Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«106 »
  • Locked thread
Lee Harvey Oswald
Mar 16, 2007

by exmarx


Here's a letter to the editor from my local paper

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/...?opinionletters

quote:

Wealthy people make sacrifices

“Time for wealthy to join the sacrifice.”

I cringe when I read a heading like the above recent letter.

Exactly what kind of sacrifice? Perhaps, getting a good education by attending night and weekend classes, perhaps working 14 to 16 hours a day, perhaps hocking one’s house to finance a startup business, perhaps saving by doing without to get a business off the ground?

Does the writer realize that according to the latest IRS stats, the top 1 percent paid 40.4 percent of total reported income taxes according to the IRS?

The top 10 percent paid 71.2 percent of the nation’s income taxes.

The top 50 percent paid 97.1 percent of the nation’s income taxes and the bottom 50 percent of Americans who earned less than $32,879 paid 2.9 percent of the income taxes.

Most wealthy people have made many sacrifices in their life, unlike those who are screaming, “Tax them more!”

Liberals want to raise your taxes because they love big government, which is obviously bad for this country as witnessed over the last three years.

DON STEWART, Signal Mountain

Wont someone think of the rich!

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Bubbacub
Apr 17, 2001



Yes, the only reason poor people aren't rich is because they aren't willing to work 14 to 16 hours a day.

Taerkar
Dec 7, 2002

I would always rather be happy than dignified


Gee, I wonder what happens when you compare how much they paid versus how much of the total income they make. I BET there's a correlation. But maybe that's just crazy talk.

Shalebridge Cradle
Apr 23, 2008


Lee Harvey Oswald posted:

Here's a letter to the editor from my local paper

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/...?opinionletters


Wont someone think of the rich!

the top 10% payed 71% of taxes while only controlling 71% of the nation's wealth. Socialism!

Saint Sputnik
Mar 31, 2007

Hvorfor er ikke mannen samfunnsnyttig, Mor?

Cal wrote again today about how Norwegians should be armed to the teeth. I'm starting to think he gets his paycheck from the NRA or something.

quote:

How long would the Norway gunman have lasted in Texas or any state where concealed-carry laws are on the books? I ran a survey while on a cruise: in Texas, 3 minutes; in Montana, 7 to 8 minutes; in Arizona, 2 minutes; and in Nevada, 3 to 5 minutes.

Had Norway not surrendered to the anti-self-defense nuts, and allowed Norwegians to protect themselves by legally carrying guns, the massacre might well have been prevented. There’s a lot of truth in the old adage that if guns are outlawed only outlaws will carry guns.

That was certainly true in Norway where Anders Breivik, a lone gunman, launched his assault on youth campers of Utoya Island. According to press reports he fully expected Norway’s special forces to swoop down and stop him at any minute. It didn’t happen. Faced with unarmed victims he was given plenty of time to kill 68 innocent people who could not defend themselves. Had just one of them been armed, Breivik could have been stopped dead and lives would have been spared.
...
History teaches us that governments faced with an armed citizenry are restrained from usurping the rights of individuals. It is thus no surprise that governments which seek to exercise dictatorial powers over their citizens inevitably seek to restrict of outlaw gun ownership by their citizenry.

In an interview with the University of Chicago, Lott said that states with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. Thirty-one states now have such laws – called “shall-issue” laws. These laws allow adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness.

I also loving love how he completely ignores Norway's extremely low violent crime rate under gun restriction laws.

(Also holy poo poo, according to this, 1.3 million registered guns are in the hands of only 300k Norwegians?)

Push El Burrito
May 9, 2006

SKATE FAST
EAT ASS


Grimey Drawer

Saint Sputnik posted:

Cal wrote again today about how Norwegians should be armed to the teeth. I'm starting to think he gets his paycheck from the NRA or something.

No shooting would ever take place in Texas. Especially around people well trained in the use of weapons and combat.

Saint Sputnik
Mar 31, 2007

Hvorfor er ikke mannen samfunnsnyttig, Mor?

Just whipped this up, that site is full of stats and good for quick comparisons.

Ned
May 23, 2002


A survey on a cruise? Cal Thomas is a hard hitting reporter folks!

Unlearning
May 7, 2011


Bruce Leroy posted:

What really bothers me about conservative assholes like Cal Thomas is that they are intentionally ignoring the fact that Norway has very low crime rates and small prison populations compared to the US. These positive results are very likely due to all the social welfare programs that prevent crime in the first place and far more humane prison policies that reduce recidivism, but such policies are anathema to conservative ideologues like Thomas.

So, yeah, this incredibly loving awful thing happened, but Norway is otherwise a very safe and progressive country with far lower rates of poverty than the US. Breivik's terrorism was the worst violence in Norway since about World War II. The US has had numerous incidents of domestic terrorism in the last half-century, so I think the US should be taking a page from Norway, not the other way around.

