[Laharl]

paranoid much Toasty?

nobody is stupid enough to use nuclear weapons, not even America

its just a download spiral created by paranoia and fear, the US has nukes out f paranoia and fear of 'hostile' nations obtaining them, this breeds contempt and envy in said hostile nation, which in turn fuels the paranoia back in the states....

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Nov 22 2008, 09:17 AM, said:

Obama, like a lot of other Liberals, are too optimistic. Example: The moderately far left is a fan of Socialism. Socialism is, in theory, the perfect recipe for a Utopia. Only problem is, it depends far too much on the good nature of human beings. That's why socialism has never been successful in practice.

Right, and the "far right" is nothing short of being a radical nationalist identity/religious extremists.

And please, your senseless claims against "socialism" show how little you know. Do you have Social Security? Medicaid? Medicare? Are there unemployment benefits? 401k retirement funds? Are there public schools? Do you go to the post office? Do you expect the police/military to defend you? Those are all blatant examples of so-called "socialism". It does you no good to go around saying socialism is bad when you don't even define it or understand it.

For the record, Obama is no more a socialist than Bush is fascist.

Quote

Taking away guns to reduce deaths caused by them? Wishful thinking. It makes sense on the surface, until you realise that people can always just get the guns illegally. But the law abiding citizens, the ones who would want to protect themselves, will likely choose to not break the law by obtaining a gun illegally. Thus, you are left with guns in the hands of criminals, and no way for the innocent to defend themselves. That's a recipe for increased burgelaries, armed theft/assult, etc.

You want to know why other nations laugh at America? It's because of people like you who want to carry around guns.

Quote

The tax policy is crap too. Just comming from a logical point of view, not biased in any way, it's safer to try lower taxes first. Lower taxes promote spending by American citizens. It puts less stress on both the economy and the people as well. However, you run the ristk of not getting enough tax money for the government to waste be able to function properly. On the other hand, higher taxes discourage spending, and can hurt the economy. More stress is put on both the economy and the citizens, and if the citizens decide to cut their spending, you'll still end up with a lack of tax dollars for the government.

Right, and everyone wants to lower taxes. The difference is who you focus them too. A conservative says the wealthy should get 10 times the tax relief, while a liberal believes the middle class, the lower class, and the workers should get most tax relief. You believe in having the wealthy be given a break, and have them invest and determine the rate at which money "trickles down". On the other hand, liberals believe that the middle/lower class - that make up 80% of the population - should be the ones to invest back into the economy and have it grow.

But hey, it's all right - Bush lovers and Republicans still have Joe the Plumber!

Quote

Because it leaves us vulnerable to nuclear attack, obviously. If we don't have nukes, then countries who do won't have to worry about getting nuked themselves if they decide to attack us. There are numerous countries in the middle-east and elsewhere that want us dead, and could poccibly obtain nukes in the future.

You can always be certain that your enemy will have a weapon with which he can kill you. The only option there, is to either create a defense that effectively nullifies your enemy's weapon, or to arm yourself with something threating enough to deter your enemy from attacking you.

The latter is much easier, cheaper, and simpler to put in place. That's why we still have nukes.

Laharl responded to this well.

Laharl, on Nov 22 2008, 09:48 AM, said:

paranoid much Toasty?

nobody is stupid enough to use nuclear weapons, not even America

its just a download spiral created by paranoia and fear, the US has nukes out f paranoia and fear of 'hostile' nations obtaining them, this breeds contempt and envy in said hostile nation, which in turn fuels the paranoia back in the states....

[Eugine]

Don't get that Gio.

And from the looks of things, Obama will govern from the center which is great. He is picking a lot of free traders such as Bill Richardson and apparently his Treasury Secretary is also free trader.

Plus for some reason, I'm concerned with his foreign policy team. I do not think liberals will like it (of course, I would love it). It is extremely hawkish...
So far everyone who is under consideration supported/supports the Iraq war.
Hillary Clinton, James Jones, Robert Gates and more...

I am honestly concerned with his team. He is picking extremely high profile people with high egos, and I am sure some have political ambitions (Richardson, Biden, Clinton were all candidates for President this cycle). I hope he is able to control them.

Excellent picks so far though. Well, only if they are loyal to Obama!

[Golden Legacy]

^ Do me a favor and hit that point home for Toasty, won't you? Obama has pulled together a very centrist cabinet and even former rivals. He's embracing people of all ideologies.

While I am slightly worried about the foreign policy side of things - especially Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, who for all her gifts and recognition still has no regrets about the Iraq War - I am hopeful they will act in Obama's interests and policies. One thing is for certain, Obama is very bold and is holding nothing back.

