"Let's ban automobiles. More people die in car crashes than from guns."
Yes, but cars provide a practical utility: transportation. A simple, everyday utility. And because of that, there are plenty of regulations governing drivers: tests, licensing, etc.
Statistically it is far safer to drive a car than own a gun.
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
People with guns kill more efficiently. Really, your statement is among the world's dumbest. It is absurd to argue that guns have agency just as it is stupid to argue that nuclear weapons have agency.
"Better yet, lets ban bad behavior. Then again, who gets to decide what is "bad" behavior?"
Reasonable people can decide what constitutes bad behavior in the public sphere. But significant numbers of Republicans and/or conservatives are not reasonable.
*****Case in point***************
Public Policy Polling (PPP) results:
PPP (11/23/23) "The examples of the GOP’s reflexive opposition to President Obama’s agenda are many but this may be the best one yet: by a 27 point margin Republicans say they disapprove of the President’s executive order last year pardoning two Thanksgiving turkeys (Macaroni and Cheese) instead of the customary one. Only 11% of Republicans support the President’s executive order last year to 38% who are opposed- that’s a pretty clear sign that if you put Obama’s name on something GOP voters are going to oppose it pretty much no matter what."
I really love this in comparison to the "insane Bush outrage" that conservatives spent years whining about. Never mind that Bush was actually a terrible and horrible president on every level.
Uh, "old white men" did not draft the Bill of Rights; also, "old white men" do not equate to "right wing fundamentalists."
On the other hand, "right wing fundamentalists" does bear a striking resemblance to Daesh, the Nixon/Reagan/Bush administrations, virtually all terrorist orgs, Iran's mullahs, Israel's Knesset, Germany's Third Reich, various Latin American dictatorships over the past 100 yrs, not to mention the Republican base.
My problem with Obama is that despite Daesh (attacks in Paris, terrorism in Syria, Iraq, etc) he still maintains that removing Assad is his top priority. He was actually trying to sell Putin on that today after Turkey shot down one of Russia's fighter planes...while complaining that if Russia would just stop supporting Assad (by bombing the "moderate" rebels) we could all move forward. As if dictating terms to Putin will somehow force Russia to accede to US interests, haha. Now it seems like he actually wants to follow Dumbya's stumbling footsteps in removing a largely ineffectual Middle East strongman because Israel and Saudi Arabia.
While I do agree with Obama that global warming poses a far greater threat to civilization than Daesh, the latter is a far more extended and long-term problem than most everyone seems to realize. Islamic terrorism is nativist militant political outrage unleashed after a century of Western influence in the region in pursuit of the precioussss, in combination with sectarian wars (Sunni v Shia) that have been going on for roughly 1200 years, plus the various disagreements between regional tribal groups.
My problem with you is with your making completely unqualifiable and unjustifiable statements like "Obama will get us all killed." How exactly does that happen?? Specifically, how does Daesh destroy everyone in the US of A? Or -even more absurd- did you mean everyone in western civilization?
Need I point out the "irony" between wingnuts claiming a) threats of global warming are "alarmist" while b) ignoring/ridiculing global warming, and of course c) cheerleading everyone to go around heavily armed because 2nd Amendment FREEDUMB despite the fact that US gun owners killed more US citizens in 2013 year than all Islamic jihads combined across all years?
Right wingnut politics has always been a huge gift to grifters: Sarah Palin went from $0 to $12M in a few years. Carson was very well off as a top neurosurgeon, but it was his 1990 book "Gifted Hands" that made him rich. Trump is just getting richer because following his daddy's inheritance that's what he's good at...despite, strangely enough, his ventures having filed Ch. 11 BK four times for a collective loss of over $1 billion.
Others: Huckabee, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, Dinesh D'Souza, etc. One big sucker factory.
Since when did touting equality and voting rights become pandering to "special interests?"
Oh right: I forgot how much right wing fundamentalists despise democracy.
"I don't think I am a coward though thankfully I have never truly been put to the test, but I don't believe in recklessly putting myself into harms way either. I believe in living to fight another day."
How convenient: you justify never putting yourself in harm's way because you can always rationalize living to fight another day. When will that day come?
