Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/14/13 12:09 PM, leanlifter1 copy & pasted from a pro-OWS site:

A bunch of stuff...

...but forgot to link his SOURCE.

You know...this is the second time you've cut and pasted. Remember 13 key signifiers of Fascism?

At 3/3/13 11:18 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 3/3/13 09:33 AM, TheMason wrote: Actually, technology is what the article is blaming...not the women.

I know this, but the many bylines and titles they put on the story strongly imply that it's the less work in stead of clearly pinning the blame on technology's lazing effect.

It's an interesting study in media & politics/science. The study itself is most likely dry and boring. But the coverage is designed to sensationalize. The headline is specifically written to create interest in the story...and if it creates a little controversy...all the better!

Now yellow journalism has always existed. I wonder if in the info-entertainment age things are getting worse.

At 3/1/13 07:34 PM, Warforger wrote: Hahahaha. Obesity is viewed incorrectly in America. Part of the problem is that more women are working and on top of that take of children.

Actually, the study found that women who work outside of the house burn more calories a week than those who stay home.

Part of the problem is the long work hours and short work leaves. Whereas the US at most gives 3 months of maternity leave for women (that's in CA, it varies state to state) other countries like Denmark give around a year.

This is pretty much irrelevent...and as the study found...counterproductive. Remember: working women burn only 132 fewer calories today than women did in 1965. Women who stay at home burn 360 less calories than women did in 1965. So having them spend a year at home will only lead to more sedintary lives.d

Another factor for obesity actually the strongest indicator of obesity is income. It's the only statistic that predicts obesity the best. Simply put the poorer you are the more likely you are to be obese because you simply can't afford healthy food and have to eat fast food.

Again...bullshit. Eating fast food is horribly expensive compared to eating healthy. While you point out the stuff on McDonald's dollar menu...you forget that chicken often costs less than a dollar a pound (a 5lbs whole roaster chicken around here costs about $4.60) and a can of veggies cost about $.50-.75 depending on whether or not you buy the store or name brand. There are also discount grocery stores such as Aldi's and Save-A-Lot where you can shop for cheap. The whole 'fast food' argument is highly specious.

So I think it's a lot more complicated than "do more housework and you're fine" because its more likely they can't.

I don't think it's near as complicated as you think. This study dovetails with a 2011 study that overemphasized men (because all they did was look at people who worked outside the home), the studies find that we as a society are expending a great deal less energy than we did in 1965. I mean this ain't rocket science.

Besides it goes both ways. Income inequality is heavily correlated with rate of mental illness, happiness, trust, crime etc. and in the video's comments right wingers were raging about how it was all bullshit ( countries with higher inequality scored poorly, in particular the US ranked poorly and had one of the highest income inequalities).

Huh? What video? On the Yahoo source there was a 1:30 video that had 10 tips for cleaning house. But nowhere did I see anything with 'right wingers' or the stuff you're talking about here.

At 3/1/13 09:59 PM, BumFodder wrote: poor link between correlation and causation

Yeah...I'm guessing you didn't read the article (or the original New York Times article)...just read the headlines. Probably didn't even pay attention to the OP. :)

At 3/1/13 02:29 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Right conclusion, wrong wording.

It is true that housewomen are gaining weight because of less activity. However, the way the study words it makes it seem as it that's the fault of the women, when it is not. It;s the fault of technology. Part of the reason the amount of housework has been cut in half, even while home size has increased, is because technology has taken a great deal of time and manual labor out of the same activities.

Actually, technology is what the article is blaming...not the women.

The washer and the dryer remove the need for extensive drying, and a lot of extra wash work (like ironing in many cases).

They actually point this out. Especially in the case of clothes dryers. It is a time and energy saver putting clothes in the dryer next to the washer instead of hauling it outside to hang on the line.

Better kitchen appliances (and the advent and expansion of instant meals) has significantly reduced the amount of time need for cooking.

I'm not sure if the full study mentioned this.

Vacuum cleaners no longer weigh 60 pounds and they work better, thus removing the need for as much vacuuming and making that which remains a lighter activity.

This is something else that they pointed to.

Full on mopping is rarely needed with swiffer and such instant mops.

Again...not sure if they specifically point to this in the study. However, the main point is not that women have gotten lazy...just that technology has changed how we work (in and out of the home).

So unless the modren homemaker is replacing that work time with some sort of activity (light exercising or such) the current homemaker does 1/2 the activity. Such time is often replaced by sedentary acts, namely the television.

In 1965 women who stayed at home spent about 8+hrs a week watching TV. No they spend 16+hrs a week. And not just the TV...the internet too.

Let's also not forget the general reduction in acivity in scoiety over the past 50 years, as well as the explosion in unhelthy eating habits and massive amounts of cola drinking.

Diet was not in the study's scope, it was analyzing exercise patterns...which is what you're saying. Furthermore, like I said in the OP: the original 2011 study only looked at 'workers' which left out to a large extent women. This study is actually rectifying those who were marginalized by the general study.

