Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Re: "Politics........" (I didn't get my say!)

Author
Message
Dung Beetle
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2004
Location:
Posted: 2nd Nov 2004 21:07
Link
"A good offence is a good defense."
But I like to be fair, so I'll do a little of both.

Tax Cuts:
Quote: "Nobel laureate calls for steeper tax cuts in US
Mon Oct 11, 5:21 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Edward Prescott, who picked up the Nobel Prize for Economics, said President George W. Bush's tax rate cuts were "pretty small" and should have been bigger.

"What Bush has done has been not very big, it's pretty small," Prescott told CNBC financial news television.

"Tax rates were not cut enough," he said.

Lower tax rates provided an incentive to work, Prescott said.

Prescott and Norwegian Finn Kydland won the 2004 Nobel Economics Prize for research into the forces behind business cycles.

The American analyst, who is a professor at Arizona State University and a researcher at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, said a large tax cut in 1986 had lowered rates while collecting the same revenue.

But "in the early '90s the economy was depressed by the tax increase in '93 by about four percent, and it's right at that level now," Prescott said.

Bush, who is fighting to get re-elected November 2, has cut taxes by about 1.7 trillion dollars during his term.

The US leader accuses his Democratic rival John Kerry of favoring tax increases, despite Kerry's promise to cut taxes for everyone earning less than 200,000 dollars a year."
Ok, why do you believe that the tax cuts benefit "the rich"? Because the truth is that even if they do, it ain't that big of a deal! Think about it this way: why are they rich? Normally it's because they own large companies. (For now let's ignore the fact that officials of large companies have some of the hardest jobs.) If they own companies, they have employees right? How are they supposed to pay those employees if their company's income decreases? Another point is that Kerry wants to raise the minimum wage. And he wants to raise taxes. So let's put those two things together: less money to pay your employees with, and more money that you are required to pay them. Do I see job losses coming?

Swift boat vets:
First of all, Bush has no connection with them, and second, they are people who have been wronged by Kerry and want to get back at him. They know what kinds of faults he has. Y'all are just lucky that most of us Conservatives have more self-control then they do when it comes to revenge, (more than y'all seem to have when it comes to anything) or you wouldn't be allowed to get away with anything!

WMDs:
Kerry voted for us to go into Iraq too you know. He also believed that there were WMDs there. (Which I might remind everyone that we have found some now!) Then he voted against giving them the supplies they needed to fight. Now y'all want him as President so that he can (if he passes his "global test" first) send our men and women of the armed forces into battle with inadequate supplies and arms?! Have you no sense?!

Some misc. stuff that I'd like to say:
Kerry was (according to him) good at being a soldier in the war. He was so good that he got three purple hearts. No wonder he talks about it! Ok, question: If you had a choice of picking a soldier or a senator for president, and that was all that you knew about them then the most logical to pick would be the senator, right? He would know how to work the system and stuff, and soldiers are notoriously bad at the job. So. If people would trust someone who had had experience with it more than someone who hadn't, then especially seeing as his soldier background is being put to the question, why hasn't he tried using his wonderful record in the Senate for the same objective? I'll tell you why: because he never accomplished anything worth mentioning! So you want this man who couldn't do anything worthwhile in a position that is similar to the Presidency, in charge of our country?! He now wants to reform health care and alot of other things. He was on the Senate for 20 years and he was never been able pass any of it!

I don't know all that much about all of Bush's bills and agendas etc. But the main reason that I'm pro-Bush is that I feel that he will defend this country and that Kerry will not. Period. Kerry has shown that he can't stand up for his opinion, and now he wants to try and stand for the entire USA? In other words, I don't agree with everything that each candidate is for. Nor am I against everything that they say. But the most important thing in my mind in this country is keeping in one piece until the next election. George W. Bush is the only candidate of the two who I trust to take care of that job, and do it well. We can debate the other fine points, but that is my sole main reason.

@ mx5 kris: NRA? Rock on man! My Dad's got this AR-15... Sweet!
Back to top
Profile PM
Eric T
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Apr 2003
Location: My location is where I am at this time.
Posted: 2nd Nov 2004 21:14 Edited at: 2nd Nov 2004 21:15
Link
Quote: "First of all, Bush has no connection with them, "


Cough BS cough

Well, maybe not bush directly, but his Campaign managers would only say "No Comment" when asked about it.

Quote: "Kerry voted for us to go into Iraq too you know. "


Yup, then he changed his mind now that campaign times are around. And, thats probably the biggest reason I hate him. Can't keep the facts Straight.

I trust neither candidate, and am contemplating leaving the country. I am sick of the way things are run, and especially sick of votes being decided by a Electoral College. It Dosen't work, cause the rep can overide the popular vote. Of course, if I left the country, i wouldn't like to many of the rest of the worlds goverment, so it'd probably not be such a good idea .

As for the NRA, no offense, but i think all members buy big guns to make up for thier "Little Gun"(if you catch my drift). I hate that organization almost as much as I hate Heston myself. Its one thing to own a gun, its another to parade it around town, and screaming and yelling about it.


http://www.liquidzsnake.dbspot.com/StairwayToHell.txt
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Rob K
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 2nd Nov 2004 21:18 Edited at: 2nd Nov 2004 21:27
Link
Quote: " Kerry has shown that he can't stand up for his opinion"


Correction, the Bush campaign has told you to believe that.

Now, this Wikipedia article has probably been written by a democrat, but it does give an alternative view about Kerry as a senator:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsorship_of_legislation_by_John_Kerry

I'm not trying to support the democrats either, both sides play equally dirty.

Quote: "But the main reason that I'm pro-Bush is that I feel that he will defend this country and that Kerry will no"

Quote: "But the most important thing in my mind in this country is keeping in one piece until the next election"


Alas, where would America be without paranoia and fear?

Arguably, you don't need to be defended from terrorists, you need to be defended from yourselves. Gun crime in America kills several times more people every year than were killed in the 9/11 attacks - 29,000 in 1999!


BlueGUI:Windows UI Plugin - All the power of the windows interface in your DBPro games.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Peter H
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Feb 2004
Location: Witness Protection Program
Posted: 2nd Nov 2004 21:30 Edited at: 2nd Nov 2004 21:32
Link
Quote: "Correction, the Bush campaign has told you to believe that.
"

Correction, we've been led to believe it by kerry's own words...

i've heard him contradict himself so many times it's not even funny.

at the third presidential debate he did the funniest thing...bush proposed something, then he bashed it saying it would never work...then he himself took the same idea with slightly different wording and promoted it as his idea

...i honestly don't care who get's voted in...i would prefer bush, but it would be so fun to see kerry voted in. then have him make a fool of himself

"We make the worst games in the universe."

