Actually i find it very unpleseant to be around cops armed with guns. Sadly, unlike other countries, our country is so awash with guns that I feel they need them to do their job. I dont like it though
Actually i do find it unpleasant to be around armed cops and prefer not to be. While i do have the assurance they have at least been through thorough training, which is not the case with regular gun owners, I've met some cops that are real pieces of shit who get off on intimidating other people ( I've also met quite a few who are great people).
Oh good. You're one of those people that would rather live in an environment of constant paranoia just in case that.0001 chance that having a gun in public might have a legitimate use.
Personally, I'd rather not have perpetually armed strangers around me and mine. Just the fact that you feel you need to have a tool designed specifically designed to kill and intimidate people on you at all times means I don't want you around me. It suggests a mentality I am not at all comfortable with.
"Other people don't like being around people with guns all the time? They'd rather go out to social in environments where they don't have to be around tools specifically designed to kill and intimidate people held by strangers who clearly feel they need to have the constant threat of violence about them? People would rather not go out and have strangers with guns around themselves and their children? This can't mean there's anything wrong with my values so I'll just try to find a work around."
Get a clue people. No one likes hanging out with a nut with a gun besides another nut with a gun. Gun ownership in general is a tricky issue for me but anyone who showed up to my home or at a social event I started at a public place with a gun would never be invited back. If they had a disguised piece I'd be doubly pissed that they tried to hide it from me.
This article would be infinity more informative if we were told what Amazon's allotment was. Selling 100 units of VR equipment on a major console in a short amount of time would be completely unimpressive. Selling 100k would be very impressive. Without the numbers the only thing this tells us is we can't buy the VR gear from Amazon.
These articles do a pretty good job of citing sources.
Not that I think this will change your opinion though. Your dumb assumption of 20% of all Muslims being radicalized shows that you don't care about terrorism and just want to demonize Muslims. If 212 million people where crazy terrorist radicals the world would be on fire now as opposed to the safest it's been in god only knows how long.
You judge cities based on the hotel rooms? You do realize there's a whole world of culture and excitement in most major cities you visit outside of the hotel room?
I'm a grown adult and I love this concept. When i go on vacation I spend as little time in the hotel room as possible anyways. I also value my money and have plenty of other things to spend it on then a large amount of space I'm not going to use.
I suppose it will be a bit of a drag for those doing business trips and being forced to stay at these places as any work that needs doing in the hotel room will be cramped but I cant imagine it would be that bad. Plenty of college kids make due with similiar accommodations or less.
Then again, because i spent most of my 20's living pretty rough I'm the type that doesnt mind at all. Different people have different tolerance levels for this type of thing I suppose.
By that logic we'd abolish all taxes. We'd be living the libertarian dream of horrible infastructure, no schools for the poor and all the associated social ills that would create and all sorts of other good fun. Then when the next militeristic world power arises like the Nazis we can be conquered with whole US communities killed off for supplying too many volunteers to woahfully underarmed militias that could never fight a modern army.
You missed the point completely. Forty people paying more money in taxes is almost nothing relatively speaking. The entire 1% paying more in taxes does actually create a bit of noticable revenue.
Wow, that's a great fiction you just spun. Housing is indeed incredibly expensive in San Francisco with a median price at over 1 million. The thing is, a million dollars for a house isnt very much money when you make 650k a year.
Most major US corperations are sitting on piles of cash right now (hence the outrageous sums being payed for startups). They're not spending this money on endeavors that improve our GDP because there is no market demand for more of the goods or services they produce. Cutting their taxes would do nothing to address this, their piles of cash would just grow faster.
Now, if we find ways to get more money into the hands of people who will go right out and spend it (the lower and middle classes) then we've got increased demand for major corperation's products and services which then triggers major companies to spend more providing for and profiting from this increased demand. There's your GDP growth.
