Random Political Thoughts

[onan]

I think the "system" has better methods, but I just don't think the background checks get to the heart of the problem.

I'm interested in what other methods are available. I don't think background checks are anywhere near a perfect method. I mean G liddy is a felon but his wife has a very impressive gun collection.

[Frys Girl]

I understand your point now FG.  passing 1 law that requires background checks will not stop all criminals from killing. It's more of a  systemic issue that is much more difficult, if not impossible, to legislate and completely stop with 1 law. I misunderstood the context of your " inconvenience" comment, and thought you were being sarcastic.
No harm, no foul!
It's a difficult subject that people are passionate about because the gun culture is part of our history as a country. 1 group says we're going too far, and another, not far enough. whatever the outcome, people are still going to be victims of violence. Sadly it's human nature.

Honestly, I'm not against the law at all. I just don't think it should be passed and give us relief.
I'm for the law, because actually, I think if sickos have to go to a sketchy person to buy guns to kill, they may end up being offed.... that was easy. I don't know what else to say about this topic right now that is meaningful.

[Frys Girl]

I'm interested in what other methods are available. I don't think background checks are anywhere near a perfect method. I mean G liddy is a felon but his wife has a very impressive gun collection.

LOL! I forgot about him. Good reference onan. I think we need to instill more moral virtue in our society. We need kindness and respect. I think our society as a whole, even those who do not kill do a lot of harm to others by other actions.

[Pragmier]

In light of recent developments, one thing is clear - Saddam was very good at hiding pressure cookers.

[eddie dean]

Honestly, I'm not against the law at all. I just don't think it should be passed and give us relief.
I'm for the law, because actually, I think if sickos have to go to a sketchy person to buy guns to kill, they may end up being offed.... that was easy. I don't know what else to say about this topic right now that is meaningful.

BTW Frys Girl, it was not my intention to attack you, target you, or make you feel attacked.
I was just trying to understand what you meant by your comments.

[Frys Girl]

BTW Frys Girl, it was not my intention to attack you, target you, or make you feel attacked.
I was just trying to understand what you meant by your comments.

Thanks eddie. I appreciate it! What a civilized bunch of folks we are here, really. Awesome board.

[West of the Rockies]

Well, here's my two cents worth on the gun control issue...  First, I think that criminal background checks are a great idea.  Convictions of certain crimes should prevent people from owning firearms.  Of course, we'd have to figure out a workable solution to the issue of when a felon lives in the home with someone who can legally own a firearm....

Now, background checks for mental health is more problematic.  I assume that if we required such a screening, the would-be buyer would be on the hook for paying for that evaluation (which seems reasonable to me).  BUT, I can easily picture someone, somewhere, somehow turning it into a scam.  Here in California, it's pretty easy to get a prescription for "medical marijuana".  "Hey, Doc, my baby toes really hurts.  Can I have a scrip?" I can imagine some mental health professionals hanging up a shingles and getting a reputation pretty fast as a "sure thing" as far as their client getting a pass to own a firearm.  Secondly, just how deep would the mental health evaluation go?  Would it be a five-minute conversation on the phone or face-to-face with a counselor?  How effective would the screening really be?  And, would some counselors go the opposite way and be very reluctant to okay a client to own a firearm for fear that IF the client went crazy, the counselor would face some sort of liability? 

I see the issue as frought with trouble....

A meaningful firearm safety course would be great.  I remember in high school having to take a semester long class on driver's education; this was followed by something like a week behind the wheel.  THEN I obtained the right to take a written test and a second behind-the-wheel test before I got my license.  By contrast, obtaining a firearm is pretty friggin' easy in terms of proving yourself properly educated on safe handling.

No easy answers on this issue, but standing idly by and shrugging our collective shoulders seems pretty stupid, too.

[Yorkshire pud]

I believe the closest pure economic communism has come to existing is in communes where people live together, work together and share their possessions and the benefits of their labor.  Most of them haven't lasted very long.  I'm going out on a limb here but it could be argued that Old Order Amish practice a form of economic communism.  They do not believe in luxuries of any kind.  When one of the community members needs to be hospitalized, the community  pays the medical and hospital bills.  It could also be argued that nuns and monks living a monastic life are practicing a form of economic communism. 

Yes, agreed.

I do not believe a real or pure communist state has ever existed.  China, the USSR, North Korea, Cuba, East Germany and the rest have all been totalitarian regimes where people who spoke out were imprisoned or executed. A group of key communist party members lived in luxury.  They were called the nomenclatura in the USSR.  The regular people did all the work and lived like peasants.  The nomenclatura had luxurious dachas and drove BMWs and Mercedes.

