In the wake of the Arizona shooting it's not surprise that some liberals are calling for more laws on guns. I think many of us agree that guns are not the problem. Here is a story in Politico about how there is not much of a chance of any anti gun laws passing now. It does take somewhat of a liberal bent, but it does show that the climate is not conducive to more gun laws now.
This was the act of a crazy person, but he was likely influenced by what he heard in the media. His mental instability was a major factor, but ... how much impact did political radio and tv have? Here is an opinion piece that thinks it was a lot..
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html
And here is one that says the political rhetoric is not to blame.
http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1101/stewart_rhetoric_isnt_to_blame_.html
I am not saying at all that conservative radio - rush limbaugh, hannity , or Fox news - should be shut down or silenced. I am however, saying, that they should take a long look at the stuff they promote and the hate they foster.
Of course the left has its own radio and media people, who foster their own brand of hate and fear mongering..
This time it was a crazy person going off the deep end. But how far are we from more widespread violence?
I do think the conservatives are just a bit worse than the liberals, but thats like saying one hog has a little more mud on him than another..
The problem is not conservatives .. the problem is the fear and hate being pushed by radio talk shows, tv talk shows and political rhetoric in general.
Thus the price of freedom of speech.
But if the trend of pandering hate and fear continues ... we can expect more violence. If all you hear is how evil government is, then you are going to hate government .. and maybe you will eventually feel encouraged to take action in the form of some type of violence.
I think the side not in power makes the most noise. The viotrol against bush made the liberals louder during the bush administration, and now that the dems hold the presidency, the conservatives are spewing more hate and fear. Like I said, it isn't the republicans - or even the tea party - its the general political climate. This is my conspiracy theory i guess. This debate between left and right, is not a debate at all ... it is just part of the media making money selling fear.
The answer is to stop listening to them. To not buy into the polarization of our culture. If you are a conservative, you need to realize all liberals are not evil socialists, and if you are a liberal you need to realize that all conservatives are not evil fascists.
Also, you do not have to choose sides in this thing. That might be the best idea. A few in the media are making a fortune on this polarization - making us think we have to be one or the other and hating the other side.
This whole political debate in our culture is not about solving any problems or having any progress. The polarization is about making a buck selling fear and hate.
Now its a crazy man in arizona shooting a few people. What will be next?
I dare you to listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck and then listen to Keith Olbermann and Ed Shultz. There is just as much rhetoric on the left as the right, if not more. Certainly more hate on the left.
ReplyDeleteWhen are we gonna blame the crazy person? It seems like the left is targeting Sarah Palin because she used a crosshairs on a campaign poster, but the same thing has been used time and time again in the past and no one was killed because of it. Besides that, former friends of said crazy guy are saying that he was a left wing nutjob, not a tea party conservative.
Crazy is Crazy. No amount of gun law reform will ever stop crazy. It will just leave us vulnerable to the crazy AND the criminal.
The Daily Kos, a left wing radical blog had Gabrielle Giffords on a target list with a bullseye, because she was not liberal enough. It is conveniently missing from their site now though.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt both sides will try to use this to their advantage. We need to look past this and consider ... who is making money from this?
ReplyDeletewho stands to gain power from this?
and
why are we buying into it?
A Baptist preacher talks about the attacks and God's will:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qpkxoql4xz0&feature=player_embedded#!
Also, you do not have to choose sides in this thing. That might be the best idea. A few in the media are making a fortune on this polarization - making us think we have to be one or the other and hating the other side.
ReplyDeleteSorry JJ,
But you're wrong!
The fact that they want abortion and I don't is choosing sides! (Especially when they want my tax dollars to pay for those abortions! I probably can't stop them from paying for their own abortion!)
The fact that they want a Socialistic Society - and they are very vocal about it - they see their way as what is best for Society! If left unchecked they will get/force THEIR way!
Why do they think it's necessary to use Government as a means to force their WAY on everyone else! (Why don't they just live their own beliefs - noone will stop them! Unless of course they break laws!)
What happened to having a CHOICE?
What happened to having to live with your own CHOICES!
There is no doubt a need for helping those who don't get a "FAIR SHAKE". But too many are willing to get something for nothing - and too many are willing to give things away for the sake of gaining POWER and CONTROL!
It's your LIFE, its up to you how you live it!
AND
The GOAL should be that:
Those who want/need help are accountable and act responsibly should get it!
That used to be called EARNING YOUR OWN WAY!
You have really taken the bait..
ReplyDeleteall the stuff you mention is just right wing rhetoric. You can say republicans are Pro Life ... but they had all the power in the 90s, Presidency, House, Senate AND control of the Supreme Court (Bush made two appointments i believe) . and what did they do?
They did nothing..absolutely nothing.. did not even bring the abortion question up for debate... so ... republicans cannot honestly claim to be pro life..
You who hate government control DO want government control. You want to tell others they cannot steal, rob, rape, murder .. or even what kinds of drugs they are allowed to take for recreational purposes. You want government to tell us what side of the road to drive on, how fast to go, when to stop, when to start etc.,
And if they really believe government is evil, why do they want to run it?
Btw: If you haven't been watching the headlines the past couple of days and TODAY!
ReplyDeleteCalifornia and Illinois have their backs to the Wall! They both face unbelievable deficits!
One is looking to make severe cuts and the others is looking to raise taxes!
Do you think the U.S. Government should bail THEM OUT!
If you do?
Then we again are on opposite sides!
Editorial: the real blame for the Congresswoman's shooting doesn't lie with the nasty anti-government rhetoric, but public schools who don't teach students enough critical thinking to recognize BS when they hear it
ReplyDeletehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20110110/cm_csm/355353
To no one's surprise, Jon Stewart is the only voice of reason about the Arizona shootings
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-10-2011/arizona-shootings-reaction
Here we are a group of hypocrites in a free society telling each other how we want to control others. Forget this nonsense and remember who and what you are, you are the one that can make a difference.
ReplyDeleteIn this world of ever-changing cultures we must remember that things do not change unless lives are lost and the great cost of change includes death.
What this young crazy nutcase did is not much different than what our own government attempts to accomplish in Afghanistan and Pakistan, they kill those who we do not agree with in hopes of change.
No I am not suggesting that what was done is the correct way to make change but to some it is the awakening of a new age and a profound statement of the individual’s fear of where our government is headed.
I do not believe that Gun laws prevent criminals from committing crime, those who are intent on criminal activity will find a means of destruction no matter what the laws are.
As for the media being a commanding influence, I hardly believe that is even remotely possible, we as parents control the destiny of our children and no one else can be held accountable for their actions.
I think this whole episode is being used as a political grandstand and it makes me puke to think either side of the political stage would consider it valid folly for character assassination of the opposite side.
You who hate government control DO want government control.
ReplyDeleteNo JJ,
Agian we disagree!
The whole thing in a nutshell? Is what kind of Society do you want to live IN!
History (where it hasn't been rewritten) is full of examples of Societies who failed and why they failed!
History is full of examples of the ills of Society and their results!
JJ, what your seeing is the split in our Society/Country!
You can't have it both ways - which one will you choose!
Remember those examples from the Kansas Census Statistics in a previous post?
Those who have options/jobs/income/education are choosing to separate themselves from those who don't! (Do you think it's Government that can/should make them equals?)
Welcome the soon to be two tier Society and New U.S. of America!
JJ said: "You can say republicans are Pro Life ... but they had all the power in the 90s"
ReplyDeleteReally?? The 90's huh? The decade when Bill Clinton was President for eight years?
JJ said: "You can say republicans are Pro Life ... but they had all the power in the 90s"
ReplyDeleteReally?? The 90's huh? The decade when Bill Clinton was President for eight years?
>>>>
My mistake. Should have said the 00s .. when Bush was in power.
Doesnt change the bottom line though. Publicans had the chance to prove they were pro life and they whiffed. Heck, they didnt even step up to the plate.
Which is worse.
Dems being openly anti life
or Pubs lying about being pro life.
JJ said: "You can say republicans are Pro Life ... but they had all the power in the 90s"
ReplyDeleteAs much as I hate to say it! I think that Republicans and Democrats understand the just like Illegal drugs! To outlaw Abortion will only create a BIG BLACK MARKET! (People without a conscience or morals won't ever disappear from Society.)
But, the real crime is the deadbeat parents who all to often create a life they don't want!
What if someone else wanted that life?
JJ, what your seeing is the split in our Society/Country!
ReplyDeleteYou can't have it both ways - which one will you choose!
>>>>>
What im saying is .. there is no need for the split. Who is benefiting from this split.
Who stands to gain?
No. I do not have to choose... because both sides are wrong.
it is the battle that is wrong
it is the battle that can destroy America.
not alleged socialism or whatever ism it is you are against.
No. I do not have to choose... because both sides are wrong.
ReplyDeleteIt took a battle to gain Independence!
It took a battle to "FREE" the slaves!
It took a battle for Civil Rights!
What makes you think you can avoid this ONE?
Because i don't want the type of country that you want ...
ReplyDeleteHere is a good article on the media madness following the shooting..
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/11/AR2011011106068.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI deleted my own post above and have rewritten it here ...
ReplyDeleteThat is a good story.
There is no direct link between the shooter and the tea party or the Pubs ... but i still say there is a connection in general to the current political climate and this type activity.
I did not blame the right at all. but they are the ones getting defensive.....
yet the left is being hypocritical in attacking Palin when they are doing the same things themselves.
The problem is not the Dems or the Pubs being hateful. The problem is both sides creating an atmosphere that promotes violence.
There is no direct link to the Pubs here .. but there is a link to the general political atmosphere .. for one side to try to blame the other just proves the point.
As it notes in the above article, many politicians from both sides use military or war like rhetoric when speaking of politics. It has been that way forever. Recently Obama said something to the effect of "if they bring a knife, we bring a gun". Nobody is to blame for this other than the carzy person who did it, and to try to spin it for political gain as those on the left are doing, is disgraceful. That Sheriff needs to shut up, and all the leftist media need to follow suit. But, as Rahm Emanuel said "You never want to let a good crisis go to waste."
ReplyDeleteBecause i don't want the type of country that you want ...
ReplyDeleteYou care to explain what type of Country it is that you want?
There is already violence throughout the Country! (Gangs, theft, murders, etc.)
It's just that now it was against innocent people who happened to be a Federal Official(Judge) a Public figure (Congresswoman) and bystanders!
You know I don't ever recall hearing the person that shot Reagan and Brady called a left wing radical!
ReplyDeleteBut, I do recall the concentrated efforts to FORCE GUN CONTROL on the Public in the aftermath of that very despicable act!
http://www.naturalnews.com/030976_mental_illness_Jared_Loughner.html
ReplyDeleteSo sad about the Congresswoman. SAD.
ReplyDeleteAll more gun control laws will do is keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Wacko's like this young man will FIND a way to get guns...even if they have to steal them. People like me (law-abiding) will be the one's who suffer.
"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"
Previous message brought to you from NRA handbook, page 1.
ReplyDeletePrevious message brought to you from NRA handbook, page 1.
ReplyDeleteAND
All those other countries and Societies/citizens both present and past who were convinced their Governments would protect and take care of them!
Maybe History (where it hasn't been altered) is people telling those in the FUTURE.
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED WHEN WE WERE ALIVE!
Don't let it happen to YOU!
Ive not heard anyone say anything about gun control as a result of this ...
ReplyDeleteI have read gun control mentioned many many times since this happened. Read any article from the left and you will too.
ReplyDeleteIve not heard anyone say anything about gun control as a result of this ...
ReplyDeleteJJ,
Just yesterday on TheHill.com there was an article about a Republican who was going to introduce a bill that made it a CRIME to have a Gun within 1000ft. of any Congressman(Woman)!
P.S. I like reading the readers comments to alot of the articles online! It really brings into perspective the overall atmosphere in the country regarding the most controversial subjects!
One reader of the article above - said "Who is going to do all that Measuring"?
11:13,
ReplyDeleteIf they passed that proposed law, wouldn't that make our congress men and women out to be more important than the avarage citizen they represent? Seems like a big step toward having different laws for different classes of people IMO.