Eugine also mentioned this, Obama announced Timothy Geithner as his Secretary of Treasury. When the move was announced, the stock market went up 500 points. Fantastic move, Geithner was my favorite for the position, young, fresh outsider, and highly revered for his work on the New York Federal Reserve.

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstate...atures_box_main

[Eugine]

I am actually starting to like Obama more and more as the days go by. Once Hillary is confirmed as SoS, I think I will permanently love him =)

Hopefully he can manage her! But I think she's very loyal, so I am sure he will.

[Split Infinity]

Toasty, on Nov 23 2008, 12:17 AM, said:

Taking away guns to reduce deaths caused by them? Wishful thinking. It makes sense on the surface, until you realise that people can always just get the guns illegally. But the law abiding citizens, the ones who would want to protect themselves, will likely choose to not break the law by obtaining a gun illegally. Thus, you are left with guns in the hands of criminals, and no way for the innocent to defend themselves. That's a recipe for increased burgelaries, armed theft/assult, etc.

And yet America remains one of the biggest contributors to gun-related deaths. Do you honestly think that by giving normal citizens access to firearms, they alone are keeping the bad guys 'in check'? That without their precious amendment the streets will be rife with troublemakers?

If you have less guns available legally, you have less guns circulating among the people, and that reduces the opportunity for their illegal acquisition and use. How could this be any more obvious?

[Caael]

Quote

Taking away guns to reduce deaths caused by them? Wishful thinking. It makes sense on the surface, until you realise that people can always just get the guns illegally. But the law abiding citizens, the ones who would want to protect themselves, will likely choose to not break the law by obtaining a gun illegally. Thus, you are left with guns in the hands of criminals, and no way for the innocent to defend themselves. That's a recipe for increased burgelaries, armed theft/assult, etc.

Because obviously everybody knows criminals have no morals at all and shoot anybody they see on sight.

[Ironsight]

Caael, on Nov 23 2008, 03:25 PM, said:

Because obviously everybody knows criminals have no morals at all and shoot anybody they see on sight.

You've never been to America.

[Eugine]

In USA, most gun related crimes are commited in gun free zones. Making it harder to own guns legally will simply remove them from the good law abiding citizens, and will make it harder for said people to defend their properly.
Plus, the US constitution has a second amendment.

So, how about making it harder to get guns illegally, and teach gun safety?

Anyway, what can I say about Obama's transition to power?
http://www.politico....1108/15896.html

Really hawkish like the article says. I doubt he will live up to the 16 months withdrawal promise.

And, http://www.reuters.c...E4AL2C720081124
Yes, I favour making them permanent but, according to Obama, weren't those tax cuts the almighty evil?
Smart move though. Increasing taxes would have prolonged the recession.

Doing a near perfect job so far imo.

[Split Infinity]

Eugine, on Nov 24 2008, 03:46 PM, said:

In USA, most gun related crimes are commited in gun free zones. Making it harder to own guns legally will simply remove them from the good law abiding citizens, and will make it harder for said people to defend their properly.
Plus, the US constitution has a second amendment.

So, how about making it harder to get guns illegally, and teach gun safety?

Twenty seven, actually.

I personally think the bad outweighs the good, since there are a lot more cases of gun violence than there are of gun defence, especially in America. The NRA has created this idea that any criminal can get their hands on a firearm with no trouble at all, which is probably true, but if guns are outlawed, the only practical way to obtain them will be through illegal imports, and border controls aren't as easy to breach any more as they were in 2001.

[Saturos S.]

Eugine, on Nov 24 2008, 05:46 AM, said:

In USA, most gun related crimes are commited in gun free zones. Making it harder to own guns legally will simply remove them from the good law abiding citizens, and will make it harder for said people to defend their properly.
Plus, the US constitution has a second amendment.

So, how about making it harder to get guns illegally, and teach gun safety?

Yeah... screw that amendment of yours. It originates from when it was normal for everyone to buy and mantain their own weapons, armour and clothing for their military service. It served the reason of an universal militia.

If the constitution said that god exists, it doesn't prove that he actually exists.

[Gio]

Split Infinity, on Nov 23 2008, 11:47 PM, said:

Twenty seven, actually.

I personally think the bad outweighs the good, since there are a lot more cases of gun violence than there are of gun defence, especially in America. The NRA has created this idea that any criminal can get their hands on a firearm with no trouble at all, which is probably true, but if guns are outlawed, the only practical way to obtain them will be through illegal imports, and border controls aren't as easy to breach any more as they were in 2001.

And the people that are willing to get the guns by illegal means are most likely the people who are going to be willing to kill someone.

