I am very serious when I say Islam is a greater threat to the world today than Nazism was in the 1930's.
You have surprising company in that sentiment. Of course, Hitchens would suggest you are just as deranged and dangerous as the average Muslim. But let us not be too swift to trample others. Sure, Bin Laden is dangerous, but could you say that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was more of a threat than Timothy McVeigh?
Which is it? People, or things? And is one less moral than the other?
A person is always responsible for their own actions, thus firing a gun at someone is immoral. But, just because the person pulling the trigger is doing wrong, why does it then follow that the gun itself is benign? Most murders are not premeditated, they happen because tempers rise and a weapon is handy. If a lethal weapon is not handy, then the dispute will usually boil off and nobody will die. I'm just confused how pro-life and pro-guns are not contradictory positions...
Unfortunately, that's not true. It is justifiable, but you will still have some blood on your hands and on your conscience. FWIW, the case you linked was a woman with a shotgun, which is the best gun to choose for self defense. They are easier to hit with (just point and click) as opposed to hand guns which people often miss with. This is an example of why I do support gun rights, but not the right to hand guns. I think the Washington DC rule was appropriate and the courts legislated from the bench to overturn it. Funny how when one of those things goes against the conservatives they belly-ache for 30 years trying to get it overturned, when it goes against liberals they move on...
Here's some highlights (but the rest of the article includes good anecdotes and better explanations)
As scientists began studying belief in the paranormal, it quickly became clear that belief requires an open mind—one not bound by the evidence of the senses, but in which emotions such as hope and despair can trump that evidence.
A study reported a few weeks ago in the journal Science found that people asked to recall a time when they felt a loss of control saw more patterns in random noise, perceived more conspiracies in stories they read and imagined illusory correlations in financial markets than people who were not reminded that events are sometimes beyond their control.
Some 40 percent of Americans believe it's possible that aliens have grabbed some of us, polls show, compared with 25 percent in the 1980s. What makes abductees stand out is something so common, it's a wonder there aren't more of them: an inability to think scientifically.
A more common experience is to see patterns in coincidences, something that also represents a hijacking of normal and useful brain function. You think about the girl at the party last Saturday and—bam!—she calls you. You think about the girl who chatted you up in class—and never hear from her. Guess which experience you remember?
It's fitting that his last post here is saying that we just elected Hitler. I'll miss him.
If he does show his head again, he'll need to explain why we should believe any of his crazy assertions. He repeated time and again that he held no doubt McCain would win, and probably by a landslide. In other words, his confidence that GW is wrong, that Obama == Hitler, and that evolution is wrong were all the same as his confidence that McCain would win. He never has any doubts, which is why even when he finds some pertinent information he's generally wrong at large.
So, how about it Robroy? Since all of your arguments are premised on your authority to be "certain", why should anyone trust any of your arguments?
Sigh, that might just be the final Robroy Nazi Countdown post. Our old pal Robroy will now be goosestepping his way out of the Seattle area. For the coming months, he'll be too busy purchasing marked arm-bands and negotiating care for his family pets when he and his wife are eventually rounded up and taken to a ghetto and eventually a concentration camp in Tennessee (or is it Kentucky?).
So, while the rest of the world finds some new enthusiasm and start asking again how we can bridge our divides, we won't have Robroy there to warn us that we should hate each other. When we start rebuilding our economy and our nation with energy and infrastructure initiatives, Robroy won't be around to assert that our increased freedom of motion and decreased dependency on foreign energy are just "the Man's" way of enforcing his power. And when we start bringing our soldiers home, we won't have Robroy to make it clear that only a Muslim terrorist would enact policies that might reduce the number of deaths in the Middle East.
God speed Robroy! We'll miss your delusional and over-reverent ways.
How to win an unproveable argument in 3 easy steps:
1. Assert that your unproveable argument is true because you are special.
2. Assert a different argument that your audience strongly disagrees with but has a chance of being true.
3. If your second argument is true, use that as evidence that you are more special than your audience and therefore they must be wrong about the first argument as well.
