Page 13 of 228 FirstFirst ... 311121314152363113 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #121
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    How are the NRA involved in this at all? I know they are the normal boogie man, but they are not the government.
    They block all federal action on gun control by default. Interstate communication is most easily handled by the feds.

    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    I disagree again - it actually would distract from my point if anybodies, and should be used to show how bad America is with guns. And I don't see you jumping down Gordon's throat or anybody else's for making obscure claims or positions.....so I feel this graph brings up other issues in your world view.

    What is shown on there that is so disturbing to your world view that you have to out of hand have to reject it? That instead of ignoring it two of you out of hand brought it up and tried to say it shouldn't be used? That points out that it really is hard for you accept. Why? Does it diminish the Iraq war to the point that you are still emotionally affected by it? So curious. It hurt the Iraq War narrative a good bit - so I can see why, if you held that world view this graph would be particularly difficult to revisit.

    Maybe you need to accept you have a problem with that, and not how it applies to this discussion. Because I wanted to use it to make a different point, in reference to an point I brought up. If you dislike it's existence, yet not in relation to my point, then in reply you only bring up the problem with it's existence and do not, at any point, bring up my point, then the problem exists on it's own.

    Sorry, I am not going to discard it because of your pre-existing issues with the facts it presents.
    What the actual fuck are you on about? Can anyone translate this for me?

    It's bad because it's not a relevant comparison. Not that I would expect you to recognize bad analysis, but you're comparing two things that are so completely removed from each other that I actually don't understand the point you're trying to make. Yeah, Chicago is in rough shape. Yeah, we've lost several times more soldiers in the wars than we did on 9/11, and with the additional cost of around 150,000 Iraqi civilians.

    I actually don't understand what the hell you're trying to say.

    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Shoot, remember when liberals elected a person of a race, and said we were in a post racial period
    Nope. In fact I remember a pretty serious conversation about whether or not he was "black enough" to be considered a black american.

    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    How about talking about what you believe instead of trying to guess what I believe?
    Feel free to read my posts, my positions on the topic of gun violence are pretty simple and I've stated them pretty plainly.

    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Trying to bark at my small, nearly insignificant party as if we have some fault is absolutely hilarious when 'The Bad Places' are all under your party's rule.

    Welp, I've tried (again). Intelligent discussion with you isn't possible.
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  2. #122
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by PBSteve View Post
    They block all federal action on gun control by default. Interstate communication is most easily handled by the feds.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/te...y-2012-n818496

    Hmm.. so definitely seems like there's pretty poor use of data that should be used to prevent these kinds of incidents.
    Here (Finland) doctors are obligated to (and other healthcare professionals can if they choose so) inform the authorities if they suspect that someone would be mentally unfit to own a gun, part(s) of gun, or ammunition.

    Quote Originally Posted by PBSteve View Post
    What the actual fuck are you on about? Can anyone translate this for me?

    It's bad because it's not a relevant comparison. Not that I would expect you to recognize bad analysis, but you're comparing two things that are so completely removed from each other that I actually don't understand the point you're trying to make. Yeah, Chicago is in rough shape. Yeah, we've lost several times more soldiers in the wars than we did on 9/11, and with the additional cost of around 150,000 Iraqi civilians.

    I actually don't understand what the hell you're trying to say.
    I'm not sure I get the point either. It seems to fall in the category of false equivalence fallacy.

  3. #123
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Dang. A glitch erased a rather decent reply to Unfated there. I will try to condense and revisit if I have time.

    And I do apologize, I am snapping through 3-4 projects in between these replies, and I am a bit all over the place in my thought process. I am re-reading this and realizing half is inside of my head, and it just made some much more sense there. I am just glad to not be writing down OQ/IQ validation protocols in some of my replies, or replying to an audiobook.

    Feel free to read my posts, my positions on the topic of gun violence are pretty simple and I've stated them pretty plainly.
    Yes - and you have been clear. But your conclusions are based on some nefarious and not very strong connections. Like the NRA conclusion below.

    That being said - it would help if I read your replies better.
    I seem to have been very...uh....Gordonesqu in my reply.

    I jumped you for blaming libertarians, because I put too many comments together and assumed you were blaming libertarians, where as your comment was more nuanced. My mistake.

    That being said, you should take a hard look at the actions of your party instead of blaming the NRA or otherwise. They have been in charge of the 'bad areas' for gun violence for decades - pointing fingers outward is not productive.