I have no problem with responsible people owning, and using guns responsibly. Just not sure we need 90 guns for every hundred people in America. Also, I'm not sure criminals, and mentally ill people need to be buying guns and ammunition. Americans own more guns per capita than any other country, and have higher per capita rates of Gun violence than any developed nation, and many undeveloped as well. Does the average person really need an automatic Glock with an expanded clip? Yes, people kill people, but... they would do a lot less damage if they were throwing rocks...
ReplyDelete"...automatic Glock with an extended clip"?
ReplyDeleteI really hate when people say things like that. First of all, the term "automatic" is wrong. The Glock in question was a "semi-automatic", which means that one round is fired for each pull of the trigger, as opposed to "fully automatic", which means one pull of the trigger will empty the "magazine" (not "clip") if you continue to hold it back. Fully automatic weapons are illegal unless you are a law enforcement officer (and yet very very few departments have automatic weapons) or military, or have a special license. Normal everyday folks do not have access to "automatic weapons". And what would be the difference between having a 30 round clip and two 17 round clips that come standard with the Glock 19? Or for that matter, having two guns? We should place the blame on the crazy person and not on the instrument of his destruction. Had he decided to just plow his vehicle into the crowd, I'm sure that he could have killed just as many people, if not more, and nobody on the left would be talking about banning automatic vehicles.
7:06 ...touche'
ReplyDeleteBecause i don't want the type of country that you want ...
ReplyDeletehttp://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/14/5841767-90-pregnancies-at-one-high-school?pc=25&sp=300
Now there is probably your case for Government's involvment in Abortion!
They were too young and didn't know what they were doing. They were from a low income area.
They were victims of a Society that advoctes and promotes sexual activity!
Abortion doesn't/won't break that cycle of POVERTY!
An interesting twist:
ReplyDeletehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110116/ap_on_re_us/us_congresswoman_shot_264
Automatic, Semi-Automatic; it's really all semantics, isn't it? This young man wasn't part of a "well armed militia," nor was he out pheasant hunting. It was easy access to guns and ammunition that killed and injured these people.
ReplyDeleteOf the 23 wealthiest countries in the world, 80% of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States; 86 % of women killed by firearms were U.S. women, and 87% of all children aged 0 to 14 killed by firearms were U.S. children.
More than 8 in 10 people killed by firearms in the 23 wealthiest countries lives in the United States.
Hows that "Right to bare arms" working out for ya?
For 15-year olds to 24-year olds, firearm homicide rates in the United States were 42.7 times higher than in the other countries.
For U.S. males, firearm homicide rates were 22.0 times higher, and for U.S. females, firearm homicide rates were 11.4 times higher.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/studies/view/191/
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us-united-states/cri-crime
ReplyDeleteInteresting that the U.S. has such a high occurence of drug related crimes! (4th out of 46 countries on this chart. U.S. is 1st in car thefts!)
Wasn't it Schumer who stated that the shooter in Arizona should have been denied a gun - because he was refused by the military for ecessive drug use?
Btw: I wonder if they will ever get around to determining that DRUGS contribute to MENTAL ILLNESS?
ReplyDeleteIf you didn't take the time to look at that chart?
ReplyDeleteIllicit drugs
world's largest consumer of cocaine (shipped from Colombia through Mexico and the Caribbean), Colombian heroin, and Mexican heroin and marijuana; major consumer of ecstasy and Mexican methamphetamine; minor consumer of high-quality Southeast Asian heroin; illicit producer of cannabis, marijuana, depressants, stimulants, hallucinogens, and methamphetamine; money-laundering center
We are #1 for all the wrong reasons!
1 in 37 adults living in the United States are or will be in jail. Thats the highest incarceration level in the world.
ReplyDeleteBlack males in the United States have about a 1 in 3 chance of going to prison during their lifetime. For a Hispanic males, it's 1 in 6; for a white males, 1 in 17.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0818/p02s01-usju.html
The US is also the only country in the Western World to have the Death Penalty, and one of 2 "Civilized Countries," in the world to use it.
ReplyDeleteThe other is North Korea.
Still #1!!!
Our whole judicial system is messed up. More than half the people in jail are there on drug charges.
ReplyDeleteAnd apparently jail is no deterrent.
Need some radical thinking there ....
Of the top 10 countries to impose the death penalty in 2008, the US was 4th. Behind China, Iran and Saudi Arabia, and ahead of Pakistan, Iraq, Vietnam,Afghanistan, North Korea and Japan.
ReplyDeleteFrom 1990 - 2005, the US was 1 of only 9 countries to execute Juveniles. In fact, we led the list. USA (19), Iran (18), Pakistan (3), China (2), Sudan (2), Nigeria (1), Congo (1), Yemen (1) and Saudi Arabia (1).
A list we can be proud to be a part of.
http://ourtimes.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/executions-in-2008/
Need some radical thinking there ....
ReplyDeleteWhat???
You think we need more drugs???
Maybe legalize the ones we already have so there will be more VIOLENCE and MENTAL ILLNESS!
(They already know for a fact that certain drugs effect the brain chemistry, what it does and the short and long term effects!)
I think you/we need to start
addressing the REAL PROBLEMS!
But, I don't think we have the WILL!
AND
Even if we do it will take a few Generations at least to CORRECT/Reverse the PROBLEM caused by DRUGS!
Id rather see some movement toward correcting the drug problem. what we are doing now is just a bad joke on the back of taxpayers.
ReplyDeleteI really doubt legalizing all drugs would have any impact whatsoever on drug use.. people who use drugs are going to use them, legal or not .. people who dont use drugs wont just because they are legal..
.. at least making them legal would take the burden off our legal system..
and some real solutions to the real problem could be looked into.
I really doubt legalizing all drugs would have any impact whatsoever on drug use.. people who use drugs are going to use them,
ReplyDeleteYou don't get it all!!!!!
The reason we are the number one consumer of Cocaine in the WORLD?
Is because of DEMAND!
The thing is , I DO GET IT ..
ReplyDeleteWhat would be the repercussions of legalizing cocaine..
Not having to spend billions every year to build new jails to hold more people convicted.
Not having to spend billions every year to hold these people in cells, which has zero impact on ussage .. how many go right back to it.
Not having to spend billions each year fighting drug cartels.. would put them out of business.
So you would be saving billions per year right off the bat.
and you would be bringing in billions in tax revenue...
probably solve the national deficit overnight.
THEN we could actually address the drug problem ..
what we are doing now is just ridiculous, ineffective, and has stopped NO ONE .. not one single person , from using drugs.
can you name one person who has said they do not use drugs BECAUSE it is illegal .. i cant, and i bet you cant either ...
Btw: Supply will always RISE to meet demand!
ReplyDeleteor
You can reduce the supply and decrease the demand. (But that will be a WAR!)
Mexico is an example of that very WAR!
It's coming here NEXT! (It's already here!)
You cannot reduce demand by trying to reduce the supply. 30-some years of ineffective "drug war" should have taught us that by now.
ReplyDeleteIts just like alcohol and the prohibition era.
I say legalize it all and tax it heavily.
You could even reduce property taxes in the bargain most likely.
Where the hell did my post go debunking all the Brady nonsense? It was here a bit ago.
ReplyDeleteHmm i dunno .. i didnt do anything to it.
ReplyDeleteHow annoying. well please look in your email and paste it here if you can. I'm too lazy to type it all out again.
ReplyDeleteAnd... it was easy access to guns that got 2 young kids shot in California today...
ReplyDeleteJJ, I think you are right. Legalizing some drugs, or at least de-criminalizing them would go a long way to stimulating the economy. It would provide work to growers and manufacturers, and allow the gov't to tax and regulate the industry. less money spent prosecuting, incarcerating and building jails... more money generated in revenue. Win / Win if you ask me. No, I do not thing use or demand would rise because it is legal. You still couldn't work, or drive under the influence. Yes people would still abuse it, but perhaps we could focus our attention on treatment rather than punishment....
ReplyDeleteCountries with much more relaxed drug laws seem to have lower incidents of crime.
wow, someone agrees, you're probably the only person in the county.
ReplyDeleteyou would think the anti-gummint people would be consistent on this issue ?
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/18/levy.anti.gun.control/index.html?hpt
ReplyDeleteThere is a good article on CNN now about the ineffectiveness of Gun Control laws!
From the above article:
ReplyDeleteRecall that Washington banned handguns for 33 years; during some of those years the city was known as the nation's murder capital. Killers not deterred by laws against murder were not deterred by laws against owning guns. Moreover, anti-gun regulations did not address the deep-rooted causes of violent crime -- illegitimacy, drugs, alcohol abuse and dysfunctional schools -- much less mental instability.
And for every article you can find to point out the ineffectiveness of gun control, I'm sure I can find another to show it works.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying we should ban them, or that you don't have a right to own one to protect yourself, or to target shoot, or to hunt... I just think there should be some means of regulation, back ground checks, mandatory safety training before you can own one, registration... I also think that any crime committed with that gun goes back to the owner, period. "It was stolen" just won't cut it. You must take steps to make sure that will never happen. Your gun was used in a robbery, you do as much time as the perpetrator.
Used in a murder, you get charged with murder. Picked up by a kid who accidentally shoots the neighbor, you go to jail... Don't want the responsibility, don't own a gun.
I'm sure I can find another to show it works.
ReplyDeleteWould you care to show me ONE that isn't all hype?
Full of fabricated statistics and overloaded with Political-ease!
I also think that any crime committed with that gun goes back to the owner, period. "It was stolen" just won't cut it. You must take steps to make sure that will never happen.
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking you better not let your car keys or your car get out of sight!
Your thinking Oh s--t!
Someone mentioned the LA shooting yesterday. Turns out it was accidental. A student accidentally shot two others when a gun in his backpack went off ...
ReplyDeleteOk gun supporters ... what do you say.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/01/gunman-apologized-shooting.html
Dude, not going to argue with you. What is hype to you is sane reason and logic to others. As for the car key analogy, not the same. Not even close; guns were designed to kill people. Cars were not. But, since you brought it up,I would say that unless your car is broken into and hot wired, then yes, you should be held accountable for criminal acts or negligence committed with your car. I believe you can take steps to make sure your gun is never stolen.
ReplyDeleteI guess his Dad goes to JAIL?
ReplyDeleteWAIT??? Who do we send if his Dad doesn't claim him?
"I also think that any crime committed with that gun goes back to the owner, period. "It was stolen" just won't cut it. You must take steps to make sure that will never happen. Your gun was used in a robbery, you do as much time as the perpetrator.
ReplyDeleteUsed in a murder, you get charged with murder. Picked up by a kid who accidentally shoots the neighbor, you go to jail... Don't want the responsibility, don't own a gun."
That is possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard. And I have even watched Keith Olbermann before.
That's about the same as saying that if you own a hammer, and someone takes that hammer from your garage and beats someone to death with it, that you are held responsible too. Or if you sell a car, or it is stolen (which does happen) and someone drives drunk in it and kills a bus full of nuns, that YOU are held responsible for that person's actions as well. What you are leaving out all together is the phrase "That person's actions". A PERSON was responsible for every gun death, and every gun accident that has taken place. Guns don't jump up and shoot people by themselves, there is always a responsible or irresponsible human to blame.
Take for example the accidental shooting in CA. The gun was unsecured in a backpack (illegal), at a school (illegal), and the moron throws the bag on the ground or allows it to drop to the ground. The gun goes off. I still haven't heard what kind of gun it was, but most well made guns will not go off when dropped. But a cheap knockoff POS gun will. All of mine are high quality, and I could throw them around all day without them going off.
Maybe THAT is where you should focus your liberal rage. Getting cheap, unreliable, POS guns off the market.
As for the statistics posted from the Brady Bunch website (There's a non-biased source for ya), how many of those "victims" of gun violence were in the act of doing something violent when a law abiding gun owner shot them? How many were gang bangers who shot other gang bangers? hmmmmm. Kinda gotta think past the soundbite statistics and realize that millions of law abiding gun owners use their guns for self defense every year, most of the time not even having to fire a shot.