[Golden Legacy]

It's not even the idiocy of guns that disturbs me about them, it's the entire culture surrounding it. With fathers "passing down" their guns to their sons to "preserve their heritage" and to keep up tradition. It's amusing especially since Americans are so overly sensitive to "promiscuity" in movies and "violence" in video games, but then they go around teaching their kids that guns are acceptable.

[Ironsight]

Split Infinity, on Nov 23 2008, 09:47 PM, said:

Twenty seven, actually.

I personally think the bad outweighs the good, since there are a lot more cases of gun violence than there are of gun defence, especially in America. The NRA has created this idea that any criminal can get their hands on a firearm with no trouble at all, which is probably true, but if guns are outlawed, the only practical way to obtain them will be through illegal imports, and border controls aren't as easy to breach any more as they were in 2001.

You'd be suprised. I'm sure you've heard of our problems at the Mexico/America border.

Golden Legacy, on Nov 24 2008, 10:21 AM, said:

It's not even the idiocy of guns that disturbs me about them, it's the entire culture surrounding it. With fathers "passing down" their guns to their suns to "preserve their heritage" and to keep up tradition. It's amusing especially since Americans are so overly sensitive to "promiscuity" in movies and "violence" in video games, but then they go around teaching their kids that guns are acceptable.

I got my first rifle when I turned 10. Does that make you angry?

[Golden Legacy]

Why would I be angry?
Now, unnerved? I'm not going to lie about that one.

[Split Infinity]

Hunting rifles could be allowed, since they carry small clips and are harder to conceal. You shouldn't even be able to touch one without a license, though.

And yeah, Mexico is terrible.

[Legolastom]

If you carry a gun around with you wherever you go what does that say about your country? And if you don’t then how will that gun help you if someone tries to mug or kill you? And even if someone burgles your house wouldn’t some sort of alarm system be a lot more effective than shooting them?

[Ironsight]

Legolastom, on Nov 25 2008, 12:18 PM, said:

If you carry a gun around with you wherever you go what does that say about your country?

You can't carry guns out in public.

Quote

And if you don’t then how will that gun help you if someone tries to mug or kill you?

Now they're mostly used to protect homes. My dad personaly sleeps with a pistol nearby his bed every night.

Quote

And even if someone burgles your house wouldn't some sort of alarm system be a lot more effective than shooting them?

No, not always.

[TheEnglishman]

Miley Cyrus, on Nov 25 2008, 08:51 PM, said:

Now they're mostly used to protect homes. My dad personaly sleeps with a pistol nearby his bed every night.

That seems a bit excessive to me, if you don't mind me saying. I see a burgular alarm as a much more effective system. If a burgular hears an alarm go off then he's gonna run.
And it would be worse if he knew how to de-activate it. He'd be pretty skilled and it's unlikely he'd wake anybody.

[Legolastom]

If you can’t carry guns out in public do you think the person mugging you would care about that much? I know getting a gun easily would help him a lot. Not so much you. Unless you are willing to take a gun out into public with you but that would prove my point and it would be you breaking the law.

[Gio]

Legolastom, on Nov 25 2008, 03:13 PM, said:

If you can’t carry guns out in public do you think the person mugging you would care about that much? I know getting a gun easily would help him a lot. Not so much you. Unless you are willing to take a gun out into public with you but that would prove my point and it would be you breaking the law.

There is something called a concealed weapons permit. Personally I wouldn't mind having one myself, but there are a lot of gun safety courses that you have to go through to get it, and it cost money to get those classes, and I don't have the time or the money.

[Ironsight]

Gio, on Nov 26 2008, 08:45 AM, said:

There is something called a concealed weapons permit. Personally I wouldn't mind having one myself, but there are a lot of gun safety courses that you have to go through to get it, and it cost money to get those classes, and I don't have the time or the money.

Damn, I was going to mention that next.
But yeah, most states allow you to carry a concealed weapon as long as you have the proper permits.

[Saturos S.]

What's the point of those courses when guns are just handed down from father to son?

I'll bet you that those sons didn't follow those courses even if the father did.

[Ironsight]

What do you mean "What's the point"? The gun might be handed over, the the permits are seperate. If anyone is found with a concealed weapon an no permit, then they are arrested.
In reply to your second part of the post, these permits aren't just handed out to anyone, you know. The trainers are fully aware you can go out and kill someone with this. Only people who can be somewhat trusted, ie. no criminal reconrd, no mental illness ect. can get permission to take a weapon around with them. And even then, they're usualy only small caliber pistols, good only for short range self defense and little else. You aren't going to rob a bank with something like that.