In short, the study does itself a major disservice by wording its conclusion to say that homemakers work less than before (as if they're worth less than before) and by implying that the reduction inhousework related activity is the primary cause for the weight gain, whcih we all know it is not. It is just another factor among many. But hey, if they hadn't worded it so controversilly, none of us would know it ever took place.

Actually, the study probably is not worded all that controversially at all. What was worded controversially is the New York Times' headline (as well as mine). And that was actually my point in posting it was to see if I could duplicate the NYT's controversy here. You know...people getting all upset over just the provacative headline. I honestly wasn't expecting to catch you and some of the others who responded. I mean...many of your points pointing out what the study should've looked at (ie: vacuum cleaners, dryers, and TV).

In the end, the study is not really that flawed nor is it all that controversial. Instead, it shows how we as a country seem to want to make controversy over nothing.

At 3/1/13 11:47 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: Here's a little thread, hoping I can get to practice my english in political and sociological debates. I would like to get Newgrounds views on the Panopticon from sociological, philosophical and politico-philosophical points of view.

If you do not know what the Panopticon is...

Interesting topic. I'm doing a career change from active duty military to social studies teacher and so I'm interested in educational topics at the moment.

Bentham wanted to apply the principle to schools and I totally, vehementally disagree. As he said it is about mind exerting control/power over other minds. In an educational setting this would grind out creative, original, and individual thought. This would create a society of drones that would stop questioning authority.

This could suppress the Einsteins and Renaissance Men & Woman who move society and humanity forward, as well as trampling individual freedom.

But as a prison...yeah...might be a good idea.

====

On a side note as friendly advice, try and state what you believe first rather than just solicit our opinions. I understand it may be difficult if English is not your native language. But we'll cut you some slack...even though you may need to remind us from time to time! :)

I see you've been a NG member for awhile now...but if you're new to the politics forum: welcome to the debate!

SOURCE

So this is an interesting read. Seems that there was a study on women's activity levels since the 1960s and how our more sedintary culture is contributing to women's expanding bellies. According to the study this is because they do on average less housework than their mothers and grandmothers. Even amongst stay-at-home wives, the amount of physical activity is falling.

The New York Times ran an aticle about the study titled What Housework Has to Do With Waistlines.

The response was swift and severe. The article was tweeted and retweeted. It was decried as sexist. And why didn't they study men's guts! Those sexist pigs!

The funny thing is people were reacting without reading the article and judging it on the headline...not its scientific merits. For example:

* The study was in response to a 2011 study that studied how work patterns have resulted in less active lives and more health risks...the study underrepresented women so the study's authors wanted to focus on women since patterns with females were not examined.

* The study was not about whether or not women should do housework, but how their activity level has dropped whether working in or outside the home.

* Working women actually burn more calories than housewives since the deficit for housewives is -360 calories/day from 1960s levels, and working women's deficit is -132 calories/day.

So I wonder if the knee-jerk reaction by the NYT's readership (which 'cmon...when was the last time a conservative/Republican/Libertarian read the NYT? I mean we're still painting on cave walls and bashing women over the head with clubs!) means that Liberals are anti-science?

:p

At 2/28/13 11:44 PM, Proteas wrote: I'd be wary of buying a tungsten carbide ring anyway. My brother's divorce was finalized back in December, and now he's left with a $300 tungsten carbide wedding band he can't get rid of. Nobody around here wants to buy it from him because... they can't be re-sized.

My ring is titanium...from Walmart. I'm horrible with rings so I need to go both tough and cheap!

So can I be part of the Fellowship of the Ring? And can Mordor be Hawaii?

Plumbing is the bane of my existence. Last summer just about every component of my well went tits up. Well pump, pipe from the pump to well head, pipe from well head to the house, and my pressure tank...it all died. So I had to replace it and it was a bitch (I'm also not rich so I did all myself).

So now that's it's winter...the geniuses who built my house in '81 thought it would be a good idea to bring the drain out of the house and pour a concrete walkway over it...without laying a good enough foundation of gravel and sand. So yesterday a buddy and I rented a jackhammer and went to town on the concrete. Plus now it looks like I've got a septic tank instead of a lagoon.

Oh...and WTF? When do you use duct tape to splice PVC?

====

To further my redneck credentials...

My proposal to my wife was kind of sudden and spur of the moment on New Years Eve 2009/2010. So we went to Walmart and got a $10 bottle of champagne and a $50 ring. The chick working the jewelry counter was shocked that we were there to actually buy jewelry and not just avoid the long check-out lanes! We had a friend who makes custom jewelry and she eventually got a custom ring: white gold, emerald, and celtic knot design.

But it was fun mocking the 'He went to Jared!' commercials, telling everyone 'He went to Walmart!'.

====

But in conclusion...fuck plumbing.

At 2/27/13 11:56 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 2/27/13 11:20 PM, TheMason wrote: Reagan got screwed over this way by Tip O'Neil.
Bush One got screwed over by Tom Foley
The same game was played between Clinton and Gingrich (w/roles reversed)...until Gingrich overplayed his hand over the second government shut-down.

Great, so you recognize there's precedent for the GOP to hold the economy hostage when things aren't going their way.

