This bullshit about being able to defend ourselves is just that - bullshit. In cases where some asshole starts shooting and you, doing your best John Wayne impersonation, return fire, you're only adding to the confusion when the police show up. This isn't just my opinion, ask anyone in the LEO community. They cannot tell if you are part of the problem or not and are just as likely to shoot you - or didn't that occur to you? And it isn't just the police, it's every other half-baked jackass who thinks they can handle the situation. This ain't TV, this is the real world and especially in a coordinated attack, you now become part of the problem, not the solution.
I appreciate your deliberate attempt to engage in a civil discussion, lord knows that is rare enough online.
Let's get this out of the way. For the sake of discussion, let's accept that the Reddit report contains errors. In all fairness, we can then also look at the other side of the argument where the claim has been made that the FBI claims that only 21 such cases have occurred in the same time frame. What I did was to try to ascertain what the FBI defined a mass shooting as and quite quickly found out that the FBI doesn't really have a set definition for what qualifies as a mass shooting - so how can we say they are effectively reporting on the situation?
The issue we should be examining is what can be done to reduce the number of shooting victims annually. We do know that in China, almost no murders by firearms are committed - but I am not suggesting that I would be happy trading my rights for such a society. I would be fine making sure that every single firearm owner was held to a stricter level of responsibility. What I mean by that is if you have a gun stolen from you, the first question which should be asked if the was gun properly secured. A specific example of irresponsible gun ownership might be leaving one in the glove compartment of a car. I submit that no one would do that with a substantial amount of money, why should we let someone also be as careless with any firearm?
I understand that on occasion a firearm might be stolen in a home break in but if it was secured in a gun locker, this wouldn't happen. We need to break the path that allows firearms to be bought legitimately but through whatever means finds their way into the wrong person's hands. None of us what the bad guy to get these weapons, not the police, not me and not you. And no one really is against the millions of responsible firearms owners who hunt or carry for personal protection - but once the situation turns to what it has been lately, people want this to stop.
My initial point wasn't that Reddit was 100% accurate or that it was the last known authority in the universe, it was that there are too damn many shootings which are not accidental. I can accept that you would prefer to argue some other point than admit that gun violence in this country is unacceptably high probably as much as I would love to not have to defend that assertion.
The fact is, trying to pin all of this violence on terrorist activity is absurd, as I am sure we both agree. There is a problem. The problem isn't with responsible gun ownership, I know, I lived in one of the most heavily armed states in the union (Vermont) and now live in an area where just about everyone owns more than one gun. The problem is that the people we don't want to have guns are getting them.
I love how you completely ignore the fact that something motivated these people, Muslim or otherwise. One would think that even an idiot would understand that without being able to comprehend what drove these people to these lengths, we will not stop the problem.
As to your incredibly naive assertion that we can tell anything based on what you believe to be problem caused by "the rulers allowed too many Muslims in at once" I would point out that every single one of the people I named have nothing to do with the group you are so scared of while they are part of the group you self-identify with.
Instead, I would suggest that the best solution would be to deport every narrow-minded bigot we can find.
Wow, that's quite a screed for a guy who obviously hates the mass media as much as I do. But what makes it stand out so much that you are the guy picking and choosing what you want to believe, not me. Yes, the FBI uses a different standard of measurement than some guy at Reddit but the fact remains that the shootings listed in the link I provided are multiple shootings and each one is documented.
But let's get to the point, shall we?
The problem isn't guns, I think we can both agree to that and the problem isn't gun laws, it's obvious the bullshit gun laws we have aren't working.
The problem is that the wrong people have easy access to guns and we are not doing enough to stop that. And if the best those who have been charged with the protection of the American public can come up with is banning encryption along with more surveillance, then the problem really lies with the incompetent morons whom we have allowed to be put in charge, isn't it?
Now, with that said, no one, not the NRA nor those conservative and libertarians you seem so determined to defend, has offered one good, solid way that we can beat this problem - so, unless you have an answer, take a seat at the back of the bus and stop ranting.