"How am I running away from centuries of white supremacy as terrorism when I favored the 1964 Civil Rights Act and never raised my voice in opposition except against unjust causes."
I didn't hear you raise your voice when the conservatives on the SCOTUS gutted the 1965 Voting Rights Act (Shelby v Holder, 2013). Apparently you believe federal enforcement of voting rights (a civil right) is an unjust cause.
"Yes, you can compare terrorism to racism for those who believe that justice should only serve a few and not all. I am not the resident racist or terrorist on the MO board."
I agree, you're not *the* resident racist or terrorist on the MO board, only because there are several.
US Demographics: 70.5% White, 10.4% Latino, 12.5% Black, 3.5% Asian (approx 1% of Asians are Arabic and/or Muslim), 3.1% Other
According to Pew, party preference among Whites and Blacks has been nearly identical in the last three elections:
2010: 37D 60R (White); 60D 38R (Latino); 89D 9R (Black)
2012: 39D 59R, (White); 68D 30R (Latino); 91D 8R (Black)
2014: 38D 60R (White); 62D 36R (Latino); 89D 10R (Black)
Republican treatment of Latinos and Blacks by Republicans means they need to racially polarize the electorate in a way that gets them 4-5% more of the White vote. (They have clearly eschewed the Black vote; and given their anti-immigrant rhetoric of late I'll be surprised if they get 30% of the Latino vote) They can do some of this through suppressing turnout instead, meaning if they can keep sufficient numbers of Blacks and Latinos from voting in the first place, they don’t need to improve quite so much with Whites.
They must pursue more of the White vote and there are not too many ways to do that other than aggravating racial consciousness and jacking up the sense of white racial grievance.
This has been a mainstay of conservative/Republican electoral strategy since at least the time that Nixon pursued the Southern Strategy, but I doubt that it’s ever been this much of an urgent and indispensable part of their path to success.
So, we’re seeing two things: a revival of open racism that had been dormant on the presidential campaign trail, and continued efforts to suppress the minority vote. These aren’t really choices anymore, because Republicans can’t win any other way.
I think the answer is yes; there is enough wiggle room in the definition for some people say Trump doesn't *precisely* fit, so whatevs. But any idea that he isn't dictatorial or authoritarian is just wrong. No, he doesn't come out and say that he will disband congress. But his entire argument rests on the idea that he, and he alone, will "get things done." This is what his followers want him to do, as well. If we take him at his word, he is; if we simply assume a of what he says is just ginned-up BS, then he's more of a proto-fascist. Call it what you want, but Trump's running on nationalism, militarism, corporatism, nativism and authoritarianism.
Even more obvious is that the Republican base is clearly all of these things; Trump's rhetoric merely taps into and reflects those sentiments...as do virtually all the other POTUS candidates in the GOP klown kkkar, but they are less obvious about it. (Advocating a heavily armed citizenry is not of the less-obvious examples).
The huge difference between obama and GW Bush is Bush never aided and abetted islamic jihadist terrorists
How Washington Funded the Taliban
August 2, 2002
"In mid-May, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a $43 million grant to Afghanistan in addition to the humanitarian aid the United States had long been providing to agencies assisting Afghan refugees."
How odd that the current administration ignored the insane ramblings of a couple of confirmed cracked Teapots. This horrifying example of blatant totalitarianism on display by the Executive branch can mean only one thing....
"Seems I touched a nerve."
Is the gag reflex actually a nerve?
"Coming from you, it's a compliment."
Egads then you'll love this even more:
I guess it's ok for Second Amendment patriots to shoot up schools and theaters, as long as they don't yell "Allahu Akbar" while they are doing it.
You really have to wonder what Wayne LaPierre would say if a confirmed paranoid schizophrenic already packed to the gills walked into a sporting goods store looking to legally purchase a few AR-15s and several hundred rounds of ammo...the day before shooting up a school.
You really have to wonder what Wayne LaPierre would say if a bunch of camo-and-denim wingnut Christians already packed to the gills walked into a sporting goods store looking to legally purchase a few AR-15s and several hundred rounds of ammo...the day before shooting up a few US feds.
Let's try that again...