Twist words much? I'm saying that in the past when Repubs and Dems compromise the Repubs open their legs at just the promise of cuts...the Dems get what they want but never deliver.

You take one incidence and try to paint too broad a stroke with it my friend. :)

What? If that was true we'd have President Romney right now! Obama is a horrible, horrible governor! What he does excel in is controlling the message.

Obama's campaign =/= the Democratic party's message wing. No amount of glossy packaging can sell somebody a piece of shit. This is why Romney lost. But the GOP sure as hell does an excellent job at making people think the deficit, government debt/spending, and welfare are killing the economy. The Democrats just don't have the media influence the GOP has. Ironically enough, the opposite is a GOP talking point. See what I mean?

Wait...what? I'm sorry but in what way does the GOP have a media advantage? I mean yes...it dominates talk radio and has one news channel. But what about the liberal media outlets?

And mainstream media? I'm not going to make the BS claim that they are horribly skewed one way or another in terms of broadcast news...but how does the GOP have an advantage with them?

Also, the Dems have a highly effective message machine right now. They are more plugged into social media, and in a youth centered culture their message appeals to the young more. They used this machine to great effect in '06 to take back congress...without an Obama campaign. Finally, they are much better at crafting emotional arguments which work far better than the wonky, numbers driven arguments made by Repubs.

At 2/27/13 10:23 PM, Feoric wrote: I have absolutely no idea where you're getting this notion that Republicans get "screwed" when compromising with the Democrats. ...

It's called having a longer memory...and I should have been more clear on taking a historical view instead of a snapshot.

Reagan got screwed over this way by Tip O'Neil.
Bush One got screwed over by Tom Foley
The same game was played between Clinton and Gingrich (w/roles reversed)...until Gingrich overplayed his hand over the second government shut-down.

The problem: the Dems are better at messaging than the Republicans.

Is this gallows humor or something? Democrats are fucking atrocious at this compared to Republicans.

What? If that was true we'd have President Romney right now! Obama is a horrible, horrible governor! What he does excel in is controlling the message.

At 2/27/13 08:11 PM, Famas wrote:

At 2/27/13 08:04 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

I openly stated that people and corporations should stop getting out of paying taxes.

Yeah, but while simultaneously arguing that increasing tax rates on them could be detrimental to us, which is really confusing.

It's not really that absurd once you stop to think about it rather than go along with the emotions. Tax the rich schemes often fail to bring about the desired ends and quite often hurt the 'little guy'.

When you take money away from individuals in the form of taxes and give it to the government, you are siphoning money out of the economy to launder it through the government to give to local public officials to provide you with a service. Part of this process is filtering it up then down through multiple layers of bureacracy. This money is thus taken away from re-investment in one's company, investment in another's company, or even local and state governments trying to issue bonds to pay for better roads or education. (When you hear about bond issues in local and state elections...they're not selling them to the middle or lower classes!)

Secondly, ever hear of the luxury tax? Sounds great: let's tax things that people consume but do not need such as fur coats and yachts. They tried this under FDR to make the rich pay 'their fair share', but eventually they did away with most of them except the ones that disproportionally effected the poor and middle class! How did a tax aimed at the rich end up unfairly hurting the poor and middle class? Because not enough people were buying yachts and fur coats to cover the cost of administering the tax so it was a money looser for the Feds. However, taxes on things like liquor and tobacco were on things that people from all walks of life consumed. A poor person did not pay less than a millionaire buying the same bottle of whiskey. But, the poor person did pay a higher percentage of their income on these taxes.

The absurdity is thinking soaking the rich is a good idea.

At 2/27/13 12:20 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 2/27/13 11:19 AM, TheMason wrote: Just a reminder: the sequester idea ooriginated from White House, primarily it is Sec Lew's baby...not Congress'.

Well, yeah, technically the administration did introduce the idea of sequestration, but I think you're missing the point here. ...

I kind of answered this in reply to Camaro. :)

No one in the Beltway is acting like adults. Makes for a very strong argument for decentralizing and returning to Federalism.

Why not just go full primitivist like John Zerzan while you're at it?

Because I understand that anarchy is just as bad as democracy: it is a system by which might makes right and civilization breaks down completely.

At least Federalism makes sense. Yes...it is not 1788 and the US is a very different country. And yet in many ways, a Unitary system of government makes more sense for the original 13 than it does for a country comprised of 50 states, over 3,000 municipalities, and over 300M people. After all, look at education. 7% of a school's funding comes from money taken from the district & state, and then funneled back to the district with a string of requirements that tie the hands of local school boards, administrators, and teachers. The educational reforms of the past 20 years have been proven to be failures and yet we cannot shake the yoke that comes with a part of school budgets that could be replaced with local levies.

At 2/27/13 11:59 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 2/27/13 11:19 AM, TheMason wrote: Just a reminder: the sequester idea ooriginated from White House, primarily it is Sec Lew's baby...not Congress'.

Wasn't it actually a Tea Party idea to ensure money gets cut regardless?

Yes and no. The sequester idea originated with Lew.

