|
On January 18 2012 17:28 Falling wrote:@acker. Well granted (need infantry to hold ground and portions of the army would probably rebel.) But if there is a line drawn, that the argument can't simply be that people are fighting against gun control because they need to protect themselves from the government at all costs. There appears to be a limit (although I find it odd that you can purchase tanks and the like- can they still fire?) There is some notion that private citizens cannot have unlimited access to modern military grade weapons. And it just seems ease of access to weapons that can mow down weapons is a bad and overkill for self-defence purposes (for home invasion for instance.) Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 15:18 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 14:20 Whitewing wrote:On January 18 2012 13:05 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 12:52 Probulous wrote:
So how do you tell when the constitution needs an amendment and when it is fine as it is? For example some would argue that the second amendment causes more problems than it solves. I am no constitutional scholar but IIRC it was designed to help indepedent farmers protect themselves and their property. How is that relevant now? But no, gun control cannot be good because the constitution says so.
I don't see the value in keeping that particular amendment but it has a snowball's chance in hell of being repealed because it has become part of the culture to have a right to keep weapons. There is no logical reason why anyone needs a semi-automatic rifle anymore but because it is part of the constitution, you are allowed to.
The fact that it is part of the constitution becomes the reason it is needed in the constitution. I don't think you understand. We absolutely need semi-automatic rifles. If our government gets out of control we need to have some way to fight back. The second amendment was not just for farmers. It is for all citizens to protect themselves. As for your first question about how to know when the constitution needs to be amended, the answer is a bit tricky. Because we are a democracy, these things can be done with overwhelming support from the people. Back when people of color couldn't vote, it became obvious that changes needed to be made, and so it was. There was certainly opposition, but eventually we got things figured out and we did what we knew we had to do. Thus the constitution was amended. So the answer to your question is "When the time comes, we will know, it shall be done." And if we make a mistake, it can be repealed if necessary. For example, the 18th amendment established what became known as the prohibition in the United States. If you're unfamiliar with this, the 18th amendment basically banned the sale of alcohol in the country. Alcohol was banned just as marijuana is now. However, we eventually realized that the 18th amendment was a mistake, and we repealed the 18th amendment with the ratification of the 21st amendment. For the record, we're so far past the point of defending ourselves from the government run military that such a concept is hilarious. Declaring a rebellion on the government became an obsolete concept when our government gained technology that made it inconceivable (like really big bombs as just an example). Our military is run by volunteers. What makes you think that they would bomb their own country? It's far more likely that most of the military would join the rebellion or just refuse to kill their own people. If you think that "such a concept is hilarious", then I find your horrible lack of understanding of this situation to be "hilarious." Then quiet frankly I find your doomsday need to protect yourself against your government rather redundant. I probably agree that the military would join in. I just don't see this tyranny happening anytime soon (although some of your recent 'security' laws seem rather terrible. But if the military is joining in this uprising against the government- who is exactly are you fighting that you need this great arsenal of weapons? For there to be a tyranny to justify rising against it, they need to consolidate power somehow and if the military is out, what exactly are they using? You hardly need the stockpile of weaponss under this scenario. President declares himself dictator for life, army joins the rebellion and overthrows the dictator and you're done. It seems like the argument is to stockpile vast mountains of weapons for some far-off theoretical future where America might turn into a dictatorship. In the meantime assault weapons proliferate across America making it much easier for a mass slaying. Hunters need guns, Americans like their sidearms, Criminals will get their weapons anyways, but it's mostly all those semi-automatic and automatic weapons that I think encourages vigilantism where other guns would be equally effective for self protection. It just certain weapons have greater potential for wiping out a whole group of people all at once. But seriously, your hypothotical tyranny makes no sense if the military opposes the government as well.
Whether it's hypothetical or not, it's still possible. Look at history, and then tell me that it's too unlikely to be worth preparing for or preventing. As for your concern about who we would actually be fighting if the military joined the rebellion, the answer is the rest of the military that didn't join the rebellion. Think about things a little more and you will realize that the world is not made of absolutes. Just because a lot of military members would oppose the government, that does not mean that all of them will.
|
On January 19 2012 03:56 gruff wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 03:31 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 03:00 Velr wrote:
That is your personal bias not wanting to deal with statistics... Not me being off.
I know that statistics are not the end all of it.. But you don't even bring anything to back up your claims. So therefore i ask myself, wtf are you even doing arguing/discussing this topic? You are obviously not interested in other opinions anyway and are totally full of your own idea that is not backed up by anything.
wtf are you doing writing here?
The statistic i posted (which was just the first hit i found on google), even when not taking into account the USA spike, shows just that more Guns = more dead people by Guns (including suicides... the USA spike actually gets REALLY ridiculous when excluding suicides). Well I have been trying to figure out "gun-haters" throught proces. I have been trying to help you in figuring out how to calculate the utility-maximisaiton proces. But the problem is that you dont even get it your self. You cant define an objective rule universal rule as to why it should be disallowed. I have been suggestion one statistical number that probably would be your best bet, for how YOU can justify your opponent based on the principle I think your following. But its kinda hard, cus you dont even know your principle. You just pull out random graphs and conclude "bad" = guns disallowed. I guess if you tried to read all my post (another time perhaps) you would perhaps kinda understand the point I am making. But I udnerstand that if your not used to thinking in this way, it can be tough to understand. My rule is: Individual rights should be respected. People are allowed to have freedom. Now i could go on to elaborate and define these terms, and argue why I believe that individual rights must be followed instead of the utilitian approach. But there is really no point in arguing for my base, because what am I too argue against? You have not even explained your own arguments. What claims have I made btw? I claimed that you would most likely be a nazist if you were born in germany in 1930 (or lets say 1920, whatever) as your very easily manipulated and have problem using logic. WHat other claims? That the statistics were useless? In previous post I stated that there were way too much noise ( I realize i haven't specified what kind of noise, but many of them are so obivous, so i throught everybody would realize them) for these kind of correlations to be relevant (to justify your own principle btw). I guess it would benefeit you too take a statistical course, because its need really rockey sciene why your graph is totally useless. Generally that course would teach you how to make an hyphotesis (which have you stil haven't done), and back it up with solid data. Arguments for why that graph is useless in proving your point (that guns kill innocent people?) It doesn't take into account culture It doesn't take into account economy It doesn't take into account number of robberies (which is kinda related to the 2 above, though this number is most relevant). It doesn't take into account non-innocent people killed. It doesn't take into account ppl killed by non firearm weapons? etc..... Completely useless graph. OF course there is a correlation between number of guns and number of firearm deaths. Do you also think there is a correlation by number of cars and number of death through car accident. Though I agree the graph isn't definite proof of anything, the things you mentioned to be taken account of probably wouldn't make your argument better. At least the three last ones. The culture or economy I don't really know how how you'd take it into account.
Well you can quantify the impact of culture, but its a very time-consuming proces. And not that relevant.
Btw remember that i Have no "argument". Whether the number goes up or down doesn't disprove my nonexistint argument in any way. But those ppl who favors the utilitian approach has an argument that can be disproved, since they are basing their opinions on data. And its kinda funny btw how so many people are against guns (most likely) based on the utilitian approach without even having any reliable statistic to back up their claims.
The reason why I included the last 3 lines is becuase they would make the statistic even better. It needs to take into account as many factors as possible to eliminate noise.
|
Romney doesn't look too strong against Obama either. What the GOP is banking on is the lack of enthusiasm among Democrats and independents (who lean Democrat but don't vote in as high percentages). Technically, if every single American voted during every election, the Democrats would always win. The thing is, most of these people who would vote Democrat are not ideological liberals, they just happen to align themselves more with the Democratic message.
Anyway, Romney looks like he might suffer from the same lack of enthusiasm as Obama. Evangelicals are not going to throw their support behind a Mormon. Strong ideological conservatives aren't exactlythrilled by his lack of conviction or his past record in Mass. I could go on but you get the point.
Honestly, this seems like a Kerry year for the GOP -- their candidates don't inspire excitement or drive voters to the polls in the way Obama (and Palin) did in 2008. Liberals and the Democratic base are not excited by Obama anymore and won't come out to vote in the same numbers, but it doesn't look any better for the GOP and Romney. Santorum and Paul seem like they could energize their bases, but their bases aren't really all that large or mainstream.
|
On January 18 2012 17:31 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 16:34 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 16:25 s4life wrote:On January 18 2012 15:18 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 14:20 Whitewing wrote:On January 18 2012 13:05 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 12:52 Probulous wrote:
So how do you tell when the constitution needs an amendment and when it is fine as it is? For example some would argue that the second amendment causes more problems than it solves. I am no constitutional scholar but IIRC it was designed to help indepedent farmers protect themselves and their property. How is that relevant now? But no, gun control cannot be good because the constitution says so.
I don't see the value in keeping that particular amendment but it has a snowball's chance in hell of being repealed because it has become part of the culture to have a right to keep weapons. There is no logical reason why anyone needs a semi-automatic rifle anymore but because it is part of the constitution, you are allowed to.
The fact that it is part of the constitution becomes the reason it is needed in the constitution. I don't think you understand. We absolutely need semi-automatic rifles. If our government gets out of control we need to have some way to fight back. The second amendment was not just for farmers. It is for all citizens to protect themselves. As for your first question about how to know when the constitution needs to be amended, the answer is a bit tricky. Because we are a democracy, these things can be done with overwhelming support from the people. Back when people of color couldn't vote, it became obvious that changes needed to be made, and so it was. There was certainly opposition, but eventually we got things figured out and we did what we knew we had to do. Thus the constitution was amended. So the answer to your question is "When the time comes, we will know, it shall be done." And if we make a mistake, it can be repealed if necessary. For example, the 18th amendment established what became known as the prohibition in the United States. If you're unfamiliar with this, the 18th amendment basically banned the sale of alcohol in the country. Alcohol was banned just as marijuana is now. However, we eventually realized that the 18th amendment was a mistake, and we repealed the 18th amendment with the ratification of the 21st amendment. For the record, we're so far past the point of defending ourselves from the government run military that such a concept is hilarious. Declaring a rebellion on the government became an obsolete concept when our government gained technology that made it inconceivable (like really big bombs as just an example). Our military is run by volunteers. What makes you think that they would bomb their own country? It's far more likely that most of the military would join the rebellion or just refuse to kill their own people. If you think that "such a concept is hilarious", then I find your horrible lack of understanding of this situation to be "hilarious." I think his point, and one that I concur with, is that the deadliest weapons use a technology that is so far ahead of what is sold in gun stores today that there is pretty much nothing you can do about it. Watching a bunch of rednecks charging, rifles in hand, against remotely controlled tanks and drones would be worse than watching a scene of the last samurai... You understand nothing. Quite the contrary... If the reasoning behind the Second Amendment is to ensure the government cannot disarm its citizens and thereby creating a situation in which the government can always be overthrown by popular uprising, that logic and reasoning is no longer applicable in the modern world. If the idea of collective security is to be taken seriously, it would have to entail weapons capable of defeating government weapons to be held by the people, which they certainly aren't, and which few rational people would support.
Again, you are misunderstanding things. Maybe ordinary citizens don't have aircraft and bunker busters, but you have to keep in mind that our military members are volunteers. They are citizens just like us. If the government gets out of control, chances are a lot of the military would join the rebellion and help us, because they are us. Don't talk to me about "logic and reasoning."
|
On January 19 2012 04:19 MichaelDonovan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 17:31 Elegy wrote:On January 18 2012 16:34 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 16:25 s4life wrote:On January 18 2012 15:18 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 14:20 Whitewing wrote:On January 18 2012 13:05 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 12:52 Probulous wrote:
So how do you tell when the constitution needs an amendment and when it is fine as it is? For example some would argue that the second amendment causes more problems than it solves. I am no constitutional scholar but IIRC it was designed to help indepedent farmers protect themselves and their property. How is that relevant now? But no, gun control cannot be good because the constitution says so.
I don't see the value in keeping that particular amendment but it has a snowball's chance in hell of being repealed because it has become part of the culture to have a right to keep weapons. There is no logical reason why anyone needs a semi-automatic rifle anymore but because it is part of the constitution, you are allowed to.
The fact that it is part of the constitution becomes the reason it is needed in the constitution. I don't think you understand. We absolutely need semi-automatic rifles. If our government gets out of control we need to have some way to fight back. The second amendment was not just for farmers. It is for all citizens to protect themselves. As for your first question about how to know when the constitution needs to be amended, the answer is a bit tricky. Because we are a democracy, these things can be done with overwhelming support from the people. Back when people of color couldn't vote, it became obvious that changes needed to be made, and so it was. There was certainly opposition, but eventually we got things figured out and we did what we knew we had to do. Thus the constitution was amended. So the answer to your question is "When the time comes, we will know, it shall be done." And if we make a mistake, it can be repealed if necessary. For example, the 18th amendment established what became known as the prohibition in the United States. If you're unfamiliar with this, the 18th amendment basically banned the sale of alcohol in the country. Alcohol was banned just as marijuana is now. However, we eventually realized that the 18th amendment was a mistake, and we repealed the 18th amendment with the ratification of the 21st amendment. For the record, we're so far past the point of defending ourselves from the government run military that such a concept is hilarious. Declaring a rebellion on the government became an obsolete concept when our government gained technology that made it inconceivable (like really big bombs as just an example). Our military is run by volunteers. What makes you think that they would bomb their own country? It's far more likely that most of the military would join the rebellion or just refuse to kill their own people. If you think that "such a concept is hilarious", then I find your horrible lack of understanding of this situation to be "hilarious." I think his point, and one that I concur with, is that the deadliest weapons use a technology that is so far ahead of what is sold in gun stores today that there is pretty much nothing you can do about it. Watching a bunch of rednecks charging, rifles in hand, against remotely controlled tanks and drones would be worse than watching a scene of the last samurai... You understand nothing. Quite the contrary... If the reasoning behind the Second Amendment is to ensure the government cannot disarm its citizens and thereby creating a situation in which the government can always be overthrown by popular uprising, that logic and reasoning is no longer applicable in the modern world. If the idea of collective security is to be taken seriously, it would have to entail weapons capable of defeating government weapons to be held by the people, which they certainly aren't, and which few rational people would support. Again, you are misunderstanding things. Maybe ordinary citizens don't have aircraft and bunker busters, but you have to keep in mind that our military members are volunteers. They are citizens just like us. If the government gets out of control, chances are a lot of the military would join the rebellion and help us, because they are us. Don't talk to me about "logic and reasoning."
This is a good point, but it can also be seen as an argument against guns if you look at it in that way. I mean, if we're assuming our volunteer military would stand with a popular uprising against government tyranny, why would citizens need weapons in the first place? There would be no enemy to fight.
Regardless, this is all irrelevant now. Guns are everywhere and banning them at this point would only serve to take them away from people who obey the law. Criminals wouldn't suddenly decide to turn their weapons in and it's not like there would be much of a difference. The debate for today should be more about what kinds of guns are allowed and disallowed.
|
On January 18 2012 21:11 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 11:07 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 11:03 Ragoo wrote:
Hm from my point of view as a German... Ron Paul seems pretty honest but pretty extreme... and Huntsman kinda has my sympathy for the science/evolution tweet. But overall all of these are pretty horrible.
Hopefully USA can get on the right track again... (and I don't mean the political right) Being a strict constitutionalist isn't extreme. It's actually the opposite of extreme. The constitution is at the center, and our actual policies have been stretched in different directions from that center. Ron Paul wants to bring things back to the way they should be. Does that make sense? Why would you equate what constitution says with what should be ? US constitution is a product of 18th century and is far from perfect or even highly relevant. I can just as easily ask you why not change the constitution ? And you would have to use some other basis to argue that. Legalism is nonsensical moral philosophy.
I have already explained this. Read the rest of the thread after that message. Or if you're too lazy, my main point was that we can and HAVE changed the constitution to suit modern philosophy. We have added amendments allowing women and minorities to vote. We have added the 18th amendment banning alcohol, which was later repealed by the 21st amendment. I wouldn't expect somebody from the Czech Republic to know or understand these things, but maybe you should do a little bit of research before posting.
|
On January 19 2012 04:12 forgottendreams wrote:I like all the people who post a hit and run source (that could be old, spurious or false by now) and claim it's the end all be all. The general consensus among recent scholars is that right to carry laws and a bad economy now are thought to have no significant correlation with violent crime. Yes I get it, all the gun happy guys are going to point to Lott's 2005 "More Guns Less Crime" but in scholarly terms it's verging on ancient. There is a national downward trend in crime rate (all of this data can be accessed easily by the "UCR") even in Illinois, the only state with no concealed carry law who has had a similar drop in violent crime rates as say in Florida, where they were pioneers of right to carry laws. You don't even need to read the recent journals on what I'm talking about, it can simply be summed here properly http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/16/national-rifle-association/wayne-lapierre-said-violent-crime-jurisdictions-re/In another words at least pertaining to the U.S., guns aren't really bad or good in terms of crime, so no side should be claiming some annoying victory.
I claim the victory  Because utilitiaran cant defend their case and should not be taking side. Only those who cus of principle is for weapons (me) or against, can actually argue.
Every post the "utility-maxisimers" have, should be on analysing the statistiscs. The reason why this hasn't been the case, is becuase most people dont even get why they have their specific opinion. Most likely through culture and manipulation they have been taught to think in a specific way, and hence not learned to use logic.
|
On January 19 2012 04:23 hmunkey wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 04:19 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 17:31 Elegy wrote:On January 18 2012 16:34 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 16:25 s4life wrote:On January 18 2012 15:18 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 14:20 Whitewing wrote:On January 18 2012 13:05 MichaelDonovan wrote:On January 18 2012 12:52 Probulous wrote:
So how do you tell when the constitution needs an amendment and when it is fine as it is? For example some would argue that the second amendment causes more problems than it solves. I am no constitutional scholar but IIRC it was designed to help indepedent farmers protect themselves and their property. How is that relevant now? But no, gun control cannot be good because the constitution says so.
I don't see the value in keeping that particular amendment but it has a snowball's chance in hell of being repealed because it has become part of the culture to have a right to keep weapons. There is no logical reason why anyone needs a semi-automatic rifle anymore but because it is part of the constitution, you are allowed to.
The fact that it is part of the constitution becomes the reason it is needed in the constitution. I don't think you understand. We absolutely need semi-automatic rifles. If our government gets out of control we need to have some way to fight back. The second amendment was not just for farmers. It is for all citizens to protect themselves. As for your first question about how to know when the constitution needs to be amended, the answer is a bit tricky. Because we are a democracy, these things can be done with overwhelming support from the people. Back when people of color couldn't vote, it became obvious that changes needed to be made, and so it was. There was certainly opposition, but eventually we got things figured out and we did what we knew we had to do. Thus the constitution was amended. So the answer to your question is "When the time comes, we will know, it shall be done." And if we make a mistake, it can be repealed if necessary. For example, the 18th amendment established what became known as the prohibition in the United States. If you're unfamiliar with this, the 18th amendment basically banned the sale of alcohol in the country. Alcohol was banned just as marijuana is now. However, we eventually realized that the 18th amendment was a mistake, and we repealed the 18th amendment with the ratification of the 21st amendment. For the record, we're so far past the point of defending ourselves from the government run military that such a concept is hilarious. Declaring a rebellion on the government became an obsolete concept when our government gained technology that made it inconceivable (like really big bombs as just an example). Our military is run by volunteers. What makes you think that they would bomb their own country? It's far more likely that most of the military would join the rebellion or just refuse to kill their own people. If you think that "such a concept is hilarious", then I find your horrible lack of understanding of this situation to be "hilarious." I think his point, and one that I concur with, is that the deadliest weapons use a technology that is so far ahead of what is sold in gun stores today that there is pretty much nothing you can do about it. Watching a bunch of rednecks charging, rifles in hand, against remotely controlled tanks and drones would be worse than watching a scene of the last samurai... You understand nothing. Quite the contrary... If the reasoning behind the Second Amendment is to ensure the government cannot disarm its citizens and thereby creating a situation in which the government can always be overthrown by popular uprising, that logic and reasoning is no longer applicable in the modern world. If the idea of collective security is to be taken seriously, it would have to entail weapons capable of defeating government weapons to be held by the people, which they certainly aren't, and which few rational people would support. Again, you are misunderstanding things. Maybe ordinary citizens don't have aircraft and bunker busters, but you have to keep in mind that our military members are volunteers. They are citizens just like us. If the government gets out of control, chances are a lot of the military would join the rebellion and help us, because they are us. Don't talk to me about "logic and reasoning." This is a good point, but it can also be seen as an argument against guns if you look at it in that way. I mean, if we're assuming our volunteer military would stand with a popular uprising against government tyranny, why would citizens need weapons in the first place? There would be no enemy to fight. Regardless, this is all irrelevant now. Guns are everywhere and banning them at this point would only serve to take them away from people who obey the law. Criminals wouldn't suddenly decide to turn their weapons in and it's not like there would be much of a difference. The debate for today should be more about what kinds of guns are allowed and disallowed.
I agree with most of what you said but I would like to point out that even if half of the military were to join the rebellion with the people, it would certainly still be helpful, if not necessary, for ordinary citizens to have weapons and to help in the fight. We cannot expect the entire military to agree with an uprising. Fighting would be inevitable.
|
On January 19 2012 04:18 hmunkey wrote:Romney doesn't look too strong against Obama either. What the GOP is banking on is the lack of enthusiasm among Democrats and independents (who lean Democrat but don't vote in as high percentages). Technically, if every single American voted during every election, the Democrats would always win. The thing is, most of these people who would vote Democrat are not ideological liberals, they just happen to align themselves more with the Democratic message. Anyway, Romney looks like he might suffer from the same lack of enthusiasm as Obama. Evangelicals are not going to throw their support behind a Mormon. Strong ideological conservatives aren't exactlythrilled by his lack of conviction or his past record in Mass. I could go on but you get the point. Honestly, this seems like a Kerry year for the GOP -- their candidates don't inspire excitement or drive voters to the polls in the way Obama (and Palin) did in 2008. Liberals and the Democratic base are not excited by Obama anymore and won't come out to vote in the same numbers, but it doesn't look any better for the GOP and Romney. Santorum and Paul seem like they could energize their bases, but their bases aren't really all that large or mainstream.
Why does it matter whether Romney or Obama wins?
|
On January 19 2012 04:36 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 04:18 hmunkey wrote:Romney doesn't look too strong against Obama either. What the GOP is banking on is the lack of enthusiasm among Democrats and independents (who lean Democrat but don't vote in as high percentages). Technically, if every single American voted during every election, the Democrats would always win. The thing is, most of these people who would vote Democrat are not ideological liberals, they just happen to align themselves more with the Democratic message. Anyway, Romney looks like he might suffer from the same lack of enthusiasm as Obama. Evangelicals are not going to throw their support behind a Mormon. Strong ideological conservatives aren't exactlythrilled by his lack of conviction or his past record in Mass. I could go on but you get the point. Honestly, this seems like a Kerry year for the GOP -- their candidates don't inspire excitement or drive voters to the polls in the way Obama (and Palin) did in 2008. Liberals and the Democratic base are not excited by Obama anymore and won't come out to vote in the same numbers, but it doesn't look any better for the GOP and Romney. Santorum and Paul seem like they could energize their bases, but their bases aren't really all that large or mainstream. Why does it matter whether Romney or Obama wins?
Getting rid of families going backrupt from pre-existing medical conditions, allowing gays to serve openly in the military, and doing his best to keep Republicans from outlawing birth control are all good things he's done. I don't like a lot of what he's done, but he's done some good. stem cell research, student loan reform, credit card reform, financial reform
He's not my perfect president, far from it. But its only fair to give credit where due that I believe I would have vastly preferred him over a Republican.
|
On January 19 2012 04:46 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 04:36 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 04:18 hmunkey wrote:Romney doesn't look too strong against Obama either. What the GOP is banking on is the lack of enthusiasm among Democrats and independents (who lean Democrat but don't vote in as high percentages). Technically, if every single American voted during every election, the Democrats would always win. The thing is, most of these people who would vote Democrat are not ideological liberals, they just happen to align themselves more with the Democratic message. Anyway, Romney looks like he might suffer from the same lack of enthusiasm as Obama. Evangelicals are not going to throw their support behind a Mormon. Strong ideological conservatives aren't exactlythrilled by his lack of conviction or his past record in Mass. I could go on but you get the point. Honestly, this seems like a Kerry year for the GOP -- their candidates don't inspire excitement or drive voters to the polls in the way Obama (and Palin) did in 2008. Liberals and the Democratic base are not excited by Obama anymore and won't come out to vote in the same numbers, but it doesn't look any better for the GOP and Romney. Santorum and Paul seem like they could energize their bases, but their bases aren't really all that large or mainstream. Why does it matter whether Romney or Obama wins? Getting rid of families going backrupt from pre-existing medical conditions, allowing gays to serve openly in the military, and doing his best to keep Republicans from outlawing birth control are all good things he's done. I don't like a lot of what he's done, but he's done some good. stem cell research, student loan reform, credit card reform, financial reform He's not my perfect president, far from it. But its only fair to give credit where due that I believe I would have vastly preferred him over a Republican.
Werent gays allowed to service in military previsouly as long as they didn't tell anyone?
|
On January 19 2012 05:15 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 04:46 Mohdoo wrote:On January 19 2012 04:36 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 04:18 hmunkey wrote:Romney doesn't look too strong against Obama either. What the GOP is banking on is the lack of enthusiasm among Democrats and independents (who lean Democrat but don't vote in as high percentages). Technically, if every single American voted during every election, the Democrats would always win. The thing is, most of these people who would vote Democrat are not ideological liberals, they just happen to align themselves more with the Democratic message. Anyway, Romney looks like he might suffer from the same lack of enthusiasm as Obama. Evangelicals are not going to throw their support behind a Mormon. Strong ideological conservatives aren't exactlythrilled by his lack of conviction or his past record in Mass. I could go on but you get the point. Honestly, this seems like a Kerry year for the GOP -- their candidates don't inspire excitement or drive voters to the polls in the way Obama (and Palin) did in 2008. Liberals and the Democratic base are not excited by Obama anymore and won't come out to vote in the same numbers, but it doesn't look any better for the GOP and Romney. Santorum and Paul seem like they could energize their bases, but their bases aren't really all that large or mainstream. Why does it matter whether Romney or Obama wins? Getting rid of families going backrupt from pre-existing medical conditions, allowing gays to serve openly in the military, and doing his best to keep Republicans from outlawing birth control are all good things he's done. I don't like a lot of what he's done, but he's done some good. stem cell research, student loan reform, credit card reform, financial reform He's not my perfect president, far from it. But its only fair to give credit where due that I believe I would have vastly preferred him over a Republican. Werent gays allowed to service in military previsouly as long as they didn't tell anyone?
Yes, but the policy was implicitly discriminatory(along with actually getting rid of valuable military personnel, i.e. translators).
|
On January 19 2012 05:17 ChaosWielder wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 05:15 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 04:46 Mohdoo wrote:On January 19 2012 04:36 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 04:18 hmunkey wrote:Romney doesn't look too strong against Obama either. What the GOP is banking on is the lack of enthusiasm among Democrats and independents (who lean Democrat but don't vote in as high percentages). Technically, if every single American voted during every election, the Democrats would always win. The thing is, most of these people who would vote Democrat are not ideological liberals, they just happen to align themselves more with the Democratic message. Anyway, Romney looks like he might suffer from the same lack of enthusiasm as Obama. Evangelicals are not going to throw their support behind a Mormon. Strong ideological conservatives aren't exactlythrilled by his lack of conviction or his past record in Mass. I could go on but you get the point. Honestly, this seems like a Kerry year for the GOP -- their candidates don't inspire excitement or drive voters to the polls in the way Obama (and Palin) did in 2008. Liberals and the Democratic base are not excited by Obama anymore and won't come out to vote in the same numbers, but it doesn't look any better for the GOP and Romney. Santorum and Paul seem like they could energize their bases, but their bases aren't really all that large or mainstream. Why does it matter whether Romney or Obama wins? Getting rid of families going backrupt from pre-existing medical conditions, allowing gays to serve openly in the military, and doing his best to keep Republicans from outlawing birth control are all good things he's done. I don't like a lot of what he's done, but he's done some good. stem cell research, student loan reform, credit card reform, financial reform He's not my perfect president, far from it. But its only fair to give credit where due that I believe I would have vastly preferred him over a Republican. Werent gays allowed to service in military previsouly as long as they didn't tell anyone? Yes, but the policy was implicitly discriminatory(along with actually getting rid of valuable military personnel, i.e. translators).
So they were allowed but the military just did not like gays. Whats wrong with having a certain cultur in a specific "company". Why should we through law force every "company" into accepting all kind of people? Do gays really have a human right to openly admit they are gays and still be accepted into the military?
|
On January 19 2012 05:53 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 05:17 ChaosWielder wrote:On January 19 2012 05:15 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 04:46 Mohdoo wrote:On January 19 2012 04:36 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 04:18 hmunkey wrote:Romney doesn't look too strong against Obama either. What the GOP is banking on is the lack of enthusiasm among Democrats and independents (who lean Democrat but don't vote in as high percentages). Technically, if every single American voted during every election, the Democrats would always win. The thing is, most of these people who would vote Democrat are not ideological liberals, they just happen to align themselves more with the Democratic message. Anyway, Romney looks like he might suffer from the same lack of enthusiasm as Obama. Evangelicals are not going to throw their support behind a Mormon. Strong ideological conservatives aren't exactlythrilled by his lack of conviction or his past record in Mass. I could go on but you get the point. Honestly, this seems like a Kerry year for the GOP -- their candidates don't inspire excitement or drive voters to the polls in the way Obama (and Palin) did in 2008. Liberals and the Democratic base are not excited by Obama anymore and won't come out to vote in the same numbers, but it doesn't look any better for the GOP and Romney. Santorum and Paul seem like they could energize their bases, but their bases aren't really all that large or mainstream. Why does it matter whether Romney or Obama wins? Getting rid of families going backrupt from pre-existing medical conditions, allowing gays to serve openly in the military, and doing his best to keep Republicans from outlawing birth control are all good things he's done. I don't like a lot of what he's done, but he's done some good. stem cell research, student loan reform, credit card reform, financial reform He's not my perfect president, far from it. But its only fair to give credit where due that I believe I would have vastly preferred him over a Republican. Werent gays allowed to service in military previsouly as long as they didn't tell anyone? Yes, but the policy was implicitly discriminatory(along with actually getting rid of valuable military personnel, i.e. translators). So they were allowed but the military just did not like gays. Whats wrong with having a certain cultur in a specific "company". Why should we through law force every "company" into accepting all kind of people? Do gays really have a human right to openly admit they are gays and still be accepted into the military?
You have got to be kidding me...
|
On January 19 2012 05:53 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 05:17 ChaosWielder wrote:On January 19 2012 05:15 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 04:46 Mohdoo wrote:On January 19 2012 04:36 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 04:18 hmunkey wrote:Romney doesn't look too strong against Obama either. What the GOP is banking on is the lack of enthusiasm among Democrats and independents (who lean Democrat but don't vote in as high percentages). Technically, if every single American voted during every election, the Democrats would always win. The thing is, most of these people who would vote Democrat are not ideological liberals, they just happen to align themselves more with the Democratic message. Anyway, Romney looks like he might suffer from the same lack of enthusiasm as Obama. Evangelicals are not going to throw their support behind a Mormon. Strong ideological conservatives aren't exactlythrilled by his lack of conviction or his past record in Mass. I could go on but you get the point. Honestly, this seems like a Kerry year for the GOP -- their candidates don't inspire excitement or drive voters to the polls in the way Obama (and Palin) did in 2008. Liberals and the Democratic base are not excited by Obama anymore and won't come out to vote in the same numbers, but it doesn't look any better for the GOP and Romney. Santorum and Paul seem like they could energize their bases, but their bases aren't really all that large or mainstream. Why does it matter whether Romney or Obama wins? Getting rid of families going backrupt from pre-existing medical conditions, allowing gays to serve openly in the military, and doing his best to keep Republicans from outlawing birth control are all good things he's done. I don't like a lot of what he's done, but he's done some good. stem cell research, student loan reform, credit card reform, financial reform He's not my perfect president, far from it. But its only fair to give credit where due that I believe I would have vastly preferred him over a Republican. Werent gays allowed to service in military previsouly as long as they didn't tell anyone? Yes, but the policy was implicitly discriminatory(along with actually getting rid of valuable military personnel, i.e. translators). So they were allowed but the military just did not like gays. Whats wrong with having a certain cultur in a specific "company". Why should we through law force every "company" into accepting all kind of people? Do gays really have a human right to openly admit they are gays and still be accepted into the military?
I think you're dragging this a bit off topic.
|
On January 19 2012 05:53 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 05:17 ChaosWielder wrote:On January 19 2012 05:15 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 04:46 Mohdoo wrote:On January 19 2012 04:36 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 04:18 hmunkey wrote:Romney doesn't look too strong against Obama either. What the GOP is banking on is the lack of enthusiasm among Democrats and independents (who lean Democrat but don't vote in as high percentages). Technically, if every single American voted during every election, the Democrats would always win. The thing is, most of these people who would vote Democrat are not ideological liberals, they just happen to align themselves more with the Democratic message. Anyway, Romney looks like he might suffer from the same lack of enthusiasm as Obama. Evangelicals are not going to throw their support behind a Mormon. Strong ideological conservatives aren't exactlythrilled by his lack of conviction or his past record in Mass. I could go on but you get the point. Honestly, this seems like a Kerry year for the GOP -- their candidates don't inspire excitement or drive voters to the polls in the way Obama (and Palin) did in 2008. Liberals and the Democratic base are not excited by Obama anymore and won't come out to vote in the same numbers, but it doesn't look any better for the GOP and Romney. Santorum and Paul seem like they could energize their bases, but their bases aren't really all that large or mainstream. Why does it matter whether Romney or Obama wins? Getting rid of families going backrupt from pre-existing medical conditions, allowing gays to serve openly in the military, and doing his best to keep Republicans from outlawing birth control are all good things he's done. I don't like a lot of what he's done, but he's done some good. stem cell research, student loan reform, credit card reform, financial reform He's not my perfect president, far from it. But its only fair to give credit where due that I believe I would have vastly preferred him over a Republican. Werent gays allowed to service in military previsouly as long as they didn't tell anyone? Yes, but the policy was implicitly discriminatory(along with actually getting rid of valuable military personnel, i.e. translators). So they were allowed but the military just did not like gays. Whats wrong with having a certain cultur in a specific "company". Why should we through law force every "company" into accepting all kind of people? Do gays really have a human right to openly admit they are gays and still be accepted into the military?
Yes.
Was that so hard?
|
On January 19 2012 05:55 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 05:53 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 05:17 ChaosWielder wrote:On January 19 2012 05:15 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 04:46 Mohdoo wrote:On January 19 2012 04:36 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 04:18 hmunkey wrote:Romney doesn't look too strong against Obama either. What the GOP is banking on is the lack of enthusiasm among Democrats and independents (who lean Democrat but don't vote in as high percentages). Technically, if every single American voted during every election, the Democrats would always win. The thing is, most of these people who would vote Democrat are not ideological liberals, they just happen to align themselves more with the Democratic message. Anyway, Romney looks like he might suffer from the same lack of enthusiasm as Obama. Evangelicals are not going to throw their support behind a Mormon. Strong ideological conservatives aren't exactlythrilled by his lack of conviction or his past record in Mass. I could go on but you get the point. Honestly, this seems like a Kerry year for the GOP -- their candidates don't inspire excitement or drive voters to the polls in the way Obama (and Palin) did in 2008. Liberals and the Democratic base are not excited by Obama anymore and won't come out to vote in the same numbers, but it doesn't look any better for the GOP and Romney. Santorum and Paul seem like they could energize their bases, but their bases aren't really all that large or mainstream. Why does it matter whether Romney or Obama wins? Getting rid of families going backrupt from pre-existing medical conditions, allowing gays to serve openly in the military, and doing his best to keep Republicans from outlawing birth control are all good things he's done. I don't like a lot of what he's done, but he's done some good. stem cell research, student loan reform, credit card reform, financial reform He's not my perfect president, far from it. But its only fair to give credit where due that I believe I would have vastly preferred him over a Republican. Werent gays allowed to service in military previsouly as long as they didn't tell anyone? Yes, but the policy was implicitly discriminatory(along with actually getting rid of valuable military personnel, i.e. translators). So they were allowed but the military just did not like gays. Whats wrong with having a certain cultur in a specific "company". Why should we through law force every "company" into accepting all kind of people? Do gays really have a human right to openly admit they are gays and still be accepted into the military? I think you're dragging this a bit off topic.
I'm glad this thread is finally getting back on topic. And, to the question: yes.
|
If i admit I am gay should I still be allowed to get any kind of job (given my qualificans are up to pair) even though the boss's dont like gay people. Is it a human right for me to get a job, and should their opinions of gay people be disallowed by law?
If no, whats the difference between being accepted into military and job in private sector. Is it because every government job should be allowed for everbody?
|
On January 19 2012 04:30 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 04:12 forgottendreams wrote:I like all the people who post a hit and run source (that could be old, spurious or false by now) and claim it's the end all be all. The general consensus among recent scholars is that right to carry laws and a bad economy now are thought to have no significant correlation with violent crime. Yes I get it, all the gun happy guys are going to point to Lott's 2005 "More Guns Less Crime" but in scholarly terms it's verging on ancient. There is a national downward trend in crime rate (all of this data can be accessed easily by the "UCR") even in Illinois, the only state with no concealed carry law who has had a similar drop in violent crime rates as say in Florida, where they were pioneers of right to carry laws. You don't even need to read the recent journals on what I'm talking about, it can simply be summed here properly http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/16/national-rifle-association/wayne-lapierre-said-violent-crime-jurisdictions-re/In another words at least pertaining to the U.S., guns aren't really bad or good in terms of crime, so no side should be claiming some annoying victory. I claim the victory Because utilitiaran cant defend their case and should not be taking side. Only those who cus of principle is for weapons (me) or against, can actually argue. Every post the "utility-maxisimers" have, should be on analysing the statistiscs. The reason why this hasn't been the case, is becuase most people dont even get why they have their specific opinion. Most likely through culture and manipulation they have been taught to think in a specific way, and hence not learned to use logic.
Please contain your paranoia. Nobody is brainwashing you and the government has not been proven to be controlled by marsians.
|
On January 19 2012 06:03 Hider wrote:
If i admit I am gay should I still be allowed to get any kind of job (given my qualificans are up to pair) even though the boss's dont like gay people. Is it a human right for me to get a job, and should their opinions of gay people be disallowed by law?
If no, whats the difference between being accepted into military and job in private sector. Is it because every government job should be allowed for everbody?
...
Gays couldn't serve openly because they were gay.
One's sexual orientation should be irrelevant when it comes to determining suitability for employment.
It is perfectly fine (though regrettable) that people dislike homosexuals simply because of their orientation, but that dislike cannot be codified into law, which it most certainly was under DADT. Denying one's service merely because they enjoy a different sexual preference is discrimination and cannot be lawful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
