5,002 Forum Posts by "TheMason"
Oh yeah, I don't want the cost of cigarette smoker's health care (unless they are WWII vets). Anyone born after 1975 should know better...
I really hate the TRUTH ads...they are simply too preachy and annoying. Furthermore, they often appear to be diruptive to the people where they are protesting/filming. Furthermore, it is not like they are causing a disturbance to bring attention to something that is relatively newly known, rather it is something that has been somewhat a taboo in parts of this country for awhile and the risks of smoking has been known and advertised/taught for some decades now.
However, I support no smoking in public places. I cannot stand the smell of cigarette smoke; hell it gives me one helluva bad headache. And while I am a libertarian, one person's rights ends where it infringes upon another's rights. Therefore I do not think that I should be exposed to smoking on the street and in truly public places, just because a smoker needs his fix.
However, there are some situations that I put myself in that are public in nature but still private such as bars and work. The bar scene is self-explanatory. Work however, some may debate me. I do not have to go work for company X, that is a mutal choice between me and them. If I walk into their offices and see it is a smoking culture I need to respect that and decide whether I would fit in and how much do I want the job. What I should not do is try to change their corporate culture to fit my individual culture. (An exception is government employment...especially the military under a draft.) Same goes for a smoker, they should make the same determination on whether or not to fit in.
SO:
1) No more TRUTH commercials.
2) Ban on smoking on public streets and areas (places that are operated by govt funds).
3) No ban in privately owned buildings...that is up to the property owner.
At 2/26/07 11:05 PM, Alphabit wrote: If American teachers can teach about something as unproven as God and Jesus in school, then I think they have no reason not to teach about something as down-to-fact as Global Warming. Seriously...
Hey I agree that Creationism does not belong in a science class, if a school wants to have a philosophy/theology course it is fine in there...but not in science because it cannot stand up to testing according to the scientific method.
However, neither can Global Warming.
At 2/26/07 07:45 PM, MrBallistic wrote: Thats a shame, thats like trying to justify genocide.
Not really, it's more like hedging against genocide. Before we begin to take people's land and jobs away from them we need to be sure that GW is real. Now I know that you're probably going to say there is a consensus but a consensus does not mean something is a scientific fact. It just means that a majority of scientists and learned people have signed off on a belief that a theory is fact...kindof like a couple of hundred years ago when it was accepted the world was flat.
But GW is based upon computer models, not observed phenomenon. Observed phenomenon however is always explained as GW:
* Hurricane Katrina was so powerful because of GW...2006 will be even worse because of GW. Now: 2006 was mild because of GW.
* The 2006/7 winter is remarkably warm and mild because of GW. The second half of the 2006/7 winter is remarkably cold blasting the Midwest because of GW.
* The upper atmosphere will warm faster than the ground because of GW. No wait, we were wrong...the ground will warm faster than the upper atmosphere because of GW.
I could go on and on...but do you see how much GW activists sound like religious zealots? I mean bad things used to happen because of God or some other diety...now it happens because of GW! Even when the phenomenon (such as a powerful hurricane) is contrary to the GW theory! I've said it before about religion and I'll say it again about GW: follow the man who seeks truth, but beware the man who has found it!
Furthermore, GW cannot be a scientific fact because it is not a reproducable phenomenon! This is a cornerstone of the scientific method! You cannot reduce a system as complex as the climate to a few variables and then measure it in a way that scientists in S. America, Asia, Europe, Antartica or Africa can duplicate! What you have is predictions based upon trends supported by unreliable data sets and computer models.
This is not strong enough science for me to say it is ok for the government to start "adapting" to GW by taking away land on the coasts and in flood planes or taking steps that would destroy jobs and communities. This will lead to a widening of the gap between rich and poor and will ruin the middle class. Effectively, it will make Europe and N. America third world countries and China & India the new superpowers over the next few decades as people realize how error-ridden this "science" really is.
At 2/26/07 06:17 PM, emmytee wrote: But every serious study done into global warming, even those ordered by the Bush admin say otherwise. I put some of them into a post on the page before. ... Anyhoo, a bunch of links to reports etc are in my other port, but seriously like every study done recently (except for the petroleum chemists lol) says that humans do effect it. Some of these people have been doing it since before you were born, i'm sure :)
Very much not true. There are many studies out there that show that GW is only just a theory. Scratch the surface and you will see studies (exposing GW flaws and errors) by scientists at places such as:
MIT
Harvard
Columbia
Duke
UC Berkely
I'm not sure about MIT & Duke, but Harvard, Columbia and UC Berkely are hardly bastions of conservative, right-wingers! Furthermore there is not one insititution I just listed that you can argue is not a "serious" institution.