"Blaming a gun for crime is like blaming your fork because you are too fat" - unknown
From the CNN article someone posted above:
ReplyDelete"In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books and 43 government publications evaluating 80 gun-control measures. Researchers could not identify a single regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents. A year earlier, the Centers for Disease Control reported on ammunition bans, restrictions on acquisition, waiting periods, registration, licensing, child access prevention and zero tolerance laws. CDC's conclusion: There was no conclusive evidence that the laws reduced gun violence.
So much for the quasi-religious faith that more controls mean fewer murders. There are about 500,000 gun-related crimes annually in the United States. Further, Americans own roughly 250 million guns. Assuming a different gun is used in each of the 500,000 crimes, only 0.2% of guns are involved in crime each year. A ban on firearms would be 99.8% over-inclusive."
That's from CNN. The Clinton News Network. A decidedly left leaning organization. Nowdays they are actually making an attempt to be fair and balanced.
Getting statistics from the Brady Campaign is like getting them from the NRA.. both sides try to show why they are right. IMO, the NRA is right, for the simple reason that they are trying to protect a right, not squash one. The Brady campaign is only out to end the second amendment and destroy every last gun in America, and they don't mind skewing statistics to that end. All because her husband got shot protecting the President. Wasn't that in the job description? Did you not get that far when you were filling out the application? Seriously though, thank you Mr. Brady for getting in front of that bullet and saving one of the best Presidents of my lifetime, but I got bit by a dog once, and you don't see me trying to kill every dog in America.
Ive not really said much on this gun issue.
ReplyDeleteHere is my thing. Everything has some sort of restrictions on it.
I am not for eliminating guns by any means, but i also dont agree with gun advocates screaming at even the hint of any kind of regulation.
Do you want 3-year-olds handling guns?
Why not?
There has to be some regulation.
As it is writ ... the law is not for the righteous, it is for the unrighteous.
The only reason we have law is because people won't use good sense and people wont behave in a decent manner.
If no one had ever thought of stealing, there would not be a law against it because no one would have even thought about it.
Banning guns is not a good idea. Having zero regulation is not a good idea either.
Can we not expect our lawmakers to use good judgment and make reasonable rules ... instead of letting political gamemanship rule every issue?
"Do you want 3-year-olds handling guns?
ReplyDeleteWhy not?
There has to be some regulation."
Diapers would be great for concealment purposes.
Be serious man. Nobody is asking for "zero regulation". That's insane that you would even think that, let alone print it. There are tons and tons of regulations already on the books, including not being able to possess a gun until you are 18 or 21 depending on the gun.
Enforce the laws that are there. Banning standard capacity magazines and other such restrictive measures that are in the press right now would do zero to combat crime. Criminals don't abide by the law. That's why we call them criminals. Any laws that are passed would only make it harder on the law abiding citizens.
If the kid didn't have access to a gun he probably didn't own, it wouldn't be in his backpack. Yes, if it was his dad's, then his dad should go to jail. Doesn't absolve the kid of guilt, and he needs to be punished as well, but ultimately, the owner of the gun is to blame.
ReplyDeleteAgain, cars and hammers are not designed to KILL people. Yes, they can be used that way, but seriously....
Besides, I AM NOT advocating a ban on gun ownership. Just saying it needs to be more strictly regulated.
ReplyDeleteWhat possible reason could someone have to be opposed to the following?:
1.) Be of an age determined mature enough to own a gun.
2.) Demonstrate some degree of proficiency and safety.
3.) Be able to prove that you have adequate means of safe storage
4.) Restriction of certain classes of weapons to police and military.
5.) Restrictions on ownership by those convicted of violent crimes, or diagnosed with serious psychological disorders.
6.) Registration with local law enforcement, and regular renewal of permit. Demonstrate that gun is in safe working order, you are still proficient, and gun is being securely stored.
Is any of this unreasonable?
What possible reason could someone have to be opposed to the following?:
ReplyDelete[MY ANSWERS IN CAPS]
1.) Be of an age determined mature enough to own a gun.
[ALREADY THE LAW. I BELIEVE IT'S 18 FOR RIFLES AND 21 FOR HANDGUNS IN KANSAS. SOMEONE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG]]
2.) Demonstrate some degree of proficiency and safety.
[ALREADY THE LAW FOR ANYONE WISHING TO GET A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT. WOULD YOU RESTRICT THE RIGHT OF AN OLD WOMAN TO KEEP A GUN IN HER HOUSE FOR PROTECTION BECAUSE SHE CAN'T HIT THE BROAD SIDE OF A BARN AT THE RANGE? I BET SHE COULD SCARE AWAY THE HOME INVADER, NO MATTER HOW BAD SHE SHOOTS.]
3.) Be able to prove that you have adequate means of safe storage
ON THE NIGHT STAND NEXT TO MY BED WITH A ROUND IN THE CHAMBER IS PERFECTLY SAFE... AS LONG AS NO ONE WHO IS NOT SUPPOSED TO TOUCH IT DOESN'T TOUCH IT. MY GUN HAS BEEN BY MY BED FOR 20 YEARS, AND HAS NEVER... AND I MEAN NEVER.. BEEN INVOLVED IN A CRIME, OR GONE OFF ACCIDENTLY. LOCKED IN A SAFE WITH THE AMMO STORED ELSEWEAR IS GREAT... IF YOU CAN PROMISE ME THAT THE BAD GUYS WILL CALL ME AHEAD OF TIME AND LET ME KNOW WHEN THEY PLAN ON BREAKING IN. (WHY NOT MAKE THAT A LAW... WHEN YOU PLAN A ROBBERY OR RAPE, OR EVEN MURDER, YOU HAVE TO CALL AHEAD AND TELL YOUR INTENDED VICTIM WHAT TIME YOU WILL BE THERE, HOW MANY PEOPLE YOU WILL HAVE WITH YOU, ANY WEAPONS YOU HAVE ON YOU, ETC. FAILURE TO DO SO COULD BE A FELONY WITH LIFE BEHIND BARS. THAT WOULD SURELY STOP CRIME IN IT'S TRACKS.) OR BETTER YET, IF YOU CAN PROMISE ME I CAN GET POLICE RESPONSE WITHIN 30 SECONDS FROM THE TIME I CALL.]
4.) Restriction of certain classes of weapons to police and military.
[ALREADY THE LAW]
5.) Restrictions on ownership by those convicted of violent crimes, or diagnosed with serious psychological disorders.
[ALREADY THE LAW]
6.) Registration with local law enforcement, and regular renewal of permit. Demonstrate that gun is in safe working order, you are still proficient, and gun is being securely stored.
[SO THE POLICE KNOW WHERE TO START WHEN THEY CONFISCATE? I DON'T THINK SO. NOT ONLY THAT, BUT THAT WOULD BE A BURDEN, NOT ONLY ON LAW ENFORCEMENT, BUT ON CITIZENS. THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS THAT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. PERIOD. SHALL WE HAVE YOU REGISTER WITH THE POLICE BEFORE YOU CAN EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT AGAINST UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE? HOW ABOUT BEFORE YOU CAN PRACTICE YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH? WHEN YOU START TAKING AWAY RIGHTS, WHERE DO YOU STOP?]
THERE ARE ALREADY GUN LAWS IN PLACE THAT COVER MANY OF THE THINGS YOU MENTION. BUT, AS I SAID BEFORE, CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY LAWS. THAT'S WHY THEY ARE CALLED CRIMINALS.
"Again, cars and hammers are not designed to KILL people. Yes, they can be used that way, but seriously...."
ReplyDeleteWhat about swords? Should we ban swords too?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE3DA143FF93BA35754C0A960948260&pagewanted=all
guns were designed to kill people.
ReplyDeleteOk, so we will pass a law and call it -
HRB 6662011!
It is unlawful to purchase and/or use a gun for anything or in any manner other than its intented purpose - which is to KILL PEOPLE!
Man that was easy - I think I'll run against
O-man in 2012!
btw: I'm still working on that Hammer Law!
I like the idea of having to call your victims ahead of time. We should call it the fair warning law.
ReplyDeletehttp://funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/295826/ZOMBIE+FREE+ZONE/
ReplyDeleteDo you honestly think they're coming for your guns? Honestly? Do you think the American people would stand for that? Not going to happen. NEVER. Should 80 year old Mildred, who "couldn't hit the braod side of a barn," sleep with a loaded gun on her night stand? Don't think so, but I'm sure that's just me. Should you, assuming you've proved yourself proficient, and not seriously mentally deranged or a violent offender, be allowed to sleep with a loaded gun on your night stand? Sure. Again, I have no problem with your right to own, carry, use a gun.
ReplyDeleteYou cite the 2nd Amendment, but fail to include the beginning of that line.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The right to keep and bear arms is already being infringed. You admit so yourself. Criminals, mentally incapacitated, and underage people cannot own guns. Do you consider yourself to be part of a well regulated militia? Mightn't part of those regulations be how to safely keep and bear arms?
2 recent cases in Connecticut involved young boys who were "accidentally" killed when they found and played with loaded guns. In both cases, these guns were left unattended by their owners. Both police officers. In both cases, it was a neighbor who was killed by the officers son.
ReplyDeleteShould the owners not be held liable for the deaths?
"BUT THAT WOULD BE A BURDEN, NOT ONLY ON LAW ENFORCEMENT, BUT ON CITIZENS..."
ReplyDeleteGoing to the store and buying a gun is a burden as well. Perhaps the government could just mail me one.
"What about swords? Should we ban swords too?"
ReplyDeleteNever said we should ban guns.
"You cite the 2nd Amendment, but fail to include the beginning of that line.
ReplyDelete"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
YOU site the second amendment, yet interpret it incorrectly. The comma seperates the two statements. The first statement is that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. The Militia they are referring to are the people of the United States, not some bunch of weekend warriors who wear camo and live on a compound in Utah. Like it or not, the second amendment is there for the people to be able to rise up against the government should it get out of control.
The Second statement is pretty much self explanatory.
It helps if you look up the history of the second amendment and understand the steps it went through to be ratified. From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Do I think "They" are coming for my guns? No. I don't believe that there is a politician right now who can muster enough support. But when the Supreme court ruled on the Heller case, there was one vote seperating the gun banners from the gun rights Justices. THAT is scary. And if Obama is able to appoint one more liberal judge to the Supreme court, we could very well see guns criminalized and confiscated. I'm sure the people of Germany or England, or Australia never thought it would happen either. until it did.
"BUT THAT WOULD BE A BURDEN, NOT ONLY ON LAW ENFORCEMENT, BUT ON CITIZENS..."
ReplyDeleteGoing to the store and buying a gun is a burden as well. Perhaps the government could just mail me one.
---------
"A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. - Alexander Hamilton
In other words, you don't have to have training to own a gun.
TS: I agree. The "well regulated militia" is the people of the United States, and yes... It is necessary as a protection against government gone "out of control." But, it cannot be overlooked that the Amendment reads, "well regulated" militia. That's all I'm saying.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous: Could it also be that AH was stating that those who wished to be part of the "militia" needed practice, and as such, would not be "obliged" to participate in the militia if they believed the practice required imposed too great a hardship?
One could argue that the founding fathers did mean trained military when they said militia. I believe it was their hope, that under a free and democratic republic one could effect change with the ballot rather than the bullet. Something which was not possible under a monarchy.
ReplyDeleteOr do you really think they thought it okay to take up arms every time people were unhappy with their laws or rulers?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50&feature=related
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ&feature=related
ReplyDelete"Or do you really think they thought it okay to take up arms every time people were unhappy with their laws or rulers?"
ReplyDeleteI think that the founding fathers knew that tyranny exists, and it would be a deterrent for any government to try to turn against it's people if those people were able to defend themselves. After all, the founding fathers had just fought a war for independence from a tyrannical government, and wanted to make sure they could do it again. Do you think it doesn't happen? Ever heard of a man named Adolph Hitler? in 1938 one of Hitler's first acts upon taking control was to disarm the populance. That was only 72 years ago. Do I think it's likely that anything like that could happen in my lifetime? no. Do I think it's possible? yes. The main reason it's unlikely is because the founding fathers were smart enough to give us the second amendment. Take that away, and all bets are off.