At about the same time the Tea Party was pointing out that Republicans typically get screwed when compromising with Democrats. The Dems get the tax rates they want and never deliver on the cuts. So when the administration offered this of their own volition...it was too good of an offer to pass up.

The problem: the Dems are better at messaging than the Republicans.

And the Republicans single handedly made the fiscal cliff possible by looking every gift horse offer in the mouth.

Really? Obama was more interested in campaigning (even though he had won re-election) than staying in DC and actually governing. What the Republicans should've done was leave DC until Obama returned to actually start negotiating.

No one in the Beltway is acting like adults. Makes for a very strong argument for decentralizing and returning to Federalism.

I hate the term Federalism. It is the most misused word in politics and the legal world. It means the OPPOSITE of what people use it as. Federalism doesn't mean to move away from Federal power, it actually means to support Federal power. Not sure what a better term would be, as "statism" doesn't really fit either.

Actually...yes...yes it does mean just that. A Federal system means there is a distribution of all powers between different levels of government. Therefore, everything from the central government (DC) to states to cities and even school districts have the power to legislate, execute laws, and administer justice. Thus sovereignty is actually shared between the levels of government.

What you are getting at is a Unitary or Central system of government. In these systems sovereignty is totally invested in the national government as is the majority of power. These systems work well in countries the size of European states where they do not have that large of a population and/or geographic area.

There is a 'living' view of Federalism where people look to invest more power in the Federal government and centralize it on the national level. But I think this is a perversion of the term and an attempt to couch a progressive agenda in traditional terms. I quote that ancient sage, Blues Traveler:

There is something amiss
I am being insincere
In fact I don't mean any of this
Still my confession draws you near
To confuse the issue I refer
To familiar heroes from long ago
Lyrics from eLyrics.net

@ Feoric

Just a reminder: the sequester idea ooriginated from White House, primarily it is Sec Lew's baby...not Congress'.

Also, the super committee failed because of Democratic intransigence... not just Republican/Tea Party intransigence.

No one in the Beltway is acting like adults. Makes for a very strong argument for decentralizing and returning to Federalism.

* You also speak of the Constitutionality of the ban. Yes in Heller v. DC the Supreme Court ruled that âEUoethe right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." As well as "dangerous and unusual weapons" are subject to restriction.
--Military rifles typically fire rounds that are not designed specifically to kill, whereas hunting, self-defense, and shotgun shells are designed to make death happen quicker and more probable. In fact, in many states the 5.56mm/.223 ammo used in the AR-15 is considered too small to effectively kill deer. I would not consider a firearm that is unethical to use to kill a deer because it canâEUTMt guarantee the killâEU¦an unusually dangerous firearm.
--These firearms are commonly held by the civilian populace and have found legitimate sporting purposes from competitive shooting, self-defense, and hunting. While I would never use an AR-15 to hunt deerâEU¦I use my AK-47 clone. Armed with the right ammo it is very effective at taking deer. Combined with his power, which is less than traditional deer rifles, makes the AK more safe for hunting in the woods or relatively short fields.

====

So in conclusion, Senator, you do not make an effective case for this legislation. Your attempt at deconstructing the âEU~cosmeticâEUTM criticism of this legislation you are unsuccessful and fail. You are flat-out wrong and your ignorance on this topic is left exposed. Furthermore, in order to adhere to Justice ScaliaâEUTMs criteria that these weapons may constitutionally be restricted due to âEUoedangerous and unusualâEU characteristicsâEU¦you need to make that case. Instead, this case has yet to be made.

Sen Dianne Feinstein

On 22 Feb, Dianne Feinstein wrote in the Orange County Register her justifications for renewing the assault weapons ban. In it, she spells out that the bill does not include a confiscation of these types of firearms from people, like me, who already legal owns one or more of these firearms. Furthermore, it does not authorize a mandatory gun buyback program. She goes on to say: âEUoeI hope the facts will lead this debate, and not misperceptions pushed by a gun lobby that seems to care more about the profits of weapon manufacturers than the safety of the American public.âEU
I would like to see the debate guided by facts as well Senator. Unfortunately, while you end your piece by chiding lobbyists and an entire industry, your own opinion is riddled with fallacies, errors, and misperceptions. Here is a list:

* First you try, and fail, to deconstruct the criticism of the assault weapons ban that it is based upon characteristics that are cosmetic in nature and do not increase the effectiveness of the weapons. Your arguments complete with my own deconstruction:
-âEUoeA pistol grip makes it easier for a shooter to rapidly pull the trigger, facilitates firing from the hip and allows a shooter to quickly move the weapon from side to side to spray a wider range.âEU
--Okay, to begin with, I have a Mini-14 and SKS both of which lack a pistol grip. I can pull these triggers just as fast as I can on an AR-15 or AK-47.
--Firing from the hip is a good way to ensure that as few people as possible are hit. This is why in mass shootings where an âEU~assault rifleâEUTM was usedâEU¦less people are hit and thus wounded or killed.
--Spray and pray is a highly ineffective way of killing people. This only works in Hollywood.