If #3 does not pan out then move on to a different audience.
If allegations by her previous staff that she didn't know Africa was a continent (as opposed to a country) it just proves how absurd and potentially dangerous her fear of knowledge was. Coincidentally, if any candidate did have the potential to drive us towards the Nazi-like intolerance that Robroy worried about so much, it was her. She has no perspective on history, world affairs, progress, or how our government even functions, and she doesn't seem inquisitive enough to learn anything.
I think I know why Robroy is too busy to rejoin the fray. He's stocking up.
Sales of handguns, rifles and ammunition have surged in the last week, according to gun store owners around the nation who describe a wave of buyers concerned that an Obama administration will curtail their right to bear arms.
"He's a gun-snatcher," said Jim Pruett, owner of Jim Pruett's Guns and Ammo in northwest Houston, which was packed with shoppers on Thursday.
Just kidding about Robroy, but I do find it disturbing that some of the most irrational people in our country are out there buying guns at a faster rate than ever before. Maybe this is why they are called "culture wars".
If you ever watch Bill O'Reilly on FNC, he basically sells fear.
A large portion of the population seems to eat up fear.
Of course when you can't understand why anything happens (9/11, housing market collapse, wall street bailouts, iraq not working out so well, etc) then being afraid kind of makes sense. And FNC makes sure that you have no clue about how the world works (no idea of sunni vs. shia, saddam not behind 9/11, etc) and makes sure that you're terrified from everyone from terrorists to child molesters to democrats.
If you ever watch Bill O'Reilly on FNC, he basically sells fear.
A large portion of the population seems to eat up fear.
Of course when you can't understand why anything happens (9/11, housing market collapse, wall street bailouts, iraq not working out so well, etc) then being afraid kind of makes sense. And FNC makes sure that you have no clue about how the world works (no idea of sunni vs. shia, saddam not behind 9/11, etc) and makes sure that you're terrified from everyone from terrorists to child molesters to democrats.
Phfft. Ever listen to talk radio? Sure, Fox News will frighten you that terrorists are specifically stalking you (even if you live in unincorporated Montana), but talk radio will make you scared of your own shadow. Interestingly, the thing talk radio is most terrified of is ... I'm blanking on the name for it, but it's some kind of "fair and balanced" act, which requires stations to provide some level of equal play for opposing views.
Now, I personally think it's a dumb law due to the effect of unexpected perspectives. E.g. if you argue "teach the creationism because it is an alternative view" you must then consider any additional view as equally viable like "unintelligent design", "the great wolf in the sky", or "turtles all the way down".
Back on topic, to hear these pundits, you'd think that a law requiring radio stations to play a liberal pundit's show after Rush Limbaugh's show is the same as passing a law that requires toddlers to work 18 hour days in coal mines while chimpanzee taskmasters whip them.
Yeah, it's really true. The Fairness Doctorine was around for 40 years up until 1987. Frankly, I don't think it's that big of a deal either way.
It's like the "issue" that was posted a couple of days ago about Democrats wanting to steal everyone's 401k plan. I'm sure that all the righty talkers raised that alarm last week.
A little digging about it of course found that it was something one economist said at one congressional meeting a month ago. Not something any politician had endorsed at all or it seems taken seriously.
Constantly setting up strawmen and knocking them down.
Conatser said his store, Virginia Arms Company, has run out of some models — such as the AR-15 rifle, the civilian version of the military's M-16 — and is running low on others.
Such assault weapons are among the firearms that gun dealers and customers say they fear Obama will hit with new restrictions, or even take off the market.
Really? Why are civilians even allowed to purchase assault rifles? We're not talking about hunting here, and we're not talking self defense, we're talking about the kinds of weapons that are designed for charging into a building and shooting as many people as possible.
I, for one, sincerely hope their fears are justified and that under the Obama administration it does become illegal for civilians to possess such guns. I doubt it will happen, but I would stand up and cheer if it did.
Same thing happened when Clinton became president. How many guns were stolen then?
