Believe it or not, I sorta like the guy. I respect him much more than our gun-grabbing president - who is now my least favorite president of all time.
I have a few very close friends who are farther left than you or base - and one thing we have realized over the last few years, is that there is much more in common with the far left, the far right and the libertarians - than all the mealy-mouthed, ruling class elitists in the middle.
At the end of the day, there isn't much difference between Obama, Bush, Romney, Bush, Clinton or any of them.
I would rather be governed by Ron and Rand Paul and Justin Amash and Bernie Sanders and Kucinich - than ANY and ALL other politicians, who seemed to be made up of the crooked and evil ruling class elite.
But, that group of elitists IS good at getting us to argue left and right - while they destroy from the middle.
Percentage of various folks who believe in global warming:
Canadians -- 98%
Sheep -- 98%
Hey, good to hear from you.
Have not been paying that much attention to the Board in the off season but, in the stuff that I did look at, I had not seen your comments ( usually pretty emphatic), and kind of missed them.
As you might guess my view on guns does not coincide with yours, but I do feel that your thoughts on politicians -both semi left and semi right - are correct. Kuchinich and Paul surely do not have views that coincide, but either would be acceptable to me.
You know from some of our past conversations that I feel that (although there are many complexities) the basic problem is that lawmakers, and others of political influence, are all bought, mostly by corporations or special interest groups.
I had said -and I still feel that way - that in the long run and without taking a considerable amount of money (Kuchinich and what they now call those getting "primaried"). It is failure on our part to use the structure of our government to exert the controls that would limit the power of special interests
The gun thing , if pursued ,could end, down the road, in a number of states seriously advocating secession. To me, the gun situation also presents an unsolvable problem.
By the way, the funny numbers I was quoting to SC from Harpers Index also had this one: Number of signatures required in a month to whitehouse.gov in order to get a response -25000. Number obtained in Texas in a week calling for Texas to secede - 100,000.
This was prior to President Obama's gun "message". I would think that secession may become a real issue as the "unsolvability" of the more devisive issues among states becomes apparent.
The only good thing that I have found about being old is that I will not see a lot of how this plays out.
Hey Sixer , are you trying to pull the wool over my eyes again?
As we used to say in the olden days , that was the point of telling a young lady that her sweater was pretty.
His second wife, Sandra Lee McCarthy, is quite attractive as well. It's not all that uncommon for a guy with a little power and a few dollars to become more attractive than his physical attributes would otherwise employ.
MrOG, run for office!
Good to hear from you. Yes, I have been very busy and dealing with a bunch of that life stuff that happens. Not been on the board too much, either.
I agree that most politicians are bought and paid for by someone - and truly rich crooks are not liberal or conservative - they are soulless sociopaths who do not have an opinion on anything.
You are correct that we differ on guns - because logically, they don't work. If Obama got ALL of his laws passed, it would not stop the nutjob in CT or anywhere. If someone is so evil that they can randomly kill innocent people (thus breaking the Murder 1 law) they are not going to pay attention to any gun laws. Can you outlaw guns? They outlawed weed back in 1937 - how did that work out? They outlawed alcohol during prohibition - how'd that work out? Like I have to remind my Christian Conservative friends when they want something immoral outlawed - "You cannot legislate morality."
The gun issue is one area that the anti-gun left is 100% wrong and statistics back it up. We need to start going after people - nutjobs, wackos and psychos - and stop blaming guns. Like Archie Bunker so wisely stated, "Would it make you feel any better little girl if dey was trown outta windows?"
"Believe it or not, I sorta like the guy. I respect him much more than our gun-grabbing president - who is now my least favorite president of all time."
Don't worry, you'll be left with plenty of guns. But I will concur that Kucinich would be significantly preferable to Obama.
"I would rather be governed by Ron and Rand Paul and Justin Amash and Bernie Sanders and Kucinich - than ANY and ALL other politicians, who seemed to be made up of the crooked and evil ruling class elite."
If you would really prefer B. Sanders or D. Kucinich to the "ruling class elite" there is hope for you yet. But to think these guys are similar (philosophically) to the Pauls or Amash, is pretty much ludicrous. Claiming the "far Right" (which like it or not includes the Libertarians) and "far Left" have any commonality beyond their distaste for that "ruling elite" is even more ludicrous.
By the way, lately, I haven't seen you around here much, I hope all is well. And yes, I mean that sincerely.
All I'm lacking there is a little power and a few dollars.
The only real qualification for politics that I have is that I could be bought - easily.
<Percentage of various folks who believe in global warming:
Which one were you again?
There is an article in the "Atlantic" this month that kind of makes the point you are making.
It is rather lengthy, but the gist of it is that there is no way we can solve the problem, by outlawing types of guns, with 300 million guns out there. He advocates having more people carrying guns.