[Saturos S.]

Ok, but then again, do you think a mugger or another kind of criminal would even be bothered about those permits?

He can easily work out of the door with the gun he purchased to 'keep at home.'

[Toasty]

It's true that people with permits can go bad. That's one reason for why you have to renew them. Probably the best course of action would be to increase the frequency of license renewals, but I'm sure some left-wing anti-gun nutjob would try and make it something like every two weeks. Even every month would be pushing it. Three times a year doesn't sound too awful though.

Regardless, like I've stated before, if someone wants you dead, they'll find a way to do it. Doesn't matter if it's legal or not, you will not be able to stop them from obtaining the means to do so. The only logical option, then, is to have a means with which to protect yourself. Either a weapon on par with the assailant, or something better (or you could just have mad skills and disarm him with you're ****ing bad-ass bullet-proof bare hands like you were the offspring of Chuck Norris himself).


This has nothing to do with morals. This has everything to do with every politician's worst enemy. Cold, hard logic.

[Split Infinity]

Toasty, on Nov 28 2008, 11:03 PM, said:

Regardless, like I've stated before, if someone wants you dead, they'll find a way to do it. Doesn't matter if it's legal or not, you will not be able to stop them from obtaining the means to do so.

First of all, that's bullsh*t, and second of all, it's a lot easier to defend yourself against a fist than a bullet. At least you have the opportunity to make a run for it if they're unarmed. And even if you both have a gun, the attacker is going to have the first shot anyway, so you might as well be dead.

[Toasty]

You misunderstood. "Obtaining the means to do so" doesn't mean "He's going to kill you".
It means what the dictionary would define it as. "He now can kill you unless you stop him".

So no, it's not bull****.

And if you know that the attacker is comming, then he won't have the first shot. Even if he does, you still have a better chance for survival if you have a gun aswell.

Besides that, if someone really has the intent to kill you, they'll chase you until their (and your) legs give out. You have the option to run, but you're still safer if you at least have a means with which to restrain the attacker. If you have a gun, you can threaten him to get him to stop. If he persists, you're legally within your rights to shoot him.

[Saturos S.]

That's bullcrap for innocent people.

Because if someone really wants to kill you, you can bet your ass you did something to piss him off. People don't shoot others without a reason. Sure, the reason can be retarded but a reason nonetheless.

[Toasty]

I suppose "because you saw the robber's face" would be a retarded reason.

Even if someone's not out to get you, I can guarantee that if a robber is given a choice between a house that's armed and one that's not, the robber will choose the latter. And if no house is armed, well then it'll be like a little kid in a shop full of free candy.


Never having been to America, you seem to misunderstand a few things about how we treat guns to begin with. Like DS said earlier, we don't just go around handing guns to our sons and whatnot. Sure, he can have it, and he'll probably get to shoot some targets with dad standing right next to him showing him how to do it, but he is, in no way, allowed to carry that gun around by himself, or have it in his posession by himself, without a permit. Every single gun that is owned by someone has to have a permit to go with it, otherwise it's illegal. You also can't just go into a store and buy a gun. You're suposed to have to show license and registration for owning a gun, along with your social security number, a Visa, and a driver's license. At least from what I understand.

[Saturos S.]

Toasty, on Nov 28 2008, 03:01 PM, said:

I suppose "because you saw the robber's face" would be a retarded reason.

Yes, it would be. You don't just shoot a robber, the fact that you caught him 9/10 scares him away. Just grab your baseballbat. The robber doesn't have a gun in hat scenario so the house owner can kick his ass with a baseballbat, or like a said, just catching him scares him off.

Toasty, on Nov 28 2008, 03:01 PM, said:

Even if someone's not out to get you, I can guarantee that if a robber is given a choice between a house that's armed and one that's not, the robber will choose the latter. And if no house is armed, well then it'll be like a little kid in a shop full of free candy.

Why would it be like that? Just have an alarm system. Alarm goes off, police are alerted, or at least neighbours. Robbers are scared and they run away. Most robberies are done when the house owner is on holiday or out of the house. I think having a gun at your house won't be very effective in that case.

Toasty, on Nov 28 2008, 03:01 PM, said:

Never having been to America, you seem to misunderstand a few things about how we treat guns to begin with. Like DS said earlier, we don't just go around handing guns to our sons and whatnot. Sure, he can have it, and he'll probably get to shoot some targets with dad standing right next to him showing him how to do it, but he is, in no way, allowed to carry that gun around by himself, or have it in his posession by himself, without a permit. Every single gun that is owned by someone has to have a permit to go with it, otherwise it's illegal. You also can't just go into a store and buy a gun. You're suposed to have to show license and registration for owning a gun, along with your social security number, a Visa, and a driver's license. At least from what I understand.