The NRA is really just a lobbying group for gun and arms manufacturers. Fear sells. It always has.
I agree with you RCC. Those weapons are designed for offense, not defense. The same person who will buy that kind of weapon will also not have any problems selling it then to someone who is maybe not as scrupulous.
I personally think that anyone who purchases a firearm should be required to take a gun safety course, just like getting a driver's license. You have a driver's license to prove to everyone that you reasonably understand that you are somewhat competent with a large piece of machinery. Likewise, you should learn how to handle a weapon. Guns are tools. You use them to kill things. The right tool for the right job.
After all, the two biggest causes of gun deaths are suicide and accidents, not self-defense or murder.
I personally think that anyone who purchases a firearm should be required to take a gun safety course, just like getting a driver's license. You have a driver's license to prove to everyone that you reasonably understand that you are somewhat competent with a large piece of machinery. Likewise, you should learn how to handle a weapon. Guns are tools. You use them to kill things. The right tool for the right job.
I think that's wise, but should be taken a little further. The sole purpose of a gun is to kill or at least wound something. By purchasing a gun, you are taking on a significant responsibility. I would like to see a system in place where, not only must you hold a current license to own a gun, but you should be required to register and purchase tabs on every gun you own. The sale of a gun from one party to another should be tracked in the same manner that it is for cars, you should be required to transfer registration to the purchasing party.
If you illegally transfer the title for a gun to some third party without following protocol, and that gun is used in a crime, you will then have some level of liability in a court of law. I guess, stolen guns should be exempt from liability, but with a requirement that the theft be reported within X days after it is recognized (one-two weeks maybe), and that misreporting a theft is a felony offense. Finally, possession of a firearm for which you (or your family unit) do not hold license/registration should also be a felony.
See, this is why we need RobRoy. To tell us why we're wrong and why Obama is going to steal all of our guns and put us in concentration camps. This is no fun anymore.
We should go and recruit a couple of Freepers to join in the fun here.
You're right, of course, but I am actually kind of enjoying the privilege of making reasonable and bold statements without being confronted by half a dozen separate response posts (each one quoting part or all of my original post) from one guy who lacks reading comprehension skills and believes that nothing in the world has changed since just before he was born.
So, I'm really not going to complain that a Barak Obama victory sent one of our most perplexing trolls running for the hills. In a way, that's actually two wins for rational people. Of course, the bad news is it probably just gives him more time on whatever whacko fundamentalist boards he visits to reindoctrinate himself. If we ever see him again, he'll come back with some explanation of how Obama stole the election in a landslide or other nonsense.
I actually said to Tim last night that if he does come back, it'll be under a different login name. We'll always suspect who it is, but never have any actual proof.
I actually said to Tim last night that if he does come back, it'll be under a different login name. We'll always suspect who it is, but never have any actual proof.
Ha! That doesn't sound like his MO to me. Besides, when signs an energy bill with bipartisan support that makes tacit acknowledgment of global warming, the new pseudonym would make some outrageous claim of being a persecuted Jew during the holocaust as early as 1993, and that's when we'd know.
Wait a minute, I just realized his Nazi claims started about the time Clinton was elected. Apparently, anyone who lives in a nation with a president from the "other party" is exactly equivalent to a holocaust survivor.
In other news, I'm a little concerned that some democrats are more interested in seeing dissolution of the republican party rather than desiring to move the national discourse away from nonproductive and divisive politics (like gay marriage or abortion) and towards the most important issues of the day (like a green energy economy and proper/ethical controls on the growing and potentially very dangerous biotech industry). Here's an example, thanking Fox News for continually deluding their viewers about world conditions. The author basically asserts, that Fox News (and republican talk radio) has managed to make the 20%-30% of it's viewers so extreme and so deluded that they are pulling their party apart and destroying their political influence.
Surely, it's better if we make use of the stem cells that under Bush's policies are simply discarded as waste. But I'm not convinced we really want to live in a nation where one quarter of the population is delusional, fundamentalist, and angry...
I'm not convinced we really want to live in a nation where one quarter of the population is delusional, fundamentalist, and angry...
