye in how the things are going on at US.
-
Good point Elf Lvr. So we're pretty agreed that the overwhelming problem is irresponsible, greedy or just plain stupid people.
-
Somehow the world and the US as a part of it, reminds me of Numenor. A society growing and growing and only the sky seemed to be the limit. No one, well a few saw what was happening and the collapse came before people were able to respond...
-
Thats the thing isn't. No one wants economic socialism but capitalism only works if people are responsible. What we are seeing now is what happens when the capitalist system is run by irresponsible, greedy or just plain stupid people.
So you trust government more?
Capitalism is the solution to greed. Because greed = competition = lower prices = outwitting the competition = better quality and prices = thriving economy. Or you can get monopolies
Irresponsible and stupid? Yeah, but Congress is worse. I'm more scared of Congress in charge of AIG than the clowns that were there before.
Besides the fact that once we give government power, where does it stop?
-
Yes I do trust governments more actually. A proper democratic government is in the employ of the people. They are elected by the people and are taken down by the people therefore they are accountable to the people for their actions. They have to stay popular to survive. I do not trust the people on Wall Street and the people who run the big banks. Your point about Greed is only partly correct as it is the greed and irresponsibility of the big banks which has put American capitalism in the mess it now finds itself in. I cannot for the life of me see why you and some others have such little faith in your elected officials and your government.
-
Your point about Greed is only partly correct as it is the greed and irresponsibility of the big banks which has put American capitalism in the mess it now finds itself in.
Correction: It is the irresponsibility of the big banks alone.
The Irony: The GOVERNMENT's "house everyone" plan told the banks to give mortgages to people who can't pay, which started the whole problem in the first place.
The Solution: Get the government out of the free market system. If banks hadn't been forced to make these crummy mortgages by the government in the first place, we wouldn't have a problem.
-
you know whats funny...is how I occasionally look at a liberal forum, and their heads are in the clouds. they insist that obama was perfect mccain sucked, and they don't even realize their heavy biase. I thought both of them scored some good points and did some good stuff, but if anyone came out ahead, I would say it was mccain, by a bit.
-
Pot, meet Kettle.
-
Not exactly. SoP stated that the forums he visited claimed that Obama was perfect and Mccain sucked. He then stated his own opinion, which was that they "both scored some good points and did some good stuff" and that he thought Mccain barely came out ahead. Alot different from "Obama was perfect and Mccain sucked."
-
Because greed = competition = lower prices = outwitting the competition = better quality and prices = thriving economy. Or you can get monopolies
And this whole line is the perfect example of capitalism being almost as ideologic as communism. That competition leads to lower prices and higher quality. It is not true, it leads to more greed. And when possible we do it with monopolies.
-
Because greed = competition = lower prices = outwitting the competition = better quality and prices = thriving economy. Or you can get monopolies
And this whole line is the perfect example of capitalism being almost as ideologic as communism. That competition leads to lower prices and higher quality. It is not true, it leads to more greed. And when possible we do it with monopolies.
Well said, g-e. This whole fiasco with the banks demonstrates this beautifully. The American people love to shout about how wonderful capitalism is (and I say this as an American), but it is highly flawed. So is socialism. From what I've seen, a good combination of both is the way to go.
I don't understand why so many Americans see socialism as an evil thing. Perhaps it's because they immediately think of Russia? Living here in the UK, I have seen many examples of socialism integrated with capitalism and working well.
Like Turin, I believe it was the greed and irresponsibility of banks that created this mess. This is what happens when you let them have free rein. They made horribly bad investments with trillion dollar losses. Then when mortgage rates started going up, people who had borrowed at subprime levels suddenly could not afford their variable rate mortgages! Banks had to foreclose and claim bankruptcy. When it all goes wrong, then the big banks suddenly want the government involved. Their attitude is: stay out of our business until we need you, then bail us out. Pah! :evil:
-
Because greed = competition = lower prices = outwitting the competition = better quality and prices = thriving economy. Or you can get monopolies
And this whole line is the perfect example of capitalism being almost as ideologic as communism. That competition leads to lower prices and higher quality. It is not true, it leads to more greed. And when possible we do it with monopolies.
Hence laws restricting monopolies. If there can't be a monopoly, like, say, you get shut down if you form one, then suddenly, there's always competition and always better quality, low price stuff.
Would you rather have a government-controlled monopoly? Who's to stop the government from getting greedy?
The fact is, greed isn't just a capitalist thing, its inherent in every human being. Capitalism simply controls greed and pushes it towards something constructive.
The number one flaw in your argument is that you're intending government to take on a role that it was never supposed to. Government is there to protect the people, not make sure they never have a chance to fail. What woulda happened if your parents never let you fail? Well...I guess the government is able to do that to you for all your life, so let's just go to a welfare state, shall we?