Also Micheal Crichton who is a scientist (although not a climatologist...but he is still just as qualified as many of the scientists involved in the new consensus) made these points in State of Fear:
most of the warming in the past century occurred before 1940, before CO2 emissions could have been a major factor (p. 84);
temperatures fell between 1940 and 1970 even as CO2 levels increased (p. 86);
temperature readings from reporting stations outside the U.S. are poorly maintained and staffed and probably inaccurate; those in the U.S., which are probably more accurate, show little or no warming trend (pp. 88-89);
“full professors from MIT, Harvard, Columbia, Duke, Virginia, Colorado, UC Berkeley, and other prestigious schools ... the former president of the National Academy of Sciences ... will argue that global warming is at best unproven, and at worst pure fantasy" (p. 90);
temperature sensors on satellites report much less warming in the upper atmosphere (which the theory of global warming predicts should warm first) than is reported by temperature sensors on the ground (p. 99);
data from weather balloons agree with the satellites (p. 100);
“No one can say for sure if global warming will result in more clouds, or fewer clouds,” yet cloud cover plays a major role in global temperatures (p. 187);
Antarctica “as a whole is getting colder, and the ice is getting thicker” (p. 193, sources listed on p. 194);
The Ross Ice Shelf in Antarctica has been melting for the past 6,000 years (p. 195, p. 200-201); “Greenland might lose its ice pack in the next thousand years” (p. 363);
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is “a huge group of bureaucrats and scientists under the thumb of bureaucrats,” and its 1995 report was revised “after the scientists themselves had gone home” (p. 245-246);
James Hansen’s predictions of global warming during a Congressional committee hearing in 1988, which launched the global warming scare, were wrong by 200 percent (.35 degrees Celsius over the next 10 years versus the actual increase of .11 degrees); in 1998, Hansen said long-term predictions of climate are impossible (pp. 246-247);
there has been no increase in extreme weather events (.e.g., floods, tornadoes, drought) over the past century or in the past 15 years; computer models used to forecast climate change do not predict more extreme weather (p. 362, 425-426);
temperature readings taken by terrestrial reporting stations are rising because they are increasingly surrounded by roads and buildings which hold heat, the “urban heat island” effect (p. 368-369); methods used to control for this effect fail to reduce temperatures enough to offset it (p. 369-376);
changes in land use and urbanization may contribute more to changes in the average ground temperature than “global warming” caused by human emissions (p. 383, 388);
temperature data are suspect because they have been adjusted and manipulated by scientists who expect to find a warming trend (p. 385-386);
carbon dioxide has increased a mere 60 parts per million since 1957, a tiny change in the composition of the atmosphere (p. 387);
increased levels of CO2 act as fertilizer, promoting plant growth and contributing to the shrinking of the Sahara desert (p. 421);
the spread of malaria is unaffected by global warming (pp. 421-422, footnotes on 422);
sufficient data exist to measure changes in mass for only 79 of the 160,000 glaciers in the world (p. 423);
the icecap on Kilimanjaro has been melting since the 1800s, long before human emissions could have influenced the global climate, and satellites do not detect a warming trend in the region (p. 423); deforestation at the foot of the mountain is the likely explanation for the melting trend (p. 424);
sea levels have been rising at the rate of 10 to 20 centimeters (four to eight inches) per hundred years for the past 6,000 years (p. 424);
El Niños are global weather patterns unrelated to global warming and on balance tend to be beneficial by extending growing seasons and reducing the use of heating fuels (p. 426);
the Kyoto Protocol would reduce temperatures by only 0.04 degrees Celsius in the year 2100 (p. 478);
a report by scientists published in Science concludes “there is no known technology capable of reducing [global] carbon emissions ... totally new and undiscovered technology is required” (p. 479);
change, not stability, is the defining characteristic of the global climate, with naturally occurring events (e.g., volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis) much more likely to affect climate than anything humans do (p. 563); and
computer simulations are not real-world data and cannot be relied on to produce reliable forecasts (p. 566).
Now while you may attack him for his position, but think about this; when he first concieved the idea for the novel he was a staunch environmentalist and GW believer! What changed for him was as he actually began to research the science (he wanted to be sure to produce a scientifically accurate work), he found all of these problems with the theory from its predictions to the data sets these predictions are made upon. In the end he concluded that GW is at best a theory with problems and at worst a fantasy.
And as for the age thing, there are also plenty of scientists who are respectable full professors at some of our best colleges and universities who have been examining the climate and related phenomenon for much longer than I've been around; and they are skeptical of it because they have seen more false and error ridden predictions than I've lived through.
At 2/27/07 05:33 AM, zendahl wrote:At 2/25/07 08:24 AM, How-about-no wrote: You would have a good point if I still cared.Does this mean we won? Hell Yea! Free guns for all! (kidding)
Yeah, but I think that was pretty much a given. I haven't seen a pro-gun control poster yet who can present any evidence (other than purely emotional) that gun control works.
At 2/26/07 07:55 PM, 8-80 wrote:At 2/21/07 07:52 PM, TheMason wrote: In short the US military is probably the most professional and humanitarian Western military force to be fielded since the time of Rome....Are we talking about the same romans that crucified Jesus and regularly fed people to lions for entertainment? because if so, being more humanitarian ain't exactly hard.
True, however wherever the Roman legions went new economic opportunity followed along with the rule of law and Greek thought.
May I also remind you that it was the Jews, Jesus' own people, who passed judgement and decided to allow Barabas to go free instead of Jesus?
But that doesn't change the fact that when you look at history since then that the US (when compared to other Western powers at their appex where much more prone to abuses of power than the US military.
Yep...been done before and went on for four pages.