You really have to wonder what Wayne LaPierre would say if a bunch of burnoose-and-kufiya wingnut Muslims already packed to the gills walked into a sporting goods store looking to legally purchase a few AR-15s and several hundred rounds of ammo....the day before shooting up a theater.
"That just means that the test of country of origin/birth is valid and not that one group should be deselected. Blargh arble garble......"
You have always been an absurd joke.
TODAY IN SQL-----
set crueloption="man up"
select case "YOU ARE A MORON" when ([country_of_origin] and [country_of_birth] valid) where (x/(numberofdays)=[fresh])) then crueloption valid else crueloption=valid
Welcome to automated testing of a moron 101. Garbage in, garbage out.
YIKES! Now it's those sneaky French terrorists.
They are probably snotty....because first of all, France. Also Belgium (aka 'Little France')...Quebec is 'New France.' I thought wingnuts despised the frogs. *cough* FREEDOM FRIES *cough*
But by all means, please proceed with denying Syrian refugees refuge.
From an article that should have been titled 'Contempt for Democracy'...
"Conservatives are always at a bit of a disadvantage in the theater of mass democracy, because people en masse aren’t very bright or sophisticated, and they’re vulnerable to cheap, hysterical emotional appeals."
--Kevin Williamson, National Review
When I think of cheap, hysterical emotional appeals the first thing that leaps to mind is Fox News. The second is the response of the 2016 GOP clown car to the Paris attacks.
When I imagine the non-bright or unsophisticated masses, I picture Fox News' target demographic.
BTW, Mr. Williamson is also the author of a priceless and ultimately self-defeating NR article (7/20/2015) which *implicitly suggests* Bernie Sanders is a N@zi:
"In the Bernieverse, there’s a whole lot of nationalism mixed up in the socialism. He is, in fact, leading a national-socialist movement, which is a queasy and uncomfortable thing to write about a man who is the son of Jewish immigrants from Poland and whose family was murdered in the Holocaust. But there is no other way to characterize his views and his politics."
Bernie Sanders: Adolf-lite!
"He is a national socialist in the mode of Hugo Chávez. He isn't driven by racial hatred; he's driven by political hatred. And that's bad enough."
a) Sanders isn't driven by hatred; his campaign (and his career) focuses on economic inequalities and resultant injustices.To label Sanders a 'hater' is absurd.
b) Chávez was an opportunistic, bombastic military/authoritarian type (again, not like Sanders) who despite enacting some much-needed social and economic reforms burned waaay too many bridges and was undone by his reliance on Venezuela's oil reserves and his own arrogant Chavismo. Socialists take note: he essentially destroyed one of the most competent, successful, state run companies in the world.
President Bush was correct. We are not at war against Muslims. We are at war with Muslim terrorists. The vast majority of the world's muslimsare excluded from that group.
Leaving aside Pilo's sarcasm for a moment, I'm overjoyed by your remarks. However, one thing puzzles me: if we are not at war with Muslims, why are the Republican candidates for POTUS citing terrorism as a justification to halt the Syrian refugee inflow and calling for laws prohibiting the building of mosques? What about Trump's desire to begin a surveillance program targeting all Muslims in the US?
How do you stop terrorists? One way is to bankrupt them. How do you do that? By finding out where the money is coming from and stopping it.
If memory serves, that was the single accomplishment of the previous administration: they went after (mostly) offshore banks and seized millions in assets that were going to fund al Qaida. Unfortunately, that was an early and short-lived success - once the Saudis began complaining, Bush ordered the FBI to ignore certain banks.
The other thing to remember is that terrorist operations are relatively inexpensive. The 9/11 attacks cost about $500,000 to finance but resulted in immediate losses of over $100 billion in property damage and lost production. The cost of halting trades -stock market wealth- is estimated to be around $2 trillion.
Of course, the US itself has been supplying terrorist groups with arms and training for decades; that should help defray the costs somewhat. Not to mention the $9 billion in Iraq reconstruction funds that was, um, misplaced by Bush toady Paul Bremer.
Passing legislation to block well-vetted refugees from Syria rather than passing laws to block French citizens* is like invading Iraq after 9/11.
*The terrorists who carried out the attacks in Paris are all French citizens. Every single one.