-
The fact is, greed isn't just a capitalist thing, its inherent in every human being. Capitalism simply controls greed and pushes it towards something constructive.
Wow man, i don´t see any way that capitalism is "controling" greed. I have said before what i think about this so i will not repeat myself, but i think if you try to notice some areas like farmacology, celulose production, informatics and many others we can think (even food) about are really big transnational monopolies (or sort of) and i have to say that they seem very greedy to me, and one of their main goal seems to by whatever means they get acess. Capitalism doesn´t seem to prevent monopolies to occur.
Maybe this competition (sometimes each one "per se") talk can be true in some cases, but definitely don´t prevent monopoly. Here in Brazil (and in so many countries) even the governament (usually local) stimulate monopoly of the private capital over the state (consequently from citzens).
Federal police found that Mantecorp was making São Paulo state buy milionary medicin to give it for pacients when they actually don´t need it! Some people have pretty bad health problems because of that. They do that via a corrupt doctor that ordered the prescription without need.
like many of you said (including i) greed it´s not only a socialism/capitalism problem. Socialism or capitalism aren´t necessary good or bad.
-
Actually, there are laws in the US preventing monopolies. Which I'm actually in favor of, to part with my straight libertarian ideals, there needs to be *minimal* government regulation, and monopolies is one of those. Outlaw monopolies and competition follows, thus, I guess, "harnessing" greed into something productive, if you will.
-
Not exactly. SoP stated that the forums he visited claimed that Obama was perfect and Mccain sucked. He then stated his own opinion, which was that they "both scored some good points and did some good stuff" and that he thought Mccain barely came out ahead. Alot different from "Obama was perfect and Mccain sucked."
thanks for the defence....it just annoys me when either republicans or democrats think their candidate is infallible, the perfect example of a present, actually I take that back...it only really annoys me when they also seem to believe the other candidate is a lying cheating sex offender who doesn't deserve to live...
-
The fact is, greed isn't just a capitalist thing, its inherent in every human being. Capitalism simply controls greed and pushes it towards something constructive.
Outlaw monopolies and competition follows, thus, I guess, "harnessing" greed into something productive, if you will.
Ever read The Once and Future King? We all know how well diverting greed into constructive endeavors worked out for King Arthur. Le Morte d'Arthur, anyone? As I recall, the final result of the whole mess wasn't a happy ending.
[spam]
I guess we could always revert to a capitalist egalitarian feudalism with imperialist foreign policy.
That might work well. :P
[/spam]
Oh, and point of clarification: Despite the above pessimism, I personally believe (for reasons I have previously expressed) that the best system is Capitalism as a base system for society, then voluntary socialist-form programs. I can dredge up my old posts if I need to.
-
The thing is NB, it seems you see things only black or white. It is or good, or really bad. You are obviously exaggerating when you say that a social government is a pampering one. And capitalism controlling greed? :S It is it's #1 tool!
I agree that government is there for protecting, but also providing circumstances of which the whole society benefits from. They represent us, and their maingoal is to do as we wish. So that means medical care being provided, especially for those who cannot afford good care? I mean, how can you discriminate on health....common!
That means education. #1 must for a healthy country. Let talents flourish and come to great heights.
That means infrastructure, for that is what needed to allow a country to grow.
That means welfare, for as we know: men is egocentric, so we cannot rely on voluntary wellfare, we tend to care only for those we know and love.
And all above isn't a safety system to prevent people from failing, this is -when we go to your example- parents creating the best circumstances. And when you have a disabled child, are you still into this though love of yours?.....
NB seriously, you need to step away from your ivory tower, well, that might be too harsh, no means to offend, but maybe you could add a different perspective...
-
The thing is NB, it seems you see things only black or white.
That's because thats the way things are.
-
The thing is NB, it seems you see things only black or white.
Thats because thats the way things are.
Things are very rarely black or white and if you are telling yourself that then your kidding yourself. Just try for aa second to see things from someone elses perspective.
-
The thing is NB, it seems you see things only black or white.
That's because thats the way things are.
Erm... actually, I disagree too.
In something as incredibly complex as an entire economic system, there are thousands of factors, some of which are black, some of which are white.
End result? A checkerboard. Overall color? Sort of grey-ish. That doesn't mean that shades of grey aren't closer to one or the other, but you can't just make a blanket claim that all aspect of socialism are inherently bad and that all aspects of capitalism are inherently good in all circumstances, and that one or the other always works, simply because Capitalism and Socialism aren't one thing, they're entire systems with both good and bad qualities. And unless one is willing to consider the legitimate arguments FOR the other side, then how on earth can you expect to prove your point? Give ground when it's a legitimate claim. Just argue that the advantage is outweighed by something else. Comparative Advantage.