I would like to think that the one group we can all agree these assholes belonged to was what we call murderers. In case you missed this, ideology isn't really important to the dead.
You want to know how to start combatting this? Stop all Islamic immigration, and begin the process of de-Islamizing the US. Yeah, I'm well aware that I will sound extreme to most of you but I've become convinced, looking at the history of Islam, that Islam can NEVER peacefully co-exist with other cultures. All it has ever done is attack its neighbours and it continues to do so today. It will never be tamed or reformed. It can only be stopped.
Wow, Robert Dear, Allen Lawrence Scarsella, Nathan Gustavsson, Daniel Macey, Joseph Backman, and Timothy McVeigh was all Muslim? The things one can learn on the Internet.
Here's a list of all the mass shootings in this country for this year, to date. Oh, and your understanding of history is about as uninformed as anything I have come across. By your standards, the United States must be the Great Satan given the amount of people we have killed during the wars we have been directly and indirectly involved in over the last century.
Please get back to us when you have figured out which other generalized groups to deport. Until that time most of the rest of us will continue to point out how you ARE the problem, not part of the solution.
My understanding is that the root causes of that period of Stagflation was the near instantaneous dumping of a million and a half men on the job market due to the abrupt end of the Vietnam war. You just know that had to have a profound effect on an economy even one the size of ours.
Maybe, but, if I can manage the situation having being, at least, in my opinion, significantly disadvantaged in life, others can too.
Some others can, many cannot. We all face challenges, my friend, some of us are more capable of dealing with those challenges than others. If you're surviving and even prospering, more power to you but as someone who has faced his own demons, we need to remember that many lose that battle.
We probably won't. That was caused by all the boomers hitting the job market at the same time the US was going off the Bretton-Woods system. The value of the dollar had to correct itself away from the more or less arbitrary fixed price in gold, to representing the value it actually represents.
I fail to see how this has anything to do with leaving the gold standard. The gold standard was an absurd and arbitrary system which was obsolete when it was enacted - and more to the point it failed to further our needs.
As to the arbitrary price of gold, that was also an imposed rate, one which made little sense looking back at it over time.
Better is subjective. I don't judge myself above others, in fact, this is why I expect everyone to be able to do anything I can do.
Indeed, better is subjective, unlike having the ability to comprehend and then act on knowledge which was passed on to you as part of your being raised by educated and caring parents or through a decent school system. Then there is that ugly issue of mental health which some estimates range as high as afflicting one in four Americans.
In my case, because I take a lot of risks, it will likely be a rollercoaster of having money, no money, money etc. But, I go forward doing these things and lead a happy life.
The reality is that in the next thirty years your life will likely transition into something wholly unrecognizable from today's perspective. If we look at the increasingly rapid rate which technology is obsoleting what used to be lifelong professional careers as well as institutions we could count on, unless serious changes are made in how society is managed, the likelihood of you reaching any level of stability are decreasing at a rate closely following the rate of change.
I heard you like assumptions, so I put assumptions in your assumptions?
While I find your screed somewhat myopic, your points are well taken.
Personally, I completely agree with you in as far as living in locations where the cost of living is moderate. I also accept that many people cannot do that due to family constraints or other priorities which keep them anchored.
As far as retirement, I sincerely hope that neither of us have to fight against the kind of inflation we witnessed during the Ford and Cater Administrations but understand that this could happen.
Did it ever occur to you that many people will never qualify for a mortgage based on any number of factors such as location? After all, a fair portion of the people who live in San Diego or New York City will never make enough to buy within 50 miles of where they work - but they probably understand the math that you laid out intimately.
I'll enlighten you with my own experiences. Innovation is key to a plan to acquire more funds above the average person.
Implicit in your response is the attitude that you are somehow better than the average person because you are innovative. Or that because you have more money that somehow makes you something other than wealthy. Interestingly, one has to wonder how this will turn out for you in the longer run.
You seem to be assuming I am not part of the rest of the world. You're just as guilty of the generalizations you're trying to apply to that person.