I love how the U.S. reaction to this - and to the shooting of that democratic candidate - was 'let's loosen up gun laws', whereas Norwegians have basically said 'terrorise all you want, we aren't going to stoop to your level'.

Uncle Wemus
Mar 4, 2004


Peanut President posted:

Several local small town post offices are probably gonna get closed, this was in the comments:


If Postal Service have gun...

But things in the private sector close all the time!

Orange Devil
Sep 30, 2010

Waar is da feestje?

HIER IS DA FEESTJE!



Bubbacub posted:

Yes, the only reason poor people aren't rich is because they aren't willing to work 14 to 16 hours a day.

This is true in a way, actually. If they'd worked willingly that implies they could choose to say no, and thus in order to make them work that much they'd have to be drat well compensated. The problem is that they unwillingly work ridiculous hours.

Bruce Leroy
Jun 10, 2010


Bubbacub posted:

Yes, the only reason poor people aren't rich is because they aren't willing to work 14 to 16 hours a day.

Orange Devil posted:

This is true in a way, actually. If they'd worked willingly that implies they could choose to say no, and thus in order to make them work that much they'd have to be drat well compensated. The problem is that they unwillingly work ridiculous hours.

There was a news story a few months back about how McDonald's was hiring 40,000 new employees in one of the largest hiring plans by a single employer.

To her credit, Diane Sawyer actually investigated the matter and found that the vast majority of the positions (over 90% if I remember correctly) were standard customer service jobs in their restaurants paying only slightly above minimum wage, and a household with both adults working full-time at these positions would still be below the poverty line. She pointedly asked a McDonald's executive about it during an interview, to which the executive was basically caught off-guard and was a bit flustered before replying that there still were some jobs at higher levels within the company and which paid better.

It wasn't just on the nature of the 40,000 jobs where McDonald's was being deceptive, the executive whom Diane Sawyer interviewed actually began at one of these positions and rose to VP position within the company. It's obvious that the implication they are trying to send out is that such advancement is possible within their company, which is true, but they are relying on the public not being insightful enough to realize that this woman is the exception and most of their employees work dead-end McJobs for terrible remuneration.

This is a tangible example of the kind of deception and lying by omission that wealthy individuals and corporations rely on to perpetuate the misconception that upward mobility is not only possible but likely, and all poor people have to do is work hard and they'll be rewarded or at least not be poor anymore.

calmasahinducow
Oct 31, 2004
i am a pirate of the high seas

THE GAYEST POSTER posted:

No shooting would ever take place in Texas. Especially around people well trained in the use of weapons and combat.

Awesome example given that no soldiers are allowed to carry guns at fort hood.

Bruce Leroy
Jun 10, 2010


Saint Sputnik posted:

Cal wrote again today about how Norwegians should be armed to the teeth. I'm starting to think he gets his paycheck from the NRA or something.


I also loving love how he completely ignores Norway's extremely low violent crime rate under gun restriction laws.

(Also holy poo poo, according to this, 1.3 million registered guns are in the hands of only 300k Norwegians?)

That's because guns are a panacea to crime for conservatives. Every crime imaginable can pretty much be solved and prevented just by adding guns into the mix. The most hilarious part is that there might be some effect in having citizens capable of protecting themselves, but it's not just a simply matter of having more guns. People actually need to know how to use them and that doesn't mean some target shooting. You'd actually have to teach gun owners how to effectively use a weapon in a real firefight against something that's going to fight back.

There was a somewhat amusing ABC News piece after a major violent massacre (Virginia Tech, I think) where they put a bunch of random people in a classroom with paint ball guns and had someone barge in like a school shooter. The people were supposed to take him out and save everyone, but most people instinctively just hid and those that did shoot at him missed wildly and were basically not likely to stop the perpetrator before they killed or injured everyone. The results might be slightly different if everyone involved was already a gun owner, but I doubt it would be much different, e.g. the Tuscon, AZ shooting.

Regardless, guns are a panacea to them so that they don't have to acknowledge that they are not just intentionally ignoring but actually directly demonize policies that would actually reduce all crime, including violent crime. Conservatives consistently and nearly constantly demonize the very social welfare policies that Norway has, which are likely some of the main contributors to their very low crime rates.

Many (most?) conservatives don't really care about implementing rational policies that would actually create the effects they desire. All they care about is promoting the policies they like (e.g guns, tax cuts, deregulation, etc.) and just convince themselves that those policies, in absence of all empirical facts (and often contrary to actual empirically-supported research and statistics), will lead to those consequences they say will happen.