And again, I know this is aimed mostly toward the people I actually generally agree with. So sue me.
Anyway, my views on the discussion so far:
Hmmm... i will have to put my stick on that and agree with what Elf_Lvr said: the problem isn´t all about what are the system you adopt but the individuals that constitute it. Obviously capitalism stimulated the development of certain aspects and socialism others (as in any form of organisation you pick) but the essential point is the human values that creates and maintain it (generaly this values tend to be reinforced by the current system).
Education and formation of critical minds is an essential aspect of a development of a better society (in my point of view) but that´s no coincidence that governaments (here in Brazil for example) put education in the last priority, and i mean qualify education not fisical buildings that makes people reproduce what is said to them as the truth.
Which, in turn, further contributes to the fact that, as EL described, 90% of people are the greedy, stupid, whatever, that corrupt any system.
Irresponsible and stupid? Yeah, but Congress is worse. I'm more scared of Congress in charge of AIG than the clowns that were there before.
Agreed. These are the idiots who tried to sue OPEC via the US court system. Brilliant, geniuses. :roll:
Yes I do trust governments more actually. A proper democratic government is in the employ of the people. They are elected by the people and are taken down by the people therefore they are accountable to the people for their actions. They have to stay popular to survive. I do not trust the people on Wall Street and the people who run the big banks. Your point about Greed is only partly correct as it is the greed and irresponsibility of the big banks which has put American capitalism in the mess it now finds itself in. I cannot for the life of me see why you and some others have such little faith in your elected officials and your government.
See above. "Anyone capable of getting themselves elected should, on no account, be allowed to do the job." "Those who seek power are, by definition, the ones you want to keep it from." Basically, most politicians and elected leaders are conniving [insert swear word]s. why? Because that type of person is particularly attracted to politics. Why? Power.
Sure, we elect our leaders. But that doesn't mean that there's anyone amongst the choices that we actually like. I don't want McCain to be president. I want Obama to be President even less. And I'm not exactly thrilled about Biden or Palin, either. So who do I vote for? Not the one I want, the one I dislike least. Damage control, as it were.
Now for my little bit on the whole Capitalism vs Socialism.
Cheeze, you'd think from a lot of the pro-capitalism people that Capitalism was the natural state of society. Hahahaha... nope. Capitalism's actually pretty new, as far as world history goes.
Before Capitalism, we had Bullionism, which didn't exactly work well. (Hoard as much gold as possible. The more you have, the more you can tell other people what to do.) Feudalism actually worked really well in many respects, but there was the whole issue of Absolutism. So an egalitarian feudalism, a la medieval Scandinavia and Iceland. (Yes, I did just advocate the Vikings as a model of a good economic/political system.) worked really well until the Church (as in the Roman Catholic organization, not the Christian religion overall) got involved, Iceland got bludgeoned by Norway, and The Roman Catholics "civilized the barbarians," ie, dragged them into a different social system.
So, anyway, back to the argument, we have Imperialism (think Rome), then Feudalism, then Bullionism, then with the introduction of the Joint-Stock companies by the Dutch and the fairly late colonization of the New World by England and France, we begin to develop actual Capitalism. We've got Plantationism (Capitalism and Imperialism combined, AKA slave systems) running rampant for awhile, and more Imperialism.
So now there's a new idea. Socialism.
Yipee. It's the devil. :roll:
Seriously. I mean, I agree that capitalism is great, and is based on some wonderful values and whatnot, and that it generally works best.
That doesn't mean that you have to follow it religiously. What's so special about it other than the fact that it works with a minimal trampling of basic rights? Heck, a few modifications of Feudalism, and that would work pretty well too. Why not be an egalitarian feudal society with a fixed constitution, et cetera, like the medieval Norse, and the Anglo-Saxons? Worked pretty well for them. That's neither capitalism nor socialism.
And, I might add, Western Civ does NOT get democracy, trial by jury, or any of the rest of that happy stuff from the Greeks. Or the Romans. We got it from the freakin' Germanic/Norse civilizations. And I can prove that, if you want.
Seriously. WHY NOT?
What makes them so black and white? We're not talking mass murder, here. We're talking economic/political/social systems.
The reason WHY or WHY NOT is whether or not it works, and whether or not it tramples others' rights.
Sorry for the rant, and sorry that it tends to be aimed at the people that I actually agree with, but whatever.
And like heck the US doesn't have monopolies. Do you really think that we can create laws that outlaw them? We can try, but all that does is make things a little harder for them. Seriously. So, say Target goes out of business, and it's just Wal-Mart left. And K-Mart and a few other companies that really don't even count.
