Way to go moderators. Is flame bait less obvious if it flatters your own prejudices? I weep for the complete intellectual failure of everyone who modded this up.
Re:Prepare to defend your 2nd ammendment rights
on
Obama Launches Change.gov
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The "assault weapons" ban did ban rifles and pistols (not all of them, obviously), contrary to your understanding. The name of the law was a misnomer, similar to the USA PATRIOT act. If "assault weapon" is meaningful at all, it refers to fully-automatic or select fire rifles and carbines. The ban had nothing to do with these, as they are already either heavily regulated or banned by the federal government and the States. I.e., "miniguns" are not currently legal to own.
Talk about the "AK-47" is empty rhetoric employed by anti-gun organizations and politicians to influence those ignorant of guns and their use. Don't be fooled. As mentioned above, American civilians cannot own an AK-47 capable of fully-automatic fire other than under truly exceptional conditions (see the National Firearms Act on Wikipedia). To the extent you can walk into a gun store and buy an AK-47, you will be buying a garden-variety semi-automatic rifle, no deadlier than those used for hunting.
I don't know what it is with you guys about "small government"; I mean, you do want public roads, education for all as well as judicial system, police and military, don't you?
Of course most do, absent folks with views similar to the Unabomber. Where people who want "small government" do want to cut services, they typically want to remove those seen as less of an absolute necessity, or they believe private interests will provide the services just as well. For myself, to the extent I believe in "small government" I believe in a less powerful federal government. This is a big country with lots of disparate interests, and the federal government is a very blunt tool. It's great when you're in power and get to tell the rest of the country what to do, but sooner or later it'll bite you in the ass.
And you cling to your guns like a drug addict to his next fix...
Many of us believe the Second Amendment guarantees an important right, and that it's currently disrespected in ways the First or Fourth could only dream of. As such, it's one of the premier constitutional and civil rights battlegrounds of our time. You're going to see strong opinions expressed when people talk about removing or restricting it, especially outside of an honest amendment process.
Before anyone jumps down my throat, I do see the tension between my opinion on federal law and my opinion on gun rights. My thoughts on that are that the process for amending the federal constitution is very strict, and so it's more likely to reflect truly national concerns. If the second amendment were nullified through that process, I'd oppose it but accept the outcome as valid in a way that I wouldn't were the same end achieved through normal federal law or court "interpretation."
If it isn't socialized medicine, and instead some "private" plan that is open to everyone, how much do I have to pay to get it? Oh, I can't get it at any price?
Nothing more private than that, eh?
The opposite of a government social service is not a service that is open to everyone. What you're seeing here is that the government finds it more efficient to provide health coverage to its employees directly than to contract it out. Any large organization might do the same. You might well copy the implementation of that plan to provide socialized health coverage, if it suits, but as currently implemented it is not socialized medicine. You say it yourself: socialized health care would take money from everyone to redistribute to the needy. The program the federal government uses to provide health coverage to legislators does no such thing. It partially compensates employees for their work.
Listen to me, this is important. The government takes money from "everyone" to implement various "social services." The military, entitlement programs, lawmaking, what-have-you. To implement those programs, the money is spent on various things. Buildings, electricity, pencils, desks, stamps, envelopes, employee compensation in all its myriad forms, private cars, guns, staplers, "Hello my name is" stickers, and so on. Here's the kicker: none of those things are themselves the social service. They are spent implementing that service. It's not a subtle distinction, figure it out.
You're grasping at straws here. I understand your zeal to hold onto the "McCain is a hypocrite" argument for federal socialized health care, but it's just not there, and you're being willfully obstinate with this stupid semantic argument.
I like "suckled" and "teat" just fine, hyperbole and metaphor are great for spicing up a dry political argument. Calling McCain's health coverage "socialized," however, is just wrong. It is simply part of his compensation. He also draws a paycheck for his service—does that mean he benefits from some federal "socialized salary" program?
There's a difference between being paid to provide government services, and receiving the benefit of that service.
Yet our country spends more per capita on health care than just about any other country on the planet, thanks at least in part to our for-profit system.
I've heard this before, and the assumption is that we aren't getting our money's worth. However, we also probably spend more per capita than anyone else on big screen TVs, energy, etc., but in those categories people wouldn't draw the same conclusion. I think people tend to view all health spending as necessary, but that's not necessarily the case.
Anyway, in my experience these oft-repeated factoids tend to come from a handful of reports or studies, but a quick web search didn't provide any standouts. Much appreciated if you can point me towards some so I can see the authors' conclusions and reasoning.
McCain hasn't "suckled" at any government "teat." Health insurance was part of his compensation for his work in the Navy and in Congress. That is, he earned it. Considering the distinction with which he earned it regarding his Navy service, I'd suggest barking up another tree.