Shalebridge Cradle posted:

the top 10% payed 71% of taxes while only controlling 71% of the nation's wealth. Socialism!

This is exactly what I'm talking about. They don't care about actual evidence and statistics about who has how much money/wealth. They just think it sounds unfair that a small group of (insanely rich) people pay the majority of taxes, while a bunch of freeloading (incredibly poor, by American standards, e.g. price index, inflation) people don't pay any federal income tax (even though they pay virtually all other taxes, which are generally the regressive ones that hurt the poor even more than the progressive federal income tax).

"Flat tax" sounds fair and equal until you actually know that most of the wealth is controlled by a tiny minority who tricks everyone else into fighting over the scraps.

Ned posted:

A survey on a cruise? Cal Thomas is a hard hitting reporter folks!

I'm simultaneously amused and enraged that he thinks that it's somehow valid research or at the very least equivalent to the work of actual pollsters and researchers who develop, administer, and analyze surveys/inventories.

It's basically that anti-intellectualism Sarah Palin is so fond of. Who needs education, training, and experience in research methods and statistics when you can just ask a bunch of other people around you on a cruise for objective evidence? The homespun wisdom of "real" Americans is more important than asking any real "experts" or having any methodological "rigor."

Bruce Leroy
Jun 10, 2010


calmasahinducow posted:

Awesome example given that no soldiers are allowed to carry guns at fort hood.

Yeah, I was going to write the same thing. Most weapons on domestic military bases are locked away unless they are being used under authorization, e.g. sentries/guards, specific training requiring them, etc.

Cahal posted:

I love how the U.S. reaction to this - and to the shooting of that democratic candidate - was 'let's loosen up gun laws', whereas Norwegians have basically said 'terrorise all you want, we aren't going to stoop to your level'.

We all know how stupid that is. What Norway needs to do is torture some Muslims (any will do) and start a few unwinnable foreign wars against perceived enemies under the auspices that if they win those wars, there will never be any terrorism Norway ever again.

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN
Jun 26, 2009





calmasahinducow posted:

Awesome example given that no soldiers are allowed to carry guns at fort hood.


There were people with CC at the Giffords shooting. If I recall correctly, one of them later said he didn't draw because he didn't know who was doing what and it makes sense.

Let's imagine you're nearby during the Giffords attack.

You're standing somewhere doing a thing, you hear shots and screams so you think to yourself "Finally my chance!" and you pull your gun out and leg it to the commotion, where you see a people running everywhere, people on the ground crying/dead and man with a gun aiming at somebody and obviously about to shoot. You can't see who he's aiming at but that's not important because you've only got one moment in time to act and save somebody's life. You remember your classes and your drills, you pull out your weapon you sight carefully, you breathe out and squeeze the trigger. Man with gun gets hit, drops, grats you're a hero!

Except.

The guy you just show was another CC holder just like you who was also responding to the shots and screams(also one of your bullets went through the almost-hero and killed a kid half a block away).

Does anybody have any way this could be avoided while still relying on random people possessing weapons as a way to deter crime?

Bruce Leroy
Jun 10, 2010


katlington posted:

There were people with CC at the Giffords shooting. If I recall correctly, one of them later said he didn't draw because he didn't know who was doing what and it makes sense.

Let's imagine you're nearby during the Giffords attack.

You're standing somewhere doing a thing, you hear shots and screams so you think to yourself "Finally my chance!" and you pull your gun out and leg it to the commotion, where you see a people running everywhere, people on the ground crying/dead and man with a gun aiming at somebody and obviously about to shoot. You can't see who he's aiming at but that's not important because you've only got one moment in time to act and save somebody's life. You remember your classes and your drills, you pull out your weapon you sight carefully, you breathe out and squeeze the trigger. Man with gun gets hit, drops, grats you're a hero!

Except.

The guy you just show was another CC holder just like you who was also responding to the shots and screams(also one of your bullets went through the almost-hero and killed a kid half a block away).

Does anybody have any way this could be avoided while still relying on random people possessing weapons as a way to deter crime?

How about proper social programs that include adequate treatment for the mentally ill (possibly as part of some kind of universal healthcare program) which basically prevent most of those kinds of incidents in the first place, rendering the random, armed citizens as just a bunch of people with security blanket substitutes.

Saint Sputnik
Mar 31, 2007

Hvorfor er ikke mannen samfunnsnyttig, Mor?

Adding to the confusion and unlikelihood anyone would have shot back: Breivik was dressed as a cop. I want to see someone start advocating making cops illegal in light of that.

I was wrong about Cal Thomas writing a second pro-gun article yesterday, that was Michael "did I mention my dad was Ronald?" Reagan. But here's Cal's article today:

quote:

Texas Republican governor and potential presidential candidate Rick Perry will headline a “Call to Prayer for a Nation in Crisis” on Aug. 6 at Reliant Stadium in Houston.