Damn, you mean to say that you assumed something about me and then addressed that assumption without having any idea if it were true? If only there were some internet-related meme to describe such an action.
That's correct. And as part of the Executive Branch's authority, all decisions as to how those laws will be executed and prioritized is left to the president to decide.
When George W. Bush became president, he decided to make pornography a priority and had John Ashcroft take on that issue while leaving terrorism as a secondary issue. That was within his authority to do so and Congress has no say in how the president makes those decisions. Congress may, at its discretion, pass new legislation or amend existing laws should they elect to do so but can only institute changes that can override a veto should the president elect to take that action.
I (congress / homeowner) grant you (executive branch / painter) the authority to choose which brush size and type you use to paint my apartment. I did not give you the authority to decide that my eating dead animal flesh was wrong and thus give you the authority to throw out the chicken, beef and fish from my refrigerator.
Congress does not grant anything to anyone in as far as the division of power is concerned, that power rests in the Constitution alone. Congress can attempt to amend the Constitution if they choose - good luck.
In other words, the example you provided is based on a false premise and has no relevance in this discussion.
At the same time, I am old enough to know that just because a person can speak doesn't mean that they should be given standing in a discussion.
The person I responded to might very well be too young to understand what this country was like before the EPA was created - but such ignorance is not an excuse and what's worse is this character might vote based on a lifetime of devoted willful ignorance.
We have enough critical challenges to face without having to deal with an opposition party whose best argument is that they didn't know any better.
They didn't know that destabilizing the Middle East would have a profound affect on energy prices. They didn't know that a massive increase in energy costs would crash the Bush White Hot Housing Market economy. They didn't know that by locking countless people up (many who had done nothing) torturing and killing many would lead to a surge in terrorism nor that their naively created concept of an Arab Spring would take us into this refugee hell and war torn landscape. - And all that is from only one blatantly incompetent administration!
And now, I am supposed to accept some moronic argument presented by someone who has no understanding of the issue as though it deserves some level of respect?
No. What we see is a majority of elected legislators unable to stop unelected buearocrats(EPA) from imposing rules that are the equivalent of laws.
Did you miss that entire concept where the EPA was created to prevent what is happening in China? This government body was put in place to reverse the insane levels of pollution we "enjoyed" prior to the EPA's creation.
This is the EPA's job. This is exactly what the EPA was charged with doing and they have done so quite successfully.
Of course, if you're nostalgic for those good old days when rivers in Ohio caught fire (think about that for a minute) and the air in Los Angeles was said to be the equivalent of smoking two packs of cigarettes a day, maybe we should just put people with your level of understanding in charge and call it a day.
If you can grasp the facts, the least you can do is get a fucking grip.
You do understand that the executive branch does have the power and authority to execute the laws as it sees fit, right? You also know that this is exactly how the power was divided by the founders, I am assuming.
And yet, you now these things and still post the crap you just did?
No, I am pointing out that the four who were indicted were released.
And if you want to be pedantic, yes, there were people who were fired from ACORN when they were caught and those people should have gone to jail. The problem I have is with the inference that this was something orchestrated by ACORN's management as opposed to the individuals who were paid to generate the numbers. Now, if you can prove that this was a management policy, you would be rich - because the smear machine would pay you handsomely for that piece of information - but you can't because that never happened - and we both know they looked.
Damn shame too because then you wouldn't come off as some mouth breathing conspiracy theorist.
What is even more telling is that nowhere in your campaign against voter fraud have you mentioned those instances which involved Republicans. Why is that?
Slashdot Mirror
I have met a lot of really wonderful Christians, ones who actually follow what Christ taught. Sadly, they are in the minority.
Now we're pals? That's swell.
This bullshit about being able to defend ourselves is just that - bullshit. In cases where some asshole starts shooting and you, doing your best John Wayne impersonation, return fire, you're only adding to the confusion when the police show up. This isn't just my opinion, ask anyone in the LEO community. They cannot tell if you are part of the problem or not and are just as likely to shoot you - or didn't that occur to you? And it isn't just the police, it's every other half-baked jackass who thinks they can handle the situation. This ain't TV, this is the real world and especially in a coordinated attack, you now become part of the problem, not the solution.