Exactly! 'Communism' has been a mutually beneficial stick and carrot in the past (and present in some places) depending on which side you're on. Stalin et al, used it and told the peasants they'd never had it so good as long as they built more obsolete tractors whilst they starved due to the chronic inefficiency. Meanwhile the west used the mantra that the commies were lining up to obliterate 'freedom', at the same time as feeding their mythical 'enemy'. Most Soviet citizens just wanted a better life, they may have been told they hadn't had it so good, few believed it. The west isn't above criticism, not by a long way: Preaching their respective societies were perfect when their governments raped the rest of the world 'spreading democracy'.

Under Stalin, the State possessed all property and distributed it accordingly to the masses - pure socialism.

Who told you that? Then as now (post split of the USSR) there are the elite and 'the rest'. Distribution isn't a concept the elite really identify with.

[West of the Rockies]

Anyone have any thoughts on this NBA player coming out and the response he's received?  It's curious how some pundits suggest that his coming out is no big deal because he's not an especially good player.  (His stats are not very impressive.)  Some are pissed because Obama congratulated him; these people -- to paraphrase -- are saying, "What's the big deal?  It's not like he was fighting overseas."  Well, I think that Obama probably saw a photo-op when he saw it (name a president who doesn't snap those up!), but the reason this guy coming out is a big deal is because he is the first active player in any of the big four American sports (NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB) to do it.  And I think it probably did take a certain amount of courage to come out, considering how many times over the last few years we've heard one player or another say things like, "Man, if I knew there was a gay guy on my team, there'd by problems."  I don't know that I'd quite place his actions up there with Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier, but it is -- IMO -- pretty significant.

[Pragmier]

I agree it's significant. If it wasn't a 'big deal' it would have happened already; it tells me there's real fear among players of the possible consequences.

[Juan]

It's not a big deal - except for the sexism involved.  Many female pro athletes are out.  Martina was out 40-years ago - she just never made an announcement. 

[Sardondi]

It's not a big deal - except for the sexism involved.  Many female pro athletes are out.  Martina was out 40-years ago - she just never made an announcement.

Martina didn't have to. Like it was a huge surprise when Magic Johnson said he had AIDS - "Hey, wow, how'd I catch that, huh?"

[Yorkshire pud]

Anyone have any thoughts on this NBA player coming out and the response he's received?  It's curious how some pundits suggest that his coming out is no big deal because he's not an especially good player.  (His stats are not very impressive.)  Some are pissed because Obama congratulated him; these people -- to paraphrase -- are saying, "What's the big deal?  It's not like he was fighting overseas."  Well, I think that Obama probably saw a photo-op when he saw it (name a president who doesn't snap those up!), but the reason this guy coming out is a big deal is because he is the first active player in any of the big four American sports (NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB) to do it.  And I think it probably did take a certain amount of courage to come out, considering how many times over the last few years we've heard one player or another say things like, "Man, if I knew there was a gay guy on my team, there'd by problems."  I don't know that I'd quite place his actions up there with Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier, but it is -- IMO -- pretty significant.

It's the same in the UK. Officially there is something like 0.000000000000001% homosexual participation both on the field of play or in the crowd watching..Amazing eh? Very few sports people 'come out'; I think the last was a Welsh rugby player (for our uninitiated American cousins, rugby is a game that on the face of it, looks similar to your American football, only they don't wear the protection apart from a gum shield). The last football player (You call it soccer) to admit he was gay was ostracised , the one before that committed suicide. So it's hardly any wonder they don't say anything, due to the mainly double digit intelligence of the average peer group. Over here, rugby tends to have more intelligent players and fan base, so the guy who came out recently isn't having such a bad time, quite the contrary in fact.

[Pragmier]

This week Sen. Toomey, Rep co-sponsor of the background check bill, made an interesting admission on video. He expresses his surprise and bewilderment at the bill's failure to pass, and gives an assessment as to why many Republicans voted against it:


http://www.timesherald.com/article/20130501/NEWS01/130439950/video-toomey-doubts-second-gun-control-vote

"I think in the end we didn’t [pass the bill] because our politics have become so politicized. And there are people on my side who didn't want to be perceived to be helping something the president wants to accomplish, simply because it's the president who wants to accomplish it."

He didn't cite the 2nd Amendment, or voter preference, not even the NRA. But rather - it was a political vote. Which harkens back to the obstructionist motto of denying Obama political victories. I am sure Dem strategists are not above pulling this kind of crap, but rarely to you hear someone own up to it this way. And BTW, Toomey's poll numbers are up in his state and the guy has a solid conservative record.