Or where one politcal party has all the power. Checks and balances are there for a reason. To this end, I do not want the Democrats to have a "filibuster-proof" majority in the Senate. In fact, I'd rather the House had a Republican majority as a check on the Senate. While I do relish in some schadenfreude of the Republican party imploding after the last 8 years, I don't want either party to be so weak the other has complete control. Pelosi scares me as much as Delay did.
Or where one politcal party has all the power. Checks and balances are there for a reason. To this end, I do not want the Democrats to have a "filibuster-proof" majority in the Senate. In fact, I'd rather the House had a Republican majority as a check on the Senate. While I do relish in some schadenfreude of the Republican party imploding after the last 8 years, I don't want either party to be so weak the other has complete control. Pelosi scares me as much as Delay did.
Consider me torn on this issue. On the one hand, the issues of the day are dire enough that we need leadership which can lead. Could an all democrat congress splinter and feud? Certainly, but it has a better chance of passing legislation than a mixed congress would.
That said, there are several bills the democrats seem eager to pass which are not going to be beneficial to our nation - union card check being one of them - so it's not a terrible thing to have some dissenting opinions voiced. Right now, I'm thinking a one party but non-filibuster-proof majority should be alright. I imagine that's what we'll see as the dems hold 57 seats with 3 to be decided and Lieberman apparently on his way out the door (make that 56 seats then).
A fillabuster proof majority may be what we need to act quickly on things though. I mean, that's what Roosevelt had after all and he was able to accomplish quite alot in a short amount of time.
I mean, it's a democracy after all. If there is a mandate from the people, then it needs to be followed. Extreme times call for extreme measures.
Also, I think that if the Republican Party had little to no power, they may go back to being what the Republican party really was. Here's a good op/ed from Ron Paul: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/11/ ... index.html
I think if the GOP goes back to being the way that they were, or the way they say they want to be, they will likely make a comeback. If they continue to pander to the far right, they'll fade away.
There are rumors that Obama may ask Lieberman to be in his cabinet as head of homeland security. That is the committee that he heads currently, it would show that Obama is willing to forgive and forget, it would solve the issue of those who want to kick Lieberman to the curb, and the Governor of Lieberman's state would likely appoint another Democratic Senator as well.
The only thing the Democrats seems to want to push through right now is dipping into the $700 billion for any industry that's having a hard time during the recession. Currently that's auto manufacturers, but who's next? Best Buy reported today they are getting hit hard by the drawback in consumer spending. Do they get bailed out too? Circuit City filed for bankruptcy, do they get a bailout next?
Some people in Congress seem far too eager to throw taxpayer money at any company having a tough time. We need some fiscal conservatives to balance things out, or that $700 billion will be gone in a flash, then time to approve the next round of revolving bailout.
Despite Democrats having a healthy advantage in both the House and the Senate, a lot of the newly elected Democrats are from fairly conservative states. Not all are going to go along with some of Pelosi's/Obama's wilder ambitions, because they will have to answer to their constituents who went with them for economic purposes only to find out they got a huge social-contract mandate.
The gun control topic in the other thread is a good example.
As for the GOP, unfortunately most of the moderate ones got shown the door, and the most right wings held their seats.
The only thing the Democrats seems to want to push through right now is dipping into the $700 billion for any industry that's having a hard time during the recession. Currently that's auto manufacturers, but who's next? Best Buy reported today they are getting hit hard by the drawback in consumer spending. Do they get bailed out too? Circuit City filed for bankruptcy, do they get a bailout next?
I think you can sort of draw a line between Detroit Auto and electronics retailers. The auto industry creates several well paying jobs, it provides exports, and it has been a difficult industry to break into (pending the Silicon Valley forays via electric vehicles, which I hope turn the industry on its side). Circuit City on the other hand is just a retailer. They don't do anything different than Walmart, Krugers, Target, Amazon or Sears other than specializing in only one category of products. They don't do anything different from Video Only other than sell a broader range of products. If every Circuit City and Best Buy shut their doors tomorrow, just about anyone on this forum could open a new (much much smaller) store selling the same products for only marginally higher prices and probably be successful at it.