I appreciate your deliberate attempt to engage in a civil discussion, lord knows that is rare enough online.
Let's get this out of the way. For the sake of discussion, let's accept that the Reddit report contains errors. In all fairness, we can then also look at the other side of the argument where the claim has been made that the FBI claims that only 21 such cases have occurred in the same time frame. What I did was to try to ascertain what the FBI defined a mass shooting as and quite quickly found out that the FBI doesn't really have a set definition for what qualifies as a mass shooting - so how can we say they are effectively reporting on the situation?
The issue we should be examining is what can be done to reduce the number of shooting victims annually. We do know that in China, almost no murders by firearms are committed - but I am not suggesting that I would be happy trading my rights for such a society. I would be fine making sure that every single firearm owner was held to a stricter level of responsibility. What I mean by that is if you have a gun stolen from you, the first question which should be asked if the was gun properly secured. A specific example of irresponsible gun ownership might be leaving one in the glove compartment of a car. I submit that no one would do that with a substantial amount of money, why should we let someone also be as careless with any firearm?
I understand that on occasion a firearm might be stolen in a home break in but if it was secured in a gun locker, this wouldn't happen. We need to break the path that allows firearms to be bought legitimately but through whatever means finds their way into the wrong person's hands. None of us what the bad guy to get these weapons, not the police, not me and not you. And no one really is against the millions of responsible firearms owners who hunt or carry for personal protection - but once the situation turns to what it has been lately, people want this to stop.
My initial point wasn't that Reddit was 100% accurate or that it was the last known authority in the universe, it was that there are too damn many shootings which are not accidental. I can accept that you would prefer to argue some other point than admit that gun violence in this country is unacceptably high probably as much as I would love to not have to defend that assertion.
The fact is, trying to pin all of this violence on terrorist activity is absurd, as I am sure we both agree. There is a problem. The problem isn't with responsible gun ownership, I know, I lived in one of the most heavily armed states in the union (Vermont) and now live in an area where just about everyone owns more than one gun. The problem is that the people we don't want to have guns are getting them.
I love how you completely ignore the fact that something motivated these people, Muslim or otherwise. One would think that even an idiot would understand that without being able to comprehend what drove these people to these lengths, we will not stop the problem.
As to your incredibly naive assertion that we can tell anything based on what you believe to be problem caused by "the rulers allowed too many Muslims in at once" I would point out that every single one of the people I named have nothing to do with the group you are so scared of while they are part of the group you self-identify with.
Instead, I would suggest that the best solution would be to deport every narrow-minded bigot we can find.
Wow, that's quite a screed for a guy who obviously hates the mass media as much as I do. But what makes it stand out so much that you are the guy picking and choosing what you want to believe, not me. Yes, the FBI uses a different standard of measurement than some guy at Reddit but the fact remains that the shootings listed in the link I provided are multiple shootings and each one is documented.
But let's get to the point, shall we?
The problem isn't guns, I think we can both agree to that and the problem isn't gun laws, it's obvious the bullshit gun laws we have aren't working.
The problem is that the wrong people have easy access to guns and we are not doing enough to stop that. And if the best those who have been charged with the protection of the American public can come up with is banning encryption along with more surveillance, then the problem really lies with the incompetent morons whom we have allowed to be put in charge, isn't it?
Now, with that said, no one, not the NRA nor those conservative and libertarians you seem so determined to defend, has offered one good, solid way that we can beat this problem - so, unless you have an answer, take a seat at the back of the bus and stop ranting.
ISIL accepted it, so I am still not sure what you are on about.
You are aware that terrorist organizations take responsibility for anything that they can, right? This is what they do.
Maybe you should read more before commenting?
That's particularly funny coming from a guy who believes whatever a terrorist organization tells him, don't you think?
No they were not all Christians.
I would like to think that the one group we can all agree these assholes belonged to was what we call murderers. In case you missed this, ideology isn't really important to the dead.