At 2/25/07 10:26 AM, emmytee wrote: This feels like debating 9/11 with conspiracy theorists. They just refuse to look at the science or the evidence.
Which side refuses to look at the evidence?
I have looked at the evidence for global warming since I was 14...that was 17 years ago (longer than many on this BBS has been alive). I've also evaluated the skeptical evidence, and I have to say I find the skeptical evidence to be more convincing since it comes mostly from climatologists (experts in the field this phenomenon takes place) rather than physicists, chemists, biologists, Hollywood types and politicians (you know...not the experts).
This is not to say I do not favor cleaning up the environment...that is very important and compelling for reasons other than some Henny Penny notion that the sky is falling. Especially when you are talking about making reforms that will increase the gap between rich and poor and all but elimate the working class.
Think about it, GW "scientists" said that 2006 would be the worst for hurricanes on record due to GW. That did not happen, the season was pretty mild. In fact, GW would make hurricans more rare than more frequent because hurricanes do not like more humid weather. Basically the environmentalists will latch onto any frightening weather phenomenon to show that it is a portent for the end of the world...much like clerics in the middle ages who used comets, storms and other atomspheric and geological phenomenon to prove the apocalypse was nigh.
Furthermore, look at the parallels to our time and the middle ages. We are crucifying scientists who point out flaws in GW theory. Their reputations are maligned as being bought and paid for by various polluter industries. When in fact think about this: nuclear energy is a GW safe alternative...who gets hired on a nuclear power plants? Physicsts...and they are some of the earliest and staunchest defenders of GW. Furthermore, other scientists have experienced congressional pressure to produce results in favor of GW or lose their funding (you know...their ability to provide food and shelter for them and their families). We are a stone's throw away from becoming subject to a new medievel theocracy...the GW theocracy.
Also consensus in science should never be done through consensus...that is bad science. If it was, we would never have stopped burning people at the stake for claiming the Earth was not flat but round!
Finally I would suggest that you take a look at the flaws pointed out by skeptics. Examine:
*Negative and positive atmospheric feedbacks (look up the Iris Effect).
*Accuracy of computer models and how they have to be "tuned".
*Accuracy and reliability of the data showing trends over the past 400 years.
*Error rate of past GW predictions.
At 2/25/07 08:24 AM, How-about-no wrote:At 2/25/07 04:12 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:You would have a good point if I still cared.At 2/24/07 04:58 PM, How-about-no wrote: I Bearly read the first one. I acually don't really care."bearly" huh?
Well you cared enough to go through the effort of linking to it, and subsequently making a fool of yourself.
Way to stand by your convictions there, I mean really I believe that gun control is illogical and irrational and supported by people who do not really know what they are talking about. However, I do respect them when the stick by their beliefs rather than just skulk off like a child who doesn't want to face that he was wrong...
At 2/23/07 11:23 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Mason... I already dealed with ImmoralLiberterian, he directed his nonsense towards me and I already corrected him. You should have focused your efforts on someone else. We have to play zone-defense here or their superior numbers will overwhelm us.
And here I was thinking you'd be gratefull to have someone actually have your back here on NG!-)
Besides their numbers will decrease with attrition as they get older and live a few more decades and see for themselves how wrong these scientists are in their predictions. Why do you think the majority of the GW indoctrinates are in the 14-22 age range? They haven't lived enough to see through the lies and the fraud...
At 2/24/07 10:55 AM, How-about-no wrote:At 2/23/07 09:40 PM, TheMason wrote:In fact based upon the statistical data which shows a higher per capita murder/violent crime rate in locales that have stricter gun laws than in locales that are more liberal (ie: allow concealed carry)...a better idea might be to encourage more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens...Not acording to the guy who posted this
Did you actually read that? I mean the second and third points say:
2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."
Dude, the guy who posted that was in pro-guns...not pro-gun control. The website pokes fun of the inconsistencies of gun-control logic. It is most humorous and gratifying that a pro-gun control debater would take it seriously! You have just proven so much of what I've been saying about the gun-control crowd for years!
At 2/22/07 07:15 AM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote: So, the unnatural release of a billion tonnes of carbon into the environment which nature never intended to be taken from under the crust is a natural process?
No it is not a natural process and we do have to do things to minimize man's impact on our environment. However, that does not mean that we comprehend what is going on in the climate.
Climate change happened before we came along, but nowhere near the rate it is now.
We don't know about that, the data set concerning climate change is very unreliable. Most of the data set of the last 50-100 years is based upon incomplete and scattered observations using crude and primitive equipment. Therefore we cannot accurately say what the rate of climate change really is.
Global warming IS happening. Everyone in their right mind knows it. But there is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF, that humans are to blame. There is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF, that if we cut emissions, that global warming will slow down or stop.Funny, that something like 98% of interested scientists would believe something with no proof.
Funny thing about those scientists is that they tend to come from academic backgrounds other than climatology such as chemistry and physics. Ok they're scientists right? Their able to interpret the data sets so much better than the non-scientists right?
Wrong. Climate change and climatology is way more complex than what they deal with. They are used to dealing with phenomenon that can be reduced to one or two variables where they can control for all other variables. This is not so with climatology. There are an infinite number of variables that effect how the climate reacts to changes such as an increase in CO2.
