I'm a big 2nd A supporter and will answer yes to a generic question of background check. But the devil is in the details isn't it?
The problem with the no-fly list is the lack of due process. It's a list which can be abused too easily. Put in the basic checks:
1. Make the list public.
2. Be able to see the reason you're on the list
3. Due Process regarding evidence
Interesting isn't it as it is the Democrats who are opposed to due process. I wonder why?
Re evolution - that is a hard one to use to label someone as anti-science. I know several engineers (electrical) who are very religious and who would probably "flunk" the evolution / creationist sniff test. And yet - they are competent electrical engineers working for some well-known companies. I'm working with programmers many of whom have undergrad degrees in math and physics (not to mention CS) who believe in the Word as put forth in the Bible.
I have a hard time calling them anti-science as well.
I don't consider theists to be anti-science. Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. Even such as Ann Colter (sp) bring up this point. The irrational, anti-science types are a much smaller percentage than you make out. The majority of the polls are trying to bring forth a narrative as opposed to understanding a complicated set of beliefs.
Unlike the Democrats? Please list all the anti-science ideas out there and show which is more prevalent among Republicans and which among democrats,
I'll start
Evolution v Intelligent Design - a small subset of Republicans, perhaps 20%. And many Evangelicals don't vote (and some still vote Dem)
Fraking is evil - Dems
Vaccination - leans Dem
Stem cell research - Republican have problem only with embryonic research
GMO - Democrat. GMO and Embryonic stem cell are opposed for much the same reason. It's morally wrong
Interesting about the stem cell research - embryonic cells have not been very fruitful. (And don't say it's because it's illegal to research. US government funds are not going there. Private R&D is legal. And let's not forget the research being done in England, France, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, Korea and other places.
Stop making sh!t up and lying to yourself and others. Many NRA members say that being to own firearms would help the working poor in the inner cities (you may disagree - that's fine). And they often bring up that the law (and KKK) prevented blacks from arming themselves thus making them easier targets.
A cursory google search shows that Operation Pied Piper evacuated 3.5 million but the overwhelming amount stayed in England proper. Please show evidence for your claim.
You reduce the clout by not socializing industry to the point that there is more money to be made (or protected) by manipulating laws than by operating your business. This is the main reasoning behind laissez-faire capitalism (which by the way does not equal caveat emptor).
The Koch's are spending their private money. Nothing wrong with that.
The rich who put an active effort into getting richer are typically the ones that stomp on the little people in the process.
I don't buy that. Some people like work; they like building things. Money certainly is a motivation for Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and a 1000 other heads of companies.
Again I'm a #NeverTrump. I don't want him as my president - but he was an audacious builder in NYC. Pushed great ideas against the bureaucracy of the times, which is only now coming to fruition. (I'm referring to Hudson Yards and building over the train tracks on the West Side of Manhattan.)
He wasn't building with illegal immigrant labor in NYC in the 1980s and 1990s.
As far as S&P 500 mutual fund - I haven't seen any details - and I would bet a bar tab that there is a lot of bullsh!t in the generic statement that he didn't beat the S&P mutual fund. What's the date range - what does it include? His fortune has gone up and done because he takes mondo risks. You don't like him for President? Fine. Neither do I.
It's not as simple as that. I'm certain there were times his net worth was way above placing the money in an index fund. AND imagine your contempt for him if all he did was sit around and collect money as opposed to be involved in some super ambitious projects.
I'm not a Trump supporter by any means. I'm a #NeverTrump but creating straw men does not help your cause. He didn't make it simply by Daddy's money. There are plenty of people who got daddy's money and lost it all. From rags to riches to rags in three generations.
I was in the building trades and he was very well liked by both union men (which I was) and professional men (which I became). He was competent and audacious and built really interesting projects
Do not take this as me being a Donald Trump supporter for his presidential run. Again I'm a #NeverTrump. But don't build strawmen either. It doesn't help.
I'm not a fan of colonialism. And I'm a #NeverTrump.
But that doesn't mean I'm for open borders. I suppose small island countries (say Grenada or Trinidad) would have zero problems if tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Germans and Frenchmen moved there; built 30 story buildings by the beach; changed the laws that made beaches available to everyone; never learned English, had no respect for the existing culture, etc.. .
I think that all conquest is evil (including colonialism). I said "mostly" over by WWII. After WWII there was little desire (except by the French) to fight to keep colonies. Britain disengaged from the middle east (yes there was minor bloodshed - the Irgun) and India. There were no troops being sent to keep their empire in the Caribbean. Were there places where there was bloodshed such as Kenya yes.
Re Operation Pied Piper how many left England? I don't know. Hundreds of thousands moved to the countryside but I would be surprised if more than 20-30,000 went over seas. And of those only a small percentage who didn't go to the US, Canada, or Australia. I could be wrong -if I am send me some links.
No borders? Fine. Then no social safety net. (Actually I'm not fine with the trade.)
There is something to be said about cultures.
Re WWII and children. What a load of sh!t. The amount of people leaving England during the war years was miniscule if any. And the majority would have gone to the US and Canada.