Wow, I feel like you're saying that to make billionares assets sounds small but given how big the US budget is every year that's a huge amount of money
So we can't compare anything to anything then? Any time you compare countries you have to be careful of cultural differences but Western Europe is a great region to compare to the US for the purpose of examining the effectiveness of government policies. We're culturally very similiar, have similiar standards of living, have similiar forms of governance, and in the context of this debate we have very similiar violent crime rates suggesting that they're as prone to violence as we are. At the same time they have a homicide rate that's 1/3 ours and a gun violence rate that looks almost nonexistent next to ours. I've said this elsewhere but at best this suggests all of our guns don't keep us safer and seems to also suggest that maybe they're making us less safe.
"What if this presidential election needs to go to the supreme court like the Bush/Gore race? What if the court ties? I realize there are contingencies for that happening but do you think it would go well going with a lower courts call on such a massive issue?"
Having an even number of justices for a significant period of time is just not a good idea as it creates the possibility of ties. Ties of course result in going with a lower court's call but if the issue is important enough to be addressed by the Supreme Court then it should be resolved by them. That's literally why they're there. It calls into question the validity of our governance if the top tier of one of our three main branches can't properly resolve the issues it's supposed to resolve. Will this massively destabilize our government? I'm pretty sure it won't but it certainly isn't a healthy state for us to be in.
I also never said anywhere that putting off the confirmation guaranteed a GOP appointment. No idea where you got that from.
The South Vietnamese government were not some happy capitalist / democratic good guys. They committed terrible human rights abuses, were massively corrupt and most definitely didnt represent the democratic will of the people it claimed to represent. Now I'm not saying the communist North Vietnamese were some kind of heroes who respected human rights but what I am saying that if the war had been won by us and the government of the South controlled the whole country it is quite likely that it would have been just as bad for the people of Vietnam as it was under the communists.
Yeah, the left wing media did us all a massive disservice demonizing a war that amounted to sending non-voluntary soldiers to a war meant to suppress a government that our government knew would most definitely win a democratic election (the reason that both the French and then US wouldn't allow elections in the country). In fact, we have a good sized record of disrupting legitimately elected governments because they we inconvenient for us. "Socialist" governments are most definitely not the only form of governance that has served to oppress people.
And maybe you didnt read my post at all. I said they technically have the right to do this. Does this make it morally okay to destabilize or government for the sake of a political win? No.
It's their duty to do their Job just like it's my duty to go to work tomorrow. Do I have to go to work tomorrow? Technically, no. I could even call in sick tomorrow and no one would ever know I was faking it and I would get to keep my job. Will I do that? No, it's my duty to go to work unless I really can't.
Likewise, sure, technically congress is acting within the rules by just not bringing the issue up for consideration but the fact is that it is their duty to particpate in this processes and by chosing not to do so they are neglecting their duty. In doing so they stunt one of our three main branches of government creating potentially destabilizing problems for it. What if this presidential election needs to go to the supreme court like the Bush/Gore race? What if the court ties? I realize there are contingencies for that happening but do you think it would go well going with a lower courts call on such a massive issue?
The fact is they're threatening the stability of our government by stunting one of its three main branches just so they can possibly score a "win" if a Republican gets the presidency. Many senior Republicans in congress even have quotes from years past talking about how important it is not to let the court nomination process come to this.
As I've posted in response to several of your posts in this thread, the need for mass gun ownership to defend our homes or protect ourselves is shown to be non existant when you compare US crime rates to any other first world nation. We're armed to the teeth compared to everyone else and yet we have basically the same violent crime rates and notably higher gun violence and homicide rates. At best US mass ownership of guns isnt helping keep us safe at all and at worst its flooding the market making more guns available to criminals and destablizing our Southern neighbors.
Every other first world nation has violent crime rates roughly in line with us. Meanwhile we have notably higher homocide and gun violence rates. My point was that in situations where guns apply to personal safety every other first world nation is doing at least as well as the US and by some metrics a good bit better
Slashdot Mirror
Actually i find it very unpleseant to be around cops armed with guns. Sadly, unlike other countries, our country is so awash with guns that I feel they need them to do their job. I dont like it though
I hunt elk and own my own rifle so I certainly do not have a gun phobia but thanks for making stuff up about me!