Exempt my ass. Where did you get that idea? In my opinion they have more responsibility than even the US. They have a chance to do it right, show us Westerners how it should of been done.
Umm...the Kyoto Protocol? I mean it does exempt China and India.
And yes they do have more responsibility than the US.
:Well, i hate fools like you that try and make Global Warming a political issue. WHICH IT IS NOT!
If it is not a political issue why is that most of the advocates for GW are political activists and politicians? Basically Global Warming is the left's version of terrorism...a fear causing device that motivates their base...
And as for the film in question, it's a good piece of information...but i wish someone other than the Democrat ex-vice president did it.... because it leaves morons like you with an excuse to attack it.
No the poor science of it gives morons like me the opportunities to attack it...
At 2/23/07 09:35 PM, JakeHero wrote: The possibility of him running is evident, so my question is if hypothetically would he be able to resolve the issues?
Too much of an idealogue without the people skills to be an effective executive.
He's qualified academically and intellectually for the role, but his blatantness would only serve to alienate the swing voters.
Sure he's got a PhD...in nutritional sciences. How exactly does that qualify him? I've listened to him...I doubt he would be up to the task...
At 2/23/07 01:11 PM, How-about-no wrote:At 2/23/07 12:24 PM, TheMason wrote: No it doesnt.You still haven’t given me any better Ideas.
I've written about this ad nauseum here.
But why do I need to give you a better idea other than enforce the laws we already have?
In fact based upon the statistical data which shows a higher per capita murder/violent crime rate in locales that have stricter gun laws than in locales that are more liberal (ie: allow concealed carry)...a better idea might be to encourage more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens...
In Pericles' Funeral Oration I often see an ancient figure of an elaquoent Bush the Younger:
Most of those who have spoken here before me have commended the lawgiver who added this oration to our other funeral customs. It seemed to them a worthy thing that such an honor should be given at their burial to the dead who have fallen on the field of battle. But I should have preferred that, when men's deeds have been brave, they should be honored in deed only, and with such an honor as this public funeral, which you are now witnessing. Then the reputation of many would not have been imperiled on the eloquence or want of eloquence of one, and their virtues believed or not as he spoke well or ill. For it is difficult to say neither too little nor too much; and even moderation is apt not to give the impression of truthfulness. The friend of the dead who knows the facts is likely to think that the words of the speaker fall short of his knowledge and of his wishes; another who is not so well informed, when he hears of anything which surpasses his own powers, will be envious and will suspect exaggeration. Mankind are tolerant of the praises of others so long as each hearer thinks that he can do as well or nearly as well himself, but, when the speaker rises above him, jealousy is aroused and he begins to be incredulous. However, since our ancestors have set the seal of their approval upon the practice, I must obey, and to the utmost of my power shall endeavor to satisfy the wishes and beliefs of all who hear me.
I will speak first of our ancestors, for it is right and seemly that now, when we are lamenting the dead, a tribute should be paid to their memory. There has never been a time when they did not inhabit this land, which by their valor they will have handed down from generation to generation, and we have received from them a free state. But if they were worthy of praise, still more were our fathers, who added to their inheritance, and after many a struggle transmitted to us their sons this great empire. And we ourselves assembled here today, who are still most of us in the vigor of life, have carried the work of improvement further, and have richly endowed our city with all things, so that she is sufficient for herself both in peace and war. Of the military exploits by which our various possessions were acquired, or of the energy with which we or our fathers drove back the tide of war, Hellenic or Barbarian, I will not speak; for the tale would be long and is familiar to you. But before I praise the dead, I should like to point out by what principles of action we rose ~ to power, and under what institutions and through what manner of life our empire became great. For I conceive that such thoughts are not unsuited to the occasion, and that this numerous assembly of citizens and strangers may profitably listen to them.
Our form of government does not enter into rivalry with the institutions of others. Our government does not copy our neighbors', but is an example to them. It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few. But while there exists equal justice to all and alike in their private disputes, the claim of excellence is also recognized; and when a citizen is in any way distinguished, he is preferred to the public service, not as a matter of privilege, but as the reward of merit. Neither is poverty an obstacle, but a man may benefit his country whatever the obscurity of his condition. There is no exclusiveness in our public life, and in our private business we are not suspicious of one another, nor angry with our neighbor if he does what he likes; we do not put on sour looks at him which, though harmless, are not pleasant. While we are thus unconstrained in our private business, a spirit of reverence pervades our public acts; we are prevented from doing wrong by respect for the authorities and for the laws, having a particular regard to those which are ordained for the protection of the injured as well as those unwritten laws which bring upon the transgressor of them the reprobation of the general sentiment.
And we have not forgotten to provide for our weary spirits many relaxations from toil; we have regular games and sacrifices throughout the year; our homes are beautiful and elegant; and the delight which we daily feel in all these things helps to banish sorrow. Because of the greatness of our city the fruits of the whole earth flow in upon us; so that we enjoy the goods of other countries as freely as our own.