Those who do not remember their history are doomed to repeat it.
The founding fathers had to take up arms against a monarchy because they did not have a vote. German citizens did not take up arms against their own government. Doesn't seem to me like they wanted to. If enough of the "masses" refuse to submit to the will of a tyrannical government, and take to the streets in protest, that government cannot govern. Do you really think you and your Winchester (or whatever you own,) are any match for government troops should they choose to send them?
ReplyDeleteWas it Gandhi or King's well armed masses that brought about change that they were looking for? Just wondering, what kind of gun Jesus would carry?
ReplyDeleteGerman citizens did not take up arms against their own government.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that Germany at the time of Hitlers rise was in a deep recession/ depression. Hitlers rise to power was the result of their publics putting too much faith in the words of one leader and the Government!
Go back and watch some of the documentaries - the ones that haven't been mad politically correct!
Hitler first used their Government to make things better - maybe we could can that a stimulus package - but then he took control of the education system, the guns, personal freedoms etc.
Anyone who opposed was dealt with swiftly!
Don't look now - but those same type People exist today!
If YOU let them!
You seem to be implying that obamna is hitler in disguise. That is typical low life rhetoric of the tea party and right wing nuts.
ReplyDeleteBut look at the reality. it is the right wingers that are pushing this anti government idea .. and they are disguising it as patriotism.
so you want to overthrow the government and you call yourself a patriot?
please.
If anyone reads animal farm, they will see the tea party in action.
Yeah, seems Democracy works just fine so long as it is by and for white, middle/upper class God fearing Republicans. Look like me, think like me, act like me and we will get along just fine.
ReplyDeleteI never suggested that Obama is a Hitler - YOU DID!
ReplyDeleteBut
People who seize the opportunities for More POWER and CONTROL in times of weakness or instability are never far removed from Society!
I think the thing that is most interesting is do they suffer along with the rest or Do they gain at the Expense of the rest?
Until the end of TIME - you'll never stop
Mans desire to dominate Men!
No matter how you want to disguise it!
I think the Tea Party and the Right Wing people are doing that very thing - making a power grab in a time of weakness by selling fear and paranoia.
ReplyDelete"I think the Tea Party and the Right Wing people are doing that very thing - making a power grab in a time of weakness by selling fear and paranoia."
ReplyDeleteAmen
I don't think the Tea Party wrote bills that got aporoved and never read! (You have to vote for it to see whats in it!) They didn't not propose a budget for this FY! (Because they want a FREE hand in allocating funds!)
ReplyDeleteThey aren't appointing Czars with unlimited power. They aren't using their position to work around the system - like executive orders or appointing people during a congressional holiday recess!
I'd say thats gaining power at the expense of the rest - you could call it a POWERR GRAB DELUX!
I agree, approving a bill without reading it is just plain stupid. But, it was approved by a duly elected representative. Don't like it? Throw them out. As for Czars with unlimited power. Isn't true. They probably have more power than they need, but their power isn't unlimited.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think our government is to broad in scope.
It's role should be much more limited, but I'm not about to take up arms against it.
Until the tanks are rolling in the streets and the troops are busting down my door, I do not think there should be any talk of 2nd Amendment remedies.
One thing I have never understood.
ReplyDeleteI read the freakin health care bill online. I downloaded a copy of it in about 30 seconds and skimmed through 2000 pages in about an hour.
Ok i skim fast, but ... i read it.
Then I read the revised version when it was available.
The bill was available at the whitehouse website.
So
My question is.
WHY did congressmen and women not read it?
and why do republicans claim no one read it
Surely
I am not the only person in america who read it.
This just seems ridiculous to me..
Both the charge that it was passed without being read
and the admission by congress persons that they didnt read it before voting on it....
can anyone explain this to me ???
and how that charge can even persist when it was available online the entire time?
can anyone explain this to me ???
ReplyDeleteBECAUSE THEY ARE STILL WRITING IT!
They never intended to give you all the details
because they didn't have all the ANSWERS!
You just bascically gave them, or they took the authority to build a HUGE PUBLIC PROGRAM that leaves no area Public or Private untouched!
They just rushed/pushed it through!
Thats what republicans keep saying, its never been true and isnt true now
ReplyDeleteIt is said that if you tell a lie loud enough an d often enough, people will believe it and that is what is happening.
Obummer said in the beginning that he was open to ANY suggestions by republicans to make it better, and their only response was to make accusations and tell lies about it.
and now they voted to repeal it.. and i guess they haven't yet read it.
He repeatedly asked the pubs to come to the table, and after many refusals, the dems passed it, andi then the republicans said it was being forced through ....
being INVITED to comment, make recommendations and amendments,, and stalling... is not having it forced upon you... the pubs lost the vote..
when the senate shoots down the pubs repeal, and or the prez veto's it. i guess youll say he is forcing it on us again.
the dems, and obummer, did try to have a discussion with the republicans about this..
republicans were not interested...
thats what really happened.
thats what really happened
ReplyDeleteC'mon JJ,
You're a big boy!
The Congressional Budget Office couldn't even put a REAL figure on the cost because they kept moving the target! (I doubt they can even put a firm cost on it today!)
Even after the Republicans agreed to use the CBO as a valid non-partisan source!
They are still forming committes and hashing out the details.
If you didn't ever look at that diagram of the Gigantic Network of Obamacare and see through the SMOKE!
You never will!
The cost for Obamacare will be paid for by every citizen through higher costs for just about everything else and a lower standard of LIVING!
So in the end does it work to raise people out of poverty or is the goal to use Government to bring everyone to the same level?
So in the end does it work to raise people out of poverty or is the goal to use Government to bring everyone to the same level?
ReplyDeleteBtw: I forgot - Everyone except those who were conveniently excluded from Obamacare - and you/they know who THEY are!
It seems the posters railing against the Tea Party on a thread about the Arizona shootings have fallen into the trap of trying to politicize tragedy to further their agenda. Telling lies and spinning falsehoods about the Tea Party is not the issue. Gun control is not the issue. Obamacare is not the issue, even though JJ has been snowed by the left wing media into believing it is the best thing ever (keep reading JJ, you will wise up eventually). The issue is a crazy guy who killed people, and the left's attempt to politicize it... which you lefties have proven beyond any reasonable doubt in this thread.
ReplyDelete"Do you really think you and your Winchester (or whatever you own,) are any match for government troops should they choose to send them?"
YES! Because I am more highly trained in their use than any of the cops in this po dunk town. But I have said over and over that I do not believe that will be an issue. Preparing for something does not mean you want it to happen. Ever have a flu shot?
The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law:
ReplyDeleteGun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."
The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.
The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.
The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.
Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or ownership of firearms and ammunition.
Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.
On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.
We all know how that ended.
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/tx08_brady/pr_100728_hc_chart.html
ReplyDeleteThe Obamacare diagram. Give that a good skimming JJ, and realize that they are not even done yet. To call the republicans liars on your blog because you do not understand something is ridiculous and stupid. You are influencing your readers with your ignorance. No one should ever preach from an altar of ignorance. Learn the facts.
You know sometimes I have to pinch myself to make sure I am AWAKE!
ReplyDeleteHow does someone who maybe lived in my town or State and who was elected to represent me as a U.S. citizen?
With one political campaign get special privilage and treatment to which I am not eligable or entitled?
I guess you'll have to stick a fork in ME cause I'M done!
God Bless America I hope SHE can be saved!
I'm in my fifties, and the America that we knew when we were kids is gone, and will never return. Thanks in part to media persons like jj. I don't believe you could get anywhere near an understanding of 2000 pages of contractual substance in an hour, it is probably the same way you have read the Bible, and profess to know what it says. Men like you jj, are the ones who saw to it that the God was removed from our schools, the first and most important tool in the dumbing down of the American people, and under freedom of religion you purport that it was necessary. allah ahkbhar ? or May our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ have mercy on your soul, for as it says in the book of Ezekial, the blood of those whom you have misled will be by your hand. Skim ch. 33 , there are only 33 versus, should take an intellectual such as yourself more than 5 or 10 seconds
ReplyDeleteI don't believe you could get anywhere near an understanding of 2000 pages of contractual substance in an hour
ReplyDelete>>
Well i was reading it to see what it actually said .. not reading to see how i could twist it for political gain which is what all republicans did.
im so glad you are so knowing as to know what my spiritual condition is.
I know the bible says when you refuse to help the poor you are refusing to help Jesus Christ himself personally.
so ... denying health coverage to millions of people so insurance companies can get even richer ..
yea,. what do you think Jesus would say about that ....
Do you think Jesus will be pleased when you say..
yea i know God, i didnt help those poor dirty people who deserve their poverty, but i was a good conservative and did all i could to help the rich get richer ...
i didnt help those poor dirty people who deserve their poverty, but i was a good conservative and did all i could to help the rich get richer ...
ReplyDeleteThe only thing Obamacare does is in one grand program make America a FULL BLOWN Socialist Country! He and his cronies know exactly what they are doing!
What you don't see is that the Government will then have the POWER decide - its no longer up to YOU!
If you haven't been watching there is an article today about Mayors flocking to the Whitehouse for aid for their Cities!
In California due to their budget crisis - they are making severe cuts - many of those are aimed at aid to lower classes! They are talking
closing National Parks and cutting funding for Libraries - Millions of aid will be cut from their Major Universities! (UCLA, USC, etc.)
(Thats proposed by Jerry Brown - their legislature will no doubt try to kick the can down the road.)
In Illinois they raised taxes to all time highs
(something like 60%) the surrounding States are jumping at the opportunity to get businesses that will leave Illinois!
What good is Universal Healthcare if they don't have a job - or can't afford their house?
The reason Capitalism works is you have the opportunity to do better and have choices!
With Socialism and Communism those choices are already made for you!
Jesus doesn't work through Governments (he never did) he works through PEOPLE! People who have/make Choices!
What you don't see is that the Government will then have the POWER decide - its no longer up to YOU!
ReplyDelete?????
It is not up to you now. Now a profit-seeking corporation decides what you get, and you fail to realize that by giving you coverage, you are cutting into their profit margin, so they have a reason to reject coverage already....
why is that better than a non-profit operation that has no bias against you to start with doing it?
The whole socialism charge is bogus and you know it. its not that at all... it would save billions as well from the deficit..
now people go to the emergencyh room and getting something for a cold costs nearly 1,000...
thats real efficient ..
and insurance companies can still reject you for any reason ..
JJ, you are absolutely right. We have very little power. We think we have power, but we do not. Elections are bought and paid for by powerful corporations, and the politicians, (who are chosen by these corporations,) are then beholden to those corporations. I don't think it is quite at the level of "Tri-Lateral Commission" stuff, but it is close. Corporations, and a few wealthy families run the world, and orchestrate the rise and fall of many nations. (Rockefellers and Rothschilds) So, far from being "socialist," it is really quite the opposite. All of our laws are written to benefit the corporate fat cats at the average mans expense. Far more is spent on corporate welfare than will ever be on social. Imagine if we spent what we do on our military industrial complex to feed, house, and educate... or provide health care. It is staggering just to think about it.
ReplyDeleteFar more is spent on corporate welfare than will ever be on social. Imagine if we spent what we do on our military industrial complex to feed, house, and educate... or provide health care. It is staggering just to think about it.
ReplyDeleteI think Communism was a honest attemp to do just that - It didn't work!
You know that classless Society thing!
(No incentives to do anything just wait in the bread line everyday!)
You are already seeing the problems in Europe with all those POWERFUL UNIONS and those countries inability to KEEP ALL THOSE PROMISES!
But they didn't do it right in those Countries/Nations so we'll get it RIGHT in AMERICA?
GET REAL!
It's the Same BS!
We have very little power. We think we have power, but we do not.
ReplyDeleteThats where your wrong!
As a a consumer you have POWER! But you're just as GREEDY as those you want to blame!
As a worker you have the POWER to change jobs, get or continue an education, move around the Country in search of better oppotunities!