Good Heavens. Wal-Mart is a monopoly. What in blazes is the law supposed to to about that? It's not technically a monopoly, but for all intents and purposes.... So you can go try to start your own store without the East India Company swooping down on you with cannons blazing. Doesn't mean you won't be out of business within a year or two at best if you;re up against the pseudo-monopoly. You might have a few customers, but not enough to fight the sheer size of the monopoly, or to give them any competition of significance. Heck, even if you give them significant competition, it'll only be local. NO BIG-PICTURE EFFECT AT ALL. They don't care!
...okay, I gotta go. I've spent waaaaay too long on writing this. I'll come back and complain more later. Au revoir!
-
.... So you can go try to start your own store without the East India Company swooping down on you with cannons blazing.
LOL wins thread...jk LOL
anyway very nicely said AD...it does seem like a lot of the time people, myself included seem to think that anything but capitalism doesn't work...feudalism...theres an idea. or we could go with the good old whoever has the best weapons wins ;) or the most women...LOL
-
NOTHING works. Doesn't matter if you have the right system, if you've got the wrong people.
Thing is, you can't go around saying: "This is how people ought to be, how can we change them?" but "This is how people are, how can we deal with it?"
It all comes down to greed. Coming from a small town where about 50% of jobs are generated by Delphi or Chrysler, we're really feeling the heat right now. And it ain't getting better. Companies are outsourcing jobs to produce things for less money, which puts any business that tries to keep jobs in America out of business. The value of the dollar is going down. America isn't in demand any more. We don't produce things any more, because other people are willing to do it for less and American corporates are ready to take advantage of that.
In economics, at least, NB's "isolationism" is starting to sound a lot better.
And don't let me talk about gas prices. They speak for themselves.
-
EL speaks the truth. no system can work because people are not perfect. capitalism has its faults and wrongs and abuses, but as we see in Huxley's book, Brave New World, stability isn't worth it's price. socialism isn't the answer to our problems, and probably laissez-faire economics won't completely solve everything either. moral corruption such as cheating greed and abuse, defile an economy and leave some people naked and destitute while others are sitting on hundreds of thousands of dollars. (or whatever currency you use :) )
the simple fact is that no economic system (communism or capitalism) works with imperfect people, and ANY economic system (communism or capitalism) can work with perfect people. you can read any history book, open your eyes and look at those around you, or examine your own life to find that people aren't perfect.
so until we are, why don't we stop trying to solve the world's economic problems, and start taking money out of what we DO have (even if it's not much) and give it to the less fortunate. give it to the ones who are beaten by the economic systems around us, whether that's the capitalism of the united states, or the communism of china. there are poor and broken people all around us, we don't have to end world hunger, just give the hungry something to eat.
-macheteman
-
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain
There's a little truth about your beloved McCain, folks. Remember, if you want to know how someone will act in the future, look at how they've acted in the past. (read this for some insight on how a human being acts towards a fellow human being: http://leishacamden.blogspot.com/2008/10/not-that-it-matters.html)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA_l8TzUecw
Video makes a lot of sense after reading about the true McCain in the RS article.
-
And you think that a guy who is friends with a terrorist is better? Utter insanity.
-
And you think that a guy who is friends with a terrorist is better? Utter insanity.
whoa whoa whoa, i'm no obama supporter, but i reeeeeealy doubt calling him a friend to terrorists is an intelligent way to approach this. no man is going to fix our countries problems, so we just have to cast our votes and take our bonking. sometimes your guy wins and sometimes he doesn't. that's just how politics goes.
everybody lies in an election. i remember when the virginia governer was being elected and everyone said "if Webb wins he'll take your guns away!!! vote for this republican dude!!" well, webb won the election, and guess what, he didn't take any of my guns away.
our government was built with checks and balances. presidents can make big changes, but our country won't collapse just because the guy you think is nuts wins an election.
-
It shows he has no judgement to lead, and yes, he is friends to William Aires (sp?), the unrepenant terrorist. He also currenty has the support of the house and senate, and they believe everything he does is great, so he couldn pretty much do what he wanted.
-
ok, this doesn't even seem rational anymore, i'm leaving this discussion.
-
when it involves neo fundamentalist conservatives talking about how obama is the antichrist, and ignoring all rational evidence to the contrary. it seldom is ;)
-
Oh, bloody...
Need this go any farther?
Please be at least SEMI-rational, people. We're not some internet conspiracy theory site.
-
BTW, due to recent problems in discussions, I'll have to ask the Topic's Creator to change the title into something... less offensive. Please?