Then, again, our military training is in many respects superior to that of our adversaries. Our city is thrown open to the world, though and we never expel a foreigner and prevent him from seeing or learning anything of which the secret if revealed to an enemy might profit him. We rely not upon management or trickery, but upon our own hearts and hands. And in the matter of education, whereas they from early youth are always undergoing laborious exercises which are to make them brave, we live at ease, and yet are equally ready to face the perils which they face. And here is the proof: The Lacedaemonians come into Athenian territory not by themselves, but with their whole confederacy following; we go alone into a neighbor's country; and although our opponents are fighting for their homes and we on a foreign soil, we have seldom any difficulty in overcoming them. Our enemies have never yet felt our united strength, the care of a navy divides our attention, and on land we are obliged to send our own citizens everywhere. But they, if they meet and defeat a part of our army, are as proud as if they had routed us all, and when defeated they pretend to have been vanquished by us all.
At 2/22/07 07:03 PM, Imperator wrote:And its that attitude that will be responsible for repitition of the past's mistakes. No, humanity is not so significantly different than 2,000 years agoFunny you should say that.....
Yes humanity has advanced so much in 2,000 years:
Its not like Rome:
Ever faced a GWOT (Global War On Terror).
Did not defeat another standing superpower to arise to a global appex of power with no discernable peers.
Was not technological advanced enough to give its citizens an uprecedented amount of luxuries and higher standard of living that resulted in many overindulgences and dulling of the citizenry.
Spread the idea of the rule of law and carried commerce and the Roman standard of living wherever the Legionarie's Eagle went, mostly to places in the world where the people suffered under poverty and warlordism.
Rome never went to war for monetary or commercial reasons that were in the Empire's best interest.
I mean humanity has advanced past all those things right? That's why:
People in Mogadishu and Pyongyang surf the internet talking with Europeans, Americans, Asians, Middle Easterners, Africans and Penguins in Antartica. All while sipping on Lattes well after dark...
We have finally solved that pesky problem of religious zealotry that provokes one to strap dynamite to her son and blow-up a bus of tourists in the Holy Land...or the redneck with a deer rifle who would shoot an abortion doc in his living room in front of his family. I'm sure glad that happens no more!
No matter where they are on the planet women can walk freely without fear of being killed because they either had a job to feed her starving kids or her brother slept with a woman from a higher caste. Nor does she have to worry about being captured or sold into sexual slavery. Finally I'm glad 2,000 years ago we stopped doing clittoral mutilation.
I mean since we've done away with all of these things I can burn my copy of Thucydides' The Peloponnesian War because while I was taught in Grad school that it is the theoritical basis of modern international relations and still holds true...some Westerners believe that humanity has evolved and changed from the basic human motives that existed 2,000 years ago...
Dumbasses.
At 2/23/07 09:43 AM, How-about-no wrote:At 2/23/07 05:21 AM, zendahl wrote: It just stops the victem from owning a gun. Not a very level playing field.You got any better idea's? Baning guns limits access.
Simplistic logic. There is no evidence that banning guns limits access. Do you know how easy it is to get an AK-47, legally or illegally? When the producer for the movie Lord of War was looking to buy fake AKs he found out that it was cheaper to buy the real thing and then sell them afterward. It only took a couple of minutes. That was legal.
Then there is the illegal gun trade in banned or stolen or even homemade guns. This process is even faster because there is no paperwork involved. In short: banning guns does NOT limit access.
On the surface gun control sounds logical, but in reality it is irrational policy because it does not work and often targets firearms that are not extensively used in crimes...such as the AK-47.
At 2/21/07 10:51 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Who's going to be our John Loche then?
Give me a few more years!-)
Follow the man who seeks truth,
but beware the man who has found it...
At 2/22/07 11:04 AM, DerangedDoritos wrote: So, banning something that could kill many people, produce crime, and injure people, is ... bad?
No it would not be bad...if it worked. But it doesn't. The so-called "assault rifle" ban did little to nothing to curb crime. Hell it targeted a weapon that is used in less than 1% of gun crime either violent or non-violent.
And before you say all gun crime is violent:
Murder and armed robbery are examples of violent gun crime.
Someone breaking into my house and stealing my AK-47 is an example of a non-violent gun crime.
At 2/21/07 10:36 PM, Begoner wrote:At 2/21/07 09:33 PM, TheMason wrote: Argghhh...another gun control topic...filled with the same emotional BS arguments against guns that cannot stand up to the test of empirical evidence.I'm curious -- what do you feel qualifies as "empirical evidence" in this case? It certainly can't be restricting gun usage in a particular city, as that leaves many variables unaccounted for (the ease of acquiring guns in a neighboring city or state, for example).
Begoner my old friend and debating buddy!
By "empirical evidence" I mean anything that shows statistically that gun control has any basis on reducing crime and making society safer. I have repeatedly asked for this to be produced...but alas no one has presented anything to prove gun control (other than using both hands) is a good thing for society. I want statistics, something somewhat connected to scientifically accurate and reliable that could serve as proof and withstand criticism and examination.
In laymen's terms I want to hear something that is credible...not guns are bad, M'kay?
SOMALIA
First off it wasn't Clinton I who involved us in Somalia but Bush the Elder.