[Juan]

OTOH, the bill was yet another one being rammed through without the usual committee, debate and amendment process.  Americans have seen how well that goes with The Patriot Act and Obamacare.  I'd argue that Americans are sick of that process, and the way "crisis" is used to short circuit the normal process.  Yes, it's political, but a political response to a political process.

[Pragmier]

I don't disagree - by all means lets have debates. Thirty-one Republicans initially voted against even allowing a debate. After that initial hurdle, they had 5-6 days for arguments, and at 49 pages (healthcare came in at 900, Patriot at 300) the background bill doesn't compare to the complexity of the others. Who knows, they say it's not dead yet, maybe the critics can present acceptable amendments.


Again I agree with you that crisis should not be exploited. This is a bad move of supporters of background checks - it puts them in a difficult position of defending implied claims that a specific legislation would have prevented a specific event.

[PB the Deplorable]

This week Sen. Toomey, Rep co-sponsor of the background check bill, made an interesting admission on video. He expresses his surprise and bewilderment at the bill's failure to pass, and gives an assessment as to why many Republicans voted against it:



He didn't cite the 2nd Amendment, or voter preference, not even the NRA. But rather - it was a political vote. Which harkens back to the obstructionist motto of denying Obama political victories. I am sure Dem strategists are not above pulling this kind of crap, but rarely to you hear someone own up to it this way. And BTW, Toomey's poll numbers are up in his state and the guy has a solid conservative record.

This happens a lot more than people realize - in the state legislatures as well as in the House and Senate. 

The Senate and House leadership decide who gets which office space, the number of staff they get, which committes and sub-committees they are assigned to.  The national party committees - with major input from these people - decide how much party money and support the members will get in their next elections, or even whether to possibly encourage or support their primary opposition.

The Whips and steering committees take close notes on who supports what, with the Whip doing the arm twisting and making promises on one hand and threats on the other.  If a certain bill or appointee has the votes or clearly doesn't, the party leaders will let a few members vote the other way if it will help that member with their constituents - especially in the Seante if they are coming p for election in the next cycle, or in the House if it's a competitive district - but if it's a close vote and important to party strategy those members are told to vote with their party or else.

This isn't going to be the case on every bill that comes up or there would be a rebellion in the ranks, and a flexable leadership is a stronger leadership, but something seen as important for whatever reason, or something considered a test of party loyalty or party strength, the members will routinely vote against their own interests and against their own preferences.


So when people say they vote for the person and not for the party - if they tend to support one party over another in general they would be well advised to consider this.  Too many issues and appointments are decided along party lines.

[PB the Deplorable]

So first the Administration sends Joe Biden out to inform the world:

"Because we recognize the great danger Assad’s chemical and biological  arsenals pose to Israel and the United States, to the whole world, we’ve set a clear red line against the use or the transfer of the those weapons."

The President himself later added that use of chemical weaposn would cross a "red line" and be a "game changer" for U.S. policy, "with enormous consequences."

Now, after Syria has reportedly used chemical weapons, an aide is sent out to tell the world  “If he drops sarin on his own people, what's that got to do with us?”



This display of incompetence and weakness by the President is just the sort of thing that can cause unfriendly governments to miscalculate or decide to test US resolve, whether in this specific part of the world or elsewhere.   It doesn't inspire a lot of confidence with our friends and allies either, not that he's much interested in that.



Don't make threats you aren't going to back up later bud, this isn't like precinct politics back home.  Ok, back to the Hollywood themed parties, golf matches, and wealth redistribution.

[Sardondi]

Bill Ayers distinguishes the Boston bombing and murders by those of his and wifey Benadine Dohrn's Weather Underground: http://www.ohio.com/news/local/bill-ayers-defends-weather-underground-bombings-1.395109?localLinksEnabled=false

In essence, Bill and Bern consider themselves heroes because they were killing folks to demonstrate how evil Republicans were. Which, in the mind of the political mentor of our President, made it perfectly okay. Plus Bill exhibits his charming skill at revolutionary arithmetic, in which no truth is owed to history and figures, and casualty statistics are nothing more than fictitious chow for the Alinsky propaganda machine.

What a despicable man.

[PB the Deplorable]

... What a despicable man.

How about the university that hired him?  Or the political machine that accepted him as one of their own?  Or a young 'Constitutional Lawyer'/street organizer that selected him as mentor/friend?  Or the pressure groups that revere him and invite him to speak?  Or a Media that plays him down when necessary and praises him when they can?

What if Bush or any R had friends that were traitors and home-grown terrorists?  Imagine how the Media would react to that.

[West of the Rockies]

So Mark Sanford won office in South Carolina...  I am so sick of career politicians conning their dumb-ass constituents.  He is just the latest example of this dynamic; both sides do it, of course, but his may be one of the more momentous come-backs that I can recall.  Cheat on your wife, lie to the taxpayers and your colleagues, and then rise up in glory like some phoenix...  more like a shitbird.

