Link
The Autumn Wind
Ah, right. Thanks.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
soul creator
Member
Heh
*says single-payer health care and public options should be off the table*
"Why, this health-care thing sure is tough to understand! If only there was some way to make it easier for people to follow! Too bad there's nothing we can do!"
Aaron Strife
Banned
I heard for his budget agreement with Tip O'Neill he actually wrote the entire thing himself and used dark magic to animate O'Neill's hand long enough to sign his name on the document.
I'm trying to imagine the horror of living in a time where progressive economic policies that aid and support the poor and working class were politically inseparable from the oppression of black people.
SO glad the white racist bloc switched parties after the CRA. Here's to their eventual death.
Rhomega Beta
Member
I love how they talk about 31 supermarket chains going bankrupt like it's a good thing.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
We're a few days away from a new OT. Throw your title suggestions if you like.
Link
The Autumn Wind
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Fantastic.
The Librarian
Banned
I wanna do it! OP needs more estrogen.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Ok. Have at it.
Link
The Autumn Wind
PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1
Oh fuck, LOL
smokeandmirrors
Banned
speculawyer
Member
TacticalFox88 said:
That is going to make me sad every time I read it. :-(
Why don't gun people want other gun people to be responsible? I just don't get it.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Because they're worried if background checks are put into place they won't pass them for whatever reason.
Or it's filtered through to them that background checks means gubmint gonna come take your guns.
DragonSworne
Banned
So furloughs kick in this Sunday for FAA workers.
I travel Monday morning. Screw you republicans.
I travel Monday morning. Screw you republicans.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
RustyNails
Member
Pretty sure that actually happened.
CoffeeJanitor
Member
I vote tactical fox's title
But really anything could be fine
But really anything could be fine
Background checks -> federal gun registry -> confiscation -> TYRANNY.
Fixed that for you.
No. It's gun manufacturers who keep politicians flush to avoid a dent in their profits. The will of the people doesn't mean a thing.
TacticalFox88
Banned
My mind still can't wrap around how people believe in 2013 that any rebellion wouldn't be put down in a few hours, if not less.
An then there's this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act
IronicallyTwisted
Banned
The NRA pulls voters, Gun control advocates don't.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
I gave up in trying to understand their cognitive dissonance.
Claiming you need guns to defend yourself against a hypothetical tyrannical US government is sort of insulting to the US military.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Gun rights advocates or Republicans in general?
TacticalFox88
Banned
They're pretty much more or less the same.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
yeah, both.
speculawyer
Member
Of course the bill contain EXPLICIT language saying there would be no gun registry.
It is a fucking coalition of paranoid gun nuts and gun manufacturers that don't want to lose a single sale even if it it is to a criminal or a crazy.
And to add extra humiliation . . . so many of these guns are not even American. It is foreign gun manufacturers selling guns in the USA that they would not be able to sell so easily in their own countries. Fuck them. Can't we even pull some protectionist shit and at least keep the blood money profits in the USA? Nope. We kill ourselves and send a pile of profits abroad.
Frontline will be airing a program on April 23 about our shitty retirement vehicles
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement-gamble/
The preview
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement-gamble/
The preview
speculawyer
Member
And not only that, it is the wrong people arming themselves. It is not like Dennis Kucinich is going to take over and demand you to turn in your Bibles and guns. If anything, it is blacks, gays, Muslims, and atheists that should be arming themselves in the very unlikely event that some far-far-far-right politician gets control and goes crazy.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
yes
but then that person will just make sure that they pass some kind of "white christians" only gun law.
Link
The Autumn Wind
There's a fantastic Facebook image macro in there.
speculawyer
Member
Well that's why we still need guns. That will be the best retirement vehicle for so many Americans.
Yeah, I'm in a bad mood. :-(
Zeus Molecules
illegal immigrants are stealing our air
Is a Bush is running again?
more guns does lead to a higher suicide rate
This is what I was going to say. A pretty big share of the gun deaths in the US is suicide. And suicide is a rising cause of death for the elderly. I predict the two will mingle a great deal in the coming years. ;(
speculawyer
Member
Well . . . I'm of two minds on this. I'm a supporter of assisted-suicide . . . if people are old and want to go, let them go. But guns seem a crude way to do it.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/
One huge aspect that's very much ignored.
Also that veterans kill themselves at a greater rate then the general population.
One huge aspect that's very much ignored.
Also that veterans kill themselves at a greater rate then the general population.
The problem with suicide, especially youth suicide, is that its usually an impulse decision. The majority arent suicidal or have been thinking about it for months. In fact, there was a study that asked young people who survived serious attempts and they said that the majority of them only thought about killing themselves for about 5 minutes.
Problem with guns is that you can't go back once you pull the trigger. There is a reason why cutting only has a 1% suicide death rate while guns is at like 80%. People feel that pain and then decide, oh wait, this is a stupid fucking decision. I want to live. And even if they go through with it, like taking pills or cutting and survive, they can get the help they need. bullet to the brain? youre dead.