It is a fairly well written article but , in no way do I agree with his research or conclusions. For example he points out that overall the gun murder rate is declining, then subsequently says that the fact that the murder rate stayed the same in Ohio since they permitted concealed weapons suggests that mare guns do not mean more deaths. Sounds like he didn't read the first part of what he said.
He also points out that "civilized'" countries that have stricter weapons laws have far fewer deaths from firearms, while concurrently recommending that an increase in firearms may reduce deaths. This does not seem to follow.
I know there are a number of stats posted on each side from the knowledgeable "rent a University professor" group. All are more knowledgeable about the subject than I, but I usually suspect that their point of view may be somewhat prejudiced (both sides) based on something we like to call an honorarium.
What I do know is what the article says about the number of guns is true and that there is no way folks will give them up.However I would equate efforts aimed at solving the problem by identifying people who are likely to misuse them, to the efforts by many to suggest that the income problems be addressed by closing tax loopholes. Well yes, they should be closed and yes there is a lot of money there. But no, they will not be closed - that is why they are not identified with specificity -and further, more will be opened.The suggestion is quite simply a red herring.
It is not that I am saying that some effort should not be made to identify people who should not be buying guns, it is that such an approach would only serve to underscore that "the devil is in the details". It would be impossible to get agreement on anything that would have identified many of the culprits in the recent attacks over the past five years, and it is clear that the more guns that are out there the easier it would be for such folks to get a gun by hook or crook. The idea has merit but at some level I believe it is more of an effort to deflect attention from the assault weapon issue.
Put all of that with the fact that about half of the folks in the U.S. don't care. Unsolvable problem.
<<<He also points out that "civilized'" countries that have stricter weapons laws have far fewer deaths from firearms, while concurrently recommending that an increase in firearms may reduce deaths. This does not seem to follow.>>>
Maybe having more firearms here will reduce deaths. Perhaps having stricter weapons resulting in fewer deaths, only works in civilized countries?
Now really Mr Bounce is there any evidence then even when when you and I type words we are communicating?
One would think that our rather weak attempts at humor would probably not be recognized as "within bounds"even the loosest definition of communication.
There are standards you know!
Hey Bounce - For some reason I get a "blocked plug in" on most all of these things when I try to go to the site.
MOG is no technician - miss quite a bit.
You are probably missing the Adobe Flash Player plug in. If you want help, I can walk you through it in a step by step format. You shouldn't be worried about this as it is a necessity to view most videos found on the internet.
Your version is probably just outdated if you haven't been keeping it up to date.
Let me know if you are interested in watching Tiggers witty and humourous nuggets.
The problem isn't really as simple as politicians being bought and paid for. At least so far, they still come up for elections every few years. If the general public actually cared or was engaged, there could be real change. Look at the House of Representatives. Approval rating is at or near historic lows, yet what happened last election? Every seat was up for re-election, and the vast majority of them were re-elected.
The problem is people hate congress, yet somehow still think their congressman is doing a great job. That really goes beyond who influences them, and lays blame on the people. If you were a rep, and knew that no one was ever going to hold you accountable, very few would bother. It's true that people get the government they deserve.
I would never suggest that the problem was a simple one.
As I have said before in a few discussions with SC, I simply believe that it is not solvable.
I disagree with you that people just don't care - that is where the issue of complexity really exists.
Although one can make the argument that the % of voters that vote in America, being as small as it is, supports your view, I think that there are many reasons for that , well laid out in the literature, that illustrate the complexity, rather than assuming that they "just don't care".
With respect to local elections of representatives, those are the easiest to control with money. As I mentioned the threat to be"primaried" is currently very real and a factor in the negotiations concerning national finance at this point. The lowest percentage turnout for most any election is in the primaries within the two parties. Thumping a pile of money down for local advertising and having teams to turn voters out are extremely effective. Properly carried out, records can be distorted etc.
I would stand by my point that most all politicians are bought in this country today -again , not their fault since it is the only avenue - although it is surely true that, like many "problems" there are many levels of corruptness that result, not a single level. I would not lump them into one bundle".
When I am back in Reston and go to an occasional lunch with aides (the world's future lobbyists) it is clear to them that this is a trend. Surely from a simplistic - problem to solution - point of view , the fault is with the voters. Problem is that this ignores the actual grip, and ability to influence, that exists within our oligarchy. There is no escape from this grasp that is not more difficult and painful than people believe.
Thanks - have some issues right now.
My wife has Mac Degen and just contracted something called Polynalgia Rheumatica which I guess is permanent.
The medical hurdles in Florida are difficult to get over. More old people than doctors and it is very difficult to get a Primary Physician.
They would mostly like to treat people who are not sick. The Hypocrytic Oath, as you know.
But I sure could use the laughs. Hope it is OK if I get back with you in a couple of days for help.