    ______________________________________________

    Let's catch this here really quick:

    They block all federal action on gun control by default. Interstate communication is most easily handled by the feds.

    They can't. They are not a legislator. They are not a representative. They make no laws. They are not the president. They are not the supreme court.


    They can LOBBY. And do.

    They can't actually do shit.

    They can just ASK the above to do something. That is about all; a 'mommy please.'

    The NRA are not on the communication board. They are not the FCC. They can buy a lobbyist or 10 and make pithy videos about patriotism, but they have no rule making ability, since they are just a non-profit. It is an empty comment. They have the same power as Moms Against Squirrels, with just a bigger budget.

    Congress makes the rules. Basic american education, this isn't something that should need repeating.

    Welp, I've tried (again). Intelligent discussion with you isn't possible.
    Maybe you don't understand some basics? :P

    All kidding and internet poking aside, the NRA has no real power to do anything, and it seems illogical that you would pick them out as responsible. Congress is responsible, followed by the president, and the supreme court, who just recently turned over Chicago's gun ban. That is it.

    They are responsible to US, so really, it is our fault whither they do or don't.

    _____________________________

    Post racial, first link, LA Times:

    How could a decent person not hope for all these possibilities, or not give America credit for electing its first black president? And yet an element of Barack Obama's success was always his use of the idealism implied in these questions as political muscle. His talent was to project an idealized vision of a post-racial America -- and then to have that vision define political decency. Thus, a failure to support Obama politically implied a failure of decency.
    There are stacks of similar quotes like this. Post racial is not a libertarian comment, and was used by the left. In fact, looking through Reason.com's archives, I find very little on the subject:
    "A Transformation on Race
    Barack Obama's "post-racial" posture reflects a quiet but radical shift in liberal ideas about race in America"
    I think you forget the left sold this as the post-racial period because they elected a president of race. I can't find the libertarian spawn of this commentary. Hence, my comments on 'projecting'.

    I am not sure how it matters to libertarians vs democrats - but it was some excellent bait, and I took it.

    ________________________________________

    What the actual fuck are you on about? Can anyone translate this for me?
    Easy. Your commentary wasn't in respect to HOW I used the graph, but THAT I used the graph, and that the graph had no meaning, with no reference to my point.

    I know I used a wrench as a hammer, but the reason for using it was to illustrate that we tend to ignore Chicago deaths, and focus on deaths of soldiers, or mass shootings.

    Again, in Unfated's reply, he is talking about how the mass shootings should be more important.

    I disagree with that being the overwhelming largest problem, because it is relatively isolated in small geographic areas of the country and because it doesn't invoke fear in the population in the same way that a random, mass shooting does.
    My position is: Chicago SHOULD be important. We had as many people die as soldiers in the Iraq war during the same time. The Iraq war, every soldier death was first page theater.

    Why not Chicago? Do their deaths not matter? Some people would say that as an internet gotcha, and I don't expect you to comment. When it comes down to it, they do matter. They are important, but saying that does mean we have failed in that culture. And that culture is Blue Model.

    So, do be clear: I posted the graph to show Chicago deaths are important also. You can't just dismiss them by bringing up "Well soldiers had training" and related - that just nullifies them dying. They died. They, and other gang deaths in urban cities are the vast majority of gun related deaths, and happened in a city with high gun control. The chart is mostly to say, stop ignoring the problems we have here in urban cities.

    And..... you guys keep trying to ignore it outright, instead of asking why I would use it. Proving my point in a way.

    ___________________________________

    I get why there is fear for mass shootings. It is happening here in the 95% of the US where there are relatively none. Europe levels of none. Most of america is safe. Gun violence rarely happens. So it is unexpected.

    In fact, a staggering 80% of gun homicides are gang-related. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), gang homicides accounted for roughly 8,900 of 11,100 gun murders in both 2010 and 2011. That means that there were just 2,200 non gang-related firearm murders in both years in a country of over 300 million people and 250 million guns.
    Mass shootings are extremely rare. On average 1-2 times a year. This is a VERY good overview of the last 50 years, from 1966 on:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...gs-in-america/

    A small percentage of total gun deaths
    People killed in mass shootings make up less than half of 1 percent of the people shot to death in the United States. More than half of gun deaths every year are suicides.

    An average of eight people died during each event, often including the shooters.

    135 shooters
    All but three of the mass shooters were male; the vast majority were age 20 to 49. More than half ? 76 of them ? died at or near the scene of the shooting, often by killing themselves.