Those are some of the reasons it would be easier to support a Boeing or Microsoft bailout than a Nordstroms, Starbucks, or Costco bailout.
One last thing, the reason Detroit is going under isn't because they make crappy products, nor because they lack revenue. They're sinking due to legacy costs (pensions specifically). If they shut the doors tomorrow and just disappeared, guess who would be on the hook to pay off those pensions - the taxpayer. In other words, you're paying regardless of what happens.
One last thing, the reason Detroit is going under isn't because they make crappy products, nor because they lack revenue. They're sinking due to legacy costs (pensions specifically).
That's a gross oversimplification of the problem, Rose. And 2/3 of it is flat out wrong.
Yes, the big 2.5 have large legacy costs. However, they've had large legacy costs for a long time. A decade ago, GM and Ford were posting record profits quarter after quarter. But much like Wall Street, it was a short sighted strategy to maximize short term profits at the expense of long term planning. The profits were the byproduct of the '90s SUV craze, and Ford and GM made the best SUVs. What did GM and Ford do with those profits? They didn't attempt to stave off their long term legacy cost issue by buying out unneeded capacity. They didn't reinvest it in new technology or improving their product line, other than pumping out wave after wave of bigger and more expensive SUVs. Both of them practically abandoned their car lines (save the halo Corvette and a few niche products). And now they are behind the ball on making decent cars that people actually want. There was a long phase (probably about '93 until '05) when pretty much every Ford/GM car was crappy. Some of them are pretty decent now, but they're still behind every Japanese company save Mitsubishi, and probably only on par with the Koreans. Ford of Europe makes great cars, but Ford of NA told them not to worry about passing US crash/emissions because Americans would never want a small car.
As for revenue, they're hurting pretty bad right now, because they've been unable to sell cars without using rebates. They're forced to choose between selling a car at a $2500 loss or not selling a car and paying their fixed costs to be idle. That's not all due to their fixed costs. Most of their cars are actually cheaper than the Japanese cars; but because they're crappy people aren't willing to pay what they actually cost to make. Honda, Toyota, et al do not have this issue.
My longwinded post can be summed up simply: Ford and GM gave up long term planning for short term profits in the early 90s. That is why they're sinking, not solely because of their pensions.
And the problem with bailing them out is that they're still thinking short term.
To me as a layman, it's starting to look like the goverment is putting themselves in the position to prop up any company that employs large numbers of people any time it is having financial troubles. Too Big To Fail, as it were. Wall Street. Auto. Airlines? What about large employers like Wal-Mart? Where's the line? That is my fear -- companies reap the benefits of the good times, and get handouts from the government during bad times. All upside and no downside, privatize profit and socialize loss, with the taxpayers on the hook. No incentive to actually run a lean and profitable business, no fear of ramifications from the decisions made. The government will help. Bah.
Comments
You have surprising company in that sentiment. Of course, Hitchens would suggest you are just as deranged and dangerous as the average Muslim. But let us not be too swift to trample others. Sure, Bin Laden is dangerous, but could you say that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was more of a threat than Timothy McVeigh?
A person is always responsible for their own actions, thus firing a gun at someone is immoral. But, just because the person pulling the trigger is doing wrong, why does it then follow that the gun itself is benign? Most murders are not premeditated, they happen because tempers rise and a weapon is handy. If a lethal weapon is not handy, then the dispute will usually boil off and nobody will die. I'm just confused how pro-life and pro-guns are not contradictory positions...
Unfortunately, that's not true. It is justifiable, but you will still have some blood on your hands and on your conscience. FWIW, the case you linked was a woman with a shotgun, which is the best gun to choose for self defense. They are easier to hit with (just point and click) as opposed to hand guns which people often miss with. This is an example of why I do support gun rights, but not the right to hand guns. I think the Washington DC rule was appropriate and the courts legislated from the bench to overturn it. Funny how when one of those things goes against the conservatives they belly-ache for 30 years trying to get it overturned, when it goes against liberals they move on...