You have control of your money and how its spent - you just don't think you have any POWER!
Unless
You depend on the Government for your income
or benefits or healthcare! But to a big degree that was your CHOICE! The elderly that didn't couldn't prepare or have no alternatives then
Government provides a safety net as it does for the disadvantaged and disabled! That safety net has gotten stretched to the point of breaking with those who see it as a WAY OF LIFE not helping hand!
In the Ninties the SS offices had armed Secuirty Gaurds for a period of time. When there was a decision by the Government to kick the Drug Addicts OFF OF SSI! They were basically susidizing their habits!
Ther are plenty of other examples where Government is promoting and paying for the wrong incentives and subsidizing degredation and destruction of it's own Society!
@ Anonymous 8:34 - "As a a consumer you have POWER! But you're just as GREEDY as those you want to blame!
ReplyDeleteAs a worker you have the POWER to change jobs, get or continue an education, move around the Country in search of better oppotunities!
You have control of your money and how its spent - you just don't think you have any POWER!"
No doubt about it. I am fat and lazy. I am complicit in the problem. But, the controlling interests, both government and corporate, would have it no other way.
We have the CHOICE to change job, get an education, move around the country?
These are false choices. Our opportunities, whatever opportunities there are, are created by the controlling powers, for whomever they want to create them for. We can change jobs, change location, get an education, but in the end, nothing really changes. Meet the old boss, same as the new boss. Yes, some people make it despite of the odds stacked against them. But by and large, people that succeed, are people that corporate America want to succeed. Hard work does not pay off nearly as well as it did 100 years ago. We are still fed that lie. We believe that America is "the land of opportunity," that "all are created equal." But the reality is, some are more equal than others. So, as long as we believe our vote means something, so long as we can keep our guns, so long as we can believe the American dream, and believe the myth that "God helps those who help themselves, (which by the way is the antithesis of what is contained in scripture) we will be enslaved by our government, and the puppets that control it. Obama, whether you like him or not, was at least partly right when he said people "get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations," the people we are mad at are not the enemy, and they are not to blame for our current state of affairs.
What POWER do most of us have? The POWER to work for either Wal-Mart or Target? KSQ or Rubbermaid? Quick Trip or Jump Start? The POWER to have to hold down 2 jobs working my behind off, late nights and 3rd shift just to make ends meet? At what expense? Never see my kids, spend no time with my wife? You can bet the CEO's of those companies, and the bankers and corporate lawyers and the like don't care about me, and the $7.00 an hour they're paying me.
ReplyDeleteIn 2010, the Federal Minimum Wage was $7.25, working full time, a worker earning minimum wage will gross 15,800 dollars per year. The Poverty Level for a family of 3 in 2010 was $18,300. See the disconnect? How can someone pay the rent, car payment, car insurance, utilities, groceries... when they make $2,500 a year less than the poverty level? Let alone afford health insurance. And you wonder why people need government assistance. All the while corporations are posting record profits.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/business/economy/24econ.html
Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott earned $29.7 million in total compensation last year. The average full time Wal-Mart associate makes $10.84 per hour, or about $19,000 a year. (Wal-Mart considers 34 hours a week to be full time) Still only slightly above the poverty level for a family of three. Do the math, Lee Scott earned 1,551 times the average Wal-Mart employee in 2007. The average American CEO made $10.8 million last year, or 364 times that of the average American worker. CHOICES? Yeah, right.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/28/news/economy/ceo_pay_workers/index.htm
"The whole socialism charge is bogus and you know it. its not that at all... it would save billions as well from the deficit.."
ReplyDeleteOh My god, you are delusional. I'd love to see some proof to back up your claim that it would save billions when the CBO says exactly the opposite. But I forgot that you skimmed it in an hour, so you probably know more that they do. Jeezuz, why do I come here and read this BS?
Comparing the Wal Mart CEO to the average Wal Mart employee is nonsense. It's like comparing the President of the United States to the Mayor of Ark City. The CEO got where he is through hard work, education, or being lucky enough to be born into the right family. Your average Wal Mart employee is lucky to have finished High School. Dumb to even compare the two. It's called Capitalism. People who CHOOSE to work hard and get a good education go further than those who CHOOSE not to.
Yes, it is ridiculous to compare the two. My only point in doing so, was to point out that the average worker, who works hard, (whether you think so or not,)cannot even support their families on what they bring home. Certainly can't afford health care. it is the average worker who enables Wal-Mart, and every other company to post record profits, they should at least be compensated accordingly. How bout enough to live at the poverty level?
ReplyDeleteIt is unconscionable to profit so greatly when those who earned your profit for you don't have an adequate standard of living. And thats not even including the laborers in Thailand, Korea, Vietnam, Mexico... who work and live in squalid conditions making pennies per day so that Lee Scott can earn $16,800 dollars per hour.
The reason Wal Mart makes so much money is because they are able to deliver products that people want or need at a price that is cheaper than the competition. They do that through a number of ways. One of which is using workers who are not college educated, and have no skills other than doing what they are told by their boss. Are you willing to pay twice as much for every single thing you buy at Wal Mart so they can pay their employees twice as much as they are making now? I didn't think so.
ReplyDeleteAs a a consumer you have POWER! But you're just as GREEDY as those you want to blame!
ReplyDeleteAre you willing to pay twice as much for every single thing you buy at Wal Mart so they can pay their employees twice as much as they are making now? I didn't think so.
---------------
I wondered how long it would take to get to this conclusion!
The poor/low income/welfare also benefit from the low Prices!
I had someone tell me that they won't go to Wal Mart in Ponca City the first of every month!
Because thats when all the Indians get their Gov, checks and alot of the shelves are empty for certain items!
I don't know if thats really true?
But it does make sense!
I didn't post that to find fault or degrade the Indians! It was only meant to show how the system works!
Actually, I rarely shop Wal-Mart, buy fair trade coffee and chocolate, and do all my clothes shopping at Goodwill. Yes, I am more than willing to pay the true cost of a product. I also don't believe all of that cost needs to be passed on to the consumers. How about taking just a little of those record profits and paying a living wage to your employees. Then they could actually afford to spend some money at your store, buy health care and not rely on the government for an earned income tax credit. Seems win / win to me.
ReplyDelete@8:01pm - "Because thats when all the Indians get their Gov, checks and alot of the shelves are empty for certain items!"
ReplyDeleteAre you certain they are Indian? Might they not just as easily be from Pakistan?
@8:01pm - "The poor/low income/welfare also benefit from the low Prices!"
ReplyDeleteDoesn't matter how low the prices are if you can't pay the rent, utilities, medical bills, buy groceries...
Doesn't matter how low the prices are if you can't pay the rent, utilities, medical bills, buy groceries...
ReplyDeleteI can agree with your statement - but I also know of someone who delivered Pizzas as a second job!
He told me that some of the low income people were the best tippers! While the wealthier people wrote him a check for the exact amount!
Who would have thought that?
"I don't believe you could get anywhere near an understanding of 2000 pages of contractual substance in an hour, it is probably the same way you have read the Bible, and profess to know what it says."
ReplyDeleteUh, BURN!
yea, I went back and reread my comment you just quoted from, Fez, along with jj's response. What convinces me that our country is in big trouble, among other things of course, is the fact that the response comes from a college educated journalist ?!?
ReplyDeleteI agree with JJ. I think the number of Representatives who did not read it has been greatly exaggerated. An urban legend sort of thing that keeps getting repeated. 1.) Who would admit to that, and why. 2.) Don't think for a second that each representative doesn't have someone on staff who hasn't gone over every inch of text and informed them of what is pertinent.
ReplyDelete3.) JJ did not say he had a complete understanding in an hour. He was merely pointing out that a person could have a pretty decent understanding of the content of the Bill with a limited perusing. Making the notion that it was unread by our Rep's implausible.
Making the notion that it was unread by our Rep's implausible.
ReplyDeleteWe must not live in the same dimension even though we are in the same Time Zone!
Obama made the mandate that the Healthcare plan had to be "Deficit Neutral" and not contribute or increase the National Deficit!
So, Harry and Company kept going behind closed doors, I'm not sure how many times, and would then emerge with different options which they provided to the CBO. The CBO could only judge the parts of that BILL that were provided to them by the DEMOCRATS! The REPUBLICANS were never allowed in the closed door duscussions!
IN THE END they rushed it through before the Holiday Recess!
IT WAS ALL SMOKE AND MIRRORS to just push the BILL through because they had a SUPER MAJORITY!
Read Charles Krauthammers Article in Fri. Courier - From that article:
"In fact, the whole Obamacare bill was gamed to produce a favorable CBO number."
He goes on to say the following but this part is not a actual quote from his article:
The fact that Obamacare doesn't start until 2014 and the are raising reveues in advance skews the numbers - they only use 6 years of outlays against a ten year projection!
In other words:
Its a BIG LIE!
Oh, I'm a Democrat who voted for Obama. I think the Health Care Bill sucks, think it was poorly constructed, is not deficit neutral. But, I still think it wasn't unread. Also, Republicans didn't participate because they chose not too.
ReplyDeleteBut, I still think it wasn't unread. Also, Republicans didn't participate because they chose not too.
ReplyDeleteHow can you read something that wasn't completely written and they are still writing?
The Republicans didn't participate because they saw through the LIE!
Btw: If you didn't figure out how they "Gamed" that bill? They passed it in 2010 and it doesn't start till 2014! Therefore, they didn't spend any money the first four years of that 10 year projection! It will show expenses for only the six years it is active!
They saved billions of dollars that first four years!
From Krauthammer's article:
ReplyDeleteIfyou think thats audacious, consider this: Obamacare does not create just one entitlement healthcare insurance for everyone; it actually
creates asecond -long term care insurance.
With an aging population, and with long term care becoming extraordinarily expensive, this promisies to be the biggest budget buster in the history of the welfare state.
Skip down the article:
That a health care reform law of such enormous size and consequence, revolutionizing one-sixth of the U.S. economy, could be sold on such flim-flammery is astonishing, even by Washington standards.
Seems those people who steer ships - always forget that the largest part of the ice berg is under the water! (In this case maybe in the fine print or the part that never got printed!)
"But, I still think it wasn't unread. Also, Republicans didn't participate because they chose not too."
ReplyDelete"We''l have to pass it so you can see what's in it." Nancy (Mrs. Joker) Pelosi.
Republicans were shut out of the process because the Dems had their super majority. Republicans offered many ideas to help make the healthcare more of a compromise, but the dems shut them down because they didn't think they needed them. They just bribed anyone on the left that they couldn't get to go along with it until they got enough votes, and even then they skirted the rules and played loose with the way voting should be done. That's why they got B*tch slapped in November.
Republicans were shut out of the process because the Dems had their super majority. Republicans offered many ideas to help make the healthcare more of a compromise, but the dems shut them down because they didn't think they needed them.
ReplyDelete>>>
This is absolutely not true., absolute lie revisionist history sent out by pubs to continue to try to discredit.
Republicans were repeatedly ASKED to come to the table and refused, Republicans refused to present any alternative ideas, and still have not as far is ive seen.
Pubs were absolutely NOT interested in compromise. they attacked and maligned the process all the way. They attacked even before it was written. (part of this bogus, no one has read it bs, is because they attacked before it was even written so yea, it wasnt read before it was written...)
ONLY when it was clear, after repeated refused invitations, that republicans would not cooperate, did the dems pursue the super majority.
This is what i saw happening last year.
They have been asked by the prez since day one to work with him on this ... and they still wont.
so how can you say they even made an effort..
republicans are still unwilling to work on a program that might actually help people. yet they persist in the lie that they were shut out ..
They have been asked by the prez since day one to work with him on this ... and they still wont.
ReplyDeleteIt was all SMOKE and MIRRORS with some BOTOX
thrown in and it didn't do a thing for Harry!
One of the scariest things about this whole plan is the amount of POWER they gave to Sebelius! (The Botox didn't work on her either!)
JJ, it was just a token offer by the Democrats
Remember -THEY SAID THEY HAD WON!
I saw where Sebelius absolutely denied there would ever be taxpayer money used for Abortion!
