Miscellaneous News.

16667697172143

Comments

  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member


    Well I guess everyone in Maryland is going to go out, buy a bunch of guns, and shoot each other now.
  • hands sandonhands sandon Posts: 5,270member
    "In 2010 -- the first full year since the end of the Great Recession -- virtually all of the income growth in America took place among the country's very wealthiest people, says an economist at the University of California, Berkeley. The top 1 percent of earners took in a full 93 percent of all the income gains that year, leaving the other 7 percent of gains to be sprinkled among the vast majority of society."

    ~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1321008.html
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,064member
    Ron Paul has made a serious misstep with regard to his stance on federal aid for disaster victims. I know we have a lot of anti-Federalists on this board. It is quite clear, however, that the whole idea behind the Union was that not only would the states have the opportunity to receive aid from the other states when they needed it, but that states would have an obligation to give aid to other states when the other states need it. That's beside the fact that he'll lose a lot of support from the people who interpret his remarks as being immorally selfish.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,064member
    Meanwhile, McCain shows us why we should thank God he wasn't elected. He would have attacked Syria long ago.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Ron Paul has made a serious misstep with regard to his stance on federal aid for disaster victims. I know we have a lot of anti-Federalists on this board. It is quite clear, however, that the whole idea behind the Union was that not only would the states have the opportunity to receive aid from the other states when they needed it, but that states would have an obligation to give aid to other states when the other states need it. That's beside the fact that he'll lose a lot of support from the people who interpret his remarks as being immorally selfish.



    You are selfish because you won't let me take your money when I want it.
  • hands sandonhands sandon Posts: 5,270member
    "Younger women drivers will see the cost of their car insurance rise by hundreds of pounds when new European rules are introduced at the end of this year.



    This latest ruling stipulates that insurers cannot discriminate on the basis of gender when setting insurance premiums, despite the fact that women drivers are less likely to have a crash ? and are involved in far less serious road accidents.



    The Labour transport spokesman, John Woodcock, has called on the Government to take action to mitigate the worst effects of the new ruling. He said that on average women would end up paying an additional £362 a year for their insurance.



    But this "average" masks the fact that younger drivers face far steeper increase. According to figures from the AA, women aged between 17 and 22 pay an average of £1,799 a year for car insurance, while men in this age group pay a staggering £3,163.



    In order to "equalise" rates, women in this age group are likely to see far higher increases, as they will effectively have to pay premiums that reflect the risk of younger, more aggressive male drivers ? the so-called "boy racers"

    ~ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...EU-ruling.html



    The reality is that a safe male driver shouldn't have to pay extra because of some show off who who doesn't care who he kills and neither should females.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post


    "Younger women drivers will see the cost of their car insurance rise by hundreds of pounds when new European rules are introduced at the end of this year.



    This latest ruling stipulates that insurers cannot discriminate on the basis of gender when setting insurance premiums, despite the fact that women drivers are less likely to have a crash ? and are involved in far less serious road accidents.



    The Labour transport spokesman, John Woodcock, has called on the Government to take action to mitigate the worst effects of the new ruling. He said that on average women would end up paying an additional £362 a year for their insurance.



    But this "average" masks the fact that younger drivers face far steeper increase. According to figures from the AA, women aged between 17 and 22 pay an average of £1,799 a year for car insurance, while men in this age group pay a staggering £3,163.



    In order to "equalise" rates, women in this age group are likely to see far higher increases, as they will effectively have to pay premiums that reflect the risk of younger, more aggressive male drivers ? the so-called "boy racers"

    ~ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...EU-ruling.html



    The reality is that a safe male driver shouldn't have to pay extra because of some show off who who doesn't care who he kills and neither should females.



  • hands sandonhands sandon Posts: 5,270member
    Thankfully a far cry from Bush's Texas tough talk -



    "Iran's top leader Thursday welcomed comments by President Barack Obama advocating diplomacy and not war as a solution to Tehran's nuclear ambitions, a rare positive signal in long-standing hostile transactions between Tehran and Washington.



    The report on Iran's state television quoted Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as praising a recent statement by the U.S. president saying he saw a "window of opportunity" to use diplomacy to resolve the nuclear dispute.



    Khamenei, who has final say on all state matters in Iran, told a group of clerics: "This expression is a good word. This is a wise remark indicating taking distance from illusion."



    It is one of the rare cases in which Iran's top leader praised an American leader."

    ~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1330645.html
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post


    Thankfully a far cry from Bush's Texas tough talk



    Well what is "I don't bluff."?!
  • hands sandonhands sandon Posts: 5,270member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Well what is "I don't bluff."?!



    That's fair enough. He's making sure people know he means what he says. He's keeping the door firmly open to sanctions and diplomacy rather than war. Take a look at the repubs, except for Ron Paul, their itching for violent rhetoric.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post


    That's fair enough. He's making sure people know he means what he says. He's keeping the door firmly open to sanctions and diplomacy rather than war.



    So is Obama's "tough talk" (basically telling Iran to capitulate to US/Israeli demands "diplomatically" or face our wrath.) fundamentally different?





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post


    Take a look at the repubs, except for Ron Paul, their itching for violent rhetoric.



    I know.
  • hands sandonhands sandon Posts: 5,270member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    So is Obama's "tough talk" (basically telling Iran to capitulate to US/Israeli demands "diplomatically" or face our wrath.) fundamentally different?