This is what I wish he would've said in October 1993:
"Ladies and Gentlemen, as many of you may have seen earlier today there has been an epic battle on the streets of Mogadishu. A force of about 100 American special forces faced overwhelming odds against the forces of barbarism and warlordism. Their mission was to capture top lieutenants in Adid's power structure, and quite possibly Adid himself. Adid was not there, but the criminals who help him starve his own countrymen were there...and our boys successfully captured all of their targets. All mission objectives where acheived and tonight Somalia is closer to being free of the death grip of famine.
"However, twenty of our youngest and finest citizens are dead tonight, killed in a heroic clash with people who would arm their own children and send them to war for nothing more base than greed. These twenty heroes did not die in vain, they accomplished all mission requirements and allowed their comrades to return to their home base. Tonight Somalia, and the world is a better place for them having lived...and died.
"Furthermore, their mission is not vain. There is no obvious national interest at stake here. There is no threat to our borders or sovereignty. There is no natural resource to enrich our treasury. What there is is a threat to our humanity. Yesterday Somalia was a country of poverty, misery and horrible death that is incomprehensible to the Western imagination. Tonight Somalia is still a dangerous country, but less so because of our fallen sons, husbands and fathers. Tomorrow Somalia, and the world, will be a safer place not only for the Somalies but for our own children as well...because of their sacrifice. That is our national interest at stake...to make the world we live in and share with others a better place to live.
"Therefore I am ignoring partisan calls by the Congress to pull out of Somalia. President Bush was correct in landing the Marines last year. As such I am ordering another detachment of Rangers to augment Task Force Ranger. Furthermore, I am sending in a Marine Expeditionary Force and supporting airpower such as the AC-130 gunship. We are going to make the price of greed too high for warlords such as Adid to consider anything but peace and stability. To do anything less would be a sacralidge against the deaths of all US service men who have been wounded, killed or otherwise scarred by this noble campaign.
"Thank you and God bless."
If Clinton would've done this 13 years ago you would hear me singing his praises as a great President and a great man. But he let the military down to protect his legacy, and he caused the unnecessary suffering of a nation to continue. Even the poorest in America have little idea of what true poverty is.
But he didn't, and this has allowed people like bin-Laden to view the US as weak and a paper tiger upon whom he can impose his will and his vision of the Middle East not only upon the people of the region but upon the West as well.
At 2/22/07 06:55 AM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote:At 2/21/07 07:52 PM, TheMason wrote: These atrocities make GitMo and Abu Gharib look like Sunday picnics in the park. We have learned to do better.What kind of excuse is that?
I, as am American serviceman, was disgusted by Abu Gharib. That was intolerable. However, if you look at the excesses of American servicemen they are appreciably less severe and numerable than in previous wars. There is a train of thought that no country no matter how enlightened or humane will ever be able to fight a war while committing zero atrocities...that is just the nature of war. This in mind, the US military is amongst the most humane and professional in the world. However, we must always strive to do better and come as close to perfect in this category as is humanly possible.
Isn't that strange....your sarcasm is ironic. Seeing as the States do that exactly....just, obviously on a much smaller scale. Although it's your society that's ruled by religion, not your government.
We are at full employment while countries like Iran suffer under employment rates at about 50%.
We have social welfare programs to help our poor, and even in drought conditions we do not suffer from famine.
We have free education and many, many ways to enter higher education (I'm sorry but I've watched my ex-wife go from living with NO indoor plumbing to becoming a Medical Doctor).
I have the right, as a libertarian, to protest and agitate for change and practice my diestically rooted faith without fear of oppression. Yes we have our nuts that make us look like fools, but they are a minority (albeit at loud one).
While I'm on this rant lets talk about France and Europe. Shut the fuck up. I don't want to hear about bad we are and how good you are.Feeling's mutual bud...so why am i reading this...?
Because I've read a bunch of European comments about how we suck. :)
Then there is Europe's wonderful record of Colonial Imperialism...More or less agree....except for that stuff about you saving India....what kind of over-the-top-patriotic bullshit is that?
Well there is the IT infra-structure that US companies invested in India (MicroSoft) and all the education at American universities that have allowed Indians to return to their homeland and have white collar jobs such as accounting, architecture, medicine, etc outsourced to them. The investment by US companies in ensuring India has internet access is probably the root cause and spark of India's "Information Revolution"...something that will probably be judged by history to be as beneficial to them and the East as a whole as the Industrial Revolution was to the West.
That's not even a cliché any more.
True, but I like to throw it out there every once and awhile to stir the pot...
'Cmon, if you guys really had to pay your own security bill do you really think you would have universal health care and months of maternity/paternity leave?Yes. That is a new one i’ll admit...the US is responsible for the NHS...!
Well to an extent it is true. Why should GB or France or Germany build a Supercarrier when the US is willing to foot the bill? Do you really think that your government could afford the NHS if they had to spend that kindof money on defense?
And why do you do that? Out of the good of your golden altruistic hearts?!? You do it because your own people would not let you do anything different. As a race, we humans are drastically different to what we were two thousand years ago...socially and morally. It makes me laugh when people compare modern day 'empires' to those of the ancient world.
And its that attitude that will be responsible for repitition of the past's mistakes. No, humanity is not so significantly different than 2,000 years ago. If it was al-Qaida would not exist and there would not be genocides like those in Rwanda, Bosnia and the Sudan. I'm sorry but you're livin on a cloud there my friend! We are far away from the Utopia envisioned by Gene Rodenberry in Star Trek, we still live in a Star Wars universe...
