Political Megathread

[Eric D]

So a student at a technical school simply does not have the intelligence to make a bomb I take it?

Remove guns and they will kill with something else…

Letting someone die has no moral issue in this circumstance. It is no different than someone driving off the road drunk and hitting a tree. Do you feel morally obligated to remove everyone’s cars so there are no more deadly car related injuries?

[bdubs767]

So a student at a technical school simply does not have the intelligence to make a bomb I take it?

Remove guns and they will kill with something else…

Letting someone die has no moral issue in this circumstance. It is no different than someone driving off the road drunk and hitting a tree. Do you feel morally obligated to remove everyone’s cars so there are no more deadly car related injuries?

If you do not have the means to get the basic necessities it is a moral problem.

If children who can not provide for them selves, they are children, they must have the means to survive in society that is so rich and prosperous. aka child healthcare. If children are dying in this nation that is a moral problem.

Doc you have a natural assumption that everyone that is in need of help is there because they are lazy and want stuff giving to them. Some are but not all.

Second trust me the kids at Tech def dont know how to make bombs. They don't train you in that..

[fuzzysnuggleduck]

I think the gun issue is an interesting one.

While I can't claim to have any real insight into the issue, I can still provide my opinion.

I think people are stupid. Guns, like anything mildly dangerous to others, needs to be licensed effectively much like driving. I even go as far as to say that the privilege of driving is not properly enforced. Too many people who can't drive get licenses. But back to guns, I think just like driving, a licensing structure where you start at 14 with a learners on basic guns would be a great idea. Since an age has to be set officially, regardless of what parents think is best (much like drinking) I choose 14 because that's when you get can a learner's license in most, if not all of Canada for driving. Seems appropriate for the sake of talk right now. So anyways, you basically have a license structure that lets you move up to bigger and better guns as you prove you are capable of using them safely and appropriately much like some guy who wants to start driving a Semi would have to get his normal license and then go through Semi training and licensing. Keep in mind, I'm not talking about making people jump through hoop after hoop, I'm talking about making an effort to ensure that the people who want guns are:

1. Able to use them safely and effectively before they get them
2. Respect firearms for what they are
3. Be able to actually get the guns they want with the correct license

I'm sure people from both sides of the issue would have some kind of problem with this idea and the first of those will almost certainly be the pro gun people who oppose the idea of any kind of licensing because they feel it affects their right to own guns. I understand that view point since the 2nd Amendment is quite clearly black and white. It says you have the right to "arms".

Now for a question, does the 2nd amendment define what is an "arm" and what isn't? For instance, a bomb is an arm by dictionary definition, even nukes, but it's clearly not legal to posses and build bombs, especially those of nuclear build. Does the law actually make this differentiation during it's definition? Why should people be able to own guns and others not be able to build bombs? If the 2nd amendment is black and white and no official definition of the term "arms" is given, is it not then easily taken to mean that anyone can own any form of weapon, legally?

[Eric D]

I think the gun issue is an interesting one.

While I can't claim to have any real insight into the issue, I can still provide my opinion.

I think people are stupid. Guns, like anything mildly dangerous to others, needs to be licensed effectively much like driving. I even go as far as to say that the privilege of driving is not properly enforced. Too many people who can't drive get licenses. But back to guns, I think just like driving, a licensing structure where you start at 14 with a learners on basic guns would be a great idea. Since an age has to be set officially, regardless of what parents think is best (much like drinking) I choose 14 because that's when you get can a learner's license in most, if not all of Canada for driving. Seems appropriate for the sake of talk right now. So anyways, you basically have a license structure that lets you move up to bigger and better guns as you prove you are capable of using them safely and appropriately much like some guy who wants to start driving a Semi would have to get his normal license and then go through Semi training and licensing. Keep in mind, I'm not talking about making people jump through hoop after hoop, I'm talking about making an effort to ensure that the people who want guns are:

1. Able to use them safely and effectively before they get them
2. Respect firearms for what they are
3. Be able to actually get the guns they want with the correct license

I'm sure people from both sides of the issue would have some kind of problem with this idea and the first of those will almost certainly be the pro gun people who oppose the idea of any kind of licensing because they feel it affects their right to own guns. I understand that view point since the 2nd Amendment is quite clearly black and white. It says you have the right to "arms".