Wow, mod parent down for dishonesty. That's not "the WSJ" on Obama's tax plan, it's Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee--"respectively, economic policy director and senior economic adviser at Obama for America," as noted at the foot of the article. The opinion of the Journal's editorial board is decidedly less glowing, see one example here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html.
Read between the lines. I'm pointing out your absurd claim that I made bendodge's assertions my own by linking to a document that, as you have indicated, refutes them. You're nuts, I was trying to be helpful to you without getting in anyone's face or imposing my own views.
Goodness, life's just not fair, is it? The rich are all undeserving parasites, getting all that money simply for being born tall, or with social skills, or to wealthy parents. If there were any accounting at all, we'd reward people with more worth to society, such as those born smart, white, and male. Oh, sorry—I meant to say those "with knowledge and skill."
Get over yourself. If you want to earn a lot of money, take the excellent hand life dealt you and learn something valuable, which will not necessarily be anything you wish was valuable. Or take a risk and start a business. You might learn something about government vs. business accountability as you fight for its existence, and about who a business benefits should you ever be able to employ someone.
I checked the linked page (I know, I know...) after seeing the grandparent post, and do see the "Today's Talking Points" part, but I don't see where people are being asked to copy that text verbatim. Maybe you could explain why you and the Post reporter categorize them as "sample comments" instead of simply attacking the grandparent? I read them more as the campaign's take to visitors on the issues they'd like raised, and the arguments they'd like used, in the tradition of the talking points the major parties give their members of Congress.
So degree isn't important anymore, eh? Toyota produces defective vehicles, GM produces defective vehicles. They both produce defective vehicles—end of story!
No idea how to calculate the taxes. It's no big mystery what's going on here though, right? The carrier wants to be able to arbitrarily increase your monthly payment at their discretion. Don't buy in to the excuses, the situation is completely unreasonable and these disreputable businesses need to be called to account for it. The proper response to a sales rep's refusal to disclose the actual cost of a service is a loud, slightly peevish, "well maybe I'll take my business to someone who can."
If you just need the basics, get a prepaid phone with T-Mobile or Virgin. These work fine and the business relationship is honest. If you need data however, I don't know what to tell you. You might just need to bend over until the carriers leave us with no option but government regulation.
When I closed on my loan, I had a stack of about 400 pages of documents to be signed and initialed in a few dozen places. These papers were not given to me until the hour of the actual closing.
Jesus Christ, man, then you shouldn't have signed it! What, were you afraid they'd get angry with you? That the time spent thus far would be wasted? I don't feel disdain for you, either -- don't mistake my shock -- but then again, you seem to understand that it was your choice and now your responsibility. I hope you don't make the same mistake again of entering into a legally binding contract that you don't understand.
It's a lot more practical than it sounds. To illustrate, look at the number of rounds fired by police officers in a typical firefight, and how many of those rounds actually hit the target. I believe the FBI carries stats on their web site.
You might think that all guns are basically the same, but handguns are significantly less powerful than long guns and significantly harder to use. Chances are, any shot landed on your attacker will present no physiological reason for him to be unable to continue his attack, however ultimately fatal the wound, so you train to quickly land multiple shots. This is far from easy even at the range on a fixed target, so you can imagine the results in a high-stress situation with a moving target.
To sum up, worrying about putting two magazines through a concealable pistol to fend off a single attacker is far from ridiculous. They're just nowhere near as effective as a shotgun in a self-defense situation, but you can't conceal a shotgun.
Do you want to be forced to pay pennies of your income to help my neighboors, or do you want them to turn to a life of crime to support themselves and wind up in a prison where you will be forced to pay dollars of your income to support them?
Did you mean to make government welfare sound like a protection racket, or did it just sort of happen?
It is factually correct that... the neocons in power are all rich, white men.
Factually correct, yes, but about as relevant to your argument as a loan applicant's race to his creditworthiness. Your inclusion of race here only exposes your racism.
On a related note, I guess you're going for "majority rules" in your categorization of the entire administration as white men, given the even well-known exceptions such as the Secretary of State? In which case, what race and gender would you use to describe the Congress or the courts you look to for relief from the tyranny of these "rich, powerful white men"?
It's not a big deal, your employer's group plan will typically cost you between $250 and $350 a month to maintain through COBRA. For a similar individual private health insurance plan ($20 copays, $10 prescriptions, etc.), the HMOs seem to want more like $1250 -- and I'm young and healthy. Granted, it's a bit of a shock since the expense is hidden while you're employed, but it's far from the biggest expense in most budgets, and those too have to be maintained through savings, debt or theft while one is between jobs.