Here's some highlights (but the rest of the article includes good anecdotes and better explanations)
If he does show his head again, he'll need to explain why we should believe any of his crazy assertions. He repeated time and again that he held no doubt McCain would win, and probably by a landslide. In other words, his confidence that GW is wrong, that Obama == Hitler, and that evolution is wrong were all the same as his confidence that McCain would win. He never has any doubts, which is why even when he finds some pertinent information he's generally wrong at large.
So, how about it Robroy? Since all of your arguments are premised on your authority to be "certain", why should anyone trust any of your arguments?
Sigh, that might just be the final Robroy Nazi Countdown post. Our old pal Robroy will now be goosestepping his way out of the Seattle area. For the coming months, he'll be too busy purchasing marked arm-bands and negotiating care for his family pets when he and his wife are eventually rounded up and taken to a ghetto and eventually a concentration camp in Tennessee (or is it Kentucky?).
So, while the rest of the world finds some new enthusiasm and start asking again how we can bridge our divides, we won't have Robroy there to warn us that we should hate each other. When we start rebuilding our economy and our nation with energy and infrastructure initiatives, Robroy won't be around to assert that our increased freedom of motion and decreased dependency on foreign energy are just "the Man's" way of enforcing his power. And when we start bringing our soldiers home, we won't have Robroy to make it clear that only a Muslim terrorist would enact policies that might reduce the number of deaths in the Middle East.
God speed Robroy! We'll miss your delusional and over-reverent ways.
1. Assert that your unproveable argument is true because you are special.
2. Assert a different argument that your audience strongly disagrees with but has a chance of being true.
3. If your second argument is true, use that as evidence that you are more special than your audience and therefore they must be wrong about the first argument as well.
If #3 does not pan out then move on to a different audience.
If allegations by her previous staff that she didn't know Africa was a continent (as opposed to a country) it just proves how absurd and potentially dangerous her fear of knowledge was. Coincidentally, if any candidate did have the potential to drive us towards the Nazi-like intolerance that Robroy worried about so much, it was her. She has no perspective on history, world affairs, progress, or how our government even functions, and she doesn't seem inquisitive enough to learn anything.
Just kidding about Robroy, but I do find it disturbing that some of the most irrational people in our country are out there buying guns at a faster rate than ever before. Maybe this is why they are called "culture wars".
If you ever watch Bill O'Reilly on FNC, he basically sells fear.
A large portion of the population seems to eat up fear.
Of course when you can't understand why anything happens (9/11, housing market collapse, wall street bailouts, iraq not working out so well, etc) then being afraid kind of makes sense. And FNC makes sure that you have no clue about how the world works (no idea of sunni vs. shia, saddam not behind 9/11, etc) and makes sure that you're terrified from everyone from terrorists to child molesters to democrats.
Phfft. Ever listen to talk radio? Sure, Fox News will frighten you that terrorists are specifically stalking you (even if you live in unincorporated Montana), but talk radio will make you scared of your own shadow. Interestingly, the thing talk radio is most terrified of is ... I'm blanking on the name for it, but it's some kind of "fair and balanced" act, which requires stations to provide some level of equal play for opposing views.
Now, I personally think it's a dumb law due to the effect of unexpected perspectives. E.g. if you argue "teach the creationism because it is an alternative view" you must then consider any additional view as equally viable like "unintelligent design", "the great wolf in the sky", or "turtles all the way down".
Back on topic, to hear these pundits, you'd think that a law requiring radio stations to play a liberal pundit's show after Rush Limbaugh's show is the same as passing a law that requires toddlers to work 18 hour days in coal mines while chimpanzee taskmasters whip them.
It's like the "issue" that was posted a couple of days ago about Democrats wanting to steal everyone's 401k plan. I'm sure that all the righty talkers raised that alarm last week.
A little digging about it of course found that it was something one economist said at one congressional meeting a month ago. Not something any politician had endorsed at all or it seems taken seriously.