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking she has a BIGGER plan in mind!
She'll start a Federal Sperm Bank and then Neuter all the males!
The Federal Government has alot of experience dealing with BIG BANKS!
No need for abortions a ONE time deposit and withdrawl by approval ONLY!
it was just a token offer by the Democrats
ReplyDeleteRemember -THEY SAID THEY HAD WON! '>
>>
Come on now, think about how silly that sounds.
The republicans refused to negotiate or even discuss the matter because the democrat offer was "token"
please ...
"This is absolutely not true., absolute lie revisionist history sent out by pubs to continue to try to discredit.
ReplyDeleteAbsolute lies? Revisionist history? Show some proof please? I listened every day to the news while this was happeneing, and I heard countless interviews with democrats and republicans about how the process was going, and the dems said many times that they didn't need help from the republicans. And the republicans did offer alternatives that the dems turned a deaf ear to because they had the majority. If Republicans had not been involved, we would have gotten the single payer system that the Dems wanted to pass at the begining. They wanted a complete single payer Socialist healthcare system similiar to Medicaire for every person, legal or illegal. You have been drinking the kool aid, and then you call me a liar when I speak the truth.
From Time magazine july 2009:
Democrats will have to decide in the coming weeks whether they are willing to go it alone on health reform or whether they will continue to negotiate with Republicans for a bill that would likely be less expensive and contain far less of a role for government in the health-care system. The chief tool Democrats have for ramming through a bill on their own is something known, incongruously enough, as "reconciliation." It is a parliamentary procedure that protects budget-related measures from a filibuster. (There's yet another possibility: Reid might put the pressure on his own caucus by simply calling for a vote and demanding that all 60 support blocking a filibuster, even if they don't ultimately vote for the bill.
and from CNN
"If we have to push it through this way, no one is going to remember how messy it was," a top White House adviser told CNN. "At the end of the day, they'll remember we got health care reform done. A win is a win."
Maybe you're forgetting the Cornhusker kickback, the Louisiana purchase, etc etc.
Some quotes from the Obamacare passage fight:
"I don’t worry about the Constitution."
–Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL) on being asked where in the Constitution it gives Congress the right to force people to buy health care.
"Are you serious? Are you serious?"
–Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on being asked where in the Constitution it gives Congress the right to force people to buy health care.
"There ain’t no rules here, we’re trying to accomplish something. When the deal goes down, or all this talk about rules: we make ‘em up as we go along.”
–Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL), House Rules Committee
(There aint no grammar here either)
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”
–Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on why ObamaCare needed to be passed.
"“The health care reform is an income shift. It is a shift, a leveling, to help lower income, middle income Americans.”
“The maldistribution of income in America has gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind.” [The new health care legislation] “will have the effect of addressing that maldistribution of income in America.”
–Max Baucus, March 25, 2010
"You know we’re going to control the insurance companies." -- Joe Biden
"I was one of the authors of the legislation that created the budget reconciliation process in 1974, and I am certain that putting health care reform and climate change legislation on a freight train through Congress is an outrage that must be resisted." -- Robert Byrd (D-WV)
"What good is reading the (health care) bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?" -- John Conyers (D-MI)
He should have just called you JJ. After all, you spent an hour skimming it, and knew exactly what it meant. You must be a genius. kinda like rain man.
"We said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your -- if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you're not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge." -- Barack Obama
ReplyDeleteWell GEE, I wonder who snuck 'em in there? It sure as hell wasn't the republicans.
Every promise that was made about Obamacare has been broken, and it hasn't even kicked in yet.
Under a trillion dollars? NOT
Deficit Neutral? NOT
doesn't cover illegals? oops. it does!
etc etc etc
That is the main reason the dems got a shellacking in November. The American people do not want socialist medicine, and they want politicians who lie and scheme even less. and Obama has proven to be a liar and a schemer.
“Just for a second — health care reform, whether you use a ten-year number or when you start in 2010 or start in 2014, wherever you start at, so it is still either $1 trillion or it’s $2.5 trillion, depending on where you start…”
ReplyDelete(Sen. Baucus, Floor Remarks, 12/2/09)
JJ take off the rose colored glasses, and quit drinking the liberal cool aid.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you do not have to choose sides in this thing. That might be the best idea. A few in the media are making a fortune on this polarization - making us think we have to be one or the other and hating the other side.
ReplyDeleteBelieve it or not in one of longest posts strings on your blog?
We pretty much resolved who was using the Media to devide and even polorize the population to further their own agenda.
We pretty much resolved that VIOLENCE is not the REAL answer and shouldn't be used to further AN AGENDA!
We decided that OUR form of Government can't work if one side or ONE GROUP tries to totally dominate the OTHER!
Whether you agree or not we probably also resolved that it is the lack of OPTIONS available to citizens by its Government.
(A Government that seeks to control Free Market Solutions). That is one of the biggest PROBLEMS! That even more Government control only works to further reduce or eliminate those OPTIONS! (The goal should be to provide incentives or reward the wanted behaviors and solutions.)
I find it really intersting that many of Bill Clintons former adminsistration are not holding positions in the current Whitehouse!
While I'm not a Clinton fan - I don't think Clinton was a Radical Socialist. He understood the importance of the Private Sector! (He even promoted the "Welfare to Work" program along with the Republicans.)
The reason the Private Sector is SO IMPORTANT to a health SOCIETY?
IS THAT IT WORKS TO ENERGIZE ALL THE BASE POPULATION! (Not set them on the sidelines like in Socilism or Communism!)
Done right thats a whole lot of People working to do GOOD!
Sorry.
ReplyDeleteI find it really interesting that many of Bill Clintons former administration are now holding positions in the current White House!
@Anonymous 7:22am - Not sure we "resolved" any of those things. This thread has taken some pretty interesting turns, and surprisingly has been pretty civil. Yes, the media is using us to further their agenda. Yes, violence is not the answer. And yes, a lack of options contributes to the problem. Just not sure it is created by our government. Or, perhaps you could say that they are caused by lack of action on the part of our government. If there were working wage standards that at least allowed a full time worker to live at or above the poverty level, there would be more options. If there were limits with regard to the amount of profit a company could earn without sharing a portion of those profits with employees and consumers, there would be more options. If everybody was entitled to taxpayer funded health care, this would increase options. whats the difference whether you pay your employer, or the government for your health care. You and I are already paying to treat uninsured and under insured people, as no hospital can turn someone in need away. Who do you think those costs get passed on to? Ideally, we would be upfront about that, and distribute the true cost of that evenly. Everyone should get basic coverage. Want more, purchase it for yourself. no one is stopping you.
ReplyDeleteAnd, if everyone was entitled to "well care," you and I might not be paying so much for "emergencies," created by lack of health care.
ReplyDeleteIf there were working wage standards that at least allowed a full time worker to live at or above the poverty level, there would be more options. If there were limits with regard to the amount of profit a company could earn without sharing a portion of those profits with employees and consumers, there would be more options.
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to take the time to outline a response to all the points in Your post!
I'll only say that much of what you are seeing today is the result of too many people who see Government as the ONLY solution to the PROBLEMS!
You can say if they paid a much higher wage then-??
I could say - If people who started families were forced to provide for them - live in the residence - share the costs? The burdens mght be lighter on both the Families and the Government!
You can say if we only had legalized and Government suppoted Abortion we can reduce the population - I can say what about all those who have entered Illegally!
We can go tit for tat all day long!
What your are seeing TODAY is the result of the CHANGE in the responsiblities, values and morals from PAST generations!
I'm not sure there is a "Will" to change back,
but, it will NO DOUBT result in a divided and probably TWO TIER CLASS SOCIETY.
We already have a two tiered society. The corporate robber barons, and political elite and the sheeple who exist for no other reason but to fuel the greed of the corporate robber barons, and political elite.
ReplyDeleteIn these "past generations" that you long for, a worker was able to support his family on his one income. Mom's could stay home and raise the kids if they chose to. A dollar had more earning power, and the only think bought on credit was a home. The wealthy paid most of the nations taxes, (in fact, from 1950 to 1963, individuals paid 91% or 92% of their income above $200,000 to the federal government) and CEO's didn't need to earn 600 times the salary of their average employee to be successful.
ReplyDeleteOh for the good old days...
"in fact, from 1950 to 1963, individuals paid 91% or 92% of their income above $200,000 to the federal government"
ReplyDeleteThat's gotta be BS. show proof please. No one would put up with that.
Not BS - Absolute Fact
ReplyDeletehttp://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
Scroll down and look at 1950 - 1963
The top tax rate decreased from 70% in 1980 to 28% in 1989.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
In 1944 and 1945 it was 94%, it was above 70% from 1936 until 1980. Low taxes for our most wealthy is a relatively new invention.
In the past 99years, there have only been 36years where the tax rate for top earners was under 50%.
ReplyDelete24 of those have occurred since 1987. How's that working out for us? We aren't broke because we are helping our poor. We are broke because there are more millionaires paying less in taxes.
During the the 1980’s the U.S. was went from being the world’s largest creditor nation to the world’s largest debtor nation.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of 1986 the U.S. had a national debt of $269 billion, at the end of 1987 it was $368 billion, but by 1992 it was $3.5 trillion.
As of today this debt is $14 trillion, and it is estimated to grow by $4 billion a day.
Every U.S. citizens personal share of the debt is $45,396.82
Meanwhile the rich get richer. Corporations post record profits, and the wealthiest earners in our country have seen their taxes cut in half since 1980.
See a trend?
How about the trend away from manufacturing toward service? Maybe that trend is what's causing the problems you mention, not that we're not bending over the rich enough. Why should one person pay a higher percentage than another? Are not "all men created equal"? So why should someone making the magical amount of $200,000. a year have to pay a higher percentage of taxes than someone making $35,000.? They are still paying more in taxes because they are paying it on a larger sum, so why should they pay an astronomically higher interest? Why can't our government stop spending at such lavish rates? Washington DC is the epitome of a high class social scene, and it's all on our tax dollars. Suits that cost 2 grand each, fancy cars, lavish lifestyles, the best healthcare money can buy, full time security for life, a lifetime of pay for working at a job for four years.. all on our dime. Where is the outrage about that? Pass the fair tax and let's all pay the same. And reign in government spending.
ReplyDeleteSure, you can spin it however you want. The move from beinging a producer based economy to a service based economy lends to some of our problems. I also think a flat tax could work. No doubt we need to reign in Government spending, too many of our representatives are in the pockets of the corporate bigwigs that make the decisions. These scumbags write laws that favor the rich at the expense of the poor, and then give them tax breaks on top of it. Problem is, the way the current tax law is structured, and the loopholes that exist, many CEO's are paying a lower rate than their receptionists. That is just wrong.
ReplyDeletePeople blame the unions, but the truth is, unions started loosing their influence about the same time the plutocrats gained control of our government. Funny how most of the golden years everyone longs for occurred prior to 1980, and the election of Ronald Reagan.
Another thing which you might think was BS if there wasn't proof is this.
ReplyDeleteNational debt under Ronald Reagan increased 189%.
Under Bush 89%. Thus far under Obama, 31%.
The only years with an increase greater than 15% or greater have occurred under Republican presidents.
http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm
Seems like the only thing worse than a tax and spend liberal democrat, is a don't tax and spend conservative republican.
ReplyDeleteread about the bohemian club, and I'm not talking about just for a few minutes,(unless your a speed reader like jj), but rather give some time to studying what this club is, who they are, and what they are tied to. If you do, you will never look at the news the same again. It is incredible to me, that learned individuals, like many of you who post on this blog, are also the first to discount the idea that much of what our children will face has been contrived (dare I say conspired)
ReplyDeleteMuch of what we have faced as well.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjUrib_Gh0Y
Chilling, Conspired seems to be about right.
The above link is only 9 minutes long. Watch it.
Surprised no one has commented about the above data that calls into question which economic policies have contributed most to our deficit.
ReplyDeleteSurprised no one has commented about the above data that calls into question which economic policies have contributed most to our deficit.
ReplyDeleteWell let's see - we had the end of the Vietnam War - gas prices doubled in almost one days time! (Carter had the oil imbargo after that!)