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Dung Beetle
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2004
Location:
Posted: 2nd Nov 2004 21:36
Link
Eric T: No, it's not BS. Where are you getting information otherwise?

Electoral College:
Quote: "Why we need to defend the Electoral College
By Jonah Goldberg

"The electoral college method of electing a president of the United States is archaic, undemocratic, complex, ambiguous, indirect, and dangerous."

That's what the American Bar Association famously had to say in 1967 about the Electoral College, and the sentiment is echoed in the complaints we increasingly hear today. The ABA's indictment was wrong on points 3 ("complex"), 4 ("ambiguous"), and 6 ("dangerous"). But it was right that the college is archaic, undemocratic and indirect. And that's why I love the musty old thing.

When Dean Wormer threw Delta House - AKA "Animal House" - off campus, the fraternity president, Robert Hoover, exclaimed, "But sir, Delta Tau Chi has a long tradition of existence both to its members and the community at large."

I feel the same way about the Electoral College. The mere fact that it has been around for a very long time stands in its favor.

In Federalist 49, James Madison referred to "that veneration which time bestows on everything, and without which perhaps the wisest and freest governments would not possess the requisite stability." What Madison meant by this was simple. Anyone can write a new constitution. The Weimar Republic's constitution was, for example, arguably the best written constitution of the 20th century. We need not dwell on its successes. Meanwhile, old constitutions are a rare thing. Our political institutions and culture are deeply invested in the Electoral College, and its two-century-long success is something g we should respect on its own merits.

Which brings me to the Bar Association's second and third complaints. Yes, the Electoral College is undemocratic and indirect - which, I'm sad to say, is a redundant complaint in the modern view. Today we think that anything that buffers, dilutes or even improves "direct" democracy is automatically evil in some way. (Some, like Dick Morris, even want Americans to decide public policy by polls.) According to this logic, of course, we should abolish the U.S. Senate, since 35 million Californians get the same representation as fewer than 1 million Montanans do - not that I'm trying to give anyone any ideas.
But the Senate and the Electoral College share many of the same rationales. It's true that the founders were worried about too much democracy. A Senate, it was hoped, might cool the passions of the more representative house. An Electoral College might also have the same effect, preventing demagogues from sweeping to power in a moment of national passion. This "archaic" benefit of the college has been reduced because electors must vote for whomever won their state. But it hasn't vanished. A nationwide popular presidential election could be dominated by a handful of mostly urban states. Is it really so horrifying that our system requires presidential candidates to grasp the regional and cultural variations of the nation?

I agree it's a flawed system. But that's true of every system - ours just so happens to be the most successful one in the history of humanity. Moreover, one needs to ask how would our society be improved by direct, popular elections? Sure, we'd have "majority rule," but why is that so great? Once you get past the symbolism and romance of majoritarianism, there aren't many concrete benefits to it. A mob is usually the majority. The difference between a mob and a republic are those institutions that encourage deliberation, reflection and judgment. Popular, direct elections do no such thing.

The ABA said the electoral college system was "ambiguous," "complex" and "dangerous." It's not complex. Each state decides democratically who it wants to be president, the winner gets that state's electoral votes, which are allotted proportionally based on population. Whoever wins the majority of electoral votes wins. If you think that's too complex to grasp, I'm not sure you're qualified to vote in the first place. It's not ambiguous either. Indeed, one of its chief benefits is that historically it has given an unambiguous victory in electoral votes to candidates who receive only a fraction of the popular vote.

As for the dangerous part, well, that's in the eye of the beholder. If you think fraud is a problem, direct voting would make it that much harder to identify. The Electoral College serves as a dye marker helping us identify where elections go wrong. Direct election would turn the entire nation into Florida 2000.

More important, I look around America today, with the constant bribing of voters to show up at the polls, and I don't yearn for more direct democracy. (Celebrities are being used as bait at some polling stations. If you need a glimpse of P-Diddy or Matt Damon to motivate you, don't vote.) I look at the way politicians prostitute themselves in front of focus groups and at the whim of pollsters, and I think it would be more dangerous to give in to these trends than to fight them. But most of all, I stand by this conservative axiom: When change is not necessary, it is necessary not to change."
Quote: "I trust neither candidate, and am contemplating leaving the country."
That's your decision, but then,
Quote: "i wouldn't like to many of the rest of the worlds goverment"
And just so you know, I don't completely trust anyone in Washington. There are some who I trust more than others however. I usually find that the people who you might want in the Presidential position are never going to run, while those who do run you don't really want anyway. Catch-22.

Quote: "Its one thing to own a gun, its another to parade it around town, and screaming and yelling about it."
And just how many NRA members have you seen doing that?!

Rob K: Uh, no. You can't deny that Kerry has changed his opinion on almost every subject that comes up.
Back to top
Profile PM
Dung Beetle
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2004
Location:
Posted: 2nd Nov 2004 21:39
Link
Peter_: I agree with all but your last line. I'm curious though, what was the thing that you're referring to in the debate?
Back to top
Profile PM
Damokles
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th May 2003
Location: Belgium
Posted: 2nd Nov 2004 21:39
Link
I will not vote Bush because


And I'm sure everybody will agree.

- Mind the gap -
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 2nd Nov 2004 21:46
Link
The Bush campaign's flip-flock ad attack on Kerry was inspired by his own inability to stick to one side of the story.


Here we go again!
TRANSGRESS AND I SHALT BAN YE! (Just kidding...)
Back to top
Profile PM
Rob K
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 2nd Nov 2004 21:48
Link
Quote: " The Bush campaign's flip-flock ad attack on Kerry was inspired by his own inability to stick to one side of the story."


Emphasis on inspired. Their ads would have you believe that John Kerry actively intends to raise fuel taxes. A little analysis shows that said comment was based on a tiny 10-year-old newspaper cutting.


BlueGUI:Windows UI Plugin - All the power of the windows interface in your DBPro games.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Dung Beetle
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2004
Location:
Posted: 2nd Nov 2004 21:56
Link
What "Bush flip-flop"?!

Kerry does want to raise taxes! I heard it (through an electronic speaker) directly from his mouth! I don't know about this "fuel-tax" thing, but he does want to raise them.

Rob K: I thought that you said that you were playing both sides equally...
Back to top
Profile PM
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 2nd Nov 2004 21:56
Link
That has nothing to do with his inconsistent voting record.