-
Done :up:
And Gate Troll's post removed for being offensive. Again. :P
-
Done :up:
And Gate Troll's post removed for being offensive. Again. :P
Sorry, I kind of got into a verbal fist-fight with HawkeseyeSPF. The truth is so offensive it has to be censored. :roll:
-
Done :up:
And Gate Troll's post removed for being offensive. Again. :P
Sorry, I kind of got into a verbal fist-fight with HawkeseyeSPF. The truth is so offensive it has to be censored. :roll:
Unsubstantiated tabloid smears are so offensive they have to be censored. And even if there's an Obama's Youth organization, calling it Hitler's Youth is definitely offensive.
Remember, not everything you hear on the internet, or yes, even youtube, is necessarily accurate.
-
Unsubstantiated tabloid smears are so offensive they have to be censored. And even if there's an Obama's Youth organization, calling it Hitler's Youth is definitely offensive.
Remember, not everything you hear on the internet, or yes, even youtube, is necessarily accurate.
NBarden, you have a point. Hawkseye, you and I don't see eye-to-eye politically but I shall try to refrain from
being insulting or offensive. ;)
-
As will I, but did you at least read the Rolling Stone article? If you're really going to support a man, you should understand who he is, right?
-
As will I, but did you at least read the Rolling Stone article? If you're really going to support a man, you should understand who he is, right?
I did look at it before I posted. There are about thirty other people I would have picked before John McCain, but he is the best candidate (in my opinion) and I disagree with Obama on pretty much everything else. I disagree with him about healthcare, gun rights, the war on terror, abortion, stem cell research, foreign relations, etc...
-
well I can't vote so it really doesn't matter does it ;)
on a totally random tangent, with gun rights I've arrived at a strange hypothesis...
for guns to be effective in preventing crime you have to take it to the extreme...every (over a certain age of course, and who has passed a psyhiatric evaluation) has a gun, is trained by the government how to use it, and carries it. everywhere. Or noone has guns aside from swat teams and the military. and you enforce it.
those are my 2 cents...the problem with the seconds is hunting and all but oh well...
-
If the common people cannot get guns, then they cannot protect themselves. Criminals will always find a way to get a gun regardless of if it's legal.
-
Well thats what you keep telling yourselves but you have no evidence that that its true In fact a 2003 study in the US showed that having a gun in the home increases the risk of someone in the
household being murdered by 41%. In the UK, the gun laws were reformed in 1997. By 2003, the gun homicide rate for men in England and Wales had dropped 33%, while the gun homicide rate for women had fallen by 48%. We don't need guns in our homes to 'protect ourselves' because there are no guns to protect ourselves from. You can preach about your rights all you like to us but how about preaching to the parents of those in the Virginia Tech massacre? Or the freinds and family of those who died at Columbine? Or even just those people who have been innocently gunned down in the street? I admire America's commitment to freedom but on this issue I cannot understand why you are willing to pay such a price.
-
you always talk about how criminals can get guns...how? they don't all have black market connections...
-
Well thats what you keep telling yourselves but you have no evidence that that its true
Washington, DC...
-
You'll have to expand upon your "explanation" NB - even I'm a little lost on that one. After all, it's not like turin is making up statistics there; those are cold hard facts. If it worked for other countries, I'm sure it can work for the US.
-
You'll have to expand upon your "explanation" NB - even I'm a little lost on that one. After all, it's not like turin is making up statistics there; those are cold hard facts. If it worked for other countries, I'm sure it can work for the US.
Actually there is plenty of proof:
http://www.davidstuff.com/opinion/guncontrol.htm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42167
And of course there is always: http://www.nra.com/ ;)
-
If it worked for other countries, I'm sure it can work for the US.
i see your point, but i don't completely agree. the UK is a relatively small country, and more isolated because it is an island. comparatively, the USA is HUGE and there is no effective way for keeping weapons from crossing the borders of mexico and canada. not to mention the INSANE number of guns already in circulation. and how entrenched gun rights are in our citizens.
whether or not "gun control" itself is good or bad, it won't necessarily work here just because it has worked elsewhere.
-mm
-
well again...they were able to get them out in the UK...
Now I have a very smart friend who wrote something about how the second amendment can't serve its purpose, simply because we cannot allow the type of guns necessary to dissuade a possible fascist government to go around.
You can't just hand out muskets and everyones and equal footing...and I don't want to see stingers and TOWs and tanks being handed out...
and then we get to the whole well regulated militia argument...
So a criminals gonna traipse over the border to mexico or canada and buy a gun? and than come back illegally? cause if they are smuggling them in, you've still got the whole how is your average joe gonna get one?
-
well again...they were able to get them out in the UK...
yes, but see my reasons why it wouldn't work as well in the USA:
the UK is a relatively small country, and more isolated because it is an island. comparatively, the USA is HUGE and there is no effective way for keeping weapons from crossing the borders of mexico and canada. not to mention the INSANE number of guns already in circulation. and how entrenched gun rights are in our citizens.