What's stopping them from taking the gun anyway? Sure, they don't have a permit, and sure then it's illegal. But it still makes a gun much more easy to get. You'd have to have great criminal connections in Europe to get one, in America you just need a friend who has a father who owns a gun. It doesn't matter if they need a permit, guns are just too available, even illegally. Added to that, how can you control the permitholders handling their gun responsibly? Tests can teach them about safety etc. but how responsible and rational people are with it depends on the person.

[Eugine]

Split Infinity, on Nov 24 2008, 01:47 AM, said:

Twenty seven, actually.

I was just stating that the US second amendment gives its citizens the rights to bear arms.

Split Infinity, on Nov 24 2008, 01:47 AM, said:

I personally think the bad outweighs the good, since there are a lot more cases of gun violence than there are of gun defence, especially in America.

Sure.
That's because most gun related crimes are committed in gun free zones. Can't defend when you're not allowed to carry a gun in gun free zones... right?

Anyway,
How about Obama's transition to power? Going really good imo =)
http://online.wsj.co...8411762961.html
Obama obviously values competence above ideology.

[Golden Legacy]

Please don't tell me you're trying to defend the gun culture in the USA, Eugine. The USA has the most deaths due to guns of any developed/Western nation in the world, one only wonders why.

Here's the map I found:

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/06Yp0hucHagrU/610x.jpg

Gun related deaths are concentrated in the south and midwest. The hardcore conservative areas for the most part, while notice the liberal areas - the entire northeast, for example - have lower gun related deaths (and this includes big cities like NYC or Boston).

And yes, impressive transition for Obama. It looks like his administration is going to go in full force and actually get things accomplished.

[Split Infinity]

Eugine, on Nov 29 2008, 09:10 AM, said:

Sure.
That's because most gun related crimes are committed in gun free zones. Can't defend when you're not allowed to carry a gun in gun free zones... right?

But if there were no guns to begin with, there'd be no shootings! You can give guns to civilians for defence but nobody can tell the difference between a civilian and a criminal until the crime has been committed. The evidence speaks for itself, just take a look at any other country which has outlawed public ownership of guns; the rates of gun violence are almost nonexistant. How is this not desirable?

[EDIT] So what GL said, basically.

[Eugine]

GL, I am actually not defending the culture. I am actually for sensible regulation...
I just think it's stupid to ban guns like SS and Split suggested. People have a right to defend their homes.

And sure, Rudy Giuliani did a wonderful job with regards to NYC =).

Oh, and it's better if you call them "pro-Gun states". I'm actually trying to find gun laws info for Nebraska but cannot since it is "conservative" yet according to your map has the lowest firearm related deaths along with Hawaii. And DC, a pretty liberal area has a high death rate...

But what the heck, if your info is right, sure, follow the state with the lowest firearm related deaths with regards to gun control. I'm just for decreasing gun related deaths.

And Split, can you provide some statistics? The Wikipedia statistics are pretty fuzzy and contradictory to what you say.

[Golden Legacy]

It seems to work remarkably fine in all the developed countries in the world. It's that constant obsession of "self-defense" that causes guns to be seen as an acceptable tool in American society, even a necessity, and numbs people to what they can do.

And DC happens to have extreme poverty and low standards of living. While you try to poke at a few examples, trying to find a hole in this, the idea is to see the trends, and it shows clearly that conservative - or pro-gun areas - which support guns more tend to be the areas where gun violence and deaths are highest. That's the generality of gun crimes across the nation, and to deny it is folly.

EDIT: Split's post.

[Split Infinity]

http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html

Here's probably a better source. I'll quote it since it's fairly short.

Quote

ATLANTA -- The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a government study found.

The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000.

The study, done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is the first comprehensive international look at gun-related deaths. It was published Thursday in the International Journal of Epidemiology.

The CDC would not speculate why the death rates varied, but other researchers said easy access to guns and society's acceptance of violence are part of the problem in the United States.

``If you have a country saturated with guns -- available to people when they are intoxicated, angry or depressed -- it's not unusual guns will be used more often,'' said Rebecca Peters, a Johns Hopkins University fellow specializing in gun violence. ``This has to be treated as a public health emergency.''

The National Rifle Association called the study shoddy because it failed to examine all causes of violent deaths.

``What this shows is the CDC is after guns. They aren't concerned with violence. It's pretending that no homicide exists unless it's related to guns,'' said Paul Blackman, a research coordinator for the NRA in Fairfax, Va.