Now for a question, does the 2nd amendment define what is an "arm" and what isn't? For instance, a bomb is an arm by dictionary definition, even nukes, but it's clearly not legal to posses and build bombs, especially those of nuclear build. Does the law actually make this differentiation during it's definition? Why should people be able to own guns and others not be able to build bombs? If the 2nd amendment is black and white and no official definition of the term "arms" is given, is it not then easily taken to mean that anyone can own any form of weapon, legally?

Well, there were no bombs or nukes when the second amendment was written, so the definition of arms is up for interpretation.

As for the rest of your post, that system is largely in place now, but for the most part optional. At a young age in Michigan we take hunter’s safety in order to hunt. In hunter’s safety we are taught proper use and handling of firearms. Things like “never point a gun at someone regardless of if it is loaded or not”, are taught in this class. We are also taught how to aim and hold a weapon. Improper use of a firearm is dangerous and obviously could be deadly.

We cannot get a concealed carry permit without first completing a class, second passing a test, and third registering the weapon we intend to carry. Also, anyone with a concealed carry permit follows additional rules, for example, they must notify a police officer if they are pulled over in their vehicle.

[Eric D]

So a student at a technical school simply does not have the intelligence to make a bomb I take it?

Remove guns and they will kill with something else…

Letting someone die has no moral issue in this circumstance. It is no different than someone driving off the road drunk and hitting a tree. Do you feel morally obligated to remove everyone’s cars so there are no more deadly car related injuries?

If you do not have the means to get the basic necessities it is a moral problem.

If children who can not provide for them selves, they are children, they must have the means to survive in society that is so rich and prosperous. aka child healthcare. If children are dying in this nation that is a moral problem.

Doc you have a natural assumption that everyone that is in need of help is there because they are lazy and want stuff giving to them. Some are but not all.

Second trust me the kids at Tech def dont know how to make bombs. They don't train you in that..

The internet has plenty of info on making a bomb, and anyone with the first 2 years of engineering classes under their belt already knows how to make a bomb as part of their education.

[fuzzysnuggleduck]

So a student at a technical school simply does not have the intelligence to make a bomb I take it?

Remove guns and they will kill with something else…

Letting someone die has no moral issue in this circumstance. It is no different than someone driving off the road drunk and hitting a tree. Do you feel morally obligated to remove everyone’s cars so there are no more deadly car related injuries?

If you do not have the means to get the basic necessities it is a moral problem.

If children who can not provide for them selves, they are children, they must have the means to survive in society that is so rich and prosperous. aka child healthcare. If children are dying in this nation that is a moral problem.

Doc you have a natural assumption that everyone that is in need of help is there because they are lazy and want stuff giving to them. Some are but not all.

Second trust me the kids at Tech def dont know how to make bombs. They don't train you in that..

The internet has plenty of info on making a bomb, and anyone with the first 2 years of engineering classes under their belt already knows how to make a bomb as part of their education.

I was making bombs when I was 13. And not just pussy ass shit either, stuff that could easily take your arm right off and schrapnel you real good.

Anyone with half a brain can make a bomb, with or without the help of Internet resources.

[dedlyjedly]

There are countless people living in the inner city who don’t have the means to move, but still deserve the basic human right to protect themselves, their loved ones and family. All it takes is one firearm in the hands of a trained individual.

Am I missing something here, or are these people "without the means to move" largely the same group of "poor parents" that you proposed we "execute" in lieu of providing them government aid on page 3 of this discussion?

http://phoenixphorum.com/post39050.html#39050

So who gets to decide which individuals get to excercise their right to protect themselves, their loved ones and family and which individuals we wipe of the face of the earth? Charlton Heston!?