Constantly setting up strawmen and knocking them down.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... more-30122
Really? Why are civilians even allowed to purchase assault rifles? We're not talking about hunting here, and we're not talking self defense, we're talking about the kinds of weapons that are designed for charging into a building and shooting as many people as possible.
I, for one, sincerely hope their fears are justified and that under the Obama administration it does become illegal for civilians to possess such guns. I doubt it will happen, but I would stand up and cheer if it did.
The NRA is really just a lobbying group for gun and arms manufacturers. Fear sells. It always has.
I agree with you RCC. Those weapons are designed for offense, not defense. The same person who will buy that kind of weapon will also not have any problems selling it then to someone who is maybe not as scrupulous.
I personally think that anyone who purchases a firearm should be required to take a gun safety course, just like getting a driver's license. You have a driver's license to prove to everyone that you reasonably understand that you are somewhat competent with a large piece of machinery. Likewise, you should learn how to handle a weapon. Guns are tools. You use them to kill things. The right tool for the right job.
After all, the two biggest causes of gun deaths are suicide and accidents, not self-defense or murder.
I think that's wise, but should be taken a little further. The sole purpose of a gun is to kill or at least wound something. By purchasing a gun, you are taking on a significant responsibility. I would like to see a system in place where, not only must you hold a current license to own a gun, but you should be required to register and purchase tabs on every gun you own. The sale of a gun from one party to another should be tracked in the same manner that it is for cars, you should be required to transfer registration to the purchasing party.
If you illegally transfer the title for a gun to some third party without following protocol, and that gun is used in a crime, you will then have some level of liability in a court of law. I guess, stolen guns should be exempt from liability, but with a requirement that the theft be reported within X days after it is recognized (one-two weeks maybe), and that misreporting a theft is a felony offense. Finally, possession of a firearm for which you (or your family unit) do not hold license/registration should also be a felony.
That would make me sleep easier at night.
We should go and recruit a couple of Freepers to join in the fun here.
So, I'm really not going to complain that a Barak Obama victory sent one of our most perplexing trolls running for the hills. In a way, that's actually two wins for rational people. Of course, the bad news is it probably just gives him more time on whatever whacko fundamentalist boards he visits to reindoctrinate himself. If we ever see him again, he'll come back with some explanation of how Obama stole the election in a landslide or other nonsense.
Ha! That doesn't sound like his MO to me. Besides, when signs an energy bill with bipartisan support that makes tacit acknowledgment of global warming, the new pseudonym would make some outrageous claim of being a persecuted Jew during the holocaust as early as 1993, and that's when we'd know.
Wait a minute, I just realized his Nazi claims started about the time Clinton was elected. Apparently, anyone who lives in a nation with a president from the "other party" is exactly equivalent to a holocaust survivor.
In other news, I'm a little concerned that some democrats are more interested in seeing dissolution of the republican party rather than desiring to move the national discourse away from nonproductive and divisive politics (like gay marriage or abortion) and towards the most important issues of the day (like a green energy economy and proper/ethical controls on the growing and potentially very dangerous biotech industry). Here's an example, thanking Fox News for continually deluding their viewers about world conditions. The author basically asserts, that Fox News (and republican talk radio) has managed to make the 20%-30% of it's viewers so extreme and so deluded that they are pulling their party apart and destroying their political influence.
Surely, it's better if we make use of the stem cells that under Bush's policies are simply discarded as waste. But I'm not convinced we really want to live in a nation where one quarter of the population is delusional, fundamentalist, and angry...
Or where one politcal party has all the power. Checks and balances are there for a reason. To this end, I do not want the Democrats to have a "filibuster-proof" majority in the Senate. In fact, I'd rather the House had a Republican majority as a check on the Senate. While I do relish in some schadenfreude of the Republican party imploding after the last 8 years, I don't want either party to be so weak the other has complete control. Pelosi scares me as much as Delay did.