The 36 countries chosen were listed as the richest in the World Bank's 1994 World Development Report, with the highest GNP per capita income.

The study used 1994 statistics supplied by the 36 countries. Of the 88,649 gun deaths reported by all the countries, the United States accounted for 45 percent, said Etienne Krug, a CDC researcher and co-author of the article.

Japan, where very few people own guns, averages 124 gun-related attacks a year, and less than 1 percent end in death. Police often raid the homes of those suspected of having weapons.

The study found that gun-related deaths were five to six times higher in the Americas than in Europe or Australia and New Zealand and 95 times higher than in Asia.

There's a comparison of gun-related deaths in 1994 if you click the link.

[Ironsight]

Guns have a bright side. There are a lot of social shooting events and tournaments that people still attend to. People like myself, my brothers, and many more will go to the local gun range with our fathers to simply spend quality time with each other and compete in accuracy just as if we were playing American Footbal in our backyard. Banning guns kills all of this and a large part of American culture that still lives today.

[Split Infinity]

Like I said before, sport shooting is fine, it's weapons like machine or handguns which are far more deadly that I'm worried about.

But just so you know, a lot of people are against whaling and yet it constitutes a good part of Japanese culture. Does that make it okay?

[Caael]

So.


How about that Communism, huh?

[Split Infinity]

Communism doesn't work, yo.

[Eugine]

To research gun laws in the countries listed in your article Split will take ages, so let me respond to the few I researched.

Golden Legacy, on Nov 28 2008, 07:12 PM, said:

And DC happens to have extreme poverty and low standards of living.

Right. I think that contributed to gun violence more than guns itself. Once you teach gun safety, and reduce the chances of guns appearing in the hands of criminals illegally, I am sure you will see a decrease in gun related deaths.
Plus, Utah, which is probably the most conservative and probably pro-gun state in USA (and, imo, should be a model state for other US states) has a pretty decent record.

And Split, what's with that link? It's unreliable and old.

Of the 88,649 gun deaths reported by all the countries, the United States accounted for 45 percent, said Etienne Krug, a CDC researcher and co-author of the article.
Why is this significant? Look, the US has 300 million people. Of course it will contribute most to worldwide gun deaths! You honestly think Ireland (pop 4 million) will contribute more to gun deaths than USA? Oh please if you think so.
Plus, like I said, the info is fuzzy. I'll like a more reputable source.

Eg,
Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, but also one of the lowest firearm related crime rates in the world.
http://en.wikipedia...._in_Switzerland

Isn't that contradictory to your "facts"?

[Split Infinity]

You're right, it wasn't the best source, I'll try and find something more recent.

And it's significant because America does not support anywhere near 45% of the world's population, in fact it's closer to 4.5%.

[Mallick]

Split Infinity, on Nov 28 2008, 03:43 PM, said:

Communism doesn't work, yo.

It would if it were done right.

[Split Infinity]

So would the Star Wars prequels.

[Toasty]

Oh snap.

G-DUB, on Nov 28 2008, 10:07 PM, said:

It would if it were done right.

Doing it right would require the vast majority of the population to be truely and thoroughly selfless and good people. Otherwise, they'll go by human nature and get the easiest job since everyone would get the same pay anyway.


The sole purpouse for communism was to create a perfectly fair society. The only problem with that, is that Carl Marx (the guy who origionally came up with the idea) forgot that some people work harder than others, and deserve a bigger piece of the pie for doing so.

[Caael]

Toasty, on Nov 29 2008, 08:18 AM, said:

Oh snap.
Doing it right would require the vast majority of the population to be truely and thoroughly selfless and good people. Otherwise, they'll go by human nature and get the easiest job since everyone would get the same pay anyway.
The sole purpouse for communism was to create a perfectly fair society. The only problem with that, is that Carl Marx (the guy who origionally came up with the idea) forgot that some people work harder than others, and deserve a bigger piece of the pie for doing so.

Mao Tse-Sung, once he came to power would give, for example, farm workers would earn all the same, but if they cared for certain animals more than other workers they would get bonuses and the like.

[Mallick]

Any form of government would be the best if it were done right. =p

[TheEnglishman]

Is Eugine's sig quote from Revenge of the Sith? I'm sure it's a bit difficult to link science fiction and American politics...

[Split Infinity]

I think one ripped off the other.

[Toasty]

G-DUB, on Nov 29 2008, 03:49 AM, said:

Any form of government would be the best if it were done right. =p

True. Even a dictatorship, monarchy, or anarchy could work. It all depends on how good the people in charge are.

The reason why a democracy is the easiest to get right, though, is because of all the checks and balances ensuring that the majority of people benefit from having the government. No single government official has complete control over the country.