So a criminals gonna traipse over the border to mexico or canada and buy a gun? and than come back illegally? cause if they are smuggling them in, you've still got the whole how is your average joe gonna get one?
it would quickly become "firearms trafficking". weapons a criminal won't have to go across the border, guns will be brought over from other countries. and as for how the average joe will get one, it won't be that hard to deal contraband weapons. i can walk down the street, knock on a couple doors, and get weed if i wanted to. it will be different with guns than drugs of course, but it would be hard to eradicate them completely.
-mm
-
After all, it's not like turin is making up statistics there; those are cold hard facts. If it worked for other countries, I'm sure it can work for the US.
Not necessarily. The US has a very unique demographic that is original to only itself. That for one makes it different from other countries. But, allow me to give you the "cold hard facts."
The 7 countries with the most guns had 1.2 murders per 100,000 people.
The 9 countries with the least guns had 4.4 murders per 100,000 people.
DC hit 81 murders per 100,000 during the 80s and 90s, making it number 1 in the nation. This during the gun ban. As of 2000, it still ranked number 3 in the nation.
The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study. In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.
-
See, that's better. I don't really lean one way or the other on gun control, but you can't just outright dismiss someone's argument without evidence of your own to back up your stance. Now that you have brought it to the table, I now return you to your regularly scheduled debate.
-
I figured the DC Gun Ban study would be familiar to everyone... :-[
-
The point raised about the difficulty of implementing gun control in America is a very good one. It would be extremely difficult to near impossible to do because as you said you have huge borders with Mexico and Cananda which are hard to police. Also the USA gun culture in very deeply embedded. The reason it was so easy to put in place the gun ban in the UK was because we have never had that gun culture, not many people had them or wanted them when the ban came in so there was very little fuss made about it. And also props to everyone who has posted so far in this as it has become a real debate with actual facts being used and full explanations for answers. Sometimes on these boards in can be so annoying cos people won't give evidence or explanation for their usually controversial statements.
-
yes, i agree, it's nice that we finally have a respectful debate =D> =D> =D>
and turin, you are exactly right about the gun culture being so deeply embedded in our society. i come from a redneck family, none of them are criminals, but i know there would be problems if they had to give up their guns. and rednecks aren't the half of it. the gangs, ghettos, hillbillies, farmers, hunters, disturbed youths, the list goes on...
maybe in a few generations the sentiments towards guns will change, but currently, there is no way it would work. we do not have the resources needed (especially with this economy) to back up anti-firearm laws at this point. and you are asking for trouble anytime you make laws you can't enforce.
-mm
-
and rednecks aren't the half of it. the gangs, ghettos, hillbillies, farmers, hunters, disturbed youths, the list goes on...
we do not have the resources needed (especially with this economy) to back up anti-firearm laws at this point. and you are asking for trouble anytime you make laws you can't enforce.
Yeah, because the gangs, ghettos and disturbed youths need to be represented in government you know...
I don't think that this country could, or even should, go so far as to have strict gun control to the point of only governmental agencies or specially permitted agencies/companies having guns. What I do think this country needs to do is have gun laws that MAKE SENSE. Mandatory wait periods when purchasing guns, deep deep background checks and maybe even psych evals, for a start. Maybe special permits for gun collectors, with deeper psych evals and continued background checks (every 3-6 months)? The point and end result needs to be keeping guns out of the hands of those who would commit crimes - I don't think anyone would dispute that. The trouble comes in where this group or that special interest tries to derail the law by adding loopholes for their interest. Open enough loopholes, and soon enough that law begins to look like a fishnet trying to catch a shrimp. Now, that doesn't mean that I think civil liberties can be trampled on, not at all. There should be NO reason that a person who enjoys hunting shouldn't be able to pass a psych eval in order to get their gun permit.
The motto of just about every Police force I've ever heard of has been "To Protect and Serve". If officers are spending less time dealing with small-time gangs and ghettos (who would be less likely to acquire guns through smuggling than large ones), it stands to reason that they would have more time to stand behind their motto, and protect the public. At the same time, under the general idea outlined above, there would be nothing to stop a reasonable person from owning a gun and keeping it in their home for the protection of their family, as long as they could pass that psych eval.