Here we go again!
TRANSGRESS AND I SHALT BAN YE! (Just kidding...)
Back to top
Profile PM
Dung Beetle
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2004
Location:
Posted: 2nd Nov 2004 21:58
Link
I'm sorry Mouse, but I'm not understanding what you mean. Could you try and put it in context for me?
Back to top
Profile PM
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 2nd Nov 2004 21:59
Link
I was replying to Rob K actually, we posted at the same time .


Here we go again!
TRANSGRESS AND I SHALT BAN YE! (Just kidding...)
Back to top
Profile PM
Dung Beetle
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2004
Location:
Posted: 2nd Nov 2004 22:00
Link
Oh, sorry!
Back to top
Profile PM
Rob K
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 2nd Nov 2004 22:45 Edited at: 2nd Nov 2004 22:47
Link
Quote: "Kerry does want to raise taxes! "


We're not talking about his general policies here, I was talking about that specific campaign ad.

Quote: " That has nothing to do with his inconsistent voting record."


Of course it does, it proves the fact that the vast majority of the American public get their "facts" and interpretations from campaign ads and not via any research.

I could disagree futher, but this comment from /. seemed more appropriate:

Quote: ""That's it. I'm voting for the candidate who would flip-flop on sending my son to die, rather than the one who'd do it without hesitation.""


On another note, everyone seems to have ignored my comments about the relative unimportance of the war on terror.


BlueGUI:Windows UI Plugin - All the power of the windows interface in your DBPro games.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 2nd Nov 2004 23:00
Link
Quote: "Quote: ""That's it. I'm voting for the candidate who would flip-flop on sending my son to die, rather than the one who'd do it without hesitation.""

On another note, everyone seems to have ignored my comments about the relative unimportance of the war on terror."


...that's... rather contradictory....


Here we go again!
TRANSGRESS AND I SHALT BAN YE! (Just kidding...)
Back to top
Profile PM
Mx5 kris
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2004
Location:
Posted: 2nd Nov 2004 23:10
Link
yes.... Any who I am just saying GOE BUSH!GOD BLESS YOU< AND I VOTED FOR YA!

This is only the beggining...
The end is ony the beggining...
Back to top
Profile PM
Rob K
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 2nd Nov 2004 23:18 Edited at: 2nd Nov 2004 23:23
Link
Quote: "...that's... rather contradictory...."


How can they be contradictory? - Both support the view that America really has more important things to be dealing with than the war on terror and both clearly think that you shouldn't even be at war.

Quote: "Do I see job losses coming?"


I'm not going to comment on America, save to say that there are many other factors affecting employment besides taxes - all the various elements of monetary policy, fiscal policy and supply side policies. In Britain however an increase in the minimum wage and increased taxes has not changed our full employment situation.


BlueGUI:Windows UI Plugin - All the power of the windows interface in your DBPro games.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
bitJericho
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 2nd Nov 2004 23:31
Link
Quote: "yes.... Any who I am just saying GOE BUSH!GOD BLESS YOU< AND I VOTED FOR YA!"


god I hope not.. what with you being 15 and all..

[center]
Come write!
Yarr join LoGD, and defeat other coders!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 2nd Nov 2004 23:33
Link
Quote: "In Britain however an increase in the minimum wage and increased taxes has not changed our full employment situation.
"


No, it's just progressively lowered the QOL to a depressingly low level while the royals and politicans get digustingly rich from tax money that should be being given back to the people.


Here we go again!
TRANSGRESS AND I SHALT BAN YE! (Just kidding...)
Back to top
Profile PM
Neophyte
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 2nd Nov 2004 23:43
Link
I was saving some of this for the thread I was going to start, but I might as well post it here.

@Dark Llama

Re:Tax Cuts

Quote: "As professors of economics and business, we are concerned that U.S. economic policy has taken a dangerous turn under your stewardship. Nearly every major economic indicator has deteriorated since you took office in January 2001. Real GDP growth during your term is the lowest of any presidential term in recent memory. Total non-farm employment has contracted and the unemployment rate has increased. Bankruptcies are up sharply, as is our dependence on foreign capital to finance an exploding current account deficit. All three major stock indexes are lower now than at the time of your inauguration. The percentage of Americans in poverty has increased, real median income has declined, and income inequality has grown.

The data make clear that your policy of slashing taxes – primarily for those at the upper reaches of the income distribution – has not worked. The fiscal reversal that has taken place under your leadership is so extreme that it would have been unimaginable just a few years ago. The federal budget surplus of over $200 billion that we enjoyed in the year 2000 has disappeared, and we are now facing a massive annual deficit of over $400 billion. In fact, if transfers from the Social Security trust fund are excluded, the federal deficit is even worse – well in excess of a half a trillion dollars this year alone. Although some members of your administration have suggested that the mountain of new debt accumulated on your watch is mainly the consequence of 9-11 and the war on terror, budget experts know that this is simply false. Your economic policies have played a significant role in driving this fiscal collapse. And the economic proposals you have suggested for a potential second term – from diverting Social Security contributions into private accounts to making the recent tax cuts permanent – only promise to exacerbate the crisis by further narrowing the federal revenue base.

These sorts of deficits crowd out private investment and are politically addictive. They also place a heavy burden on monetary policy – and create additional pressure for higher interest rates – by stoking inflationary expectations. If your economic advisers are telling you that these deficits can be defeated through further reductions in tax rates, then you need new advisers. More robust economic growth could certainly help, but nearly every one of your administration’s economic forecasts – both before and after 9-11 – has proved overly optimistic. Expenditure cuts could be part of the answer, but your record so far has been one of increasing expenditures, not reducing them. "


http://www.openlettertothepresident.org/

Check the list of signatures at the bottom. If you want to play the name-an-economist-in-favor-of-my-position game I believe I've got you beat by about 142 to 1. Oh, and, FYI, the London Economist, which endorsed Bush in 2000 and is about as far away from the left as you can get, has endoresed John Kerry for president.

http://economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?Story_ID=3329802

@Swift Boat vets

These guys spew a whole ton of crap and the fact that you believe them doesn't reflect well on you.

http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html

Re: WMD

Kerry voted for us to go into Iraq too you know. He also believed that there were WMDs there.

Yes, and I don't agree with him in the slightest in that respect. Not everybody that supports Kerry likes everything that Kerry does or even most of what he supports.

Then he voted against giving them the supplies they needed to fight.