Still, even though it'd take more corrupt individuals to ruin a democracy, it's still possible.

TheEnglishman, on Nov 29 2008, 03:06 PM, said:

Is Eugine's sig quote from Revenge of the Sith? I'm sure it's a bit difficult to link science fiction and American politics...

Yeah, it is, but it's still true. :P

[Eugine]

http://www.politico....1208/16072.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/01...=rss_topstories
I feel bad for calling Obama as a far left liberal during the campaign. He's gonna be a wonderful President if his appointments shows how he will govern.

I know it's time to get past the campaign, but Obama picks represents a bit of hypocrisy. He selections represents positions he strongly criticised during the campaign! That's why I was never a true fan of Obama before.

FTA (CNN):
... DLC principles that emphasize nurturing global markets and restraining government regulation.

... Obama has already talked about cutting government programs...

Sen. Clinton, the Democrat whom Obama derided throughout the primaries for hawkish positions on Iraq, will probably become secretary of state.

But then, I think Obama is a true pragmatist. He needed to be a liberal to win the nomination and now he needs to be a centrist to be a good President.

Oh, and I feel sorry for President Bush everytime I read an article about him =(
Great guy, bad President (except for foreign policy!)

[Caael]

Got "The Complete Idiots Guide To Communism" today. Very interesting read so far, and i'm only a few pages in.

[Legolastom]

Eugine, on Dec 1 2008, 07:57 PM, said:

(except for foreign policy!)

OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[Saturos S.]

Yeah, he needs a good slap if he was being serious.

[Legolastom]

Sad thing is he probably was.

[Toasty]

No no, pretty sure that was sarcasm.

[Eugine]

I'm pretty serious. The fact that Barack Obama is keeping Mr. Gates as SoD is proof that Bush foreign policy was successful at the end, although I admit, there were times of failure such as the initial Iraq War intelligence and the initial handling.
I hope Obama continues Bush's foreign policy, and frankly do it even better. Bush didn't intervene enough.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle5284173.ece
keke. It'll be soooo cool if they do it within the first 100 days of an Obama admin. I wanna see his response.

[Golden Legacy]

No, it's proof that Gates is the only sensible person on Bush's team. Gates is not a neocon - he favors open dialogue with all nations including "enemies", wants to close Guantanamo and end torture, and it's probably because of him that Bush hasn't bombed Iran yet.

It's meant to smooth the transition for six months to a year. And Eugine, no, Bush intervened far enough.

[Gio]

So rather than go back and read what everyone has said, will someone fill me in on what is going on politically.
I haven't been able to pay much attention because of school.

[Caael]

Had a brief debate on communism, and then Eugine said Bush's foreign policy was good and we all flamed him good.

Bout it.

[Golden Legacy]

^ Summed it up nicely. I'm thinking, should we just close this topic and create threads for every major topic (i.e. Iraq War, abortion, etc.) or just leave it as is?

That said, probably the most substantial political news is that Obama is pulling together his cabinet, and already has the fastest transition in history. His picks have been surprisingly centrist and pragmatic as opposed to ideological and have been well-regarded. Some of his very hardcore supporters on the left - like myself - have been somewhat taken aback, but nothing to do now but see what happens.

That, and I'm hoping Caroline Kennedy succeeds Hillary Clinton in the NY Senate.

[Split Infinity]

Golden Legacy, on Dec 9 2008, 01:13 PM, said:

^ Summed it up nicely. I'm thinking, should we just close this topic and create threads for every major topic (i.e. Iraq War, abortion, etc.) or just leave it as is?

Yeah, having a Politics thread in a News & Debates forum is kind of redundant.

[Golden Legacy]

It was originally just the "election 2008" topic, but it went off on crazy in-depth tangents.

[Gio]

I say break it off here. It would be alot easier for someone like me. Sometimes I don't feel like talking about a certain issue, but if that is what you guys are talking about in this thread then it is a bit hard to talk about other issues, so I am on board with the idea of closing this thread then having a thread for each topic.

[Golden Legacy]

I agree with you entirely.

One thing I could do, and though it would be time consuming (yay finals are almost over!), I would be willing to go through the topic and break it up into smaller threads based on each issue, assuming the posting makes sense. There's a lot of material here that could really expand the Debate/News forum.

Or I could list them all and have someone create a topic for each one and just go from there.

Just throwing out ideas.

[Gio]

I say you should just go through and list them all since the posts probably wouldn't make any since. The subject jumps around so much in this thread, and if you tried to separate the posts it might make the debate forum really cluttered.