Actually i do find it unpleasant to be around armed cops and prefer not to be. While i do have the assurance they have at least been through thorough training, which is not the case with regular gun owners, I've met some cops that are real pieces of shit who get off on intimidating other people ( I've also met quite a few who are great people).
Oh good. You're one of those people that would rather live in an environment of constant paranoia just in case that .0001 chance that having a gun in public might have a legitimate use.
Personally, I'd rather not have perpetually armed strangers around me and mine. Just the fact that you feel you need to have a tool designed specifically designed to kill and intimidate people on you at all times means I don't want you around me. It suggests a mentality I am not at all comfortable with.
"Other people don't like being around people with guns all the time? They'd rather go out to social in environments where they don't have to be around tools specifically designed to kill and intimidate people held by strangers who clearly feel they need to have the constant threat of violence about them? People would rather not go out and have strangers with guns around themselves and their children? This can't mean there's anything wrong with my values so I'll just try to find a work around."
Get a clue people. No one likes hanging out with a nut with a gun besides another nut with a gun. Gun ownership in general is a tricky issue for me but anyone who showed up to my home or at a social event I started at a public place with a gun would never be invited back. If they had a disguised piece I'd be doubly pissed that they tried to hide it from me.
Do you always reply to a substantiated rebuttal with nonsense?
This article would be infinity more informative if we were told what Amazon's allotment was. Selling 100 units of VR equipment on a major console in a short amount of time would be completely unimpressive. Selling 100k would be very impressive. Without the numbers the only thing this tells us is we can't buy the VR gear from Amazon.
Muslims are responsible for the vast majority of terrorism in the world today.
In the Middle East where they mostly kill other Muslims that might be true. In the West however, that is miles away from the truth.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/n...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
http://www.vocativ.com/news/25...
These articles do a pretty good job of citing sources.
Not that I think this will change your opinion though. Your dumb assumption of 20% of all Muslims being radicalized shows that you don't care about terrorism and just want to demonize Muslims. If 212 million people where crazy terrorist radicals the world would be on fire now as opposed to the safest it's been in god only knows how long.
You judge cities based on the hotel rooms? You do realize there's a whole world of culture and excitement in most major cities you visit outside of the hotel room?
I'm a grown adult and I love this concept. When i go on vacation I spend as little time in the hotel room as possible anyways. I also value my money and have plenty of other things to spend it on then a large amount of space I'm not going to use.
I suppose it will be a bit of a drag for those doing business trips and being forced to stay at these places as any work that needs doing in the hotel room will be cramped but I cant imagine it would be that bad. Plenty of college kids make due with similiar accommodations or less.
Then again, because i spent most of my 20's living pretty rough I'm the type that doesnt mind at all. Different people have different tolerance levels for this type of thing I suppose.
By that logic we'd abolish all taxes. We'd be living the libertarian dream of horrible infastructure, no schools for the poor and all the associated social ills that would create and all sorts of other good fun. Then when the next militeristic world power arises like the Nazis we can be conquered with whole US communities killed off for supplying too many volunteers to woahfully underarmed militias that could never fight a modern army.
You missed the point completely. Forty people paying more money in taxes is almost nothing relatively speaking. The entire 1% paying more in taxes does actually create a bit of noticable revenue.
Wow, that's a great fiction you just spun. Housing is indeed incredibly expensive in San Francisco with a median price at over 1 million. The thing is, a million dollars for a house isnt very much money when you make 650k a year.
Most major US corperations are sitting on piles of cash right now (hence the outrageous sums being payed for startups). They're not spending this money on endeavors that improve our GDP because there is no market demand for more of the goods or services they produce. Cutting their taxes would do nothing to address this, their piles of cash would just grow faster.
Now, if we find ways to get more money into the hands of people who will go right out and spend it (the lower and middle classes) then we've got increased demand for major corperation's products and services which then triggers major companies to spend more providing for and profiting from this increased demand. There's your GDP growth.