Some are, some are not. So what is your point?

My point is that you're taking advantage of the poor man's plight when it serves YOU, and completely dismissing this group when helping them may negatively affect YOU in some very minor way. It obviously appears easy for you to come up with seemingly cut and dry solutions to what are actually truly complex political issues when your only concern is YOURSELF. Unfortunately, politicians don't have the luxury of creating legislation to serve just one individual or group of individuals with very similar interests. You're likely to continue to be extremely frustrated with political discussions for the rest of your life when you fail to realize that the issues at hand actually affect more than just little insignificant YOU!

[Eric D]

Little insignificant me and 51% of the rest of Americans.

[mr tibbs]

Little insignificant me and 51% of the rest of Americans.

You mean 51% of the electoral college. Bush was not voted into office by the people. Also, if you want to go by the approval rating right now, well..........

[Eric D]

This is not about Bush, or his election. Countless conservatives are loosing faith in Bush, but that in no way is a direction relationship to them losing or changing the ideals they believe in.

With his approval at only 33%, you cannot make the assumption that only 33% of the country is conservative.

I am a member of the 51% who elected him, and that makes me part of a very significant group of people.

[bdubs767]

Little insignificant me and 51% of the rest of Americans.

I think you missed jeds point...

[mr tibbs]

This is not about Bush, or his election. Countless conservatives are loosing faith in Bush, but that in no way is a direction relationship to them losing or changing the ideals they believe in.

With his approval at only 33%, you cannot make the assumption that only 33% of the country is conservative.

I am a member of the 51% who elected him, and that makes me part of a very significant group of people.

Again, Bush was not voted in by the people. Less than 51% voted for him, it was the electoral college and some help from his brother that got him into power.

[bdubs767]

This is not about Bush, or his election. Countless conservatives are loosing faith in Bush, but that in no way is a direction relationship to them losing or changing the ideals they believe in.

With his approval at only 33%, you cannot make the assumption that only 33% of the country is conservative.

I am a member of the 51% who elected him, and that makes me part of a very significant group of people.

Again, Bush was not voted in by the people. Less than 51% voted for him, it was the electoral college and some help from his brother that got him into power.

Bush really isnt that bad, it's the VP that is the scary one who influences Bush

[Eric D]

Little insignificant me and 51% of the rest of Americans.

I think you missed jeds point...

I completely missed it.

[Eric D]

This is not about Bush, or his election. Countless conservatives are loosing faith in Bush, but that in no way is a direction relationship to them losing or changing the ideals they believe in.

With his approval at only 33%, you cannot make the assumption that only 33% of the country is conservative.

I am a member of the 51% who elected him, and that makes me part of a very significant group of people.

Again, Bush was not voted in by the people. Less than 51% voted for him, it was the electoral college and some help from his brother that got him into power.

Not to mention all of the votes he stole by personally rigging the election. Man I wish we could do that election over again…

…but we cannot, so here we are stuck with him for one more year.

[dedlyjedly]

Little insignificant me and 51% of the rest of Americans.

I can only assume you refer to 51% of Americans as in the majority of voters that "elected" your darling Bush into office, but I was referring to your own "solutions" to political issues Eric, and not anyone elses actual political platform. Surely you don't believe a majority of the conservatives, let alone the nation's voters as a whole, would support exterminating the poor to save themselves a few tax dollars. Even Bush isn't stupid enough to implement the course of action you proposed.

Too bad you deleted some of your other responses from Saturday afternoon before I had a chance to quote them. They too were quite entertaining.

[Eric D]

Little insignificant me and 51% of the rest of Americans.

I can only assume you refer to 51% of Americans as in the majority of voters that "elected" your darling Bush into office, but I was referring to your own "solutions" to political issues Eric, and not anyone elses actual political platform. Surely you don't believe a majority of the conservatives, let alone the nation's voters as a whole, would support exterminating the poor to save themselves a few tax dollars. Even Bush isn't stupid enough to implement the course of action you proposed.