Actually, the truth is a bit more complicated then that.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=155

Oh, and if you think going into war unprepared is a bad thing then you should be against Bush %100.

Quote: "Since Congress approved an $87 billion defense request last year, the administration has steadfastly maintained that military forces in Iraq will be sufficiently funded until early next year. President Bush's budget request for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 included no money for Iraqi operations, and his budget director, Joshua B. Bolten, said no request would come until January at the earliest."


Quote: "The military already has identified unmet funding needs, including initiatives aimed at providing equipment and weapons for troops in Iraq. The Army has publicly identified nearly $6 billion in funding requests that did not make Bush's $402 billion defense budget for 2005, including $132 million for bolt-on vehicle armor; $879 million for combat helmets, silk-weight underwear, boots and other clothing; $21.5 million for M249 squad automatic weapons; and $27 million for ammunition magazines, night sights and ammo packs. Also unfunded: $956 million for repairing desert-damaged equipment and $102 million to replace equipment lost in combat."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A28903-2004Apr20¬Found=true

Quote: "As a result, the Bush administration’s first steps at reconstruction in Iraq left a power vacuum that others quickly moved to fill, and a growing mistrust on the part of ordinary Iraqis.

Since those first days, the US effort in Iraq has been hampered by a growing insurgency with persistent and deadly attacks against US forces. "


http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1314212003

Bush himself has been underfunding our troops and dangerously underestimating the resistance in Iraq. I could get into this much more, but I don't have the time right now. But I'd like to see you explain away that while still saying that Bush is the best man to protect us.

Ok, question: If you had a choice of picking a soldier or a senator for president, and that was all that you knew about them then the most logical to pick would be the senator, right? He would know how to work the system and stuff, and soldiers are notoriously bad at the job. So. If people would trust someone who had had experience with it more than someone who hadn't, then especially seeing as his soldier background is being put to the question, why hasn't he tried using his wonderful record in the Senate for the same objective? I'll tell you why: because he never accomplished anything worth mentioning! So you want this man who couldn't do anything worthwhile in a position that is similar to the Presidency, in charge of our country?! He now wants to reform health care and alot of other things.

Are you talking about Bush or Kerry here? Because everything you just said pretty much applies to Bush as well.

He was on the Senate for 20 years and he was never been able pass any of it!

Err...bull****. Why don't you back that up with some evidence if you are so sure.

I don't know all that much about all of Bush's bills and agendas etc.

I'm not surprised.

Quote: "It is normal during elections for supporters of presidential candidates to have fundamental disagreements about values or strategies,” according to an analysis produced by PIPA. “The current election is unique in that Bush supporters and Kerry supporters have profoundly different perceptions of reality. In the face of a stream of high-level assessments about pre-war Iraq, Bush supporters cling to the refuted beliefs that Iraq had WMD or supported al Qaeda"


Quote: " The survey also found a major gap between Bush’s stated positions on a number of international issues and what his supporters believe Bush’s position to be. A strong majority of Bush supporters believe, for example that the president supports a range of international treaties and institutions which is actually on record as opposing."


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=655&e=3&u=/oneworld/20041022/wl_oneworld/4536965431098444910

Essentially, the jist of the article is that Bush supporters disproportionately believe false theory's about WMD and Iraq-Al Qaeda ties even those those theorys have been completely debunked by our own government. It also states that a whole lot of Bush supporters erroroneously supports some of their positions when in fact he is on the record as opposeing them.
Back to top
Profile PM
Rob K
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 2nd Nov 2004 23:57
Link
Quote: "No, it's just progressively lowered the QOL to a depressingly low level while the royals and politicans get digustingly rich from tax money that should be being given back to the people."


I presume that was not a serious comment, but given that the UK's HDI is only 0.007 behind that of the United States, the QoL is very close to that of the USA, though far more equally distributed.

In addition the Royal Family costs each person in the UK around 50P (less than $1) per year, and the average MP earns around £60K per year, or $110K USD, in perspective the average UK wage is around £21K per year.


BlueGUI:Windows UI Plugin - All the power of the windows interface in your DBPro games.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Dung Beetle
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2004
Location:
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 00:22 Edited at: 1st Nov 2005 02:36
Link
Whoa! I go offline for an hour-and a half, and looky! Ok, this is going to take a while to write replies to, so I'll edit in a while.

Edit:

Rob K (2nd Nov 2004 09:45):
Quote: "it proves the fact that the vast majority of the American public get their "facts" and interpretations from campaign ads and not via any research."
Speak for yourself! I don't watch TV! I actually agree with you on that though, the majority don't do any research and just watch TV. It's so educational. *rolls eyes*

Quote: """That's it. I'm voting for the candidate who would flip-flop on sending my son to die, rather than the one who'd do it without hesitation."""
First off, he's not "sending them to die". He sent them to fight a war. People die in wars! And you'd rather have someone who can't make up his mind about what to do (whether it's right or wrong) than someone who makes a decision? A leader needs to be able to make decisions, and Kerry has proven that he isn't capable of doing so! Second, I haven't seen any comments by you about the "relative unimportance of the war on terror". I can't respond to them if I haven't read them, so would you mind pointing them out to me?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10:18
Quote: "I'm not going to comment on America, save to say that there are many other factors affecting employment besides taxes - all the various elements of monetary policy, fiscal policy and supply side policies. In Britain however an increase in the minimum wage and increased taxes has not changed our full employment situation."
Now that's contradictory! There are more factors than those that affect the unemployment rate. But in Britain, those two made absolutely no difference. Ok smarty, how do you know?

Oh, and I just saw your added comment to your 08:18 post:
Quote: "Arguably, you don't need to be defended from terrorists, you need to be defended from yourselves. Gun crime in America kills several times more people every year than were killed in the 9/11 attacks - 29,000 in 1999!"
The only people that gun control stops from getting guns are law abiding citizens. And as I like to say: "Guns don't kill people, large gaping wounds in vital organs kill people!"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neophyte (10:43): You sure have it in for me don't you? That's a lot on info there! Just don't overload m; I'm only 17!

I stand by my reason for keeping Bush, and that is because I value the survival of the country over the status of the economy and other things that y'all keep bringing up.

The London Economist, while overall endorsing Kerry, also made some other good points. Here's one of them:
Quote: "John Kerry says the war was a mistake, which is unfortunate if he is to be commander-in-chief of the soldiers charged with fighting it."
If you're complaining that there are soldiers dying now, just wait for Kerry to be elected!

BTW, did you know that under Clinton the unemployment rate was 5.6%, and now it's 5.4%? Food for thought...