Wow, I feel like you're saying that to make billionares assets sounds small but given how big the US budget is every year that's a huge amount of money
So we can't compare anything to anything then? Any time you compare countries you have to be careful of cultural differences but Western Europe is a great region to compare to the US for the purpose of examining the effectiveness of government policies. We're culturally very similiar, have similiar standards of living, have similiar forms of governance, and in the context of this debate we have very similiar violent crime rates suggesting that they're as prone to violence as we are. At the same time they have a homicide rate that's 1/3 ours and a gun violence rate that looks almost nonexistent next to ours. I've said this elsewhere but at best this suggests all of our guns don't keep us safer and seems to also suggest that maybe they're making us less safe.
Here's my example from a post just a bit up
"What if this presidential election needs to go to the supreme court like the Bush/Gore race? What if the court ties? I realize there are contingencies for that happening but do you think it would go well going with a lower courts call on such a massive issue?"
Having an even number of justices for a significant period of time is just not a good idea as it creates the possibility of ties. Ties of course result in going with a lower court's call but if the issue is important enough to be addressed by the Supreme Court then it should be resolved by them. That's literally why they're there. It calls into question the validity of our governance if the top tier of one of our three main branches can't properly resolve the issues it's supposed to resolve. Will this massively destabilize our government? I'm pretty sure it won't but it certainly isn't a healthy state for us to be in.
I also never said anywhere that putting off the confirmation guaranteed a GOP appointment. No idea where you got that from.
The South Vietnamese government were not some happy capitalist / democratic good guys. They committed terrible human rights abuses, were massively corrupt and most definitely didnt represent the democratic will of the people it claimed to represent. Now I'm not saying the communist North Vietnamese were some kind of heroes who respected human rights but what I am saying that if the war had been won by us and the government of the South controlled the whole country it is quite likely that it would have been just as bad for the people of Vietnam as it was under the communists.
Yeah, the left wing media did us all a massive disservice demonizing a war that amounted to sending non-voluntary soldiers to a war meant to suppress a government that our government knew would most definitely win a democratic election (the reason that both the French and then US wouldn't allow elections in the country). In fact, we have a good sized record of disrupting legitimately elected governments because they we inconvenient for us. "Socialist" governments are most definitely not the only form of governance that has served to oppress people.
And maybe you didnt read my post at all. I said they technically have the right to do this. Does this make it morally okay to destabilize or government for the sake of a political win? No.
It's their duty to do their Job just like it's my duty to go to work tomorrow. Do I have to go to work tomorrow? Technically, no. I could even call in sick tomorrow and no one would ever know I was faking it and I would get to keep my job. Will I do that? No, it's my duty to go to work unless I really can't.
Likewise, sure, technically congress is acting within the rules by just not bringing the issue up for consideration but the fact is that it is their duty to particpate in this processes and by chosing not to do so they are neglecting their duty. In doing so they stunt one of our three main branches of government creating potentially destabilizing problems for it. What if this presidential election needs to go to the supreme court like the Bush/Gore race? What if the court ties? I realize there are contingencies for that happening but do you think it would go well going with a lower courts call on such a massive issue?
The fact is they're threatening the stability of our government by stunting one of its three main branches just so they can possibly score a "win" if a Republican gets the presidency. Many senior Republicans in congress even have quotes from years past talking about how important it is not to let the court nomination process come to this.
Maybe to reduce our gun violence and homicide rates so we can enjoy Western European standards? Our homicide three times theirs.
As I've posted in response to several of your posts in this thread, the need for mass gun ownership to defend our homes or protect ourselves is shown to be non existant when you compare US crime rates to any other first world nation. We're armed to the teeth compared to everyone else and yet we have basically the same violent crime rates and notably higher gun violence and homicide rates. At best US mass ownership of guns isnt helping keep us safe at all and at worst its flooding the market making more guns available to criminals and destablizing our Southern neighbors.
Every other first world nation has violent crime rates roughly in line with us. Meanwhile we have notably higher homocide and gun violence rates. My point was that in situations where guns apply to personal safety every other first world nation is doing at least as well as the US and by some metrics a good bit better
The other day the rest of Western civilization got by just fine without being armed to the teeth. Looks like they're on track for today as well.