Slashdot Mirror
Way to go moderators. Is flame bait less obvious if it flatters your own prejudices? I weep for the complete intellectual failure of everyone who modded this up.
The "assault weapons" ban did ban rifles and pistols (not all of them, obviously), contrary to your understanding. The name of the law was a misnomer, similar to the USA PATRIOT act. If "assault weapon" is meaningful at all, it refers to fully-automatic or select fire rifles and carbines. The ban had nothing to do with these, as they are already either heavily regulated or banned by the federal government and the States. I.e., "miniguns" are not currently legal to own.
Talk about the "AK-47" is empty rhetoric employed by anti-gun organizations and politicians to influence those ignorant of guns and their use. Don't be fooled. As mentioned above, American civilians cannot own an AK-47 capable of fully-automatic fire other than under truly exceptional conditions (see the National Firearms Act on Wikipedia). To the extent you can walk into a gun store and buy an AK-47, you will be buying a garden-variety semi-automatic rifle, no deadlier than those used for hunting.
I don't know what it is with you guys about "small government"; I mean, you do want public roads, education for all as well as judicial system, police and military, don't you?
Of course most do, absent folks with views similar to the Unabomber. Where people who want "small government" do want to cut services, they typically want to remove those seen as less of an absolute necessity, or they believe private interests will provide the services just as well. For myself, to the extent I believe in "small government" I believe in a less powerful federal government. This is a big country with lots of disparate interests, and the federal government is a very blunt tool. It's great when you're in power and get to tell the rest of the country what to do, but sooner or later it'll bite you in the ass.
And you cling to your guns like a drug addict to his next fix...
Many of us believe the Second Amendment guarantees an important right, and that it's currently disrespected in ways the First or Fourth could only dream of. As such, it's one of the premier constitutional and civil rights battlegrounds of our time. You're going to see strong opinions expressed when people talk about removing or restricting it, especially outside of an honest amendment process.
Before anyone jumps down my throat, I do see the tension between my opinion on federal law and my opinion on gun rights. My thoughts on that are that the process for amending the federal constitution is very strict, and so it's more likely to reflect truly national concerns. If the second amendment were nullified through that process, I'd oppose it but accept the outcome as valid in a way that I wouldn't were the same end achieved through normal federal law or court "interpretation."
If it isn't socialized medicine, and instead some "private" plan that is open to everyone, how much do I have to pay to get it? Oh, I can't get it at any price?
Nothing more private than that, eh?
The opposite of a government social service is not a service that is open to everyone. What you're seeing here is that the government finds it more efficient to provide health coverage to its employees directly than to contract it out. Any large organization might do the same. You might well copy the implementation of that plan to provide socialized health coverage, if it suits, but as currently implemented it is not socialized medicine. You say it yourself: socialized health care would take money from everyone to redistribute to the needy. The program the federal government uses to provide health coverage to legislators does no such thing. It partially compensates employees for their work.
Listen to me, this is important. The government takes money from "everyone" to implement various "social services." The military, entitlement programs, lawmaking, what-have-you. To implement those programs, the money is spent on various things. Buildings, electricity, pencils, desks, stamps, envelopes, employee compensation in all its myriad forms, private cars, guns, staplers, "Hello my name is" stickers, and so on. Here's the kicker: none of those things are themselves the social service. They are spent implementing that service. It's not a subtle distinction, figure it out.
You're grasping at straws here. I understand your zeal to hold onto the "McCain is a hypocrite" argument for federal socialized health care, but it's just not there, and you're being willfully obstinate with this stupid semantic argument.
"No," actually. The answer to that question is "no."
I like "suckled" and "teat" just fine, hyperbole and metaphor are great for spicing up a dry political argument. Calling McCain's health coverage "socialized," however, is just wrong. It is simply part of his compensation. He also draws a paycheck for his service—does that mean he benefits from some federal "socialized salary" program?
There's a difference between being paid to provide government services, and receiving the benefit of that service.
Yet our country spends more per capita on health care than just about any other country on the planet, thanks at least in part to our for-profit system.
I've heard this before, and the assumption is that we aren't getting our money's worth. However, we also probably spend more per capita than anyone else on big screen TVs, energy, etc., but in those categories people wouldn't draw the same conclusion. I think people tend to view all health spending as necessary, but that's not necessarily the case.
Anyway, in my experience these oft-repeated factoids tend to come from a handful of reports or studies, but a quick web search didn't provide any standouts. Much appreciated if you can point me towards some so I can see the authors' conclusions and reasoning.
McCain hasn't "suckled" at any government "teat." Health insurance was part of his compensation for his work in the Navy and in Congress. That is, he earned it. Considering the distinction with which he earned it regarding his Navy service, I'd suggest barking up another tree.