They claimed allegiance to ISIL, so what are you on about?
Today I learned that a crackpot can claim anything and someone will take them at their word.
You want to know how to start combatting this? Stop all Islamic immigration, and begin the process of de-Islamizing the US. Yeah, I'm well aware that I will sound extreme to most of you but I've become convinced, looking at the history of Islam, that Islam can NEVER peacefully co-exist with other cultures. All it has ever done is attack its neighbours and it continues to do so today. It will never be tamed or reformed. It can only be stopped.
Wow, Robert Dear, Allen Lawrence Scarsella, Nathan Gustavsson, Daniel Macey, Joseph Backman, and Timothy McVeigh was all Muslim? The things one can learn on the Internet.
Here's a list of all the mass shootings in this country for this year, to date. Oh, and your understanding of history is about as uninformed as anything I have come across. By your standards, the United States must be the Great Satan given the amount of people we have killed during the wars we have been directly and indirectly involved in over the last century.
Please get back to us when you have figured out which other generalized groups to deport. Until that time most of the rest of us will continue to point out how you ARE the problem, not part of the solution.
Interesting.
My understanding is that the root causes of that period of Stagflation was the near instantaneous dumping of a million and a half men on the job market due to the abrupt end of the Vietnam war. You just know that had to have a profound effect on an economy even one the size of ours.
Maybe, but, if I can manage the situation having being, at least, in my opinion, significantly disadvantaged in life, others can too.
Some others can, many cannot. We all face challenges, my friend, some of us are more capable of dealing with those challenges than others. If you're surviving and even prospering, more power to you but as someone who has faced his own demons, we need to remember that many lose that battle.
We probably won't. That was caused by all the boomers hitting the job market at the same time the US was going off the Bretton-Woods system. The value of the dollar had to correct itself away from the more or less arbitrary fixed price in gold, to representing the value it actually represents.
I fail to see how this has anything to do with leaving the gold standard. The gold standard was an absurd and arbitrary system which was obsolete when it was enacted - and more to the point it failed to further our needs. As to the arbitrary price of gold, that was also an imposed rate, one which made little sense looking back at it over time.
So, when has this ever worked when we tried to shame any of our favorite ISPs here? Oh right, it never made a difference.
Better is subjective. I don't judge myself above others, in fact, this is why I expect everyone to be able to do anything I can do.
Indeed, better is subjective, unlike having the ability to comprehend and then act on knowledge which was passed on to you as part of your being raised by educated and caring parents or through a decent school system. Then there is that ugly issue of mental health which some estimates range as high as afflicting one in four Americans.
In my case, because I take a lot of risks, it will likely be a rollercoaster of having money, no money, money etc. But, I go forward doing these things and lead a happy life.
The reality is that in the next thirty years your life will likely transition into something wholly unrecognizable from today's perspective. If we look at the increasingly rapid rate which technology is obsoleting what used to be lifelong professional careers as well as institutions we could count on, unless serious changes are made in how society is managed, the likelihood of you reaching any level of stability are decreasing at a rate closely following the rate of change.
I heard you like assumptions, so I put assumptions in your assumptions?
Touché.
While I find your screed somewhat myopic, your points are well taken.
Personally, I completely agree with you in as far as living in locations where the cost of living is moderate. I also accept that many people cannot do that due to family constraints or other priorities which keep them anchored.
As far as retirement, I sincerely hope that neither of us have to fight against the kind of inflation we witnessed during the Ford and Cater Administrations but understand that this could happen.
Did it ever occur to you that many people will never qualify for a mortgage based on any number of factors such as location? After all, a fair portion of the people who live in San Diego or New York City will never make enough to buy within 50 miles of where they work - but they probably understand the math that you laid out intimately.
I'll enlighten you with my own experiences. Innovation is key to a plan to acquire more funds above the average person.
Implicit in your response is the attitude that you are somehow better than the average person because you are innovative. Or that because you have more money that somehow makes you something other than wealthy. Interestingly, one has to wonder how this will turn out for you in the longer run.