No, you have the opportunity to impose your nations will onto others for ultimately, the good of your own country. US 'imperialism' has had its positive effects on other nations along with its' negatives...just don't mistake your reasons for doing them.
You are right to a point. The incentive for spreading democracy and LC is essentially selfish...ie the advancement of our own standard of living. However we can do that either destructively or constructively. I argue that we need to make an effort as the country at the apex of the world's heirarchy (for the moment) we might as well do some good rather than give into foreign powers whose interest is our decline and domestic guilt-ridden isolationists...
Argghhh...another gun control topic...filled with the same emotional BS arguments against guns that cannot stand up to the test of empirical evidence.
Do you all want to go through the 'fore play of links to articles and statistics showing how wrong the gun control argument is only for me or another to lay down the challenge to prove us wrong...only to have the anti-gun crowd go silent in de facto submission because they cannot produce anything empirical to contradict the pro-gun stance, thereby reinforcing their weak and emotionally based position?
Can we skip that and just have y'all admit you don't know what you're talking about up front?
At 2/21/07 08:34 PM, Demosthenez wrote: And this is the only place I disagree. You are stepping into Neo-Con territory here and we have already seen the failings of this. We cant shape humans and nations with the tactics we now use in respect to the observance of human life so it is best to not even try. Especially when the gamble is not worth the price. If other nations want to better themselves, let them. If they do not feel our ideals are for them, fuck if I care. As long as they leave us alone and dont threaten us, let them fuck pigs for all I care.
Neo-con...uggghhh...I don't even like the smell of that...
I don't think there is an 'evil other' out there who hates us because of our freedoms and who wants to deprive us of said freedoms.
What I do think is that the ideals of liberal constitutionalism coupled with democracy is worth exporting. But this is a process that takes decades...not years. One of the problems with today's generation of Americans is we have no sense of patience or sacrifice. I mean look at Korea. The legacy of the USSR and China has been one of unimaginable despotism (even for Asia) in which millions have died brutal deaths due to starvation and oppression of human rights.
In the South, the country has experienced authoritarian rule. However, this rule has transformed into a near-stable democracy (it only goes back about 15 years) and a fully modern and industrializied economy. This was a process that took about four decades to go from an agraian/peasant based society to near-fully developed.
I think it'll take about 20 years for Iraq. 60 for Afghanistan.
Furthermore, I don't hold some lollipop and Kool-Aid ideal of democracy. Democracy does not equal freedom and liberty. DPRK, USSR, PRC and the Islamic Republic are all forms of democracy...ie they are elected (to some extent) by the masses. More important to development is the ideal of liberal constitutionalism. So what if a country is ruled by someone who was not elected? Is there a gaurantee of rule of law? That is what is important to development. On the other hand we have seen many dictators who were elected who suspended civil and human rights to maintain power in the name of the people. In short we do not need to make the world safe for democracy...we need to make democracy safe for the world...
At 2/21/07 08:06 PM, stafffighter wrote: If we have the power to fix the world then why would we need to increase the size of the military, create a civilian reserve corp and divert money from other functions like healthcare into the military budget with the two little wars we have now?
We can't fix the entire world...we are great but not that great.
Furthermore, we do not need to keep everything we currently have in the defense budget. I'm all for cutting out the JSF in favor of buying Block 70 F-16s. Furthermore, we need a certain level of ground troops to stabilize countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. For almost thirty years we put more money into the USAF and USN while the USA and USMC did not enjoy the same kindof growth. Furthermore, our war doctrine did not account for asymetrical or barbarian warfare. Therefore we have to develop this doctrine ad hoc.
Besides why do we want Universal healthcare? I mean when you want advanced medical care one does not go to Canada or Europe. The US and India...but not the EU or Canada...
As I sit here on the once lovely Gulf Coast of Mississippi I ponder what exactly has gone wrong with the US.
We are engaged in combat with an asymetrical (guerilla) force and have thus far lost only about 3,000 soldiers and only 40,000 Iraqis (military and civilian) to US combat operations. In Vietnam we lost 58,000 Americans and in the Phillipines during the Spanish-American War we lost 4,300 Americans out of an occuping force of about 11,000. Furthermore, in the Phillipines the insurgency led to numerous atrocities by US troops against the Phillipinos. These atrocities make GitMo and Abu Gharib look like Sunday picnics in the park. We have learned to do better.
And yet it is popular in this country to be against a war, and call it illegal and immoral, that is probably the most humanely fought war in history. I'm sorry but the odd abuse by US servicemen are the exception and not the rule, and these excesses are more often than not being investigated and punished before the story hits the front page. In fact the Abu Gharib incident was already being investigated by the Army's Criminal Investigations force before the pictures where aired.
In short the US military is probably the most professional and humanitarian Western military force to be fielded since the time of Rome.