As far as gun smuggling goes, yes, it would probably increase due to a law spelled out like the above. Why is that ok and how do we deal with it? First of all, it "eliminates" one very easy way for criminals to get their guns, so they have to rely on means such as smuggling. To me, it's almost like deck strategy - you eliminate the threat of this, so you can concentrate on dealing with this other threat. Pooling resources, you know? Anyway, at this point, you already know that smuggling will be a focus of criminals, so you focus on it as well - shutting it down. You increase security along all borders and at all entry points (creating jobs...); more border patrol, stricter access, and more detection tools. I know, again this can be an issue of privacy at places like border crossings and customs at airports. If you focus on who should be focused on and tone down the random checks - don't eliminate them altogether - then that issue is mitigated. We're looking for contraband, weapons, and other illegal items here, I'm pretty sure you're supposed to be discriminatory. No, don't strip search every person wearing a turban dammit, doing a fingerprint check on all travelers will do nicely - if nothing pops up, they get the usual x-ray and crap; if something does come up on their record, that person should be subject to more scrutiny (if someone committed a crime worthy of jail, then they've earned this right for life).
I know I brought up psych evals a lot, but don't you want guns out of the hands of unstable folks?
Anyway, just my two cents, but if you don't reply to anything else I've written, please please PLEASE tell me whether or not you agree with the following and if not, why:
- The goal is to keep weapons out of the hands of those who would or could use them for ill intent.
- Civil liberties and freedoms should not be trampled on in the course of this objective. (Hunters still hunting, gun collectors still collecting, home owners still protecting their loved ones.)
-
sounds good to me ;)
-
An excellent point. :up:
-
ah, you have raised some good questions hawkeyes. i'll start by answering your last 2 points.
- The goal is to keep weapons out of the hands of those who would or could use them for ill intent.
anyone can use a gun for ill intent. that alone makes this issue sticky. it's obvious that regulations can't keep guns out of the wrong hands completely. that has already been established in previous posts by multiple members. so, i guess what i'm saying is, i agree with this, to an extent, with the realization that any person at any time could be dangerous with a gun.
- Civil liberties and freedoms should not be trampled on in the course of this objective. (Hunters still hunting, gun collectors still collecting, home owners still protecting their loved ones.)
absolutely, insuring freedoms is the ONLY way this country will see effective weapon restrictions.
so, on to the more specific:
the mandatory wait period: this is one law that definitely makes sense. think about the guy that gets mad enough, or drunk enough, or depressed enough to kill someone (or himself). the wait period gives time for him to come back to his senses. even a one week wait can drastically help. in fact, if someone hasn't calmed down in a day or two, chances are he's the kind of guy who will find a way to get his hands on a firearm, whether it is legal or not.
background checks: another one that is necessary, and is used today. perhaps tighter restrictions could be implemented, and background checks on all persons living in that particular home. that way, if Bob Smith's record is clear, then that's fine, but if he's living with his son who was convicted of a crime, then maybe he shouldn't be allowed while the son is living in the house. these extensive background checks would take more time, but a wait period would insure the time needed for a thorough investigation. on the other hand, these restrictions wouldn't necessarily help. for instance, when i got my shotgun, i was 13, obviously my dad had to buy it for me. they ran a background check on him, and we were on our way. it's easy for someone to buy a gun for a friend or family member and bypass these kinds of restrictions.
psych evals: here is where things get a little more dicey. there are a lot of people who would say that psych evals would be infringing on rights. people who are going to harm someone aren't going to sit down for an evaluation. i fear that they will only be used for people who don't need them. maybe there should be certain situations in which a person needs a psych eval, (maybe factors of age, record, i'm not sure) but for the most part, people could get by without one. i'm not sure about this one.
hawkeyes brought up a lot of good questions.
this was brought to my attention: http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/5.0/GunFacts5-0-screen.pdf
it was published by: Florida department of Criminology. National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, BATF estimates on handgun supply
it raises some interesting facts, like just revealing a gun prevents most crimes without firing a shot. and that 39.2% of convicts obtained their guns from illegal street dealers. SOP: your average joe is already getting guns from dealers and "black market connections" as you put it.
so, while i think that wise regulations are a good thing, many people underestimate the benefits to the average citizen having a gun.
-mm
-
He did it again! :P (See thread title)
Nice McCain response.
-
He did it again! :P (See thread title)
Nice McCain response.
what are you talking about?
-
Hawkeyes raises EXCELLENT points, IMO. Actually, gun control in Brazil got REALLY strict a few years ago, with a new law about it, but when the government made a Popular Vote on actually UNARMING the population, even though it might be easier to get a CLONE than a gun here, brazilians STILL voted "no". So, when it comes down to it, the population don't want to give up their "right to bear arms", they just want it so that not every single lunatic CAN get one.
If anyone is interested, I can TRY to translate our Law on Firearms and post it here later.
-
Okay, and this truly, TRULY, is NOT an attack, so please don't take it as one, but...
Did those of you who think that Barack said he'd attack Pakistan actually listen to the words that came out of his mouth?
"If we have Osama Bin-laden in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, I think we have to take him out."