-âEUoeBarrel shrouds and forward grips allow shooters to grip weapons with nontrigger hands even as the barrel gets extremely hot from rapidly firing multiple rounds.âEU
--Really? Really Senator? The 1860 Henry rifle is one of the very few rifles I know of not to have a forearm, forestock, or handguard. I hate to break it to you, but the barrel shroud of the AR-15 performs the same exact function as forearms, forestock, or handguards. It is nothing special and all modern rifles have something that allows you to fire the gun after the barrel gets hot. This is the most absurd argument for the AWB that anyone could come up with.

-âEUoeFolding stocks make weapons more portable and concealable,âEU¦âEU
--Folding stocks do make weapons more concealable and better for close quarters applications such as holding up a convenience store. But letâEUTMs not confuse making something more concealable and betterâEU¦and making it concealable and suitable to the situation. See, the high capacity magazine and 18 inch barrel makes it difficult to conceal.

-âEUoeâEU¦while threaded barrels allow the attachment of grenade launchers, flash suppressors and other devices that reduce noise and recoil.âEU
--Wow, one must be crazy to not agree with this. Call me crazy, but grenade launchers are not used in crime. The âEU~grenade launchersâEUTM commonly sold as accessories to AR-15 are 37mm FLARE launchers. The 40mm grenades used by the military are tightly regulated and would not fit in the launcher. As for Yugoslavian SKSs with grenade launcher adaptersâEU¦there is still the problem of getting Soviet/Russian style hand grenades complete with their respective adapters. In short, Senator, you are spreading a misperception here in order to inflate the validity of your argument.
--Flash suppressors: what is wrong with them? You say this casually with no argument as to what makes them uncommon or unusual. But do you realize that traditional rifles do not really have a flash problem because the residual powder from the round is burned up in the longer barrel.
--Silencers are not what you see in movies. Commercially available silencers only reduce noise by 15-43 decibels (dBs). This means a silencer produces a sound between 117dBs to 145dBs. To put this in laymanâEUTMs terms: if you can get approved (or illegally get a hold of) a commercial silencer your gun is going to be as quiet as a chainsaw or rock concert.

-âEUoeAnd replacement bump-fire stocks allow semiautomatic weapons to reach rates of fire approaching those of fully automatic weapons, which have been banned for decades.âEU
--This is the least objectionable thing you say because it does actually alter the way the firearm functions. But be careful that you do not overstate things. Bump fire results in horrible accuracy and if used in a mass shooting event would most likely result in over 90% of their rounds going over peopleâEUTMs head because rapid fire causes dramatic muzzle rise.

-âEUoeLaw enforcement officials agree. Baltimore County Police Chief Jim Johnson testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that military features "enhance our capability" and, as a result, are "meant for the battlefield" - not our streets.âEU
--Use of the mantra âEU~meant for the battlefieldâEUTM is both perpetuating a misperception AND using fear to garner support. See Senator, by bringing the battlefield into the argument you open yourself up to the largest liability your side has: that these are military style firearms. See this actually contradicts the notion that these are âEU~killing machinesâEUTM. See, because of the Hague Convention military small arms ammo cannot make death inevitable. Quite simply, what is used on the battlefield is far less lethal than hunting ammo, self-defense rounds, or shotgun slugs.

* Secondly, you manipulate the facts to try and make them say things they do not actually say.
-âEUoeA Justice Department study found the use of assault weapons traced to crime declined 70 percent nine years after the 1994 ban took effect. Another Justice Department study found the ban was responsible for a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders. Considering the annual number of gun murders exceeds 11,000, that means hundreds of lives saved.âEU
--The study found that it had no measurable effect on crimes committed by assault rifles because of how rarely those guns are used in crimeâEU¦prior to the 1994 ban and since then.
--The largest decrease was in âEU~assault pistolsâEUTM.
--The study found that the part of the ban that had the most effect would be on Large Capacity Magazines (LCMs). However, how much would that help things? According to the same study LCMs were used in 17-26% of gun crimes. However, shootings involving more than 10 rounds are used in less than 2% of shootings and accounting for only 5% of all firearms deaths. So Senator, while they may âEU~workâEUTMâEU¦they donâEUTMt accomplish much.
-âEUoeIn Virginia, the Washington Post reported the number of assault weapon seizures declined during the 1994-2004 ban, but climbed following its expiration.âEU
--In 2012, of the 7,500 guns confiscated by the Chicago PDâEU¦only 300 were assault rifles. This is only 0.04% of guns. Even if the âEU~climbâEUTM meant more guns like the AR-15 an AK-47 (images of which in police impound room are commonly used to generate fear) doubledâEU¦is 0.02% a significant thing to spend the effort and money to curb?

At 2/25/13 10:12 PM, Elfer wrote: The conservative party has started doing this in Canada. For example, there were two bills last year called the "Jobs and Growth Act" and the "Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act", both of which were almost 500 pages long and included many non-fiscal measures.

That may not be just the conservative party. That could be all parties tacking things on in order to get the bill to pass. Going back to my Bob Barker example...