You seem to be assuming I am not part of the rest of the world. You're just as guilty of the generalizations you're trying to apply to that person.
Damn, you mean to say that you assumed something about me and then addressed that assumption without having any idea if it were true? If only there were some internet-related meme to describe such an action.
Would the good gentleman from the Cass Business School, also enlighten us as to where this extra money might be secured?
This is a perfect example of what happens when people who have more than enough money believe they are communicating with the rest of the world.
Execute the laws - not make them.
That's correct. And as part of the Executive Branch's authority, all decisions as to how those laws will be executed and prioritized is left to the president to decide. When George W. Bush became president, he decided to make pornography a priority and had John Ashcroft take on that issue while leaving terrorism as a secondary issue. That was within his authority to do so and Congress has no say in how the president makes those decisions. Congress may, at its discretion, pass new legislation or amend existing laws should they elect to do so but can only institute changes that can override a veto should the president elect to take that action.
I (congress / homeowner) grant you (executive branch / painter) the authority to choose which brush size and type you use to paint my apartment. I did not give you the authority to decide that my eating dead animal flesh was wrong and thus give you the authority to throw out the chicken, beef and fish from my refrigerator.
Congress does not grant anything to anyone in as far as the division of power is concerned, that power rests in the Constitution alone. Congress can attempt to amend the Constitution if they choose - good luck.
In other words, the example you provided is based on a false premise and has no relevance in this discussion.
Speaking of lead, there is a growing consensus that lead may have played a role in the increase of violent crime we saw in the US. Yes, lead poisoning could really be a cause of violent crime
Excellent points, sir, truly insightful.
At the same time, I am old enough to know that just because a person can speak doesn't mean that they should be given standing in a discussion.
The person I responded to might very well be too young to understand what this country was like before the EPA was created - but such ignorance is not an excuse and what's worse is this character might vote based on a lifetime of devoted willful ignorance.
We have enough critical challenges to face without having to deal with an opposition party whose best argument is that they didn't know any better.
They didn't know that destabilizing the Middle East would have a profound affect on energy prices. They didn't know that a massive increase in energy costs would crash the Bush White Hot Housing Market economy. They didn't know that by locking countless people up (many who had done nothing) torturing and killing many would lead to a surge in terrorism nor that their naively created concept of an Arab Spring would take us into this refugee hell and war torn landscape. - And all that is from only one blatantly incompetent administration!
And now, I am supposed to accept some moronic argument presented by someone who has no understanding of the issue as though it deserves some level of respect?
How about no.
No. What we see is a majority of elected legislators unable to stop unelected buearocrats(EPA) from imposing rules that are the equivalent of laws.
Did you miss that entire concept where the EPA was created to prevent what is happening in China? This government body was put in place to reverse the insane levels of pollution we "enjoyed" prior to the EPA's creation.
This is the EPA's job. This is exactly what the EPA was charged with doing and they have done so quite successfully.
Of course, if you're nostalgic for those good old days when rivers in Ohio caught fire (think about that for a minute) and the air in Los Angeles was said to be the equivalent of smoking two packs of cigarettes a day, maybe we should just put people with your level of understanding in charge and call it a day.
If you can grasp the facts, the least you can do is get a fucking grip.
You do understand that the executive branch does have the power and authority to execute the laws as it sees fit, right? You also know that this is exactly how the power was divided by the founders, I am assuming. And yet, you now these things and still post the crap you just did?
No, I am pointing out that the four who were indicted were released.
And if you want to be pedantic, yes, there were people who were fired from ACORN when they were caught and those people should have gone to jail. The problem I have is with the inference that this was something orchestrated by ACORN's management as opposed to the individuals who were paid to generate the numbers. Now, if you can prove that this was a management policy, you would be rich - because the smear machine would pay you handsomely for that piece of information - but you can't because that never happened - and we both know they looked.
Damn shame too because then you wouldn't come off as some mouth breathing conspiracy theorist.
What is even more telling is that nowhere in your campaign against voter fraud have you mentioned those instances which involved Republicans. Why is that?