And I think assisted suicide is quite a bit different than suicide. To me, assisted suicide is someone who is in so much pain that they simply cannot go on living anymore. Youre not using a gun in that situation (well, i guess you could, but why the hell would you tell someone to shoot you to kill you?)
Youre not asking someone to kill you based on depression or some spur of the moment impulse. Youre asking because you can't bear the phyiscal pain of living anymore.
I support it as well, but a rise in suicides because an entire generation is going to retire into deep poverty is quite troubling to me. And we're busy working to undercut what little they will have.
(Looking forward to that Frontline piece.)
speculawyer
Member
Yeah, there was some Senator who was conflicted on the mental health issue of background checks. He didn't think it was a good idea to prevent people who went to the VA for PTSD to be barred from having guns. Now he has a point in that it would be a shame if someone decided to not get treatment because they would be worried they could not get a gun. But on the other hand . . . if they really have PTSD, not having a gun might be a really good thing.
Tough situation.
I think it was Jon Tester who brought this up. And it is definitely a good fucking point that is hard to resolve.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Why, do they think gun control is gonna stop criminals from obtaining guns?
Don't expect logic from people who demand guns to protect themselves from the government, and cry outrage when defense cuts are proposed. Not really fair for them either when the world around them actively discourages critical thinking skills.
jamesinclair
Banned
You guys all following the live news right?
Crazy shit. I need to be up tomorrow but theres no way I can fall asleep.
Crazy shit. I need to be up tomorrow but theres no way I can fall asleep.
Obama's America
I see a lot of garbage from politicians that is frustrating, mind-numbing, deceptive, etc. Normally I'm able to laugh it off. But for some reason this made me legitimately angry:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...i-Parents-remind-your-kids-not-to-kill-people
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...i-Parents-remind-your-kids-not-to-kill-people
I'm not sure what was unique about this, but I really want to punch him in his fucking face.
The Librarian
Banned
Sooooo what's up. I hope I don't get annoying with this over the next week, but I'll be coming here to help me research some information. In one of my political science classes I'm taking, called the American Legislature, we'll be having a model Congress for the last four days of class. We're only doing the House because they're aren't enough people to do both chambers. We also had to take up a role of a certain legislator. I'm Representative Schakowsky.
Looks like we'll be able to do about four bills a day. I have two here that I may need help figuring out. I apologize if I'm annoying with this! Hopefully we can get some good discussion here as well.
The first bill is the most curious. It's from the dude who's legislator is Justin Amash (ugh). His bill says it amends the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (a bill I had never heard of until now, go 111th!) by reducing the weight ratio of powdered cocaine to crack cocaine needed to trigger certain federal penalties from 18:1 to 2:1. Thing is, I've read the FSA of 2010 (it's only four pages long), and the section of the Controlled Substances Act it amends. Basically, the FSA of 2010 increased the amount of cocaine a person can have. Which, I think is good, because the more you're allowed to carry on hand, the less people will be convicted for having cocaine. However, I see nothing, either in the CSA or the FSA of 2010, about an 18:1 weight ratio. Am I missing it? And regardless, decreasing the weight ratio will just make it easier to convict people, won't it?
The second bill is something I'm even more confused about. This one, at the expense of some federal dollars if they do not do so otherwise, says that any state that requires a voter ID must issue a free photo identification. Now, isn't this a little redundant because in any state that does require photo ID, aren't those photo IDs already free? Additionally, isn't the problem with any voter ID is that it makes it harder to vote, whether or not you have to pay for it?
Looks like we'll be able to do about four bills a day. I have two here that I may need help figuring out. I apologize if I'm annoying with this! Hopefully we can get some good discussion here as well.
The first bill is the most curious. It's from the dude who's legislator is Justin Amash (ugh). His bill says it amends the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (a bill I had never heard of until now, go 111th!) by reducing the weight ratio of powdered cocaine to crack cocaine needed to trigger certain federal penalties from 18:1 to 2:1. Thing is, I've read the FSA of 2010 (it's only four pages long), and the section of the Controlled Substances Act it amends. Basically, the FSA of 2010 increased the amount of cocaine a person can have. Which, I think is good, because the more you're allowed to carry on hand, the less people will be convicted for having cocaine. However, I see nothing, either in the CSA or the FSA of 2010, about an 18:1 weight ratio. Am I missing it? And regardless, decreasing the weight ratio will just make it easier to convict people, won't it?
The second bill is something I'm even more confused about. This one, at the expense of some federal dollars if they do not do so otherwise, says that any state that requires a voter ID must issue a free photo identification. Now, isn't this a little redundant because in any state that does require photo ID, aren't those photo IDs already free? Additionally, isn't the problem with any voter ID is that it makes it harder to vote, whether or not you have to pay for it?
Sirpopopop
Member
It extends a federal penalty for states failing to provide voter IDs to every voter, where the state might not have had a penalty before for non-compliance. (That's my take)
If voter ID is inevitable, which I think it is, at least the feds are doing their best to ensure that the secret purpose of Voter ID (being discriminatory) is thwarted.
If voter ID is inevitable, which I think it is, at least the feds are doing their best to ensure that the secret purpose of Voter ID (being discriminatory) is thwarted.
- Status