Say he can't get the votes to get his bill passed. He goes to other legislators and asks them what he can add to the bill to get it to pass.

Likewise, when you've got a bill such as a jobs or disaster relief bill legislators tack stuff onto it (from both/all parties) since no one is going to vote against it. It is an easy way to get money for your district and get re-elected.

At 2/25/13 04:31 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 2/23/13 05:33 PM, TheMason wrote: Now all he's done is kick-up a hornet's nest that will make getting the rest of his agenda through a little more difficult.

Uh, did you forget Obama's really Manchurian and runs on 9-volt batteries?

What does this have to do with anything I said?

At 2/24/13 09:08 AM, thegarbear14 wrote: A canadian soldier won in a game of tug of war. What an achievement for the canadian military. Canadians should be proud.

All while NOT wearing any gear! :)

At 2/23/13 07:57 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 2/23/13 07:10 PM, TheMason wrote: Yes! I was shocked to find that, like camels, they spit! :)

Lol! those suckers are BIG!

Yeah...and the Moose they ride into battle are not all that small either! Sends the Taliban running.

Also, I read somewhere Obama was considering sending them on the raid to get bin Laden but decided it would be a war crime!

At 2/23/13 06:50 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: hey Mason did you get to pet the mooses from the mounted Lumberjack division?

Yes! I was shocked to find that, like camels, they spit! :)

Also, just let me go on record as saying that I have a very good friend who (at the time) was serving with the CF Reserves and deployed to Afghanistan. Also, while I was deployed I got to serve with the CF Air Force component. And I do respect my Canuck bretherin and sisterin.

At 2/21/13 10:34 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: It's a matter of better discipline and diet and the training is about on par. As depicted here the American was overweight therefore giving the upper hand to the better physically conditioned and disciplined French Canadian.

Ummm...a few things:

First of all...let's assume that the American was overweight as you (mistakenly...but I'll get to that in a moment) think. The match starts at 0:33ish (give or take a few seconds). The CF soldier does not win until roughly 2 minutes later at 2:30ish. So this, what you assume to be, fat, less conditioned and disciplined soldier almost wins several times and gives the CF soldier a good run. When doing this sort of contest...2 minutes is a helluva long time.

Secondly...the American soldier was not overweight. Look again: he is wearing what appears to be a flak or bullet proof vest and and CamelBak. The CF soldier on the other hand...is not wearing any such gear. SO...the American soldier is wearing between 10-20lbs EXTRA dead weight than the CF soldier. Oh...and it also hampers mobility. If anything that speaks to the conditioning and discipline of the American soldier. Especially the discipline of the American soldier since he was staying in uniform with the other Americans present who were most likely not allowed to take their gear off.

To demonstrate I took a screen shot. Look at the part of the harness that goes around the upper thighs. This is where his butt should be. Then look up. Notice how his 'fat' protudes out in both an angle that is sloping up (instead of down like fat would) and in a straight (not drooping) line. Also...his 'fat' is much more pronounced on his back instead of his belly. This is because the part of the harness that goes up his chest is pushing his vest backwards resulting in the distorted body contour.

I wonder how the result would have been if it had been a fair competition where the American did not start out at a disadvantage? After all...he was pulling the CF soldier around like a rag almost as much as the CF was pulling the American around.

)

Politicians name their bills to help them garner support, and to get at the spirit of the legislation. To use a totally made-up example:

Imagine that Bob Barker had left The Price is Right and went into politics. Since he is well known as an advocate of spaying and nuetering to keep the population of runaway pets down he could have introduced a bill that called for the drowning of puppies born to lost/abandoned/runaway dogs. But many people would oppose such a bill since drowning of puppies is considered cruel.

But since he thinks drowning puppies is better than them being homeless dogs and ending up in shelters and put to sleep...he thinks its a good idea.

So he names the bill something like: "The 2013 No Puppy Left Homeless Canine Affordable Health & Security Puppycare Act of 2013" (or NPLHCAHSP).

But what's really scary are the amendments and riders tacked onto bills that have nothing to do with the core topic of the bill. An example would be an authorization for a new airport in Missouri in a hurricane relief bill for Florida and Georgia. Or a new museum in NYC in a farm relief act.

Obama's Missed Moment

I was talking to a friend of mine today about this issue. And something struck me: Obama missed a HUGE moment where he could have become a truly transformative president. In the wake of Sandy Hook he has tacked along with his base going along with championing gun control as the centerpiece of his administration's response to the probelm of school shootings. In this way he maintains the status quo and further divides the country.

Instead, had he actually paid attention to the existing social science (instead of going along with the Left's special interest groups) he could have used Sandy Hook to push through legislation on the following fronts:

EDUCATION: Given that education is one of the key predictors of people becoming criminals; he could use the picture of Hadiya Pendleton to push for education spending that would help put inner-city schools on-par with suburban schools. Furthermore, he could use it for pushing through his pre-school initiative as well.

ECONOMIC STIMULUS: Given that economic opportunity is also equally (if not more) strong a predictor as education, he could have used the gun violence debate as a spring board to luanch a new "Great Society" set of programs aimed at revitalizing the inner cities and giving young black men better options than either joining the Bloods or the Crypts.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: Other social programs aimed at tearing down racial prejudice could have been proposed, using Trayvon Martin as a poster child here.