Too bad you deleted some of your other responses from Saturday afternoon before I had a chance to quote them. They too were quite entertaining.

Good point.

[Eric D]

You guys apparently don’t have a good grasp for what sarcasm is, and also apparently take me far more seriously than you should. I don’t take online political discussion all that seriously. The variations in all of our environments are far too diverse to have a solid discussion, so I prefer to take things to the extreme to see what response I can get.

So I guess for the record I should present what I would actually do with the questions asked earlier in this thread. This is assuming I actually were a politician, or wanted to be a politician, or had some sort of influence on what actually happens in the USA.

1) The poor. Is this even a problem government should tackle anyway? Right now, churches, and countless other charities are doing an admirable job handling the poor. Best of all it is voluntary. If government started using taxes to help this problem, that forces people to spend on something not everyone wants to. If people out there do not wish to help the poor, I do not feel they should be forced to do so. Additionally does anyone here actually think the government could do a good job with this? I can see it now, for every $1 in taxes going to this, $0.90 would go to bullshit administration fees, which pretty much amounts to padding the pockets of some politicians in the loop. I am a member of several organizations, some of which have secondary goals helping the poor. It is far more rewarding for us to help people on our own than it is to have someone force us to help. Best of all, we help people in our community. I would be pretty frustrated if my tax money for the poor went to some family in New Mexico or Alaska, when I know of families just down the road from me struggling to survive who could use my help.

2) Children with out healthcare. Surprisingly, a lot of the same is true for this as it is for question one. Any time a child in my area is in need of a more uncommon form of treatment (surgery or cancer treatments for example), the community comes together and one or more benefits are held. All of us locals go to the benefit as we typically know the child and the parents (small town), and donate as we can, which seems to work out well. Also, a lot of health care providers in my area help children for free. I have no idea if this happens in your area, but it does happen here. My girlfriend works for an endodontist who performs root canals on children with no insurance at no cost. I am pretty sure my general physician does the same. Anyway, my point here is a lot of this stuff happens on its own, and having government get involved will not necessarily improve the situation, plus it does not seem right to force people to help through taxes. They should have a choice in the matter.

3) When a woman is raped, or the birth may kill her, abortion is an excellent option, and should be a choice for the woman involved. As for any other abortion, I don’t have too much concern, except for those who have “lots” of abortions. Now, I am not an expert on this subject, so “lots” is up to definition by those who are in the know. What bothers me is a woman who uses abortion as birth control, and I know those kinds of women are out there. I really feel in these cases the woman should have her tubes cut, which I realize has additional moral issues associated with it. My concern is any woman with this mindset is not raising wanted children anyway, and they are more likely to become a burden on society in the future.

4) In the case of capitol punishment, anyone who is found guilty of a capital crime beyond a reasonable doubt, should be put to death. Now, I am no expert on this either, as I am not a forensic pathologist or anything to that affect. If you find a guy with his hands covered in blood, and DNA all over placing him at the crime, plus he admits to the crime, I feel he should be put to death. It does not make any sense for him to sit in prison for the rest of his life. That is simply too expensive for an already strapped prison system. Does anyone see any benefit to keeping someone like this alive and in prison forever? In all other cases, where some doubt exists, continue with the same death row procedures we use now, in which the prisoner has the option for a series of appeals, any of which could free him if proving his innocence.

5) I am all for a free market. However, you really need to be pretty specific when you define a free market. Right now in the case of China for example, we are not engaged in a free market. China has higher taxes on goods coming from our country, than we do on goods coming here from their country. This impedes the free market. The middle east is similar. Huge oil cartels define what we pay, and just like cases here in the USA of monopolies getting broke up, someone needs to act to keep the oil market free. We buy a lot of oil from the Middle East and we pretty much pay what ever they are charging. Say what you will about Iraq and the war, but assuming (key word assuming) we stabilize Iraq, we may create another source of oil, one which is not under the hand of a larger cartel. Saddam was not our friend, and very likely would have preferred to see us suffer than to sell us any oil if we asked him of it. This is especially due to our past history of screwing with him. We put him in power, then we fight him in the 80’s, now let’s say 2020 rolled around and we asked him for some oil. Chances are he would either not sell it or charge even more than our other sources would have. If this whole plan with Iraq does work out, we may have a friend with a source of oil, and that could be a real benefit to us.