I'm not sure how much I trust this "FactCheck" website that you keep getting your arguments from. I've never heard of it before, and though they bill themselves as "non-partisan", just look at their front page!
Quote: "
*NOTICE: FactCheck.org Will Continue After Election*
11.02.2004
Our post-election plans: Regroup, redesign, refocus. We'll improve our coverage for 2005 and beyond.

The Whoppers of 2004
10.31.2004
Bush and Kerry repeat discredited claims in their final flurry of ads. Here's our pre-election summary of the misinformation we found during the Bush-Kerry presidential campaign.

NRA Ad Falsely Accuses Kerry
10.28.2004
It says he's sponsoring a proposal to ban "every pump shotgun" and voted "to ban deer-hunting ammunition." Don't believe either claim.

Kerry and Bush Mislead Voters With Promises of Energy Independence
10.27.2004
Experts say both men's proposals are a far cry from achieving freedom from oil imports.

Media Fund Twists the Truth More Than Michael Moore
10.27.2004
Radio ad claims most air traffic was grounded when bin Laden's family was allowed to leave. Not true. In fact, the FBI questioned 22 of them and found no links to terrorism.

Would Kerry Throw Us To The Wolves?
10.23.2004
A misleading Bush ad criticizes Kerry for proposing to cut intelligence spending -- a decade ago, by 4%, when some Republicans also proposed cuts."
I count at least 3 anti-Bush/pro-Kerry and only one that seems that it could be (from the title) the other way around.

Quote: "Oh, and if you think going into war unprepared is a bad thing then you should be against Bush %100."
I didn't say that. I believe that we should have gone to war regardless of how armed we were! We (thought that we (at that time at least)) needed to get rid of Saddam. If the armed forces weren't armed properly that's another problem, but we still had to take him out. Even one of your sources agrees that we had to go in!
Quote: "Invading Iraq was not a mistake. Although the intelligence about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction has been shown to have been flimsy and, with hindsight, wrong, Saddam's record of deception in the 12 years since the first Gulf war meant that it was right not to give him the benefit of the doubt."
http://economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?Story_ID=3329802

Quote: "Bush himself has been underfunding our troops and dangerously underestimating the resistance in Iraq. I could get into this much more, but I don't have the time right now. But I'd like to see you explain away that while still saying that Bush is the best man to protect us."
In comparison [to Kerry]!

Quote: "Are you talking about Bush or Kerry here? Because everything you just said pretty much applies to Bush as well."
Ok, dumb question. Were you seriously wondering who I was talking about?! As Rob K likes to say, emphasis on "pretty much". Pretty much as in, "only a little bit."

Quote: "Err...bull****. Why don't you back that up with some evidence if you are so sure."
Sorry, I exaggerated. I didn't mean, "any of it"; I meant, "most of it".

Quote: "I'm not surprised."
Thanks for the personal insult. While I don't have a source, (I forgot where I got it) I do remember hearing that the reason Conservatives usually vote in the morning, and Liberals usually vote later. Conservatives are working people that have a drive to want to work and earn money; therefore they have jobs and get up early to vote so that they won't be late. Liberals on the other hand, more usually than Conservatives don't have that and don't have jobs. So they can get up and go whenever they want in order to vote.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok... I'm done now. I've had my say (mostly) and can see that further discussion with y'all is pointless. From hear on out I'm trusting in G-d to make the correct decision. If He picks Kerry I'll just see it as Him wanting us to have more suffering than less. Obviously I'd prefer less, but I'm not arguing with Him!

I'm going to stop posting in this topic from now on unless I see something that I particularly want to reply to. It was real. And it was fun. But it wasn't real fun!


I hope that no one holds my views against me, as I certainly don't hold any of y'all's against y'all. I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion -- no matter how wrong it may be!

Later y'all!
Back to top
Profile PM
Eric T
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Apr 2003
Location: My location is where I am at this time.
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 00:36
Link
Quote: "Eric T: No, it's not BS. Where are you getting information otherwise?
"


Suprisingly, the first I heard of them being in Bush's pants (hehe) was on a Fox News investigation. Really suprised me when the most Conservative station on earth, does something sorta against bush. I bet Hannity had a Goider.

Quote: "Kerry does want to raise taxes! I heard it (through an electronic speaker) directly from his mouth! I don't know about this "fuel-tax" thing, but he does want to raise them.
"


First off speakers are magnetic, not electronic. Second, I rarely ask for sources, but i would love to see/hear your source for this one.

@swift vote/boat/vets/WTF

Finally neo, someone whom realizes the falsitys and BS that they spread upon our television screens.

Quote: "Ok, question: If you had a choice of picking a soldier or a senator for president, and that was all that you knew about them then the most logical to pick would be the senator, right? He would know how to work the system and stuff, and soldiers are notoriously bad at the job. So. If people would trust someone who had had experience with it more than someone who hadn't, then especially seeing as his soldier background is being put to the question, why hasn't he tried using his wonderful record in the Senate for the same objective? I'll tell you why: because he never accomplished anything worth mentioning! So you want this man who couldn't do anything worthwhile in a position that is similar to the Presidency, in charge of our country?! He now wants to reform health care and alot of other things.
"


All I can say is, WTF? How many senators do you remember for doing something "good". Senate is large, not something you remember each member cause they voted, this this and that.

Quote: "yes.... Any who I am just saying GOE BUSH!GOD BLESS YOU< AND I VOTED FOR YA!
"


Would be better if you could vote, PX.

So far today, I am getting sick. Everyone asks me who i voted for, and i respond "I don't vote". Then i have to hear for the next 15 minutes thier useless arguement about they're candidate. I'm sick of it.


http://www.liquidzsnake.dbspot.com/StairwayToHell.txt
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 00:43
Link
You should vote for Nader just to piss people off


Here we go again!
TRANSGRESS AND I SHALT BAN YE! (Just kidding...)
Back to top
Profile PM
David T
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: England
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 00:45 Edited at: 3rd Nov 2004 00:50
Link
Did anybody see Dead Ringers last night?

PS - I saw a reat wuote today:

Quote: "The current Bush administration invented the concept of pre-emptivity as we know it. Invading a country because they might invade you is just sick"


Whatever Kerry does to raise taxes etc there are bigger things to worry about, such as the number of countries we might invade in the next four years should Bush stay in.

Invading 2 countries in 4 years is certainly impressive in terms of logisitics, but is pretty awful for a country that calls itself a democracy.