HEALTH CARE: New mental health initiatives could have been undertaken that would satisfy his base that's pissed off at the deinstitutionalization efforts of Reagan.

Had he been a voice of reason declaring that guns are not the problem, that tragedies such as Aurora and Newtown are exceedingly rare and that it is safe to drop our kids off at first grade. That we are a society that comes together far more than we tear each other apart. And that every dollar spent on gun control schemes that have been tried to little or inconclusive effect is a dollar taken away from programs that would truly offer change and have an impact.

He could have said that the old, liberal and Democratic solutions did not work and that his party is big enough to admit it. That their old policies and solutions would only save 1 life, dozens of lives or at most...hundreds of lives. But by offering a slate of social programs...Democrats and Republicans, gun owner and those skitish around guns, could come together...and save thousands of lives.

But instead he took the old path. No other issue (abortion comes close) divides our country like guns. By acknowledging that his side's position is based on superstition and fear instead of data and logic and that a significant amount of scientific and academic research indicates that gun control will only have an inconsequential or inconclusive result...he could have calmed nerves and made it where he got anything else on his agenda rather easily.

Now all he's done is kick-up a hornet's nest that will make getting the rest of his agenda through a little more difficult.

At 2/9/13 04:58 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: who was a worse leader

I vote Stalin, as he destroyed Communism, his nation's economy for 30-40 years, worked 20 million of his own people to death, and lasted longer, who do you think was the more fearsome?

1) Communism is a utopian fantasy with the fundamental flaw of not taking human nature into account. Therefore, trying to make it into a political and economic system in the real world means it is doomed to failure.

2) While Stalin murdered 22 million people...Hitler's global domination ambitions set in motion WWII which led to the deaths of up to 60 million. 6-8 million were slaughtered in some of the most vile and evil methods every devised by man.

3) Hitler did worse in less amount of time.

At 2/22/13 05:30 PM, Saen wrote: Bolt-Action rifles have always had decent accuracy, but never a rate of fire or ammo capacity comparable to a heavy assault rifle. Like you said, you can hunt with an AK-47 and have similar power and accuracy to a bolt-action , but you get semi-auto and much larger capacity.

You get the similar power and accuracy at close range...up to about 100-150 yards. Beyond that, the assault rifle round begins to drop.

Also, don't use the term 'heavy assault rifle'. It's an oxymoron...by definition an assault rifle is not a heavy round. It makes the person saying it sound uninformed (much like I've hear Piers Morgan say 'magazine clips').

Semi-auto, as I've said before, does not give the hunter the advantage you think. A hunter with a lever action or pump shotgun is capable of just as quick a follow-up shot.

As for LCM...as you can tell from both FL and MO law LCMs are illegal to use while hunting. So this point is irrelevent.

It's just my opinion, and it's nothing to get worked up over, hunting with a heavy assault rifle takes the sport out of it.

I'm not getting worked up over it...I'm just pointing out that using an AK-47 to take a deer is nowhere near as unsporting or unrealistic as many may think it is. Furthermore, given that the 7.62x39 round is less powerful than standard deer loads it makes hunting more safe in the event a hunter misses.

The perceived loss in 'sport' is more than outweighed by the gains made in the safety category.

Like educating poor populations on excessive gun-buying (addiction) and it's role in the circle of poverty.

We have these debates on guns specifically to determine which are ethical, appropriate, and safe for civilian use. Because of this recent massacre committed by a common high capacity assault rifle, the debate on the Ar-15 has resurfaced.

Yes...absolutely true. However, when you look into the facts and trends the argument that these guns are not ethical, appropriate or safe for civilian use fade away.

In the end, the hysteria over 'assault rifles' is more about feeling the need 'to do something' and a public ritual of cleansing evil from our midst. The shooter died so our justice system cannot work on behalf of the victims so we transfer our anger and need for vengance on a symbol: the gun used.

We'd probably be having a conversation about handguns (and one far more able to be supported by facts) had he used his handguns instead.

And I agree with you, gun laws are not the most effective nor cost effective in preventing gun violence. Education on the circle of poverty and dedicated funding towards the poor will not only be the most effective in reducing violence, but also in bulking and strengthening our middle class by reducing lower class numbers.

Agreed...see there is common ground. :)

At 2/22/13 11:51 AM, Saen wrote: This really isn't important enough to type this much about, who said what, but that's fine. What did I not specifically bring up, bars or nightclubs, you got me. Nothing to get worked up about.

Again...you would do better just to accept that you have been bested and not try and manipulate things.

Ok, name a sexual assault prevention program that has incorporated dressing in jeans, pants, latex suits (lol couldn't resist) as a part of prevention training.

Umm...we've talked about it during annual SAPR training in the USAF.

Let me say...I'm glad you're thinking about this scientifically. However, the main problem is you suffer from a fatal methodological error: you're not measuring rape incidences. You're measuring something else and including, as a vast majority of your data points, the interest of non-rapists. So this study would provide no useful responses.