Please, PLEASE, tell me where in that sentence Barack said anything about attacking the COUNTRY OF PAKISTAN.
-
yer...he said he would carry out military operations on pakistani soil I guess...could be construed as an attack for example, lets say we had a ex-russian who had carried our terrorists acts against them in the rockies, and russia came in with helicopters and special forces and all and killed him...would we be happy? IDK
anyway right now I think obama's got it, as long as the main issue is economy (debate and election) the problem is, if something happens (october suprise anyone?) to shift it to foreign policy, things could be interesting.
interesting statistics mm...
and also interesting point about the psych evals...
-
The difference is that you need cooperation between the countries.
Let's set it up differently: Iranian (or even, I don't know, French) terrorist carries out attacks in and against North Korea, and hides out in the US of all places. North Korea comes to us asking for assistance in seeking out and killing (not even trying to capture) the terrorist (Iranian or French, doesn't matter, one's an ally, the other an enemy (in a generalist sense)). Do we assist? Of course, that person carried out vile attacks that took human lives. Let's say that North Korea and their amazing reconaissance are able to pinpoint the man and they have him in their sights - they share the information with us, in the hopes that we'll be able to act more quickly. Let's assume that we are not able to pinpoint him as they are; we're having a bad day - our binoculars are broken or something. Do we then allow the North Koreans to make the kill on our soil? I would think that the answer would be an emphatic YES.*
But it all boils down to the country's leadership and the cooperation between the nations; without better relations between the US and Pakistan, direct action on our part would almost certainly be necessary. Having those relations and working towards a common goal means that either they're going be able to make the kill themselves, or they would not have a problem with us taking the shot.
Military action should never leave the table, but by God, it should not be the number one option.
* All assumptions are based on claims being substantiated and truthful: the guy did it, he IS the man in their sights, etc.
-
but, what if we tell them no (for whatever reason, like it was implied in the earlier debate) and they attack, wouldn't we be a little ticked?
-
Sure we would, but wouldn't we be guilty of harboring a terrorist?
-
What if they come up to us and say that if we're incapable or unwilling to kill this dude, we're gonna land on your soil and take him out ourselves in our own way. Before we've noted whether we're going to help or not. That would make us pretty ticked at North Korea.
-
First of all, I'm sure we wouldn't be caught unawares that there was a person who had committed acts of terror in our country, just as Pakistan and Afghanistan are aware that Bin-laden is in their countries. Being that we would also want a dangerous person like that dead, I'm sure we wouldn't be as offended as you purport.
But for the sake of argument, let's say that this terrorist somehow slipped into our country after the fact and we were clueless about it. North Korea all of a sudden announces during one of their presidential debates that if we are unable to unwilling to make the kill on this guy that is in our country that they have their sights on, that they will make the kill even though it is on our soil. Would we be surprised and caught off guard? Yes. Would we be pissed off? Maybe, but I don't think the issue would be the kill so much as the lack of communication. If they knew this guy was in our country and knew that we'd side with them about him, why didn't they tell us? Just say "Hey, thought you ought to know that this crazy terrorist French dude that attacked us last year is hiding out in your country. We're not sure where exactly, but we're targeting the Rockies as his hideout. Just FYI, if we spot him, we'll let you know so you can apprehend/kill him. If you can't/won't, just be aware that we're gonna do it then."
Facts being what they are, Afghanistan and Pakistan are quite well aware of Bin-laden's presence in the area. Hopefully, the leadership in those two countries wants him dead as much as we do, and understand the meaning behind Obama's statement.
-
what I get him saying though, especially in the first one is: if you say no, you can attack, we will attack even if you say no...and I think we would be ticked if we told the north koreans we don't want them operating militarily on our soil...and they did.
-
But the problem is that Bin Laden is not frowned upon by many people there.
-
Doesn't matter if he's frowned upon by the people, just the governmental bodies - and if they want to have sanctions placed upon them by the international community, then they can go ahead and say Bin-who? I really believe that even if that were the case, that they could be made to see our point of view and cooperate.
(EDIT: Just fixed the italics)
-
Doesn't matter if he's frowned upon by the people[/], just the governmental bodies - and if they want to have sanctions placed upon them by the international community, then they can go ahead and say Bin-who? I really believe that even if that were the case, that they could be made to see our point of view and cooperate.
It does in Pakistan. The political situation there is incredibly unstable. What the people think matters immensly. Pakistan is on America's side at the moment but if America tries its big bully act to much it may well find that it just won't work when it comes to Pakistan because of the oppinions of the people and because of their powerful freinds in the Muslim world (Iran, Saudi Arabia). It would be a very bad idea for America to push the Muslim nations closer to each other. Do not forget that while Iran is trying to make a Nuke Pakistan already has them and should be taken seriously.