We saw hyper inflation in the 70's!)
We had the S&L scandal and bailout - that ended during Daddy Bushes Administation and cost to the taxpayers was something in the neighborhood of 160 billion dollars! (It was also a contributor to the 91-93 recession.)
We had the ramp up to Y2K and dot.com bust
(that was during Clintons Admin.) but came due at the start of GW's Presidency.
Then we had 9/11/01.
Then the Financial meltdown of 2007-2008!
Each and everyone of those cost the taxpayers dearly - and added to the deficits!
But the part you are leaving out is that we have an rapidly aging population, we have had a huge influx of illegals, one of the largest number of people imprisoned in the world, the most people ever on food stamps, and greater numbers on other Social Programs. (Obamacare
might just be the tipping point!)
But I might suggest to you that the extremely low interest rates used to spur economic activity and growth have done more damage than Low Taxes.
(Because they have been artificially subsidized - those bubbles would have never GROWN that BIG nor would the economy got that far over extended!)
You might want to think about that one a for a while!
Trust me, no ones giving away money for free. The fed reserve sets the lending rate to take the most advantage of you and me, while making fat cat bankers rich. They create wealth by creating debt. Sure it will eventually collapse the economy, but who cares. They've already made their billions. Yeah, artificially low interest rates have contributed as well. There's lots of blame to pass along.
ReplyDeleteThe number of people imprisoned is a national shame.
# 1 United States: 715 per 100,000 people
# 2 Russia: 584 per 100,000 people
# 3 Belarus: 554 per 100,000 people
# 4 Palau: 523 per 100,000 people
# 5 Belize: 459 per 100,000 people
# 6 Suriname: 437 per 100,000 people
# 7 Dominica: 420 per 100,000 people
# 8 Ukraine: 416 per 100,000 people
# 9 Bahamas, The: 410 per 100,000 people
# 10 South Africa: 402 per 100,000 people
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_pri_per_cap-crime-prisoners-per-capita
The most recent data actually shows 749 per 100,000
http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_newfigures.pdf
Crime rates are falling, incarceration rates are rising.
A disproportionate number of those in prison are Black and Hispanic.
Trust me, no ones giving away money for free. The fed reserve sets the lending rate to take the most advantage of you and me, while making fat cat bankers rich.
ReplyDeleteWell we bailed the TOO BIG TO FAIL BANKS out with taxpayers dollars. You can blame GW - but there were plenty of others involved - Like Geithner who was the head of the Federal Reserve of NYC! So quit trying to PICK SIDES!
(There are filthy RICH Democrats too!)
Each time we had a "CRASH" the solution has been to FIND A NEW BUBBLE! THEN MASH the PEDDLE to the FLOOR!
It's not any different THIS TIME!
Last year there were 1 million homes in foreclosure they are predicting the PEAK something like 1.1 million this year.
(Those bad assets owned by the Big Banks got moved into Freddy and Fannine! So a lot of those
Banks who paid back their loans on that profit from those extremely low inertest rates and "FREE MONEY" also got bailed out of their bad assets!)
The low interest rates are used try to get people to renew their spending/credit/consumer activities.
It forces those with assets into risky investments to get a higher return on that investment! Then to also spur economic activity!
Because too low of interest eats away at its value in traditional vehicles like savings! (Safe investments)
All that together ends in a fleecing of the flock!
It's a vicious CIRCLE and CYCLE!
But NO ONE wants to BURST the BUBBLE or get caught in POWER when one BURSTS - that includes the Democrats who saw those same WARNING SIGNS!
Btw: China is a BUBBLE just waiting to BURST!
"A disproportionate number of those in prison are Black and Hispanic."
ReplyDeleteDisproportionate? I bet it's not disproportionate to the percentage of criminals who are black or hispanic. You will say I'm racist, but I believe that if white people were responsible for the most crime, there would be a higher percentage of white people in prison. As it is, blacks and hispanics commit more crime, hence your "disproportionate" numbers.
@January 27, 2011 4:32 PM - Yeah, I think you're racist. Black males make up 35.4 percent of the jail and prison population — even though they make up less than 10 percent of the overall U.S population. Do you really think blacks, who make up 10% of the population are commiting that many more crimes? What about the death penalty? 22% of black defendants who kill white victims are sentenced to death; while 3% of white defendants who kill black victims are sentenced to death.
ReplyDelete"Blacks commit more crime," is a horribly racist statement.
yea most people being punished for crimes are poor people, and often that means blacks and hispanics.
ReplyDeleteif you have the money and position, you wont go to jail and may not even get convicted of anything, no matter what you did..
yea most people being punished for crimes are poor people, and often that means blacks and hispanics
ReplyDeleteNow we are getting somewhere - I'm sure they got put in prison for their very first minor offense!
Or
Could there be that much difference in the cultures?
No, Your probably are right it's just the color of their skin!
Could there be that much difference in the cultures?
ReplyDelete>>
My point was that I think its economics.
Poor people can't pay their way out as well as rich people can.
Or cannot afford as good of a lawyer.
And, like it or not, poverty; whether black or white forces people to do desperate things, or to turn to drugs and alcohol as a means of escape...
ReplyDeleteMy point was that I think its economics
ReplyDeleteSociety was based on a basic set of rules and principles - we have seen many examples of the rules don't apply to ME! (Doesn't really matter about status! (economic or other wise)
We've seen dominant cultures (even Governments and Religions) who are so strict that even a small infraction is severly penalized! (We've even seen ethnic cleansing - your guilty by your own heritage!)
It all comes down to CHOICES!
Sure WE all become VICTIMS when we take our first breath! (Life is not FAIR!)
Who's responsibility is it to help other people to make the Right/GOOD CHOICES?
I hope you didn't answer GOVERNMENTS!
"Blacks commit more crime," is a horribly racist statement."
ReplyDeleteBut, like it or not, it's a true statement. How can something be racist if it's a fact? If I say that most redheads have freckles, is that a racist statement?
@January 28, 2011 9:39 AM -"But, like it or not, it's a true statement. How can something be racist if it's a fact? If I say that most redheads have freckles, is that a racist statement?"
ReplyDeleteWhere is your evidence? Please post some links to the studies that say blacks commit more crime than whites.
Tell me we don't have racism.
Have you ever been pulled over for driving while white?
Has anyone ever moved to the other side of the street, or refused to get on an elevator with you because you were white?
Have you ever been followed around a store by the sales clerk because you were white?
Explain my death penalty statistics earlier. Can there be any other explanation than racism?
http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/836/Crime-MINORITIES-OFFENDERS.html
ReplyDeleteI have been stopped for little or no reason by cops fishing for DUIs. I was not guilty of anything, so I was released.
I have been followed around a store. People steal stuff. I'm not one who does, but if they want to waste their time following me, who cares. I think it's funny.
The explanation is that they were guilty.
Do I think racism exists? Sure I do. Do I think it has played a part in someone going to jail? Maybe even getting the death penalty? Yeah, unfortunately it probably has. Do I think the fact that there are a lot of blacks and hispanics in prison is because of racism? NO. I think it's because they committed crimes and got caught. It's a proven fact that blacks commit more crimes than whites. Sorry if you think that's racist, but it's really just a fact. I didn't make it up to persecute the black race.
And the argument that they are poor does not hold water, because there are more whites living in poverty than there are blacks and hispanics combined.
A black man was freed awhile back after thiry some years in prison for a crime committed by another black man. That wasn't racism. It was mistaken identity.
@2:14pm - Not sure what your link tells me. It says 30% of homicides were committed by "African-American males between the ages of fourteen and twenty-four." Which means that 70% were not. It tells me that 630,700 White males are in prison, while 818,900 Blacks, and 342,500 Hispanics are incarcerated. I see nothing that says that minorities commit more crime. But, I guess it's easier to say that they're just bred that way.
ReplyDeleteDid you really just say "they're just bred that way?"
ReplyDeleteThe poster you are arguing with never said anything close to that racist.
Racist pig.
Not racist at all. I don't believe it. But, if you want to argue that blacks commit more crimes simply because they are black, then you would have to believe it is in their genes.
ReplyDeleteOr in their culture. Rappers make it look cool to be in trouble with the law.
ReplyDeleteRappers write and sing about what they know. The oppression that they feel as part of the black race is expressed in their music.
ReplyDeleteoppression? Please. We have a black President. This is 2011. We do not treat people differently because of the color of their skin. We treat people differently based on their actions as individuals.
ReplyDeleteRappers write and sing about what they know. The oppression that they feel as part of the black race is expressed in their music.
ReplyDeleteYou know I can't say there aren't legit reasons why Some people have it harder in life then others - some of it may be attributed to their race!
But, all to often its because they don't want to conform to demands of a Healthy Society.
It hasn't been that long ago that I read an article on Yahoo about a Black Women (professional) who adopted a Black Child! She was perfectly capable of having one of her own!
The man she was dating didn't want to get married because he wanted to play the "Field".
He had already Fathered children with other women! (He wanted to Father one with Her!)
That article went on to say there was an inbalance of available Black Women to available Black Men!
Mainly attributed to the number of Black men in Prison!
Does that mean that all "Black Men" are wreckless, selfish, or Ciminals? Not at all - but it is a symptom of the underlying illness of a Moral Catastophe suffered by Todays Generations! (Its not only the Blacks or Hispanics - the whites share in that problem!
Although the The Whites are more inclined to pay for/have abortions!)
That National Debt (monetarily) which will no doubt be passed on to Future Generations can only be eclipsed (over shadowed) by the Moral decay (unpaid debt) from one Generation to the Others!
But, all to often its because they don't want to conform to demands of a Healthy Society.
ReplyDelete>>
Maybe a bit off topic.
It is real hard to say why some people are a success, while others turn out to be bums .. or even why some feel oppressed while others do not.
I dont think there is any simple answer to that.
I also dont thing that just hard work by itself will get you ahead either. There is dumb luck involved too.
Im sure you can remember people from your high school days, who you thought would be a success is not, and who was a bum is now a millionaire..
There really does not seem to be a ryme or reason to it..
It is a great deal of luck, and also a great deal of privilege and power, some of which comes simply from being a white male. Sorry, but that is the truth. It is getting better. much better. Yes, there are successful blacks. Yes, a Black man is President of The United States, but by and large, it is still more difficult for a person of color to succeed to the same degree as a white person. Yes, I will concede that there is more crime amongst blacks, (not enough more to account for the disproportionate incarceration numbers,) but I believe it has more to do with the socio-economic conditions they are living under, and the years of "oppression" they have experienced. You do not recover from something like that overnight. Heck, less than 3 generations ago, blacks were bought and sold as property. Less than 50 years ago, they couldn't drink out of the same water fountain as me.
ReplyDeleteSounds like sour grapes from people who CHOSE not to go to college, or CHOSE not to get enough education to get a good career and become successful. We all have the same opportunities to get a good college education, and to make something of our lives. We either choose to make being a success in business a priority, or we choose to make family a priority, or we choose to be lazy and complain that we are unlucky, or we were born with the wrong last name, or that we were born the wrong color. I bet there are millions of minority people out there who never spent time whining about the circumstances of their birth, and that is why they are successful. Just look at our President. I bet he never sat around whining that he could never get anywhere in life because he was half black and born in a hut in Kenya.
ReplyDeleteThere is some truth to that. There is also some truth to the luck theory too. SOme people do have more opportunity than others, some take advantage and some do not.
ReplyDeleteTo some extent you can make your opportunities, but to some extent you cant.
I know very poor people who are very happy in their lives, and rich people who are miserable.
Which is better?
JJ,
ReplyDeleteI am sorry but again we disagree - You cannot live in "Tribes" as in PUBLIC HOUSING COMPLEXES or "Ghettos" or "Hoods" and live the same as other people be they White, Black, Asian etc.
(In some of those cases The Gangs or Criminals or People who want power over others are the ones who are keeping them oppressed! Often they are people of the same RACE!)
Is that racist?
OR
Is it the way we have chosen to care for those people! (Generation upon generation.)
Government in some cases is nothing more than a BIG dis-incentive!