Consider me torn on this issue. On the one hand, the issues of the day are dire enough that we need leadership which can lead. Could an all democrat congress splinter and feud? Certainly, but it has a better chance of passing legislation than a mixed congress would.
That said, there are several bills the democrats seem eager to pass which are not going to be beneficial to our nation - union card check being one of them - so it's not a terrible thing to have some dissenting opinions voiced. Right now, I'm thinking a one party but non-filibuster-proof majority should be alright. I imagine that's what we'll see as the dems hold 57 seats with 3 to be decided and Lieberman apparently on his way out the door (make that 56 seats then).
I mean, it's a democracy after all. If there is a mandate from the people, then it needs to be followed. Extreme times call for extreme measures.
Also, I think that if the Republican Party had little to no power, they may go back to being what the Republican party really was. Here's a good op/ed from Ron Paul: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/11/ ... index.html
I think if the GOP goes back to being the way that they were, or the way they say they want to be, they will likely make a comeback. If they continue to pander to the far right, they'll fade away.
Some people in Congress seem far too eager to throw taxpayer money at any company having a tough time. We need some fiscal conservatives to balance things out, or that $700 billion will be gone in a flash, then time to approve the next round of revolving bailout.
The gun control topic in the other thread is a good example.
As for the GOP, unfortunately most of the moderate ones got shown the door, and the most right wings held their seats.
I think you can sort of draw a line between Detroit Auto and electronics retailers. The auto industry creates several well paying jobs, it provides exports, and it has been a difficult industry to break into (pending the Silicon Valley forays via electric vehicles, which I hope turn the industry on its side). Circuit City on the other hand is just a retailer. They don't do anything different than Walmart, Krugers, Target, Amazon or Sears other than specializing in only one category of products. They don't do anything different from Video Only other than sell a broader range of products. If every Circuit City and Best Buy shut their doors tomorrow, just about anyone on this forum could open a new (much much smaller) store selling the same products for only marginally higher prices and probably be successful at it.
Those are some of the reasons it would be easier to support a Boeing or Microsoft bailout than a Nordstroms, Starbucks, or Costco bailout.
One last thing, the reason Detroit is going under isn't because they make crappy products, nor because they lack revenue. They're sinking due to legacy costs (pensions specifically). If they shut the doors tomorrow and just disappeared, guess who would be on the hook to pay off those pensions - the taxpayer. In other words, you're paying regardless of what happens.
That's a gross oversimplification of the problem, Rose. And 2/3 of it is flat out wrong.
Yes, the big 2.5 have large legacy costs. However, they've had large legacy costs for a long time. A decade ago, GM and Ford were posting record profits quarter after quarter. But much like Wall Street, it was a short sighted strategy to maximize short term profits at the expense of long term planning. The profits were the byproduct of the '90s SUV craze, and Ford and GM made the best SUVs. What did GM and Ford do with those profits? They didn't attempt to stave off their long term legacy cost issue by buying out unneeded capacity. They didn't reinvest it in new technology or improving their product line, other than pumping out wave after wave of bigger and more expensive SUVs. Both of them practically abandoned their car lines (save the halo Corvette and a few niche products). And now they are behind the ball on making decent cars that people actually want. There was a long phase (probably about '93 until '05) when pretty much every Ford/GM car was crappy. Some of them are pretty decent now, but they're still behind every Japanese company save Mitsubishi, and probably only on par with the Koreans. Ford of Europe makes great cars, but Ford of NA told them not to worry about passing US crash/emissions because Americans would never want a small car.
As for revenue, they're hurting pretty bad right now, because they've been unable to sell cars without using rebates. They're forced to choose between selling a car at a $2500 loss or not selling a car and paying their fixed costs to be idle. That's not all due to their fixed costs. Most of their cars are actually cheaper than the Japanese cars; but because they're crappy people aren't willing to pay what they actually cost to make. Honda, Toyota, et al do not have this issue.
My longwinded post can be summed up simply: Ford and GM gave up long term planning for short term profits in the early 90s. That is why they're sinking, not solely because of their pensions.
And the problem with bailing them out is that they're still thinking short term.