The ACLU of Texas and liberals are predictably upset.

Liberals aren’t against prayer, so long as it advances a secular earthly agenda. While wringing their hands and even threatening legal action against the Aug. 6 gathering (the prohibition of which would violate the freedom of assembly, as well as the free exercise of religion clauses of the First Amendment), the ACLU of Texas and its fellow ideological travelers have said nothing about another prayer meeting that took place last week in the White House.

Here is how Jim Wallis of the liberal Christian magazine “Sojourners” described that meeting on his website: “I, along with 11 other national faith leaders, met with President Obama and senior White House staff for 40 minutes. We were representing the Circle of Protection, which formed in a commitment to defend the poor in the budget debates. Sitting in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, we opened in prayer, grasping hands across the table, and read scripture together. We reminded ourselves that people of faith must evaluate big decisions on issues like a budget by how they impact the most vulnerable.”

Wallis says President Obama mentioned a passage from Matthew 25 where Jesus is talking about “inasmuch as you’ve done it unto the least of these, you’ve done it also unto me.” There is no indication that Jesus commanded government to be the primary caregiver for the poor. His commission was for those who followed Him to do it, because His objective was not only to fill empty stomachs, but also to fill empty souls. The debate about the role of government vs. the role of the church has long been a tension point between conservatives and liberals in religious circles.

If this had been a prayer meeting hosted by conservative evangelical leaders with President George W. Bush in attendance and the prayers were about conservative social policies, one can safely predict how liberals would have reacted. But since this was about maintaining government spending for social programs favored by liberals, these prayers were no problem for them.

Who are the poor? Are they a perpetual underclass that never changes? Are they worse off, or better off than they were in the ‘60s when the “War on Poverty” began, a war that has lasted longer than the one in Afghanistan, which is often described as America’s “longest war”? A new report on poverty by The Heritage Foundation has some revealing facts.

Compiled by Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield, “Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What is Poverty in the United States Today?” references the U.S. Census Bureau, which says the poor population in 2009 was 14.3 percent, five percentage points lower than in 1964 when Lyndon Johnson announced a “War on Poverty.” Today’s poor, however, have a far different profile than they did back then.

Rector and Sheffield note: “The average household defined as poor by the government (is) equipped with air conditioning and cable TV. The family had a car ... two color televisions, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children in the home (especially boys), the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation. ... The typical poor American had more living space than the average European. ... Poor boys today at ages 18 and 19 are actually taller and heavier than middle-class boys of similar age in the late 1950s, and are a full one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than American soldiers who fought in World War II.”


Both liberals and conservatives claim to pray to the same God, but for different results. Abraham Lincoln noted this conflict in his Second Inaugural Address: “Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. ... The prayers of both could not be answered.”

Perhaps what’s needed is less praying for results favorable to one side and more listening to what the One to whom each side is praying has already said.

Literally "gently caress the poor, God doesn't even want you to bother praying for them."

Goatman Sacks
Apr 4, 2011

by FactsAreUseless


" nations with the most prosperous economies are the ones with the most limited governments."

Somalia - a beacon of light to us all

Bubbacub
Apr 17, 2001



quote:

Perhaps what’s needed is less praying for results favorable to one side and more listening to what the One to whom each side is praying has already said.

Given how well Rick Perry's prayer for rain worked this year, it sounds like the One is saying, "gently caress you, Rick Perry."

Shalebridge Cradle
Apr 23, 2008


Saint Sputnik posted:

the poor population in 2009 was 14.3 percent, five percentage points lower than in 1964 when Lyndon Johnson announced a “War on Poverty.” Today’s poor, however, have a far different profile than they did back then.

Literally "gently caress the poor, God doesn't even want you to bother praying for them."

The war on poverty has had success at combatting poverty, therefore we must stop it. They are angry the poor people we have aren't living in shanty towns like during the great depression.

Thenipwax
Jun 20, 2001

by Ozmaugh


Shalebridge Cradle posted:

The war on poverty has had success at combatting poverty, therefore we must stop it. They are angry the poor people we have aren't living in shanty towns like during the great depression.

Yeah, I don't quite get that line. So the war on poverty has achieved some level of success? Why is that a bad thing?

CoolZidane
Jun 24, 2008


Shalebridge Cradle posted:

The war on poverty has had success at combatting poverty, therefore we must stop it. They are angry the poor people we have aren't living in shanty towns like during the great depression.

If you aren't miserable 24/7, you have no right to complain.

Thenipwax
Jun 20, 2001

by Ozmaugh


I especially like how having TWO color televisions, a/c, and an Xbox suddenly means you've "made it". Whenever I see somebody with two TVs, I know I think "drat, this person is loaded!"