But I agree that often:
The ability to escape those circumstances is difficult and somtimes impossible!
The BIG question is WHY MAKE THEM BIGGER?
The Black Population is something like 19% the Hispanics have exceeded the Blacks in the minority status!
WHO do you think is competeing the most with the Blacks for Governemnt Aid/Programs?
Who do you think is voting their people into Public Offices and Positions at the local levels and are changing the way our programs work!
Our form of Government is representative of its PEOPLE - it can be beneficial or it can be DESTRUCTIVE!
It all depends on who doing what an why they are doing it!
Btw: Here is something for you to think about:
ReplyDeleteDoes slavery exist in America TODAY?
What about those who are brought to America and are bascially endebted to those who finance them?
If you haven't noticed there are several business models that are being taken over by people of Foriegn origin!
In some of those models the Successful Members finance the businesses of others (often of the same race) who are willing to work their way out of debt!
It happens in Resturants, Hotels/Motels, Convenience stores etc.
I've seen people working sometimes managing motels that can hardly speak English!
Do you see a trend?
Also, I'm not saying that necessarily WRONG -
they have to work hard - but I also wonder if others can compete or be suceesful - even if they work that hard - through conventional methods like Bank Financing!
"You cannot live in "Tribes" as in PUBLIC HOUSING COMPLEXES or "Ghettos" or "Hoods" and live the same as other people be they White, Black, Asian etc.
ReplyDelete(In some of those cases The Gangs or Criminals or People who want power over others are the ones who are keeping them oppressed! Often they are people of the same RACE!)"
Are there guards at the entrance to these places that keep anyone from leaving?
"OR is it the way we have chosen to care for those people! (Generation upon generation.)
Government in some cases is nothing more than a BIG dis-incentive!"
The way WE have chosen to care for those people? First of all, who you callin "THOSE PEOPLE"? Second of all, why do they need cared for? When did it become society's job to care for people who don't care enough to care for themselves? Can they not get a job? Can they not go to school and better their lives? Must they be cared for by people who are willing to go to school and get a job? Where does this sense of entitlement originate?
"The Black Population is something like 19% the Hispanics have exceeded the Blacks in the minority status!
WHO do you think is competeing the most with the Blacks for Governemnt Aid/Programs?
Who do you think is voting their people into Public Offices and Positions at the local levels and are changing the way our programs work!"
Well maybe, just maybe, if the same liberal progressives who want to pay for people to sit around and do nothing and sponsor these programs didn't want to keep our border like it is, that wouldn't be a problem. Close the border and put a nice big dent in the illegal population by deporting the ones already here, and you would have more welfare to go around. Liberal policies of catering to the lazy and parasitic among us is what brought us this far down as a country, and it will only get worse as time goes by if some hard choices aren't made soon.
Are there guards at the entrance to these places that keep anyone from leaving?
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't call them Gaurds - but there are incentives like being paid to have children!
Living with amoung your peers/relatives etc.
Then there probably is the "pressure" to join Gangs and use Drugs and maybe even steal to get what you want in life!
(Where a Jesse and AL when Blacks KILL Blacks?
But if there is any chance that a White Cop killed a Blackman with any doubt you can bet they will show up!
Why aren't they railing against the Gangs, Drugs and Violence within the Black community?)
When did it become society's job to care for people who don't care enough to care for themselves? Can they not get a job?
You know I happen to know of someone who was a Supervisor at Cessena during the "Welfare to Work" program developed by the Clinton administration and the Republicans. Bill Clinton even made a special trip to Wichita to kick of that Program!
He (the Supervisor) told me that the people who the program was supposed to help - not all of them - would come to work for three days and then not show up the rest of the week. When asked about their abscence? They said we worked three days what do you want?
So the answer to that question is when you made it profitable to do nothing through Government Incentives/Programs!
The way WE have chosen to care for those people? First of all, who you callin "THOSE PEOPLE"? Second of all, why do they need cared for?
Again the people who benefit from programs that use incentives to determine their behaviors! (Once on Welfare they are often penalized if they try to do better! They lose some of the money/aid or even benefits!
The rent in Public Housing is often calculated on income!)
Well maybe, just maybe, if the same liberal progressives who want to pay for people to sit around and do nothing and sponsor these programs didn't want to keep our border like it is, that wouldn't be a problem.
Good point!
But their are Empire Builders at all levels of Government and Society!
I'm not sure there is anyone who wants or has the WILL to address the REAL problems!
Besides it would take a real AWAKENING and a few Generations to reverse the current trends!
I'm afraid some Sand Castles would have to washed away!
Wow, this thread certainly has taken a very sad turn. I'm done with it. I will not partake in such racist diatribe.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure there is anyone who wants or has the WILL to address the REAL problems!
ReplyDeleteWow, this thread certainly has taken a very sad turn. I'm done with it. I will not partake in such racist diatribe.
See what I mean!
Exactly! If you talk about the real problems of open borders, or minority cultures that breed entitlement, you are racist. If you ignore them, they get worse and our country gets that much closer to failure.
ReplyDeleteI think it's time we stopped being politically correct, and stopped worrying about offending someone, and started dealing with the real issues.
The real issues as YOU see them.
ReplyDeleteLet's discuss them if you'd like.
What do YOU see as the biggest issues involving race in the United States today?
The only issue I see involving race does not really involve race, and that is the problem of illegal immigration. I say it doesn't involve race because if the people of Mexico and wherever else decided to do it right and come here legally, it would not be a problem. But as it is now, our resources that are already stretched thin by an economy in turmoil, are being used to pay for the influx of illegals across our border. A border that our government refuses to protect. It has nothing to do with the race of those coming across, but it has everything to do with the refusal by them to become Americans. Their loyalties lie with their home country, not their new one.
ReplyDelete190 posts!?!?! Between 4 people??? Please stop encouraging these trolls.
ReplyDeleteWell if you must keep this string going and really want to talk about issues?
ReplyDeleteConsider this:
One of the main reasons Drug trafficing is probably so prevalent amoung minority groups is that it is UNDOCUMENTED INCOME!
It doesn't register as taxable income which might effect any benefits or programs provided to them by the Government! (Because it doesn't show up anywhere as a business with employees, equipment, structures etc. Although there may be a legit business used as a front.)
It is also a SUPPLY AND DEMAND business so they need consumers! (Thus the push for users!)
Same could probably be said for the Sex trafficing business!
Even if you try to leagalize it the Black Market in drugs as well as other areas will still exist!
There is a whole SHADOW ECONOMY that doesn't really register anywhere except within its own unique Society!
Then consider that the Supply Side is often taking money out of the Country!
190 posts!?!?! Between 4 people??? Please stop encouraging these trolls.
Make that 190+
This has been an interesting post, certainly the longest i can recall. Its had more than four people, and way more than four subjects.
ReplyDeleteMany a winding turn.
Do i hear 200?
well, you gotta have someting to lure advertisers...
ReplyDeleteOh heck 195,
ReplyDeleteI think the Russians as well as many other countries realized the STRENGTH OF AMERICA was it's LARGE MIDDLE CLASS!
The TRADITIONAL FAMILY was the BACKBONE of that Middle Class!
I think it was Putin who said for America to Fail/Fall as a World Power they would have to destroy the Middle Class/Tradional Family Model!
Well here we are in 2011 and the Traditional Family is still honored amoung certain groups - mainly the Elderly, the Religious and many of those who were raised by those standards!(Although Society has pretty much given the green light to abandoning those values! I think the Divorce rate pretty much tells the story!)
So in our modern Society it is permissable to start a family without the full support of two committed Parents! Or even Divorce and often the burden of providing or supporting the modern family falls to the PUBLIC!
Now the new twist is to not get married have children and the Mother and Children apply for AFDC, Healthwave, Foodstamps etc. and the Father continues to work, maybe pay child support but live or particpate in the Family!
I think I was told by one young man that's how you work the System!
Maybe you can work the System to the point it no longer works at all!
Btw: It's now even permissable for the Clergy to be Divorced! (Who is left to set the EXAMPLES!)
It is LOVE that makes a family. I consider myself to be a religious person, but I do not believe that family has to be defined in traditional ways. Many fictive relationships have a much greater value than blood relation, and I believe two loving committed men or women can and do raise children very capably. I am not altogether convinced that welfare encourages, or gives an incentive to people to have children to game the system, although I am certain that on rare occasions this does occur.
ReplyDeleteWe need to reform welfare, perhaps do away with it completly and create a workfare system. If you are capable, you work. Gov't will pay you to do something. If you are employed at a job that is not able to pay you a living wage, (equal to poverty level) then the gov't will subsidize your income. You have children, and 2 heads of household, you get a tax break. Need childcare so you can work, it will be free at gov't sponsored day care, staffed by people who used to receive welfare, but are now working for their money... We need a new Civilian Conservation Corp, rather than handing 100 billion dollars to corporations, put people to work fixing roads, bridges, parks... this would stimulate the economy...
It is LOVE that makes a family.
ReplyDeleteYou put together a pretty good post and set of ideas!
Except:
While Love may help us overcome many of the difficulties we might face in life! It doesn't replace responsibility/accountability!
How many times have you seen people raised by people other than there natural Parents and knew it - who spent their life looking for answers to questions! Did I resemble my Father or Mother? What health issues might be hereditary? Did I have brothers and Sisters?
etc.
The second part was pretty much about the expanded role of Government - not about personal responsiblity or accountability!
No matter how bad you want Government to play a role in making things Right or Just! There is no substitution for morality or personal accounatbility!
The role of Government didn't work in the USSR, or in Cuba nor is it fully successful in Europe or Canada and it won't work in Venezula!
America was founded on Freedom and its citizens holding each other accountable to ensure that Freedom Prevailed for ALL!
True Freedom and Democracy are only effective and long lasting where people are responsible and accountable.
Why would you choose to Give THAT AWAY!
You are absolutely correct. There is no substitute for morality and accountability. I am merely trying to point out that being gay, or a single parent does not necessarily make you immoral any more than being married makes you moral. Yes, ideally all children would be wanted, and grow up in stable two parent households with their biological mom and dad, mom would stay at home, and things would be peachy. Problem is, that is not reality. Never really has been. Kids are and always have been born out of wedlock. Parents do, and always have divorced. There are plenty of two parent homes where the parents are working, and neglecting their children. There are families where children are being abused, sexually, physically, emotionally...right here in Cowley County. Trust me, I see it every day.
ReplyDeleteBetter to have children raised in homes where they are loved, than left feeling as though they were an unwanted inconvenience.
What kind of "Old Fashioned Family Values," would the readers of this blog like to see us return to? Should they be like those of the Bible?
ReplyDeleteAbraham, Sarah, Isaac, and Jacob were all listed in Hebrews 11 as great "heroes of faith," but their individual stories in the Old Testament depict them as people who lied and practiced various other types of deception, who granted sexual favors for personal gain and sometimes engaged in polygamous relationships, who showed favoritism to their children, and did many other things that no decent family today would consider morality worthy of emulation.
Noah cursed his son Ham's descendent's just because he saw Ham saw him naked naked.
Jephthah sacrificed his only daughter as a "burnt offering" to the Lord as thanks for his defeat of the Ammonites.
Gideon had many wives, 70 sons and a concubine.
King David had 6 wives, but wasn't content with that, he also desired Saul's daughter Michal, because women were property, David offered to by Michal for the foreskins of 200 Philistines. Unfortunately, Michal was already to another man, so David took her by force. And, who could forget the story of David and Bathsheba. David, not content with the 7 wives he had, has relations with another mans wife, which results in a pregnancy. How does David solve his dilemma? he has Bathsheba's husband killed.
We could go on and on... I'm not bashing the Bible. In fact, I am a faithful Christian that holds the Bible very dear, but it is a complex book that has to be seen as a whole. We hold it up as some idealistic bluprint for living, but it is not. Indeed there is nothing new under the sun.
I actually agree with that. I don't think the intent of the bible is to tell us how to live.
ReplyDeleteIt's intent is to tell us about God and how we may have a relationship with him.
Just seeing it as an instruction book short-changes it, in my opinion.