[Split Infinity]

Or we could just close this thread and let people create new topics when they feel like it. We don't really need a strict framework of designated discussion areas.

[Ironsight]

I agree we should make seperate topics for seperate arguments, but I don't see the need to sift through this entire topic and transfer the relative posts. Let's just start clean.

[Caael]

Miley Cyrus, on Dec 9 2008, 08:32 AM, said:

I agree we should make seperate topics for seperate arguments, but I don't see the need to sift through this entire topic and transfer the relative posts. Let's just start clean.

This.


Though have quite broad categories, like Medical Ethics, which covers abortion, and the US Government, which covers all Obama stuff etc etc.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Dec 8 2008, 06:13 PM, said:

I'm thinking, should we just close this topic and create threads for every major topic (i.e. Iraq War, abortion, etc.) or just leave it as is?

The way I see it, every time we have multiple topics, they always ed up crossing over into eachother and they all end up becomming the same thing. That, and it can be restrictive when you're stuck to discussing one topic, especially if it's related to a few others, because if you go off on a tangent for even just a little bit of your post, it can lead to a whole 'nother discussion.

Splitting them up would make it easier to follow (and possibly reduce massive 1000 word essays to 100 word paragraphs), but in the end, it'll probably just end up being multiple topics exactly like this. And t'd be a littel harder to debate imo.


If only there were a way to highlight sections of posts and color code them to their specific topic......

[Split Infinity]

Toasty, on Dec 9 2008, 07:18 PM, said:

The way I see it, every time we have multiple topics, they always ed up crossing over into eachother and they all end up becomming the same thing.

This isn't the common room though.

[Toasty]

Dosn't mean it doesn't happen.

[Gio]

So.............
what is going to be the verdict here?

[Ironsight]

This is the Politics topic, there's never a verdict.

[Saturos S.]

Americans are stupid.

All in favour of this verdict?

[Gio]

ummmm..............if you gave me the option of saying a majority of Americans are stupid I just might agree.

[Saturos S.]

I could live with that.

New verdict: The majority of America is stupid

All in favour?

[Legolastom]

Aye.

[Ironsight]

Saturos Striker, on Dec 10 2008, 06:44 AM, said:

I could live with that.

New verdict: The majority of America is stupid

All in favour?

Yeah, I'm fine with that.

[Golden Legacy]

Today or tomorrow I'll make a list of topics for people to create and we'll close this one.

There's one more act of business left, which is that there already (old) topics open, such as the topics on Gay Marriage, Abortion, etc. should those be revived, or create new ones?

[Split Infinity]

Just fill me in here, why do we need a list?

[Toasty]

Because we discuss a **** load of topics.


And seeing as Obama got voted into office, I'll agree that the majority of americans are stupid. :D

[Split Infinity]

And the rest are supremacist pigs. :D

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Dec 10 2008, 06:34 PM, said:

Because we discuss a **** load of topics.
And seeing as Obama got voted into office, I'll agree that the majority of americans are stupid.

http://bokertov.typepad.com/btb/images/daily_mirror_bush.jpg

[Saturos S.]

You've got to love those British.

As for the list well, at least make a difference between US politics and their foreign policy. So we can keep bashing the Iraq 'war' effort.

[Legolastom]

Toasty, on Dec 10 2008, 10:34 PM, said:

Because we discuss a **** load of topics.
And seeing as Obama got voted into office, I'll agree that the majority of americans are stupid. :mellow:

Lol irony.

[Golden Legacy]

Preliminary list of topics:

* Iraq War
* US Foreign Policy/Intervention/"Nation Building"
* 9/11, "War on Terror"
* What defines terrorism?
* Alternative Energy
* Global Warming
* Health Care
* Torture
* Israel/Palestine
* Gun Control
* Abortion
* Secularism vs. Religion (i.e. separation of church and state)
* Prostitution, Pornography, &/or Sex Trafficking
* Gay Rights/Homosexuality
* Death Penalty
* Economic Ideas (capitalism, communism, etc.)

edit: additional topics

* Post '08 election
* Overpopulation
* Forms of Government

[Caael]

Sounds good

Torture could be just be Justice & Punishment or something, so that the death sentance could be discussed too.

[Gio]

You could pin the list and then check each item off as we get them started.

[Split Infinity]

We're probably not even going to talk about half of those.

[Saturos S.]

We probably will, but after 5 or so pages it'll turn in a roundabout argument, die for a while and then relive when something dramatic happens in that genre.

[Golden Legacy]

^ Hilariously accurate.

I'll look through to make sure I haven't missed any other key topics, and I'll do what Gio said and pin the list up later tonight.

EDIT: Done.

[Topic Closed]