You think they could use net worth or something as a metric rather than which inexpensive electronics are in the house. It's not like electronics slide into obsolescense quickly or anything, right?

Ned
May 23, 2002


But I'm an old man with lots of money and I don't have an xbox or iPhone! *hops into a limo for a 5k a plate fundraiser*

fishmech
Jul 16, 2006

~death to capitalism~
Every DSA is a cop




I like the fact that they ALWAYS say that they're color TVs. As if having black and white TVs is perfectly ok with them, or possible to do in 2011.

CaptBushido
Mar 24, 2004



fishmech posted:

I like the fact that they ALWAYS say that they're color TVs. As if having black and white TVs is perfectly ok with them, or possible to do in 2011.

It's kind of a re-assuring affirmation of the target demographic of these emails... Also sad that indicates how long the EXACT same thing has been circulated...

De Nomolos
Jan 17, 2007

TV rots your brain like it's crack cocaine


Well, since I live in the DC Metro area, I get one of the worst papers in the country shoved towards me at the subway station every day. These are both from yesterday's paper alone, but it's a year's worth of stupid. One isn't a bad column so much as a cringe worthy conclusion, and the other one is just

First, a man who no one cares about yet he still has his face on newspaper boxes citywide, Michael Barone:

"Under Obama, Millennials move into the GOP column"

http://washingtonexaminer.com/polit...move-gop-column

Ok, well, first off, it's exclusively among white people according to the actual polls, and still the most movement is towards being an Independent, but otherwise it's just a "meh" column. However, lines like this used by anyone make me cringe:

quote:

In the wake of the 2008 election, I argued that there was a tension between the way Millennials lived their lives -- creating their own iPod playlists, designing their own Facebook pages -- and the one-size-fits-all, industrial-era welfare-state policies of the Obama Democrats.

Instead of allowing Millennials space in which they can choose their own futures, the Obama Democrats' policies have produced a low-growth economy in which their alternatives are limited and they are forced to make do with what they can scrounge.

What kids really want is no funding for education and tax cuts which OBVIOUSLY create like 10000000 jobs. This can clearly be seen in the way they use Facebook.

Seriously, I'm just sick of these stupid arguments that Facebook is some great sign of generational originality and philosophy and not a time wasting communication tool.

And now, the main even:

"An officer and a gentleman"

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opini...r-and-gentleman

quote:

Rep. Allen West, R-Fla., is an officer and a gentleman, a career soldier elected to Congress in the 2010 midterms.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., is a shrew and a feminist (perhaps we repeat ourselves), and also a demagogue, fond of blaming her foes for wanting to starve little children.

When she attacked West last week when he was not in the chamber, it set off a clash of two worlds. Wasserman Schultz belongs to (and is stuck in) the mid-1970s, steeped in the brews of groupthink and victimhood, believing pro-lifers wage wars against women and that pro-life women aren't "women" at all.

West hails from any time between the Crusades and the late 19th century, and is the kind of officer played in films by Sean Connery, rash now and then, and quick on the trigger, but respected and loved by his men.

He descends from the honor code of the warrior, in which personal honor is everything; she from the dishonor code of identity politics, in which an attack on one person becomes a de facto attack on any sex, creed or color the person belongs to, unless the person doesn't believe in identity politics, in which case all bets must be off.


It is sexist to criticize Wasserman Schultz, but not Sarah Palin; anti-Semitic to criticize Wasserman Schultz, but not Eric Cantor; racist to criticize Barack Obama, but not Allen West.

And indeed, the attacks upon West by Wasserman Schultz's defenders seem out of the source book for race-baiting slanders decried by the left in times past.

Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., said West's remarks reeked of "harassment," raising images of Emmett Till, murdered for whistling at a white woman, and Clarence Thomas, whose presence on the Supreme Court after the sisterhood failed to lynch him in spirit rankles the left to this day.

"They ought to take him to the woodshed," said Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis., suggesting she thinks him an uppity n-word. "Let's remember all the discussion about how Barack Obama had to fend off the 'angry black man' stereotype," commented Ann Althouse.

"Racists: Democrats Demand Allen West Apologize for Criticizing White Woman," posted Glenn Reynolds, wickedly adding, "I guess they figure he doesn't know his place."

His place, it would seem, is among the titans of literature, at least, to the Washington Post. The Reliable Source put West's picture between those of Jane Austen and Charlotte Bronte, daring the readers to tell them apart:

"Nasty, yes -- but what gorgeous 19th century prose!" the paper exulted. "Can you tell which rich disses were penned by the tea party freshman, and which by the great ladies of Bonnet Fiction? Answers below."