At most this type of realistic experiment would be supplementary statistics and data or some type of control.

Again...you would have to figure out some way of identifying which men hitting on the women would be capable of rape...much less inclined to it. Ergo...the mind reading technology to make this in anyway valid does not exist.

Now what could be studied:

* prison interviews with convicted rapists
* interviews with persons who have served their time for rape/SA
* interviews with victims on their rape (suffers from ethical and methodological dilemnas thought)
* have law enforcement record type of clothing (also suffers from some ethical dilemnas)

The first three are not methods of experimentation, while the last is a method of observation.

So? The first three are survey methods...from which you can derive trends in attitude and inclination. Also, observation is an acceptable means of scientific inquiry...especially for the social sciences.

And clothing helps make you vulnerable if it facilitates the rape. You have not addressed this point but danced around it.

If there is clothing that facilitates rape, what clothing would adequately protect you from rape?

Again, what clothing should a woman wear in order to protect herself from being raped?

And one last time, what should a woman wear in order to prevent herself from being raped?

I am curious...do you really think that repeating the same thing over and over again (I'll call it the 'Broken Record Gambit') is really an effective rhetorical tactic?

Furthermore, considering that I have already stated that tight jeans with a belt are means of dressing defensively. They make her appear less vulnerable because her vagina is harder to get to, and allows her more time to struggle or for help to arrive. This helps reduce her perceived vulnerability (especially relative other women who are dressed more accessible) as well as works for her in the event of an assault.

Now...you may be laying a trap for me by asking about what a woman can wear that will prevent rape in 100% of cases. But that is unrealistic...and intellectually dishonest.

At 2/22/13 02:13 PM, Saen wrote: Then how was Adam Lanza able to kill 26 people and his own mother with a weapon that's supposedly not lethal, unreliable, and inaccurate? This is directly adressed at the weapon used, not whether or not teachers, children, or officers were armed.

1) Lanza killed his mother with four shots from a .22...not the AR-15.

2) Re-read what has been written. I have not said that the AR-15 is NOT lethal...I have pointed out the fact that is not as lethal as the majority of other firearms including pistols, shotguns, or hunting rifles. So please, don't twist my words.
a) 20 of his victims were very young children who are especially vulnerable to traumatic injury which any gunshot wound (irregardless of calibur) counts as. For example they cannot afford to loose near as much blood as an adult or teen.
b) Lanza may not have been spraying and praying. He may have been taking aimed shots for the head and/or heart. GSWs to the brain leave only a 5% chance of survival, while GSWs to the heart leave only a 15%.
c) Lanza also shot many of his victims multiple times, the highest I've read is 11. This means a much faster bleed-out rate.

3) The AR-15/M-16 family of guns are prone to misfires, but much of these can be mitigated by: maintenance, small magazine size, and type of ammo used. Lanza appears to have been very well trained and his personality disorder may have made him a very neat and meticulous individual who maintained the gun.

4) Inaccurate: again you're either not understanding what is being said, cherry picking what is being said, or twisting my words. The AR-15 is highly accurate...for an assault rifle class weapon. However, bolt and lever action guns are even more accurate. Don't confuse scale with lack of ability.

On a final not with Lanza: PBS' Frontline included an interesting fact. Seems that Lanza changed mags well before it was necessary. This indicates that he probably did not take advantage of the AR-15's high rate of fire...or the volume of fire provided by the LCMs. This also means that the mags' chances of failing were reduced because as the magazine spring decompresses the less rapidly/forcefully is the next round loaded...which is why these mags are prone to failure. So Lanza is an outlier and not typical of the shooter who choses an assault rifle clone. Just like the DC Snipers.

====

If Lanza did indead take aimed shots and did not merely spray and pray...then he could have accomplished the same amout of death with handguns with smaller mag capacities. Even if we're talking about seven round mags. Look at Cho. He took aimed shots with only 100 rounds at the same range. He just used less bullets.

Which is largely why the following argument does not hold water:

At 2/22/13 02:53 PM, Saen wrote: 450 people at Sandy Hook Elementary, over 17,000 students at Virginia Tech uh duurrrrr!

Cho did not blindly spray the entire population of VT with rounds. He went to a single building and stalked from classroom to classroom much like Lanza most likely did. The difference is Cho needed less bullets because the 9mm loaded with JHPs can kill adults with a fewer bullets.

(Also, since neither school's population was clustered together...makes this point very irrelevent.)

At 2/22/13 02:59 PM, Saen wrote:

At 2/22/13 02:40 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
30,000 deaths a year NATIONALLY is hardly a liability.

It's actually the highest among all industrialized nations. Here, here, and here my good man.

Again...highly irrelevent and from a scientific/academic perspective: invalid. There are culture and socio-economic differences between countries that makes cross-national studies very problematic. Furthermore, I would not rely upon them if I were on your side of the debate. Because while they do make a compelling and reasonable argument on their surface...once you get past the descriptive statistics what light is shed points away from gun availability and to education, economic opportunity, and racial tensions.