[Pragmier]

With rare exception - John Edwards comes to mind - does infidelity sway my vote. We place too great a spotlight on their personal lives as is. Sanford ran a better campaign and even with his past came across as the more "real" candidate. Maybe because of it.

[West of the Rockies]

Well, Edwards sure lost my admiration.  I think he ended up looking like a fool, and I can't imagine he will ever be electable again in any contest.  I would never vote for him.  Indeed, like Tom Delay, he may end up getting very familiar with the confines of a prison cell.  In the words of Michelle Bachmann, I find it interesting though that some people can look at Bill Clinton with disdain, but a Newt Gingrich or Mark Sanford gets a pass for largely similar offenses.  Okay, Bill stained the office (and a blue dress, evidently!); he lied about his actions.  I don't see some cosmic difference between his actions and Sanford's.  Sanford had an affair, used tax-payer dollars in the pursuit of that affair.  When he got caught, he disappeared for a short time, apparently all the while breaking some sort of restraining order his ex-wife established to keep him out of the house they formerly shared. (Or did he simply trespass -- as opposed to breaking a restraining order?  Any of you guys divorced here?  Would  you be okay with your ex popping into your house if you weren't there?  Clearly, the former Mrs. Sanford was not happy about it.)

Look, I'm not saying both sides don't do it.  I just am stymied that voters awarded this guy a high-paying, powerful job that comes with all sorts of social status.  Maybe his opponent was a week candidate, but were all of the Republicans who ran against Sanford also especially piss-poor? 

I guess I'm a sap.  We're told that our forefathers (some anyway) were out cheating on their spouses, making deals with the devil and so forth, so maybe Sanford's actions aren't all that unusual.  But why, oh, why, do we keep sending corrupt money-pigs to Washington?  Maybe those with honor are too smart or have too much integrity to play the game.  Wasn't that the message behind that old Robert Redford film The Candidate?   

[PB the Deplorable]

... Look, I'm not saying both sides don't do it.  I just am stymied that voters awarded this guy a high-paying, powerful job that comes with all sorts of social status.  Maybe his opponent was a week candidate, but were all of the Republicans who ran against Sanford also especially piss-poor?...

It's disgusting this person is back in office, this time as a Congressman.  I didn't follow the story so I don't know a thing about the Rs that ran in the primary, but it was likely mostly about name recognition and enough of the people of that district liking him - he was the Congressman from that district in the years before he became Gov. 

That's a fairly conservative district, they weren't ever going to elect for Steven Colbert's sister.

[Yorkshire pud]

Slight change of tack: How does anyone get into high political office? The reason I ask, is let us make an educated guess that the holier than thou who do get caught for indiscretions are by no means the total who are doing it. However, one thing I've noticed, is I haven't yet seen or heard of a woman politician being caught with her silkies round her ankles with someone she shouldn't be, well not many in the UK, and only after a certain Edwina Curry (was a junior minister in Thatchers government) admitted in her memoirs t having a fling with John Major who succeeded Thatcher.  What of today? If I go into politics can I get a shag pretty much on demand?




Only askin..

[slipstream]

What of today? If I go into politics can I get a shag pretty much on demand?

Post pics and we'll let you know.

[Yorkshire pud]

Post pics and we'll let you know.

We? I'm not that greedy! The unkind would add "not that young" to that. But I make up for it with experience, patience and charm.*




*My therapist suggested I add that to bolster my chances**




** I don't really have a therapist.

[West of the Rockies]

Funny reply, Slipstream!  

Actually, Yorkshire, I suspect you are correct -- with politics comes great power and opportunity.  For some women, power is quite an aphrodisiac, and maybe an ugly mug wouldn't be a detractor to such women.  I suspect that a lot of our congress critters are living pretty wild lives.

[PB the Deplorable]

... What of today? If I go into politics can I get a shag pretty much on demand?




Only askin..

"Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac", according to Henry Kissinger

[Yorkshire pud]

Funny reply, Slipstream!  

Actually, Yorkshire, I suspect you are correct -- with politics comes great power and opportunity.  For some women, power is quite an aphrodisiac, and maybe an ugly mug wouldn't be a detractor to such women.  I suspect that a lot of our congress critters are living pretty wild lives.

Have you got any slides? Would you like some? Lets go the whole hog and have a powerpoint presentation.
"And here we see (politician of your choice) being caught in flagrante delicto with a goat, his wife's sister, and several items of fruit and vegetables"..


"Note the athleticism and quite remarkable tenacity of his sister in law when faced with the amorous attention of said goat"