Get 15 new commands, all the date / time commands left out of DBPro for free!
DOWNLOAD PLUGINS HERE: http://www.davidtattersall.me.uk/ and select "DarkBasic"
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 01:03
Link
Quote: "such as the number of countries we might invade in the next four years should Bush stay in."




With the amount this war cost in popularity and cash and American lives, there is no possible way we will invade another country in the next eight years, never mind four. The possibility is beyond extreme, it's almost ludicrous.


Here we go again!
TRANSGRESS AND I SHALT BAN YE! (Just kidding...)
Back to top
Profile PM
Jimmy
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Aug 2003
Location: Back in the USA
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 01:26 Edited at: 3rd Nov 2004 01:27
Link
Quote: "such as the number of countries we might invade in the next four years should Bush stay in."


Haha, you think we'll be invading less countries with Kerry?

What I gathered from the debates is that Kerry plans to go after North Korea, Iran.. and another country I don't remember the name.

That's 3 countries that impose a threat on us just the same as Saddam did. He plans to fight the war on terror just like Bush. He says he'll have better strategy, which will ultimately lead to war anyway.


Oh, I don't know about that Mouse. Kerry is just as big a crazy war nut as Bush. He got 3 purple hearts for shooting himself in the foot remember??


Remember, Jimmy still loves you.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Rob K
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 01:34
Link
Quote: " Did anybody see Dead Ringers last night?"


Yes - funny as ever

Quote: "Fox News Presenter: We have had accusations that our news coverage is biased. Well, that is simply not true. Lets go over to our special reporter Jeb Bush in Florida for the latest news..."



BlueGUI:Windows UI Plugin - All the power of the windows interface in your DBPro games.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
David T
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: England
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 01:36
Link
Quote: "In other news, new scientific research suggests links between voting Democrat and contracting cancer"


Quote: "Maburgundy"


And that George Bush rap... can't remember the words

Get 15 new commands, all the date / time commands left out of DBPro for free!
DOWNLOAD PLUGINS HERE: http://www.davidtattersall.me.uk/ and select "DarkBasic"
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 04:18 Edited at: 3rd Nov 2004 04:18
Link
Quote: "As for the NRA, no offense, but i think all members buy big guns to make up for thier "Little Gun"(if you catch my drift). "


Ouch. Spoken with true ignorance.


--[Gang Wars of New Canada]-- ^^^ banner generously designed by TheBigBabou
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 04:30
Link
Very true Jeku.


Here we go again!
TRANSGRESS AND I SHALT BAN YE! (Just kidding...)
Back to top
Profile PM
Jimmy
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Aug 2003
Location: Back in the USA
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 04:48
Link
Yeah Eric, we could say the same thing about your "Big talk"



Just kidding buddy, love ya.


Remember, Jimmy still loves you.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Rob K
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 04:55
Link
Quote: "Now that's contradictory! There are more factors than those that affect the unemployment rate. But in Britain, those two made absolutely no difference. Ok smarty, how do you know?"


We had close to full employment when minimum wages were introduced and taxes were increased slightly. We still have full employment now (or at least estimated full employment, its difficult to know when you have reached the limit - around one million unemployed atm.). Taxes will have an impact via the wealth effect, and they encourage creation of jobs by encouraging enterprise, but if the minimum wage is below the equilibrium (as was the case in Britain) then it makes no difference. Plus, I would argue that the general state of the economy is going to affect supply more - and damned if I would trust Bush to run an economy.

Quote: "The only people that gun control stops from getting guns are law abiding citizens."


That is simply untrue. Having guns in circulation means that they will inevitably filter through to the criminal element in society. Obviously there will always be illegal guns around even in a society such as Britain, but they will be far fewer in number than in the US. If America banned guns tommorrow outright, gun crime would not drop for a long time, but I expect that in the long run (10+ years) it would fall if co-ordinated well with other policies.


BlueGUI:Windows UI Plugin - All the power of the windows interface in your DBPro games.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 05:00
Link
Quote: "Obviously there will always be illegal guns around even in a society such as Britain, but they will be far fewer in number than in the US."


Then how do you explain the violent crime rate in Britain constantly rising as gun laws become more draconic?


Here we go again!
TRANSGRESS AND I SHALT BAN YE! (Just kidding...)
Back to top
Profile PM
empty
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: 3 boats down from the candy
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 05:02
Link
Quote: "Taxes will have an impact via the wealth effect, and they encourage creation of jobs by encouraging enterprise, but if the minimum wage is below the equilibrium (as was the case in Britain) then it makes no difference. Plus, I would argue that the general state of the economy is going to affect supply more"

How true.

Play Nice! Play Basic!
The ultimative 2D Game Language.
Version 1.00 available now!
Back to top
Profile PM
Dung Beetle
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2004
Location:
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 05:04
Link
This isn't about the presidency, so I'm responding. (This time.)

You'll find that gun control is one thing that I am very firmly against. Belonging to a family where everyone goes shooting for their first time on their 8th birthday will do that to a guy! Let me give you an example: There's a little town in Georgia (I think. I might be wrong, so don't quote me!) called Kena-something. (Again, I don't remember the name.) About the same time that NY passed their law that you can't own a gun, this town passed one stating that everyone in the city is required to own a gun! Guess what? Their crime rates dropped 77% (or something) and never went back up! Just take a gander at NY's crime rates... *rolls eyes*
Back to top
Profile PM
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 05:06
Link
Good observation...

Simple fact is, criminal activity is lower when people are armed. An unarmed public unable to defend themselves is the most succeptible to murder, rape, armed robbery, etc etc. Statistics support this across the board.


Here we go again!
TRANSGRESS AND I SHALT BAN YE! (Just kidding...)
Back to top
Profile PM
Neophyte
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 05:47
Link
@Dark Llama

About the same time that NY passed their law that you can't own a gun

I live in NY and I can still own a gun. This sounds more like a myth than it does a fact.

@Mouse

Simple fact is, criminal activity is lower when people are armed.

This is not entirely true. Take Somalia for instance. There is a saying that in Somalia there are no handguns because everyone owns either a sub-machine gun or a .50 caliber machine gun. You can get a AK-47 there for half the price of a goat. The average life expectancy is about half ours at 46 last I checked.

Quote: "There are thousands of boys like Shire in Mogadishu, a city often described as having the highest number of guns per capita in the world."


http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0%2C1002%2C36~11614%257E390543~%2C00.html

Somalia is the closest thing to anarchy you'll find as there is no government other than the rule of tribal warlords. Instead of lowering violence, the influx of cheap weaponry from Western States trying to dump Cold War hardware to get a little return on their investment has allowed the violence to be blown way out of proportion.