Who cares that you took people in. (By the way which people and when).
The history of species has been that of violence and war. Horrible, but true.
But the way forward is a live-and-let-live attitude and respect for others. As a neighbor I respect you and your ways if you respect me and my ways (obviously within some agreed upon norms). It does not mean that I have an obligation to allow immigrants into my country who have nothing but contempt for my norms and who have no desire to conform to them.
You claim to be outraged by colonialism - isn't that what you're advocating?
So. The British people have no choice but to accept people into their country who have nothing but contempt for their culture and laws? And if they don't you will call deride them as racist? No.
That makes no sense. No country has an obligation to bring in people - especially immigrants who have nothing but contempt for their host country. You are advocating cultural invasion as a means of curing some ill. All this will lead to is violence. And YOU are the one pushing for violence.
Hint - colonialism takes many forms. For all practical purposes it was over after WWII. The following years was how to disengage. Regardless - England is not morally responsible to take in people from former colonies. And it is bigoted to say that it is.
I'm responding to the point made that people in England do not have the moral right to restrict immigration as a result of having colonies. Yes England had colonies. Now they have to admit anyone who lived in those countries? No. That doesn't make any sense.
Aren't you the small minded racist pig. You are not responsible for what other people did 100 years ago or 500 years ago. Adolf Hitler's grandchildren (if they exist) are not responsible for their grandfather's actions. You are responsible for what you do.
North Africans invaded and enslaved Europeans 1000 years ago. There were slave ports in what's now St. Tropez and about 50 miles south of Rome. Who do we blame (and how do we enact retribution for that?).
Really? So the moment you're not on your property you have no rights? The government can impose whatever rules? How about the rule that one can't speak ill of the government? Do you really want that?
If you mean that both liberals and conservatives are hypocrites and self-contradictory when it comes to individual rights - you're correct (look at liberals who think they have a right to an abortion (based on the fact that you own your own body) but then pass laws requiring that people wear seat belts. (Hey I thought you owned your own body. You can have an abortion but can't decide whether or not to wear a seat belt while on the way to aborting a fetus? Yeah. Good logic there).
But if you're noticing that Trump and Bernie have a lot of overlap in their supporters you're correct.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup it's capitalist bean counting that's the problem.
Unlike socialist bean counting, or communist bean counting or whatever-utopia-ist bean counting.
I'm a big 2nd A supporter and will answer yes to a generic question of background check. But the devil is in the details isn't it?
The problem with the no-fly list is the lack of due process. It's a list which can be abused too easily. Put in the basic checks:
1. Make the list public.
2. Be able to see the reason you're on the list
3. Due Process regarding evidence
Interesting isn't it as it is the Democrats who are opposed to due process. I wonder why?
Re evolution - that is a hard one to use to label someone as anti-science. I know several engineers (electrical) who are very religious and who would probably "flunk" the evolution / creationist sniff test. And yet - they are competent electrical engineers working for some well-known companies. I'm working with programmers many of whom have undergrad degrees in math and physics (not to mention CS) who believe in the Word as put forth in the Bible.
I have a hard time calling them anti-science as well.
Gun control is supported by the GOP base? WTF?
I don't consider theists to be anti-science. Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. Even such as Ann Colter (sp) bring up this point. The irrational, anti-science types are a much smaller percentage than you make out. The majority of the polls are trying to bring forth a narrative as opposed to understanding a complicated set of beliefs.
I'll start
Evolution v Intelligent Design - a small subset of Republicans, perhaps 20%. And many Evangelicals don't vote (and some still vote Dem)
Fraking is evil - Dems
Vaccination - leans Dem
Stem cell research - Republican have problem only with embryonic research
GMO - Democrat. GMO and Embryonic stem cell are opposed for much the same reason. It's morally wrong
Interesting about the stem cell research - embryonic cells have not been very fruitful. (And don't say it's because it's illegal to research. US government funds are not going there. Private R&D is legal. And let's not forget the research being done in England, France, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, Korea and other places.
Stop making sh!t up and lying to yourself and others. Many NRA members say that being to own firearms would help the working poor in the inner cities (you may disagree - that's fine). And they often bring up that the law (and KKK) prevented blacks from arming themselves thus making them easier targets.
A cursory google search shows that Operation Pied Piper evacuated 3.5 million but the overwhelming amount stayed in England proper. Please show evidence for your claim.
You reduce the clout by not socializing industry to the point that there is more money to be made (or protected) by manipulating laws than by operating your business. This is the main reasoning behind laissez-faire capitalism (which by the way does not equal caveat emptor).
The Koch's are spending their private money. Nothing wrong with that.
Nah. A company can be controlled by buying or not buying their products.
A government not so much.
The rich who put an active effort into getting richer are typically the ones that stomp on the little people in the process.
I don't buy that. Some people like work; they like building things. Money certainly is a motivation for Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and a 1000 other heads of companies.
Again I'm a #NeverTrump. I don't want him as my president - but he was an audacious builder in NYC. Pushed great ideas against the bureaucracy of the times, which is only now coming to fruition. (I'm referring to Hudson Yards and building over the train tracks on the West Side of Manhattan.)