    274 guns
    Shooters brought an average of four weapons to each shooting; the Las Vegas music festival shooter had at least 10. We don?t know how all the guns were acquired, but of the ones we know, 164 were obtained legally and 42 were obtained illegally.

    974 victims
    Each gun was used to kill an average of four people, not counting shooters. The 974 people came from nearly every imaginable race, religion and socioeconomic background, and 153 were children or teenagers.
    There are nearly 9000 people shooting other people in gangs, in 1 year. A recent year when the death per 100,000 count is nearly half of what it was in the 1990's.

    Mass shootings make the news, but the serious, large number of deaths is significantly higher for gangs.

    And it just doesn't make the news. That says a lot. Why the push to ignore it?
    Last edited by pbjosh; 11-08-2017 at 03:16 PM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  4. #124
    Insider
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,182
    Josh, the NRA wields a large political influence. Surely you can't deny that. Their political spend is very significant.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ch-nra-spends/
    "So you've done this before?"
    "Oh, hell no. But I think it's gonna work."

  5. #125
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Josh, the NRA wields a large political influence. Surely you can't deny that. Their political spend is very significant.
    I wasn't denying that, I stated that is all they can do. To modify Steve's comment:

    They CANNOT block all federal action on gun control by default.
    They can just spend money. That's it. And make videos while holding a gun and saying FREEDOM!

    They have no real control if their position counters the majority of the population in their choice of representatives.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  6. #126
    Insider
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,182
    This is exactly why I'm not a libertarian anymore.

    Your position seems to suggest that people have their views and that's that. Maybe they arrived at those views through research, maybe through logic, maybe through principles. Maybe it's just something their parents told them and it just stuck. This is the libertarian myth of the rational actor. People are incredibly irrational in their decisions, and those decisions are far less under control than people think. This is true at the individual level, which can be jarring - we feel like we're in control of our own choices. By some definitions, we are. But, what we're really doing with any decision is performing a complex balance of many different factors. In any bipartisan population, what you've got are people who have summed those weights to 0.49 or 0.51, and rounded to 0 or 1. External influences, such as advertising, are designed to push people just over that threshold.

    Have you read/are familiar with "Nudge"? "Thinking, Fast and Slow" is also relevant, but Nudge actually has policy prescriptions and examples. I ask because Cass Sunstein is fairly aligned on what he thinks the problem is in gun control with you. http://bigthink.com/think-tank/safety-in-surveillance

    There isn't an equivalency, but there is damn sure a correlation between political spend (money) and political influence (power). I think it's fair to say that this issue is politically (power) skewed by pro-gun spend.

    https://www.propublica.org/article/b...ol-interest-gr

    That's a hell of a nudge in one direction.
    "So you've done this before?"
    "Oh, hell no. But I think it's gonna work."

  7. #127
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    They can just spend money. That's it. And make videos while holding a gun and saying FREEDOM!

    They have no real control if their position counters the majority of the population in their choice of representatives.
    Aren't you kidding yourself if you think US politics isn't largely driven by money from interested parties? Just look at the cost of elections, that alone almost guarantees that those that have the backers are more likely to get elected.


    https://www.politico.com/story/2016/...pending-217599
    http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/11/po...sts/index.html
    https://www.rt.com/usa/375063-us-flawed-democracy-eiu/

  8. #128
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Your position seems to suggest that people have their views and that's that. Maybe they arrived at those views through research, maybe through logic, maybe through principles. Maybe it's just something their parents told them and it just stuck. This is the libertarian myth of the rational actor.
    Did you read the bit I mentioned far earlier on this thread about Haidt and related?

    It was pretty solidly stating the opposite - that we are NOT rational creatures, and we put down sacred positions and dance around those totems irregardless of the facts. We all do it. I know my bias is about individual responsibility and personal liberty - and it is my flaw! I am the first to admit it. And libertarians as a group tend to be more rational thinkers - and hence, expect the people around them to be also. And they tend to contrarians, which is obviously a problem of mine.

    In any bipartisan population, what you've got are people who have summed those weights to 0.49 or 0.51, and rounded to 0 or 1. External influences, such as advertising, are designed to push people just over that threshold.
    Part of the reason I want to see a multiparty system. I think it would help kill tribal politics that produce that result. There are more problems with that in general, but only having two tribes will result in time to having locked positions simply to counter the other tribe, and no room for people who might agree 40/60 with a political position.