Quote: "When the fighting subsided on Wednesday, the number of wounded in the various hospitals stood at "over 200", said a local doctor involved in compiling the data. Most of the wounded were taken to the privately owned Al-Hayat, Arafaat, Medina and Keysaney hospitals, he said. "Most of those in the hospitals are civilians, mostly women and children," he told IRIN, noting that "more people are probably affected" who never made it to a hospital."


Quote: "Another "major problem" was the displacement of thousands of people from their homes: Entire districts in the city had been emptied by the fighting, Marian told IRIN on Thursday. "Behani, Abdul'aziz, Shibis, Shangani and Bondere districts are almost empty. The intensity of the fighting is such that people as far as five to seven kilometres away are leaving their homes because of the danger of stray bullets, mortar bombs and artillery shells," she said."


http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/UNID/5DD312269C40C5E3C1256E930049F371?OpenDocument

I think one of the major problems here is that people who are advocates of gun rights tend to live in rural areas where crime has historically been rather low. It is easy to make the assumption that the proliferation of weaponry from hunting rifles to hand-guns is the cause of this. Now I myself am not in favor of banning guns as there are problems with robbery and assualt(but not gun violence) in countries where guns are either banned or harshly restricted. I'm also aware of the fact that different countries categorize crimes in different ways so that makes making direct comparisons of statistics between to seperate countries difficult.

So I guess you could say my stance is neutral towards gun control. I'm not sure that either side is in complete possession of the truth on the matter. All I know is that the more guns-less crime argument doesn't hold water and that there are problems with crime(though not gun related) in countries where gun control is harsh. The extent of those problems are difficult to ascertain because of the above mentioned categorical differences between countries.

Additional Sources:
State Department Info on Somalia
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2863.htm
Life Expectancy
http://www.mrdowling.com/800life.html
Back to top
Profile PM
SCCOOBY DOO
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Jul 2004
Location:
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 05:59
Link
i have just on think to say about Kerry
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Dung Beetle
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2004
Location:
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 06:09 Edited at: 3rd Nov 2004 06:10
Link
Quote: "I live in NY and I can still own a gun. This sounds more like a myth than it does a fact."
I could'a sworn that guns were illegal in... Oh! Aren't they illegal in NYC? That's what I was talking about, sorry.

Um... Problem with your whole "Somalia" thing. You kind of answered part of it yourself. They are not the US and they don't have the same type of government or mentality that we do. I can try and find some numbers for you later if you want, but most crimes committed with guns are done with illegally obtained guns. And other crime? Would you attack someone with a knife if you knew he had a gun?


GTG Y'all!
Back to top
Profile PM
Peter H
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Feb 2004
Location: Witness Protection Program
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 06:15
Link
Quote: "Of course it does, it proves the fact that the vast majority of the American public get their "facts" and interpretations from campaign ads and not via any research."

...i've only seen ONE campaign ad...and it was kerry's...


Quote: "what was the thing that you're referring to in the debate? "

i honestly don't remember...i'll see if i can go dig it up for you...

@sccooby doo- please don't resort to such childish insults...

"We make the worst games in the universe."

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Neophyte
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 06:31
Link
@Dark Llama

My point wasn't to comare the U.S. to Somalia. It was to show that the reasoning that More Guns = Less Crime is flawed. This is not always the case as I demonstrated with Somalia.

As for them being illegal in NYC, no not to my knowledge.

Although this is a little dated I couldn't find anything more up to date:

1995
http://www.recguns.com/Sources/IIC4.html

This is from 1999.
I think it would indicate that guns are legal in NYC. Otherwise why would they be trying to create a "gun-free" zone around schools if guns were already illegal?

Quote: "The NYC Charter revision attempt was voted down this year. It would have instituted new regulations controlling your right to bear arms... a 1000-foot gun-free district around schools (which would cover much of New York City), and a requirement to use gun locks when storing a gun, whether you have children or not. Both would place major practical difficulties upon the people who have somehow managed to obtain gun permits in NYC and want to protect themselves and their families legally.

Fortunately for gun owners, the proposal was shot down...but probably not in outrage against the second amendment violations, so stay vigilent for repeat attempt to pass similar restrictions. "

http://www.ny.lp.org/issues/rtkba-1999.htm

I can try and find some numbers for you later if you want, but most crimes committed with guns are done with illegally obtained guns.

Yes, some numbers would be nice.

And other crime? Would you attack someone with a knife if you knew he had a gun?

Would you attack someone with a gun if you knew they had a knife? Besides, if you draw first it really doesn't matter what they have because if they try to reach for it they are going to get capped.


@SCOOBY DOO

How thoughtful.

@Everyone

FYI: I just got back from voting. Though I live in NY I voted for...you guessed it...Kerry.

We'll see later tonight who wins. Hopefully. I don't think our country really needs another 2000-like fiasco.
Back to top
Profile PM
Rob K
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 06:40 Edited at: 3rd Nov 2004 07:03
Link
Quote: "Then how do you explain the violent crime rate in Britain constantly rising as gun laws become more draconic?"


Violent crime is not constantly rising (Decreased 3% last year according to the British Crime Survey, evidence supported by info from statistics.gov.uk), and the gun laws aren't becoming more draconic. The only change was the fact that you can no longer obtain licenses for handguns, but that happened several years ago now.

Quote: "this town passed one stating that everyone in the city is required to own a gun! Guess what? Their crime rates dropped 77% (or something) and never went back up! Just take a gander at NY's crime rates... *rolls eyes*"


Interesting, although if you're thinking of Kennesaw, they did have a very low crime rate to begin with.


BlueGUI:Windows UI Plugin - All the power of the windows interface in your DBPro games.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 08:39
Link
But I can also kill a man with a crossbow. Why don't we ban those too? And chainsaws for that matter.

Quote: "Virginia issued more than 50,000 permits since it passed a right-to-carry law in '95. In that time, not one permit holder has been convicted of a crime, and violent crime has dropped."

Source: http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/gun_facts.htm

Many other interesting gun facts there as well.


--[Gang Wars of New Canada]-- ^^^ banner generously designed by TheBigBabou
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Neophyte
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 08:49
Link
@Jeku

But I can also kill a man with a crossbow. Why don't we ban those too? And chainsaws for that matter.

Because it is much more difficult to kill people using a crossbow.

Quote: "Man’s cellphone stops crossbow arrow"

http://www.engadget.com/entry/5451346356845546

Would you believe that wasn't the first case I've heard of attempted murder by crossbow from Australia?