Now, I have presented my opinions on these questions asked. So what are your responses? Obviously there are holes in my plans or logic, but I will gain nothing if you just tell me I suck and so do my ideas. I want to know what your ideas are and how you would handle things. Maybe I can learn something from you.

[bdubs767]

this does not look good for Bush and Chenney

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071121/ap_ ... _mcclellan

[mr tibbs]

Well boys, you just might have sold me on Ron Paul. I have been checking him out and I even watched the last republican debate just to see him. Although I do not agree with all of his views, the ones I don't agree with him he seems to be smart enough to know that the federal government should not have their hands in everything. So far, he is my favorite candidate! Now, if he would just declare that he is running as an independent that would probably give him a better chance!

[bdubs767]

How many of you would vote for this stance over the candidate's stance that are running right now?

Goals Domestically
1.) Attempt to eliminate the special interest groups and lobbyist by attempting to put into action a bill only allowing for every single person in America and every business to only donate a max of $1 to any single campaign

2.)Education Reform, along the lines of Alfie Kohn thoughts. Just look up the book Punished by Rewards to get a brief understanding of his ideas.

3.)Stop mass foreign investment in USA government

4.) Social Reform. Reward any family that allows one parent to stay home with their children w/ tax breaks. (can explain why I think this is vital just ask)

5.)Create the chair of the federal back to be an elected position


6.) Mass funding for alternative fuel sources

Goals Internationally

1.) Fight for the UN, WTO, NAFTA to have elected leaders of their organizations.

2.)Reaffirm relations w/ Europe through globalization

3.) keep a tight grip on the oil fields in Iraq until alternative fuel source is found

4.) Promote free markets and globalization in Arab countries at all cost

5.) Prevent genocides we have turned a blind eye to in Africa

[mr tibbs]

I would love to comment on this, but every damn time I get into a political thread I seem to bring out emotions in people that are not necessarily good ones so I'm pleading the fifth here.

[bdubs767]

I would love to comment on this, but every damn time I get into a political thread I seem to bring out emotions in people that are not necessarily good ones so I'm pleading the fifth here.

I need to hear feedback on this. Everyone attack me please and no one else.

If there are any attacks on any one else points of view besides mine Ill ask Tom to lock the thread.

[mr tibbs]

Is this for school or just for fun?

[stipud]

Liberal media socialist hippies!

Seriously man, there's a political megathread for a reason. Would you mind if I merged this into it?

So your position would be to spit in the face of everyone who paid for you to get into position in the first place? You would never be elected, let alone make it to the podium. Lobbyists and foreign investment is what makes America what it is. Denying that would not be something you could do as an elected official.. it would have to be set off by some sort of enormous social change.

Trying to connect to Europe with globalization is also ignorant of the reason they are getting pissed off at you in the first place. They don't want to be Americans. You've globalized enough already. If you think of it like a gay couple, all Europe really wants it to be the giver every now and then... but the US ALWAYS wants to be on top. For America to coexist peacefully with the rest of the world, you need to learn to be receivers, like us Canadians!

And as long as you have a tight grip ANYWHERE, you are going to be pretty hated. Arab countries need globalization like you need a kick to the nuts. Some of them are still living in feudalism for fucks sake... give them a few (hundred?) years to catch up and become envious instead of seething contempt for you.

And how do you plan to stop genocides before they happen? We've sent billions in aid to Africa, and it just ends up buying more guns for the warlords, or making things worse by other means. If all of us first world nations would stop selling them guns and christianity, and just left them alone to play catch up, Africa would also be way better off.