    The Nudge? That sounds familiar, I will look at it later.

    There isn't an equivalency, but there is damn sure a correlation between political spend (money) and political influence (power).
    While I recognize the NRA has power, I do feel it is an indirect one at best. What is being suggested is you can get your transmission fixed at McDonald's because that is where the mechanic goes to feed. The NRA are just a trough though, if a politician prefers Burger King they have no influence. I don't think you can make them feed at the NRA bucket when there is plenty of feed being thrown at them from every direction, unless they want to.

    Now, if you are going to bring up the 49.9 percent issue, how would you rate the power of the media and Hollywood? Both are strong anti-gun proponents, and they use their power and influence to put out anti-gun videos also, and will show items like mass shooting and such as powerful examples why we need to have gun control. There is a solid bias there. Would you say they have more or less influence compared to the NRA?

    I would hazard that the NRA has far less influence than they do.

    As for money both for and against, Open Secrets does have a good record of spending on both sides:

    https://www.opensecrets.org/news/issues/guns

    Even greater than gun rights groups' dominance in the realm of campaign finance is their superiority when it comes to lobbying Congress and federal agencies. In 2013 alone — right after Newtown — the gun rights lobby spent $15.3 million making its case in Washington.

    The following year, it spent $12 million, and in 2015 pared it to $11.4 million. The NRA accounted for $3.6 million of the 2015 number, but over the years, other groups — such as the National Association for Gun Rights, Gun Owners of America and the National Shooting Sports Foundation — have also made significant lobbying expenditures. And gun control groups? They spent just $1.9 million and under $1.7 million on lobbying in 2014 and 2015, respectively.

    In 2016, gun rights advocates spent $10.6 million on lobbying versus $1.7 million by gun control groups.

    – Geoff West, updated October 2017
    That being said - they get the money themselves from citizens who feel strongly on the subject. So why didn't the anti-gun lobby get a lot of money from citizens to lobby for them? They exist - and there should be ample funds available, shoot Soros spends hundred of million on issues himself:

    The Soros documents reveal hundreds of millions of dollars being poured into the effort to transform the legal and media environment touching on elections. One document notes that poverty-alleviation programs are being de-emphasized for this new effort. It states: "George Soros has authorized U.S. Programs to propose a budget of $320 million over two years, with the understanding that the annual budget for U.S. Programs will be $150 million beginning in 2013."
    I would have thought more would have gone to gun control groups... that is actually kind of interesting to see how little money is diverted to that direction by PACs and related.

    Edit to reply to Laku:

    Aren't you kidding yourself if you think US politics isn't largely driven by money from interested parties? Just look at the cost of elections, that alone almost guarantees that those that have the backers are more likely to get elected.
    I do think it is driven by money. To a point. Will Barbra Boxer or Harry Reid take money from the NRA? Would you? Think Paul Ryan takes money from Greenpeace? Imholf?

    There might have been some middle of the road positions at some point, but you are not going to find Joe Biden chomping down on a bit fat NRA steak.

    Go look at open secrets some more, you can see who got money from the NRA and who got money from the counter gun sources.

    You have the supply and demand backwards - they get to pick where they want to eat. If nobody wants it, it doesn't get eaten.
    Last edited by pbjosh; 11-08-2017 at 05:33 PM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  9. #129
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    That being said, you should take a hard look at the actions of your party instead of blaming the NRA or otherwise. They have been in charge of the 'bad areas' for gun violence for decades - pointing fingers outward is not productive.
    First, stop saying "your party". I'm not a registered democrat and I have voted independent before.

    Second, I agree that pointing fingers outward is not productive, but what are you expecting? Are you expecting minority voting blocs to go GoP, who is currently turning a blind eye to overt racism? The GoP who is actively sabotaging the ability for citizens who live in urban centers ability to participate in the democratic process? I mean the GoP might not be in charge of cities, but you must be able to see that at the state and national level they do their best to work against urban interests from afar.

    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Post racial, first link, LA Times:
    That link doesn't even say what you're arguing it says. You said liberals asserted Obama as the beginning of a post-racial era. The quote just says Obama "projected an idealized version of post-racial America". I mean... the quote itself practically says we're not post-racial.

    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    I know I used a wrench as a hammer, but the reason for using it was to illustrate that we tend to ignore Chicago deaths, and focus on deaths of soldiers, or mass shootings.