And indeed the West email: "From this time forward, understand that I shall defend myself against your heinous, characterless behavior .You are [a] vile, unprofessional, and despicable member ... You have proven ... repeatedly that you are not a Lady, therefore shall not be rewarded due respect from me!"

That is indistinguishable in tone from the writings of Bronte and Austen, as in: "Your manners, impressing me with the fullest belief of your arrogance, your conceit, and your selfish disdain of the feelings of others, were such as to form the groundwork of disapprobation on which succeeding events have built so immovable a dislike."

The world would be a better place (and much, much more literate) if there were more people like Allen West and Charlotte Bronte. It would be a better place, too, if every department of race/gender studies were shut down immediately, and every "professor" therein put to work cleaning toilets.

Transgender toilets, of course.

First off, I love when "feminist" is still used as a bad word.

Secondly, that man was in movies. Great generals were also drunks, homosexuals, and violent sociopaths in some cases. Maybe you should consider that all that stuff was, you know, fiction?

And speaking the way Bronte wrote is akin to sticking feathers in your butt to be a chicken.

The Moon Monster
Dec 30, 2005
THIS CUSTOM TITLE WILL COME IN HANDY WHILE LURKING


Goatman Sacks posted:

" nations with the most prosperous economies are the ones with the most limited governments."

Somalia - a beacon of light to us all

And then there's China.

Neptr
Mar 1, 2011


fishmech posted:

I like the fact that they ALWAYS say that they're color TVs. As if having black and white TVs is perfectly ok with them, or possible to do in 2011.

I'm pretty sure that it's because the survey/study is actually pretty old, maybe from the 80s? That's also why VCRs are mentioned. The XBox could be from another study, and he's just mixing up statistics into a Heritage Foundation poo poo sundae.

e: Wrong, it's from 2004, using data from 2001.
http://www.heritage.org/research/re...erty-in-america

Still no mention of Xboxes, so he is just mashing up statistics.

Neptr fucked around with this message at Jul 28, 2011 around 23:06

RC and Moon Pie
May 5, 2011


I haven't picked on the Gainesville Times lately. Their letters to the editor are absolutely gold.

quote:

Look for Obama to take on gun control if he wins second term

Believing that something won't happen, doesn't mean it won't. Many people think that despite the many negative factors that exist, President Barack Obama will barely cross the next presidential election finish line as victor.

Should that happen, among the many facets of his new term will be additional gun control regulations. The facts bear out that a second-term Obama administration will most definitely not be citizen friendly to the Second Amendment.

In 1996, then-Illinois State Sen. Obama answered a gun control questionnaire. He wrote that he supported a complete ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns and assault weapons.

In 1998, he expressed his support for a complete ban on the sale or transfer of all semi-automatic firearms. He supported Illinois law that bans concealed carry permits.

In 1999, Obama endorsed a 500 percent increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition. This was obviously intended to increase the price of gun ownership so drastically as to make it unaffordable for most Americans. Also in 1999, he supported a proposal to ban gun stores within five miles of a school or park. This was a reasonable-sounding scheme that would have had the effect of banning nearly every gun store in America.

In 2000, Obama voted against allowing citizens to violate local weapon bans where self-defense was involved. In 2005, he voted in the U.S. Senate to ban nearly all rifle ammunition in common civilian use.

The point: President Obama's anti-freedom inclinations have not abated. He has merely put them aside temporarily in the pursuit of larger progressive goals. Just because gun control has not had the kind of exposure enjoyed by ObamaCare does not mean it is not part of his agenda.

How will he do it? A second Obama term will involve greater restrictive laws for private citizens' gun ownership. According to the Huffington Post, the Department of Justice has been meeting to plan options for enacting gun controls by bypassing the legislative process though executive orders or regulation making by federal bureaucrats.

Obama will use his appointed, unaccountable czars, who will make up the rules as they go. And he will use the imperial courts. By appointing the right kind of judges or jurisdiction shopping, predictable rulings are easy to obtain. Whatever mischief bureaucrats aren't able to secure often can be accomplished through liberal activist judges.

Even if lower court decisions are eventually and inevitably overturned, the process takes years, and any rulings adverse to Obama's desires usually can be safely ignored.

Remember, you heard it here: Unburdened with the necessity of a second campaign, President Obama will almost certainly go for broke on every item on his progressive wish list. Gun control has always been near the very top of every progressives' wish list, and he is nothing if not a good progressive. The Second Amendment is in great peril.

If that's not enough, a follow-up from another reader:

quote:

In response to Dr. Tom Smiley's letter about President Barack Obama and guns, I have to make a few comments.
Dr. Smiley's comments are factual and accurate and unfortunately incomplete. I suppose space was limited in what could be published.