    It is. It paves the way for dialogue and inspections that could well prove that there isn't even a reason to go to war with Iran, even in the Wests eyes. Personally, I think it's their right as a sovereign nation to defend themselves. It's beyond a joke that after devasting countries like Iraq and Afghanistan that any of these neo cons believe they have a moral superiority argument. They've well and truly blown that one.



    The best thing would be to lift all sanctions, let Iran look after themselves and start accepting the reality once and for all that only the US has ever used nukes. Realistically the US should be the country most feared, therefore realistically having sanctions imposed on it as the first priority. The US makes Iran look like angels.



    Ron Paul unfortunately, is the only one who's right on this.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post


    It is. It paves the way for dialogue and inspections that could well prove that there isn't even a reason to go to war with Iran, even in the Wests eyes.



    I disagree that Obama's tough talk is fundamentally different. It still amounts to a threat to capitulate to our "diplomatic" approach or face our wrath.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post


    Personally, I think it's their right as a sovereign nation to defend themselves.



    Absolutely.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post


    It's beyond a joke that after devasting countries like Iraq and Afghanistan that any of these neo cons believe they have a moral superiority argument. They've well and truly have blown that one.



    Agreed.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post


    The best thing would be to lift all sanctions, let Iran look after themselves and start accepting the reality once and for all that only the US has ever used nukes.



    Agreed.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post


    Ron Paul unfortunately, is the only one who's right on this.



    Yep.
  • hands sandonhands sandon Posts: 5,270member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    I disagree that Obama's tough talk is fundamentally different. It still amounts to a threat to capitulate to our "diplomatic" approach or face our wrath.



    It does seem to, but Obama hasn't said what he'd do, and I personally think he wouldn't invade or bomb Iran even if intelligence suggested that they had nukes. I think David Cameron just the other day said Iran is trying to build inter-continental nukes. As the US goes, Obama's showing a whole more diplomacy than is typical. But who know's, maybe he knows something we don't? Maybe Iran has already got nukes and he doesn't want to take any chances by invading?
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post


    It does seem to, but Obama hasn't said what he'd do, and I personally think he wouldn't invade or bomb Iran even if intelligence suggested that they had nukes. I think David Cameron just the other day said Iran is trying to build inter-continental nukes. As the US goes, Obama's showing a whole more diplomacy than is typical. But who know's, maybe he knows something we don't? Maybe Iran has already got nukes and he doesn't want to take any chances by invading?



    Well the US doesn't even have to do anything directly. That much is clear. Obama knows this. If he doesn't want to get his hands dirty, he'll just let Israel do it "on their own." *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*



    They don't have nukes. At least not nuclear weapons.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,218member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    Well I guess everyone in Maryland is going to go out, buy a bunch of guns, and shoot each other now.



    Clearly. Also, criminals will line up to return their weapons, because hey...it's just no fun with unarmed people anymore.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,064member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Clearly. Also, criminals will line up to return their weapons, because hey...it's just no fun with unarmed people anymore.



    It will take time. How many crimes are committed today with AKs? Did the criminals 'just give them up'? No, but time removed them from circulation. But that's not what you're interested in. You have no interest in the solution that would clearly make people safer in the long run.



    You forget that guns used to be unregulated in Australia. If your premise were true, then the criminals who didn't give up their guns would be running rampant there.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,218member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    It will take time. How many crimes are committed today with AKs?



    No idea. But what about weapons that are similar?



    Quote:

    Did the criminals 'just give them up'? No, but time removed them from circulation.



    First, I don't know if that's actually true. But assuming it is for a moment, HOW did they "get removed from circulation?" It didn't happen because law-abiding citizens couldn't buy them anymore.



    Quote:





    But that's not what you're interested in. You have no interest in the solution that would clearly make people safer in the long run.



    Ahh, there it is...the ad hominem argument. Of course I have interest in a solution. The problem is two-fold:



    1) We've already violated the 2nd Amendment with our restrictions on bearing arms. The amendment doesn't say the government can even regulate firearms. It says, "shall not infringe." Now clearly, that is written in context of forming a militia as needed at the time...but to pass more stringent laws like we're discussing, the 2nd Amendment would have to be repealed/replaced. Good luck with that.



    2) Passing those strict gun possession laws alone doesn't do anything to take them off the streets. It simply disarms law abiding citizens and presumably prevents straw purchases/thefts, etc. If you're going to really have tough laws, you have to prevent manufacture of the weapons. Again, good luck.



    Quote:



    You forget that guns used to be unregulated in Australia. If your premise were true, then the criminals who didn't give up their guns would be running rampant there.



    I don't know much about that. Has crime decreased? What does "unregulated" mean and does that actually apply to what we have here?
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,064member
    I disagree that the Second Amendment says what you think it says. So, apparently, does the Supreme Court, most of the time, and that's who I trust to make such decisions. However, it is clear that interpretation cannot solve the problem, which is why I support a constitutional amendment to repeal the Second Amendment and to clearly outline the government's power to restrict and regulate firearms.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    That would take us down a path that leads to horrific results.



    "Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority. Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation ... Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions ... will be punished with imprisonment and a fine."



    -- Nazi Law, Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons, 11 Nov 1938, German Minister of the Interior
Sign In or Register to comment.