And then there are the young fools who complain that the US should not tell countries like the DPRK (N. Korea) or the Islamic Republic (Iran) that they cannot develop the atomic bomb. The reason: why should the US tell anyone what to do? I mean we have the bomb and have used it. Hell these same people think we are just as corrupt and evil as the governments of the Kim dynasty and the Iranian Mullahs! There is no moral equivalancy! In the US only the most rabid and out of touch with reality individual would believe that Bush or Clinton would ever starve 3million of their own people for perceived political gain. So yeah I guess these myopic morons have a point: this country is just as bad as a country that does not allow peasants to move up socially (unless they join the military), operates concentration camps, uses minor political prisoners to do dangerous mine work, uses famine to starve potential political dissidents, keeps their country mired in poverty, allows no hope to the masses, rules by religion, etc.
While I'm on this rant lets talk about France and Europe. Shut the fuck up. I don't want to hear about bad we are and how good you are. Since 1776 the US has had 230 years of stable democracy and peaceful transfers of power interrupted by a four year Civil War. But we remained strong and has held on to our ideals of liberal constitutionalism. What's France's legacy? I bloody, proto-Communist revolution that turned upon itself. A military dictator that was the scourge of Europe (a pre-modern Hitler) and several failed attempts at what the US has...cleverly disguised as "Republics".
Then there is Europe's wonderful record of Colonial Imperialism. I have long held that Imperialism is by itself neither good nor bad. The good or evil of an Empire is determined by the path of enlightenment or destruction its wake leaves upon history. Rome for example was alternatively good and bad based upon the head of state at any particular time. However, it did preserve and advance the Greek ideals and philosophies that modern Western Civ is based upon. What has Europe left in its wake?
A Fractured Middle East
If you've read my posts in the past you already know that the problems in the Middle East are not the result of an ancient and Biblical war between Judaism/Christian/Muslim. Rather the fractures that the US deals with today are the result of Imperial/Colonial competition between (mainly) the UK, France and Germany. The modern map of the ME was drawn by Paris, London and Washington...not Abraham, Jesus and Muhammed. The European powers tore the Ottoman Empire apart starting about a century before WWI. The US was involved in this drawing of maps after the fact as a Jr partner. However, THE driving forces were France and Britian. Now that the US is dealing with it these countries want to bitch about how we are handling it. Fine. We'll pull out. GB, France and German YOU deal with Iraq and the Israel-Palestine question. In fact since you can do better...please fix our fuck-up in Iran.
Africa
Centuries of European colonization in Africa has left this continent seriously fucked up. I'm not as intimately familiar with this land's internal strife as I am with Asia and the ME...but you know what? Just about everytime I read deeper into the problems I usually find some very unenlightened management of a colonial empire by a European country such as France, Germany or the Dutch!
Asia
Here is where we find the earliest examples of American Imperialism. However, we also see our toughest challenges in countries whose modern existance is more influenced by European powers than the US. China, Vietnam and India all spring to mind. Vietnam was ruined by the French. India by the British. China...well everyone wanted some dragon steak. We have, in my opinion, been able to save India (this is probably because it was ruled by the British and not the French). China...well the prognosis is touch and go. However look at the success stories of the US in this region: Japan and S. Korea. We have managed to guide the post-war development of these countries towards development and democracy.
Europe
We saved Europe from...Europe. Not only during WWII but in the post war years. US leadership and funding of NATO allowed America's European allies to develop their economies into the dysfunctional socialist utopias they are today. 'Cmon, if you guys really had to pay your own security bill do you really think you would have universal health care and months of maternity/paternity leave? Then there was that little matter of Hitler...
SO I guess what's really getting to me is the attitude of people in this country that the US is bad. No we're not. We are an Empire with the ability to impress upon others our will. But guess what? WE DON'T USE IT! I mean we could quell the violence in Iraq tomorrow if we wanted to do it the old fashioned way through brute force. But no. We nation build, and (where we're fucking up) now we nation build with the help of those very people who destroyed this countries to begin with. As a country we need to learn that we as a country have an unprecedented opportunity to spread the twin ideals of democracy and liberal constitutionalism.
We can give people economic hope, self representation and the rule of law. But namby-pamby moral relativists and spineless pacifists (who don't understand true pacifism) want to derail this train in favor of truly sinister colonialists, petty dictators and organized authoritiarianism. It makes me sick.
At 2/17/07 05:10 PM, LadyGrace wrote: All my experience with mormons has all been about exclusion. Like one of my friends said "the way to make yourelf feel like the most lonely person in the world is to say you're a Catholic in Utah." Honestly, I hate the fact that I'm so prejudice against Mormons, but the fact that I was treated so awfully by them will cause me never to vote for one. Their purpose is not to include, but to exclude in order to make themselves feel more protected. It's idiocy.
As I've said before I was a Mormon from 2000-2002, but I was raised Catholic. For me religion is a journey and not a dogma so I actually drift from faith to faith.
One thing that I have learned from my journey is that ALL doctrines are inheriently exclusive, especially when they are located in an area where their denomination makes up a super-majority (such as 66%). It is like the lack of a plurality and other interpretations makes for an intellectually stagnant environment. For example I lived in an area where there were several fundamentalist Baptist Bible College. I was, as I said before, a Catholic and that was a VERY lonely existance. In fact I was treated so badly that I am hard pressed to vote for someone who is either Baptist or obviously Evangelical...
At 2/16/07 11:46 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: haha free masons stealth jews and zionists great!
Oh my!