His czars have already made changes that will have a direct impact on private firearms use and ownership. The brass, for example, from once-fired rounds at Fort Benning have been sold on contract to a company to be reused as reloaded ammunition for the general public. Not any more. As soon as this contract is over, a million rounds a year will be ground into powder instead.

Lead, the main component of bullets from the beginning, is being held out as a problem. Finally, the truth has surfaced that the studies that were being used to prove issues around lead "poisoning" crows and other scavenger birds were made up. Shooting clubs in coastal areas have been shut down with the argument the lead is "leaching" into the water and soil. Sorry, but in a base environment (as opposed to acidic) lead won't leach. Science doesn't matter anymore.

There is a plan in the United Nations that isn't getting any press: a worldwide treaty against private citizens owning firearms. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is deeply involved in this. The plan is to bring the treaty to the U.S. and have it ratified by the Democrat-controlled Senate. The only hope then is that the Supreme Court would rule that the Senate cannot agree to a treaty that goes against the Constitution, but that could be a coin toss.

Voting does matter. Unfortunately, informing the public is near impossible. I appreciate Dr. Smiley making his points and I hope he keeps it up.

Neptr
Mar 1, 2011


RC and Moon Pie posted:

Sorry, but in a base environment (as opposed to acidic) lead won't leach.

Thank goodness for all that basic rain!

Saint Sputnik
Mar 31, 2007

Hvorfor er ikke mannen samfunnsnyttig, Mor?

Makes me want to write a followup to both of those.

quote:

I couldn't agree more with the previous citizens' bold and informative words. Furthermore -- Oh excuse me there's a knock at the door. Let me just reach for my bedside handgun and...

Obama? What are you doing at my house! This is against numerous amendments and the wishes of the Founding Fathers. No, you can't have my gun! Get your hands off! I have it within my rights to shoot you dead for trespassing I'll have you know, you uppity so-and-so. Now where are you going? My fridge? No you can't have my leftover pizza, go get your own!

Goatman Sacks
Apr 4, 2011

by FactsAreUseless


Allen West is funny because he's a war criminal who ran on a platform of "I'm a war criminal!" and got elected because Americans love war criminals.

zeroprime
Mar 25, 2006

Words go here.

Fun Shoe

calmasahinducow posted:

Awesome example given that no soldiers are allowed to carry guns at fort hood.
Yeah, there are a lot better examples of 'if only more people had guns' = retarded, especially in Texas.

Literally assassinated a President in Texas and back in the good ol' days (when everyone had guns) Texas had it's own nation shaking massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman I wonder how many people he could have taken out if he had an assault rifle

Bruce Leroy
Jun 10, 2010


RC and Moon Pie posted:

I haven't picked on the Gainesville Times lately. Their letters to the editor are absolutely gold.


If that's not enough, a follow-up from another reader:

That's some pretty classic fearmongering, including the oft-mentioned conservative trope that the UN is trying to ban private gun ownership.

I've not heard about any gun clubs getting shut down, but I bet it was because they were shooting out on public land or somewhere else where they didn't own the property and were basically polluting by shooting large amounts of lead ammunition. If true, they probably would have been left alone if they simply just switched to "green" rounds that use tungsten and other metals instead of lead.

Thenipwax posted:

I especially like how having TWO color televisions, a/c, and an Xbox suddenly means you've "made it". Whenever I see somebody with two TVs, I know I think "drat, this person is loaded!"

You think they could use net worth or something as a metric rather than which inexpensive electronics are in the house. It's not like electronics slide into obsolescense quickly or anything, right?

You can buy an old original Xbox for dirt cheap today, so it really shouldn't matter if a poor family has an Xbox. Hell, they might have even gotten it from Goodwill or some other charitable organization after it was donated by some middle class or wealthy kid that got a 360 for Christmas.

De Nomolos posted:

"An officer and a gentleman"

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opini...r-and-gentleman


First off, I love when "feminist" is still used as a bad word.

Secondly, that man was in movies. Great generals were also drunks, homosexuals, and violent sociopaths in some cases. Maybe you should consider that all that stuff was, you know, fiction?

And speaking the way Bronte wrote is akin to sticking feathers in your butt to be a chicken.

The best part is that Allen West is a "gentleman" for his vitriolic diatribe against Wasserman Schultz, but she is somehow a "shrew" because she originally asked how West can support Republican debt ceiling proposals that cut Medicare benefits when he represents so many elderly people in Florida.

One is a legitimate question that many of his constituency might be interested in and the other is someone deflecting criticism with indignation to prevent people from realizing what a selfish prick he is.

Goatman Sacks posted:

Allen West is funny because he's a war criminal who ran on a platform of "I'm a war criminal!" and got elected because Americans love war criminals.

He's a war criminal?