He wasn't building with illegal immigrant labor in NYC in the 1980s and 1990s.
As far as S&P 500 mutual fund - I haven't seen any details - and I would bet a bar tab that there is a lot of bullsh!t in the generic statement that he didn't beat the S&P mutual fund. What's the date range - what does it include? His fortune has gone up and done because he takes mondo risks. You don't like him for President? Fine. Neither do I.
It's not as simple as that. I'm certain there were times his net worth was way above placing the money in an index fund. AND imagine your contempt for him if all he did was sit around and collect money as opposed to be involved in some super ambitious projects.
I'm not a Trump supporter by any means. I'm a #NeverTrump but creating straw men does not help your cause. He didn't make it simply by Daddy's money. There are plenty of people who got daddy's money and lost it all. From rags to riches to rags in three generations.
I was in the building trades and he was very well liked by both union men (which I was) and professional men (which I became). He was competent and audacious and built really interesting projects
Do not take this as me being a Donald Trump supporter for his presidential run. Again I'm a #NeverTrump. But don't build strawmen either. It doesn't help.
Take these articles, I mean ads, outta here.
WTF? I guess you haven't read about the BitLicense and the amount of companies that don't operate in NY as a result of it.
And you have no problem have a Hillary, a Trump, a Hitler, a Stalin, a Mao or other know-it-all let-those-in-charge-rule the world types?
You want to live under tyranny? Go ahead. I hope you don't mind if I disagree. (oops - of course you would)
I'm not a fan of colonialism. And I'm a #NeverTrump.
But that doesn't mean I'm for open borders. I suppose small island countries (say Grenada or Trinidad) would have zero problems if tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Germans and Frenchmen moved there; built 30 story buildings by the beach; changed the laws that made beaches available to everyone; never learned English, had no respect for the existing culture, etc.. .
I think that all conquest is evil (including colonialism). I said "mostly" over by WWII. After WWII there was little desire (except by the French) to fight to keep colonies. Britain disengaged from the middle east (yes there was minor bloodshed - the Irgun) and India. There were no troops being sent to keep their empire in the Caribbean. Were there places where there was bloodshed such as Kenya yes.
Re Operation Pied Piper how many left England? I don't know. Hundreds of thousands moved to the countryside but I would be surprised if more than 20-30,000 went over seas. And of those only a small percentage who didn't go to the US, Canada, or Australia. I could be wrong -if I am send me some links.
No borders? Fine. Then no social safety net. (Actually I'm not fine with the trade.)
There is something to be said about cultures.
Re WWII and children. What a load of sh!t. The amount of people leaving England during the war years was miniscule if any. And the majority would have gone to the US and Canada.
Who cares that you took people in. (By the way which people and when).
The history of species has been that of violence and war. Horrible, but true.
But the way forward is a live-and-let-live attitude and respect for others. As a neighbor I respect you and your ways if you respect me and my ways (obviously within some agreed upon norms). It does not mean that I have an obligation to allow immigrants into my country who have nothing but contempt for my norms and who have no desire to conform to them.
You claim to be outraged by colonialism - isn't that what you're advocating?
So. The British people have no choice but to accept people into their country who have nothing but contempt for their culture and laws? And if they don't you will call deride them as racist? No.
That makes no sense. No country has an obligation to bring in people - especially immigrants who have nothing but contempt for their host country. You are advocating cultural invasion as a means of curing some ill. All this will lead to is violence. And YOU are the one pushing for violence.
Hint - colonialism takes many forms. For all practical purposes it was over after WWII. The following years was how to disengage. Regardless - England is not morally responsible to take in people from former colonies. And it is bigoted to say that it is.
I'm responding to the point made that people in England do not have the moral right to restrict immigration as a result of having colonies. Yes England had colonies. Now they have to admit anyone who lived in those countries? No. That doesn't make any sense.
Aren't you the small minded racist pig. You are not responsible for what other people did 100 years ago or 500 years ago. Adolf Hitler's grandchildren (if they exist) are not responsible for their grandfather's actions. You are responsible for what you do.
North Africans invaded and enslaved Europeans 1000 years ago. There were slave ports in what's now St. Tropez and about 50 miles south of Rome. Who do we blame (and how do we enact retribution for that?).
Really? So the moment you're not on your property you have no rights? The government can impose whatever rules? How about the rule that one can't speak ill of the government? Do you really want that?
No. Not at all. Doesn't go to the hospitals. You don't get the same medical care - if any.
Health care is not a right (as shown by your statement).
If you mean that both liberals and conservatives are hypocrites and self-contradictory when it comes to individual rights - you're correct (look at liberals who think they have a right to an abortion (based on the fact that you own your own body) but then pass laws requiring that people wear seat belts. (Hey I thought you owned your own body. You can have an abortion but can't decide whether or not to wear a seat belt while on the way to aborting a fetus? Yeah. Good logic there).
But if you're noticing that Trump and Bernie have a lot of overlap in their supporters you're correct.