Wow, mod parent down for dishonesty. That's not "the WSJ" on Obama's tax plan, it's Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee--"respectively, economic policy director and senior economic adviser at Obama for America," as noted at the foot of the article. The opinion of the Journal's editorial board is decidedly less glowing, see one example here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html.
Read between the lines. I'm pointing out your absurd claim that I made bendodge's assertions my own by linking to a document that, as you have indicated, refutes them. You're nuts, I was trying to be helpful to you without getting in anyone's face or imposing my own views.
They didn't, did they? Hmm. The Wikipedia page *I* linked to.
Not my assertions, but glad I could be of help.
Try Wikipedia's page titled 'Political positions of Barack Obama'.
Goodness, life's just not fair, is it? The rich are all undeserving parasites, getting all that money simply for being born tall, or with social skills, or to wealthy parents. If there were any accounting at all, we'd reward people with more worth to society, such as those born smart, white, and male. Oh, sorry—I meant to say those "with knowledge and skill."
Get over yourself. If you want to earn a lot of money, take the excellent hand life dealt you and learn something valuable, which will not necessarily be anything you wish was valuable. Or take a risk and start a business. You might learn something about government vs. business accountability as you fight for its existence, and about who a business benefits should you ever be able to employ someone.
I checked the linked page (I know, I know...) after seeing the grandparent post, and do see the "Today's Talking Points" part, but I don't see where people are being asked to copy that text verbatim. Maybe you could explain why you and the Post reporter categorize them as "sample comments" instead of simply attacking the grandparent? I read them more as the campaign's take to visitors on the issues they'd like raised, and the arguments they'd like used, in the tradition of the talking points the major parties give their members of Congress.
So degree isn't important anymore, eh? Toyota produces defective vehicles, GM produces defective vehicles. They both produce defective vehicles—end of story!
No idea how to calculate the taxes. It's no big mystery what's going on here though, right? The carrier wants to be able to arbitrarily increase your monthly payment at their discretion. Don't buy in to the excuses, the situation is completely unreasonable and these disreputable businesses need to be called to account for it. The proper response to a sales rep's refusal to disclose the actual cost of a service is a loud, slightly peevish, "well maybe I'll take my business to someone who can."
If you just need the basics, get a prepaid phone with T-Mobile or Virgin. These work fine and the business relationship is honest. If you need data however, I don't know what to tell you. You might just need to bend over until the carriers leave us with no option but government regulation.
Jesus Christ, man, then you shouldn't have signed it! What, were you afraid they'd get angry with you? That the time spent thus far would be wasted? I don't feel disdain for you, either -- don't mistake my shock -- but then again, you seem to understand that it was your choice and now your responsibility. I hope you don't make the same mistake again of entering into a legally binding contract that you don't understand.
It's a lot more practical than it sounds. To illustrate, look at the number of rounds fired by police officers in a typical firefight, and how many of those rounds actually hit the target. I believe the FBI carries stats on their web site.
You might think that all guns are basically the same, but handguns are significantly less powerful than long guns and significantly harder to use. Chances are, any shot landed on your attacker will present no physiological reason for him to be unable to continue his attack, however ultimately fatal the wound, so you train to quickly land multiple shots. This is far from easy even at the range on a fixed target, so you can imagine the results in a high-stress situation with a moving target.
To sum up, worrying about putting two magazines through a concealable pistol to fend off a single attacker is far from ridiculous. They're just nowhere near as effective as a shotgun in a self-defense situation, but you can't conceal a shotgun.
You're being disingenuous, it's not a difficult question to get an answer to. You just don't find yourself in agreement with your answerers.
Did you mean to make government welfare sound like a protection racket, or did it just sort of happen?
Factually correct, yes, but about as relevant to your argument as a loan applicant's race to his creditworthiness. Your inclusion of race here only exposes your racism.
On a related note, I guess you're going for "majority rules" in your categorization of the entire administration as white men, given the even well-known exceptions such as the Secretary of State? In which case, what race and gender would you use to describe the Congress or the courts you look to for relief from the tyranny of these "rich, powerful white men"?
It's not a big deal, your employer's group plan will typically cost you between $250 and $350 a month to maintain through COBRA. For a similar individual private health insurance plan ($20 copays, $10 prescriptions, etc.), the HMOs seem to want more like $1250 -- and I'm young and healthy. Granted, it's a bit of a shock since the expense is hidden while you're employed, but it's far from the biggest expense in most budgets, and those too have to be maintained through savings, debt or theft while one is between jobs.
He meant COBRA.
Even that seems a little confusing in the context of this story, with senators voting for not granting immunity.
What it comes down to is McCain supports telco immunity, Obama opposes it and Hillary did not vote.