Shalebridge Cradle
Apr 23, 2008


Bruce Leroy posted:

He's a war criminal?

Yep

While serving in Taji, Iraq, West received information from an intelligence specialist about a reported plot to ambush him and his men.[11] The alleged plot reportedly involved Yahya Jhodri Hamoodi, a civilian Iraqi police officer.[11] West, who was not responsible for conducting interrogations in Iraq and had never conducted nor witnessed one, had his men detain Hamoodi.[11] In the process of detaining Mr. Hamoodi, soldiers testified that Hamoodi appeared to reach for his weapon and needed to be subdued.[11] Hamoodi was beaten by four soldiers from the 220th Field Artillery Battalion on the head and body.[12] West then fired his pistol near Hamoodi's head,[11] after which Hamoodi provided West with names and information, which Hamoodi later described as "meaningless information induced by fear and pain."[11] At least one of these suspects was arrested as a result, but no plans for attacks or weapons were found.[11] West said "At the time I had to base my decision on the intelligence I received. It's possible that I was wrong about Mr. Hamoodi."[11]

Walter
Jul 3, 2003

We think they're great. In a grand, mystical, neopolitical sense, these guys have a real message in their music. They don't, however, have neat names like me and Bono.

This morning, a local talk radio fellow did a call-in piece on a recent published statistic that claimed a 64% increase in the number of children living with grandparents. Of course, he didn't bother to mention where the statistic came from or what "living with grandparents" included, so he launched into a diatribe that basically amounted to "kids these days."

And naturally, no mention at all of anything besides irresponsible kids that could be the cause of this, like for example underemployment and in-home care for the older generation by their children (the parents of these kids living with grandparents).

So I looked up the statistic / article when I got home. And sure enough Google found it (or a related article) in about two seconds...

http://blog.aarp.org/2011/07/27/car...th-grandparent/

quote:

There are many different data sets we can look at regarding family living arrangements, multigenerational households and grandparents caregiving for grandchildren, but consistently they all show growth in recent years. The latest Census Bureau report on the topic once again confirms the increase in families bringing generations together.

The U.S. Census Bureau recently released the report, Living Arrangements of Children: 2009, which indicated 7.8 million children live with at least one grandparent, more than double the 4.7 million children living with a grandparent in 1991 (a 64% increase.) The data are from the household relationship module of the Survey of Income and Program Participation. Of those 7.8 million children, the majority (75%) are living in multigenerational homes, with at least one parent also present – about the same percentage as in 1991. That means about 25% are being raised by grandparents with no parents present.

Within racial/ethnic groups, the largest increase in children living with a grandparent over the past two decades has been among white children, with 5% of White children living with a grandparent in 1991, and 9% in 2009. Among Hispanic children, 12% lived with a grandparent in 1991, and 14% in 2009. Black children saw a similar increase, with 15% of Black children living with a grandparent in 1991 and 17% in 2009.

I was interviewed by the Washington Times about these new data, and I stressed the various reasons I believe these numbers have increased so significantly, including:

quote:

  • The aging of the population and increased need for adult children to care for aging parents, often combining households to do so – even when there are still children living in the home.
  • The recent recession and housing crisis has hit families across all socio-economic groups, with many young families turning to the grandparent generation for help.
  • Parents who aren’t capable of raising their children due to alcohol and drug abuse, mental illness and other problems that lead to child abuse and neglect.

The bad news: none of these problems are going away any time soon.

The good news: the generations continue to come together to cope with these challenges.

The American family may not look exactly like it used to, but – even when one generation is out of the picture – increasingly, another generation will step in to provide the family home a child needs.

Yet another example of omission so that some random bit of news fits the narrative of "things were better in the good ol' days when we read the Bible and people were hard-workin' Americans instead of lazy kids like today." It doesn't surprise me, but that kind of intellectual dishonesty still boils my blood. And yeah, I realize this is relatively minor compared to Cal Thomas. But still...

Armyman25
Sep 6, 2005


What's funny is that multi-generational households used to be the norm. My great-great grandfather lived in my grandmother's home when she was a young girl. Unsurprisingly this was before the New Deal.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Walter
Jul 3, 2003

We think they're great. In a grand, mystical, neopolitical sense, these guys have a real message in their music. They don't, however, have neat names like me and Bono.

Armyman25 posted:

What's funny is that multi-generational households used to be the norm. My great-great grandfather lived in my grandmother's home when she was a young girl. Unsurprisingly this was before the New Deal.

They still are in many parts of the world. Multi-generational households actually reinforce "traditional" values. I suppose we could argue about whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, but whatever it is, bitching about "boomerang" kids is a relatively new thing.

The conservative element can rarely see past the end of their noses, though, so I'm not really surprised.

  • Locked thread
«106 »