    My position is: Chicago SHOULD be important. We had as many people die as soldiers in the Iraq war during the same time. The Iraq war, every soldier death was first page theater.

    Why not Chicago? Do their deaths not matter? Some people would say that as an internet gotcha, and I don't expect you to comment. When it comes down to it, they do matter. They are important, but saying that does mean we have failed in that culture. And that culture is Blue Model.

    So, do be clear: I posted the graph to show Chicago deaths are important also. You can't just dismiss them by bringing up "Well soldiers had training" and related - that just nullifies them dying. They died. They, and other gang deaths in urban cities are the vast majority of gun related deaths, and happened in a city with high gun control. The chart is mostly to say, stop ignoring the problems we have here in urban cities.

    And..... you guys keep trying to ignore it outright, instead of asking why I would use it. Proving my point in a way.
    Oh my fucking god, FUCK YOU..

    I live ten miles from Compton. I hear gunshots echo across the cityscape almost every night. People who live in these communities hear and experience the same, to the extent that it becomes normalized.

    I'm not ignoring it. I couldn't if I wanted to. I'M SAYING YOU'RE AN IDIOT.
    Last edited by PBSteve; 11-08-2017 at 11:02 PM.
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  10. #130
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    First, stop saying "your party". I'm not a registered democrat and I have voted independent before.
    That really is a bad one I do. I look at your sacred totems and I assume. My mistake. How about I say you lean Left? Have a prefered title? Socialist Democrat? Progressive?

    Oh my fucking god, FUCK YOU..

    I live ten miles from Compton. I hear gunshots echo across the cityscape almost every night. People who live in these communities hear and experience the same, to the extent that it becomes normalized.

    I'm not ignoring it. I couldn't if I wanted to. I'M SAYING YOU'RE AN IDIOT.
    Hahahahaaa....

    I am the idiot?

    First: You live there. Not me. Huh. Haven't heard a gun shot yet, in 3 years. Shoot, we don't lock our doors and the neighbor leaves his garage open. (looks around the room, points to self, mouths "He thinks I am the idiot...")

    Second: What gun laws are there in Compton? According to California, that is illegal!!. OMFG!!1! That cant happen, there is a law! How is it working out? Tough gun control laws are doing there thing.... oh wait, no. They are not. Maybe you should try more than, right? What is the definition of crazy? Ah, doing the same thing and expecting different results? You are making my point.

    Here?

    We have a law going through right now; If a business is 'gun free', and somebody shoots you while in it, and you had a license and gun, you can sue them for damages. Yep. http://www.tennessean.com/story/news...ents/78862948/

    Third: You are one of the people dismissing my use of Chicago deaths in a graph. That seems a bit hypocritical... Take a moment. Just a bit.

    See, you are saying that it is normal, then getting pissed because I am ignoring it, when I brought up the fact that gang related crime is ignored.


    Second, I agree that pointing fingers outward is not productive, but what are you expecting? Are you expecting minority voting blocs to go GoP, who is currently turning a blind eye to overt racism? The GoP who is actively sabotaging the ability for citizens who live in urban centers ability to participate in the democratic process? I mean the GoP might not be in charge of cities, but you must be able to see that at the state and national level they do their best to work against urban interests from afar.
    [deleted funny but non constructive insult, feel free to laugh or get offended here]

    Speaking of productive, the assumptions you make of what the GOP is doing and why? You seem almost...UFO pyramids and flat earth level of clueless. Aliens Meme guy gif goes right here, just...hold your hands apart a bit. Perfect.

    This is where your attempt to be constructive breaks down, from a foundation of a really bad narrative that is deliberately constructed to be false and damning. This is Kool-aid level of thought here. Somehow it is the GOP's fault. But not any of those vague and undefined ways you try to use. You don't know your enemy, but that has been clear the entire thread.

    The real thing you are looking for is:

    The War On Drugs.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkLOg252KRE

    Wait, not the band. Nixon. And further, Reagan.

    Ford and Carter I think moved toward some better options, but Reagan switched to big guns, which GHWB and Clinton and GWB followed. Obama made some good moves, but the States operated their own choices that are still at odds with the federal government.

    The largest factor is how we treat drugs though. And that is mostly GOP.

    Pick the right boogie man, and the right action. There isn't a need to go find vague definers. It is right there and as plain as... maybe it wasn't.
    Last edited by pbjosh; 11-09-2017 at 12:31 AM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •