| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Easy Money 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 11 2007
Location: Memphis
Status: Offline
Points: 10676
|
 Posted: February 21 2019 at 19:53 |
 micky wrote:
re: Big Brains John haha 
yes.. doing so would be a disaster of .. historic propertions... even out f**kerying (©Micky 2019) Trump.
Pelosi said what she needed to say about the potential bomerang being guns.. but is smart enough to know it is .. again.. not just a historically bad decision.. but would also be the perhaps the single worst political move in over 200 years. The deck is stacked for a Democratic dominance at the national level as Trump leaves and his party dying off.. that move alone could reverse the whole politcal calculus.
the problem is of course.. Pelosi would not be making that decision. It would be the new President.
reason #72 why again as a guns rights supporter.. I am so passionately behind Warren. Unlike pretty much the rest of them.. she doesn't float upon the winds of political expediency.. she is a crusader but it isnt guns she is after. And as I alluded to.. what she is after... might just go a ways towards some of the deep root causes of what causes .. not guns to be the problem.. but those that think the solution.. the way out.. is taking others with you as well as the senseless lower profile murders that is born out of a lot of our socio-economic issues which Warren would attempt to (long overdue in this country) finally address.
interesting point about guns and abortion... a wise man once said.. show me a pro choice/pro gun OR an anti gun/anti abortion supporter and i will see integrity and logic in a person. Problem is of course.. they are rare in both parties. Also the thing to note.. I did mention this to SteveG once when he fretted about Roe v. Wade post Kavanaugh. If one was being honest.. there is far more support in the Constitution and our laws for the gunowner rights than there are for a woman's.
It may be a sad fact.. but it is still a fact. Our court did IMO make the right choice back the 70's that the greater evil was taking away a woman's choice.. and her personal liberty and rights... even when there is no constitutional or obviously was legal basis for them...and taking away those rights was in fact worse than the taking of innocent lives... the same.. one can argue and I guess I am.... holds true for guns. It is the duality of the gun and abortion issues that far too few see. I'm not surprised you do as I had pegged you as one of the sharper minds on the site.
Beside...if we were really interesting in saving lives John.. we'd be going after the FDA... the sh*t we are allowed (and also encouraged to pump into our bodies because some industry lobbyist got the congress well paid) kill far more than guns ever have. |
Pelosi shouldn't have said that, that quote will have legs sure as Nancy does. She gave 'them' a big gift with that one.
Edited by Easy Money - February 21 2019 at 19:55
|
 |
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838
|
Posted: February 21 2019 at 20:06 |
it wasn't her place to play mommy to the infants and toddlers on the other side of the aisle and try to remind them that supporting Trump's decision was a bad move.
I disagree however about it being a gift.. any gun toting Republican knows (thinks) the Democrats are after that and their guns. No new new there. Perhaps the reminder of what 'could' happen might have finally burst that little FAUX bubble reality they live in.. but of course.. just as it didn't nor does it appear to have with most on the other side of the aisle leading them to back to common sense and reigning in Trump's autocratic and un(anti)constitutional tendencies and actions for payback can be hell if this pandora's box of partisan executive overreach (not to mention blantent ignoring of constitutional separations of power) is condoned. Which.. of course.. Pelosi will force them to vote upon.. on the record. Of course Trump will veto it though the chances of an override are very slim.
The SCOTUS will decide this.. unlike most though... I think Trump loses this one at the high court. I've been preaching it.. and so far my horse has shown.. Roberts is moving the court from the popularly considered 5-4 majority to him being the swing vote .. and I'd bet my paycheck John he casts the deciding vote against this. Only the partisans on the right.. along with the typical ignorants and idiots that make up Trump's core of support fail to see how blatantly unconstitutional this is. Not the Emergency Declaration itself.. but the repurposing of already allocated funding.. no way in HELL Roberts if I have read him correctly.. supports that.. and I haven't been wrong yet about him.
Edited by micky - February 21 2019 at 20:08
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
Easy Money
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 11 2007
Location: Memphis
Status: Offline
Points: 10676
|
Posted: February 21 2019 at 20:19 |
|
I agree, Roberts is usually a lot smarter than that, lets hope so.
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838
|
Posted: February 21 2019 at 20:50 |
betting on brains loses money... Clarence Thomas is a smart man..
what Roberts is an institutionalist.. not a partisan... that makes a big difference...that is why my paycheck is safe. It is also why I predicted.. and he has to this point.. tacked center.. to preserve the balance of the court.
he knows as we all do that Kavanaugh was a politically driven and motivated partisan stooge who has damaged the integrity of that court through that sham of hearings and his own conduct during it (to say nothing of his past)..and that integrity means a great deal to him if you read his writings. thus and he tacked left to offset him and try to preserve the integrity of the court.
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65550
|
Posted: February 21 2019 at 20:55 |
Interesting that we now have two sexual assault perpetrators on the SC. That we know of.
|
|
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838
|
Posted: February 21 2019 at 21:09 |
yeah.. and speaking of that. That is one of the skeletons in Biden's closet with the Thomas nomination.. curious to see how that would play out with women being so ascendant in the party. He took a LOT Of heat for it in years past.. but as we all know that was then. this is the now.. the Democratic Party is changing.. and women are increasingly the face and voice of it..as well as its primary base of ground support.. will he get a pass for that. I really can't see it happening.. not with so many women vying for the nomination and of various ideologies. where unlike 2016.. the glass ceiling female ID politics is not what will attempted to appeal to women.. but the ideology.. just with a woman as a messanger. God Hillary... what a bad campaign you ran.. 
I think 2016 was Biden's expiration date. In fact, I'm not really too sure he is going to choose to run seeing the way the political winds of change are whipping up in the party. Old white guy is not what many in the party are looking for right now. Quite simply, it doesn't represent what the party is rapidly becoming. Speaking of smarts.. he sure has them..and he has to know the minefield he is going to face for his political past.. not just with women, but the left.
Edited by micky - February 21 2019 at 21:13
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65550
|
Posted: February 21 2019 at 21:13 |
Yeah Joe is not my man, god bless him. To be honest I'm not impressed by Warren either, rather a wet noodle. I like Kamala-- smart as a whip, hot, and she doesn't care: she'll tear you a new one and not break a sweat.
Hot.
|
|
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838
|
Posted: February 21 2019 at 21:25 |
hahah.. hell yeah.. and oh I'd hit that in a heartbeat...
still haven't quite formed an opinion of her politics yet.. but still plenty of time to go. I'll be curious to see how she handles the heat and pressure of the campaign.
Yeah Warren hasn't exactly sped out of the gate to this point.. but it is still a marathon not a sprint. Her message does make her extremely dangerous to win the nomination...and beat Trump but I've already read a few articles that others realize that as well and could well steal her message.. which has polled extremely well. If they do that.. she could be in trouble ... as it is her message and her passion for it which sets her above pretty much all the rest of the field IMO. Not her personality |
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838
|
Posted: February 21 2019 at 21:37 |
though I think the real dangerous 'underdog' to watch is Sherrod Brown... unlike Kamala.. a highly experienced seasoned and well thought of politician.. and red state survivor.. a liberal but to the right of the others.. he among ... like perhaps no other can appeal to both left and center.. and much like Warren.. likely torch Trump in a national election for having a strong appeal to segments of Trump's aleady small base of support .. the non racist/white identiy politics white working class who gave Trump a chance once..and a hope and prayer he could do things for them... but may not a 2nd time ...
again.. waiting to see where Kamala's politics fall in terms of taking the left or center positions but if someone held a gun against my head and said.. pick one.. and pick well..... I'd pick the darkhorse in comparison to the big names and say Brown wins the nomination..and the Presidency in as close to a landslide as we might ever see in our highly paritsan country. ie trump only wins the bible belt...and lose Ohio and Florida along with all the 2016 trump blue wall upsets..
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: February 21 2019 at 22:00 |
|
Not that anyone said so here, but I don't know that a POC candidate would be toxic in the 2020 cycle. This is how I see it. Trump got out the missing white vote in 2016 by going to places no candidate had been in years and offering these beleaguered voters a promise of change. I am not so sure a Sherrod Brown or Biden will be able to pull that off. Though I could see Brown possibly swinging some of the purplish red states Democrats way. Sanders did connect with the white working class last time and if he is up on the ballot, they might give him a chance, ruing their mistake of 2016. But a POC candidate could mobilise the non white vote with the missing white vote not coming out for either candidate. Is Kamala Harris that candidate though? Not sure, we'll see.
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65550
|
Posted: February 21 2019 at 22:55 |
|
I don't see color being a major issue, that's an illusion and the other side can't use it overtly against them. I don't care what anyone says, you don't elect a Barack Hussein Obama twice with 52% and have big problems electing a non-whitey.
|
|
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: February 22 2019 at 07:24 |
micky wrote:
all gunowners.. not just bad guys for one can not seperate them.. lose their due process and the Feds come to your home to take your property..
|
Do you mean that in case of gun prohibition
1. the government will start arbitrarily "come to your home to take your property" totally abandoning and ignoring due process prescribed by the constitution? so it would have given you a moral right to fight them with your gun?
and
2. your firepower would be substantial enough to effectively defend your home against the government forces? not simply fighting them but winning?
Edited by IVNORD - February 22 2019 at 07:24
|
|
Lewian
Prog Reviewer
Joined: August 09 2015
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 15115
|
Posted: February 22 2019 at 07:40 |
| which goes back to my original point on this. There are two ways to
combat.... really combat gun violence.. one involves a great deal of
time, expense, dealing some ugly truths about our society, and isn't a
quick easy fix. The other, going after guns themselves |
Why couldn't one do both?
|
|
Snicolette
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 02 2018
Location: OR
Status: Offline
Points: 6048
|
Posted: February 22 2019 at 08:00 |
Being the old hippie that I am, I would love to see a world with no guns. But I don't think it's possible, because the gate was already left open long ago. My son's father was a Vietnam vet, who was unable to take the vaccinations needed for the jungle. But he'd grown up doing target practice with his brother in the 50's and was a pretty good shot. So they sent him to Germany, where he became an exhibition shooter, and was the 2nd best in Europe. Like many vets, he would not feel OK if he couldn't have a gun for protection. Working for 911 I knew how many accidents happen with guns, usually the owner or their kids get hurt. So, I decided that I'd better learn how to use them. He ended up calling me Annie Oakley.  Also, for the reasons that Micky lists, I think that the best route is to make sensible laws and require licenses, that you must pass tests for, just like vehicles. It might also make it easier to make arrests then of bad ones with illegal guns and get those guns and people out of circulation. So yes, I would love a world without them, but if I ever do need to use a gun, I will use it and not hurt myself or my loved ones.
|
|
"Into every rain, a little life must fall." ~Tom Rapp
|
|
Lewian
Prog Reviewer
Joined: August 09 2015
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 15115
|
Posted: February 22 2019 at 08:29 |
Well I hear what you're saying and I will not say that the Second Amendment or the people defending it are barbaric or stupid... I only add that it baffles many, many non-Americans who in their own countries neither have anything like the second amendmend or its implications nor anywhere near the level of problems with guns that you have in the US, why so many Americans, among them good intelligent people, apparently think that hardly anything can be done about it and surely getting rid of the Second Amendment wouldn't help. (Nobody states that it'd be an immediate and complete cure of course; after all, other countries have their gun and crime issues, too.)
I actually believe that at least in principle American people are not different from other people, OK there's culture and history and all that but still... And therefore there is no natural law that states that gun crime in the US would have to be higher than elsewhere even if the legal background were the same!?
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: February 22 2019 at 09:35 |
Snicolette wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:
Is it just me or does Roger Stone have a weird shaped head?  |
His eyes are at a weird angle, too
|
hahahahahaha
BTW I'm an old hippie too although not that old being born in 1965. I didn't become a hippie until the late '70's.
Edited by Slartibartfast - February 22 2019 at 09:40
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: February 22 2019 at 19:24 |
Lewian wrote:
Well I hear what you're saying and I will not say that the Second Amendment or the people defending it are barbaric or stupid... I only add that it baffles many, many non-Americans who in their own countries neither have anything like the second amendmend or its implications nor anywhere near the level of problems with guns that you have in the US, why so many Americans, among them good intelligent people, apparently think that hardly anything can be done about it and surely getting rid of the Second Amendment wouldn't help. (Nobody states that it'd be an immediate and complete cure of course; after all, other countries have their gun and crime issues, too.)
I actually believe that at least in principle American people are not different from other people, OK there's culture and history and all that but still... And therefore there is no natural law that states that gun crime in the US would have to be higher than elsewhere even if the legal background were the same!?
|
It goes back to what I said earlier. High preference for suburban life and even out in the woods. Take a country like Australia for instance. Though there is so much legend about the Aussie outback, the overwhelming majority of people live in a few densely populated cities. Higher urbanisation reduces the relevance of guns. There IS safety in numbers. You feel somebody can't just walk up to you and threaten you when you are walking on a crowded footpath. But what if you can't see people on the street for miles where you live? Would a gun give you insurance then against an attempted break in? Possibly. I don't know much about wildlife in Europe but I would guess much of it was killed off by the imperialists (as the British did in India where easily over a 100000 tigers once lived). That's not the case in USA where the threat of a bear paying a visit to your home is very real. Now you could ask why do people choose to live in such places but then that goes to show how different USA is indeed.
|
|
Lewian
Prog Reviewer
Joined: August 09 2015
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 15115
|
Posted: February 23 2019 at 05:04 |
rogerthat wrote:
It goes back to what I said earlier. High preference for suburban life and even out in the woods. Take a country like Australia for instance. Though there is so much legend about the Aussie outback, the overwhelming majority of people live in a few densely populated cities. Higher urbanisation reduces the relevance of guns. There IS safety in numbers. You feel somebody can't just walk up to you and threaten you when you are walking on a crowded footpath. But what if you can't see people on the street for miles where you live? Would a gun give you insurance then against an attempted break in? Possibly.
I don't know much about wildlife in Europe but I would guess much of it was killed off by the imperialists (as the British did in India where easily over a 100000 tigers once lived). That's not the case in USA where the threat of a bear paying a visit to your home is very real. Now you could ask why do people choose to live in such places but then that goes to show how different USA is indeed. |
Hmmm. I haven't heard any pro-gun person from the US saying that it's because of the bears for a long time, though. Fair enough it makes more sense if you live miles away from the nearest policeman or -woman, but then the discussion isn't really about such people, one could certainly create an exception for them if that really was the major issue. I don't think we're talking about big numbers there, not even in the US.
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: February 23 2019 at 05:27 |
Lewian wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
It goes back to what I said earlier. High preference for suburban life and even out in the woods. Take a country like Australia for instance. Though there is so much legend about the Aussie outback, the overwhelming majority of people live in a few densely populated cities. Higher urbanisation reduces the relevance of guns. There IS safety in numbers. You feel somebody can't just walk up to you and threaten you when you are walking on a crowded footpath. But what if you can't see people on the street for miles where you live? Would a gun give you insurance then against an attempted break in? Possibly.
I don't know much about wildlife in Europe but I would guess much of it was killed off by the imperialists (as the British did in India where easily over a 100000 tigers once lived). That's not the case in USA where the threat of a bear paying a visit to your home is very real. Now you could ask why do people choose to live in such places but then that goes to show how different USA is indeed. |
Hmmm. I haven't heard any pro-gun person from the US saying that it's because of the bears for a long time, though. Fair enough it makes more sense if you live miles away from the nearest policeman or -woman, but then the discussion isn't really about such people, one could certainly create an exception for them if that really was the major issue. I don't think we're talking about big numbers there, not even in the US.
|
I didn't say it was only about bears but that is also a factor. I remember reading a lengthy but interesting and entertaining Quora answer to the question of why rural America votes Republican and you could sum up the gist in one word: guns. And bear invasions was one of the things he mentioned in the answer.
|
|
Easy Money
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 11 2007
Location: Memphis
Status: Offline
Points: 10676
|
Posted: February 23 2019 at 08:11 |
|
For many rural people in the US, guns are still a part of everyday life. In the south, people hunt deer for food, and in the west guns protect people and their livestock against coyotes, wolves, large cats, bears etc.
Meanwhile, there is this other part of the population that seems to have a heavy attraction to guns for other reasons.
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The American Politics Thread