As for the chainsaw, it comes down to portablity. It's much easier to mug someone with a gun which can easily be concealed then to run after someone with a chainsaw which can not be concealed.

Virginia issued more than 50,000 permits since it passed a right-to-carry law in '95. In that time, not one permit holder has been convicted of a crime, and violent crime has dropped.

This doesn't prove anything. First off, violent crime rates have been droping for as long as crime was recorded in this country. Second the permit holders not committing any crimes bit doesn't really help since only law abiding citizens are likely to register for a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

But I'd like to point out once again my stance on gun control:

Quote: "So I guess you could say my stance is neutral towards gun control. I'm not sure that either side is in complete possession of the truth on the matter. All I know is that the more guns-less crime argument doesn't hold water and that there are problems with crime(though not gun related) in countries where gun control is harsh. The extent of those problems are difficult to ascertain because of the above mentioned categorical differences between countries."
Back to top
Profile PM
Dung Beetle
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2004
Location:
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 08:55
Link
Neophyte: Did I ever say that "More Guns = Less Crime"? I don't think that I did, and if I did then I take it back. As Rob K has said, "there are many other factors". Maybe he wasn't referring to gun control, but it works pretty much everywhere. So as I said, we have a different government and a different mentality. It doesn't work there, but it would work here. Not the "flood the country with guns" method, but if guns became more accepted and more people owned them, you'd see a lot less crime.
I used to have a great (though sad) cartoon that came out a while after 9/11. It showed the inside of an airplane with some terrorists with box cutters standing in the middle of the aisle with their hands up and saying, "W-we just though that the captain might h-have some boxes that needed opening!" They're surrounded by about ten people (just regular people, the passengers on the plane) all with guns drawn and pointed at them... and not looking very happy. The caption on the picture was like: "If this were really the land of the free."

Hmm... It might have been that NY was talking about it and Kennesaw decided to pass it in retaliation. Don't remember. Then what am I thinking of? I'll try and get back to you on that one.

Quote: "Yes, some numbers would be nice."
Ok, I'll look.

Quote: "Would you attack someone with a gun if you knew they had a knife?"
Personally, I wouldn't attack anyone physically anyway. Unless I had really good reason to.

Quote: "Besides, if you draw first it really doesn't matter what they have because if they try to reach for it they are going to get capped."
Um, no. Not necessarily. In that kind of situation both parties are full of adrenaline, and neither usually has good aim. It's not like in the movies, sorry.

Quote: "We'll see later tonight who wins. Hopefully. I don't think our country really needs another 2000-like fiasco."
Heh. Yeah. But if Gore had just accepted the outcome... No! Let's not get into that!

Rob K:
Quote: "Interesting, although if you're thinking of Kennesaw, they did have a very low crime rate to begin with."
Thanks, I think it was Kennesaw. Having low crime to begin with doesn't make much of a difference. The US has low crime too in comparison to most other countries. The fact that it dropped is the important point.
Back to top
Profile PM
Dung Beetle
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2004
Location:
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 09:00
Link
Quote: "Because it is much more difficult to kill people using a crossbow."
It might not have all of the penetrating force of a gun, but it's quieter. It balances out.

Quote: "As for the chainsaw, it comes down to portablity. It's much easier to mug someone with a gun which can easily be concealed then to run after someone with a chainsaw which can not be concealed."
What about lightsabers?

Quote: "Second the permit holders not committing any crimes bit doesn't really help since only law abiding citizens are likely to register for a permit to carry a concealed weapon."
Wanna try that again?

Quote: "But I'd like to point out once again my stance on gun control:

Quote: "So I guess you could say my stance is neutral towards gun control. I'm not sure that either side is in complete possession of the truth on the matter. All I know is that the more guns-less crime argument doesn't hold water and that there are problems with crime(though not gun related) in countries where gun control is harsh. The extent of those problems are difficult to ascertain because of the above mentioned categorical differences between countries.""
You sure are arguing against it a whole bunch...
Back to top
Profile PM
Neophyte
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 09:09
Link
@Dark Llama

Did I ever say that "More Guns = Less Crime"?

Did I ever say you did?

I was responding to mouse who said:
Quote: "Simple fact is, criminal activity is lower when people are armed."


My response was directed at Mouse. Hence my "@mouse" before I gave my Somalia arguments.

Maybe he wasn't referring to gun control, but it works pretty much everywhere. So as I said, we have a different government and a different mentality. It doesn't work there, but it would work here.

I can accept that possibility. In fact, I believe I've made that kind of argument before though I'm not sure it was in relation to gun control.

but if guns became more accepted and more people owned them, you'd see a lot less crime.

This is where the data becomes scarce. I'm not sure that there is any reliable evidence out there that points to such a conclusion. The problem is that violent crime has been more or less declining ever since we started recording it. If guns became more acceptable and violent crime decreased it would be difficult to prove that guns becoming more acceptable was a result. Correlation does not equal causation.

Re: Cartoon

Unfortunately, if anyone actually fired their guns in that plane they would all be dead. The bullets would puncture the hull of the plane and the side of the aircraft would probably blow out due to the extreme pressure drop that would have just occured taking quite a few people if not the whole plane with it.

Ok, I'll look.

Thank you.

Um, no. Not necessarily. In that kind of situation both parties are full of adrenaline, and neither usually has good aim. It's not like in the movies, sorry.

I agree. Close range combat with guns isn't as easy as it sounds. But the advantage would definately be in favor of however drawed first.
Back to top
Profile PM
Richard Davey
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Apr 2002
Location: On the Jupiter Probe
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 09:09
Link
Quote: "But I can also kill a man with a crossbow. Why don't we ban those too? And chainsaws for that matter."


Erm, surely the act of carrying those sort of devices, depending on where you are, IS actually illegal?

You wouldn't be allowed to run down the street waving a chainsaw around Leatherface style, yet you are allowed to be carrying a high precision device manufactured for one thing - killing people.

Something doesn't add-up somewhere, and I can't help but feel it's as if the cowboy generation ideals just hasn't diluted enough yet.

Mind you, it's not the people who are to be blamed, it's the media that surrounds them every single day. The films, the TV shows, the games, the books. There is a culture of fear that feeds a need to defend. But that's a far bigger picture that no gun ban (or gun allowance) law could ever hope to address.

"I am not young enough to know everything."
- Oscar Wilde
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-09-23 00:20:29
Your offset time is: 2024-09-23 00:20:29