Guy Humual's page

Anyone ever think that it's less a case of people being easily offended and more a case of people no longer being afraid to say they're offended? Maybe people aren't actually any more easy to offend but are now just more likely to speak up when they are offended?

I think the Westboro Baptist Church serves a purpose. It is what I can point to when people claim there are no extremists Christians.

I always thought that they were there to help encourage and spread atheism.

Guy Humual wrote:

Anyways here's something to contribute to the thread: They say real life is stranger then fiction, in this case it is.

I don't know if it's stranger than fiction, but it sure is hawt!!

Come on, fiction writers want their characters to be believable, what self respecting author would invent a character like that? If she hadn't been a real person I'd say it was the most ludicrous character ever invented. Women weren't like that back in the 17th century! The idea of a female bisexual cross-dressing swordswoman opera singer is preposterous! What's that you say? She wasn't just good, she once bested three men at once in a duel? She made a living singing and putting on sword displays? Oh and one time she fell in love with a girl, followed her into a convent, replaced her love with an already dead nun and then faked her death by burning the place down? She is sentenced to die but then her death sentience is overturned by the King? Completely unbelievable. Wait, there's more? Apparently she was also very beautiful and sang at the famed Paris opera house? Of course she did.

Upon second reading, I think I misread your post, Citizen Humual. My apologies.

No problems, I was merely pointing out that the thread isn't going unnoticed and why there aren't more posts.

Anyways here's something to contribute to the thread: They say real life is stranger then fiction, in this case it is.

Hey climate change takes a long time, we might have already damned the future human population for all we know, but seeing as making changes now is hard we should probably just not do anything.

Never mind countries in Africa, how does that 10 billion stack up against oil companies or banking profits? If you want to look for conspiracy theories have a look at them. Unlike most counties they have a vested interest in the global oil market. I think the top 5 oil companies had 62 billion and change in earning last year, would you suggest that it's not in their interest to spread misinformation or outright lies about their environmental impact?

I don't recall "jumping on" anyone. I am baffled by the conclusions though. Sissyl hasn't questioned the science behind greenhouse gasses, the CO2 build up, but she has doubted the effects it's already had on the climate. Basically she's saying: "yes I understand the science, I accept what it should do to the environment, but clearly the researchers are lying about the effects it's already had and I don't believe what they think it will do in the future. I accept that it should (in theory) happen but clearly the scientists are falsifying reports to make it appear that it has already started."

I have no problem with someone questioning the science (I mean that's why we have peer reviewed journals), zero problem with someone questioning the effects, but to accept the science and then decided that we don't need to do anything? It blows the mind.

Thankfully the face of FPS Russia is still alive, but without Ratiliff to supply the guns I fear the channel is doomed to fold. I enjoyed these videos as well.

I'm certainly glad this woman was able to defend herself and her child. This one example more than makes up for all the accidental shootings that take place in homes with firearms and small children. Anecdotal evidence is always superior to statistics.

Zing! Now that's some fine snark!

I wouldn't mind restrictions on some breeds of dog. I wouldn't mind seeing some people banned from owning animals as well.

Dogs are a big responsibility, they need to be trained, fed, walked, and cleaned up after. Many times when you have an animal lashing out and attacking other dogs or children it's because the dog hasn't been properly socialized or trained. I don't think a dog is more dangerous then a gun, but if you're an irresponsible person I don't think you should be allowed to buy either. I wouldn't mind seeing people having to go through some sort of course before they're allowed to own a dog or earn some sort of dog owning license. I've seen too many people not properly train or look after their dogs. It makes me sad when you read about a mauling and the dog or breed automatically blamed when it's probably just as likely the idiot owner not taking the time to properly train or look after their animal.

People should be able to feel safe in their own homes. I have no qualms about someone using a gun to defend themselves in their own home. Let's face it, the police can't do much for you until you are a victim. Thats just the truth, I have seen it several times in my own life.

It would be great if someone came up with something non-lethal that was 100% effective. Until then, I guess we use what we have at hand.

And it could be worse. Being shot to death sounds horrible.(though this guy lived) But imagine all those people who have pit bulls as protection for their families. Imagine being taken out that way.Ewwwwww. Of course, if you are a criminal, I guess you deserve whatever you get breaking into someone's home.

What would be even better is if we were able to stop home invasions altogether. Then we wouldn't need to shoot another human being no matter how horrible they were. Lots of times both parties are injured in a shooting, the person shot but also the person doing the shooting. There's a reason suicide rates are higher among soldiers and police officers.

A gun works on the deterrence theory, which is highly questionable. Most of the papers written on the effectiveness of deterrence are written by people in the political spheres, not scientists conducting experiments. Social experiments show us that people are pretty irrational (or from a more emotional perspective than reasoning one).

Exactly. It's been shown that the death penalty doesn't act as a deterrent. I'd imagine that people who believe guns act as a deterrent also reject the ineffectiveness of the death penalty as well. I find it strange that there is the assumption that criminals are seen as rational individuals that weigh the consequences of their actions before committing the crimes.

"Hmmm," imagines no criminal in the history of the world, "I'd really like to buy some crack cocaine to fill my raging drug addiction, but sadly I am unable to find work as my previous drug convictions have left me with a criminal record. Perhaps I might consider felony larceny? But this being a handgun saturated society there is the possibility that the person I rob might be armed, and given the prevailing attitudes towards a persons right to defend their home and property, it may well be the case that any home I rob would result in a home owner defending their property with deadly force. Forsooth! My crack cocaine addiction has almost lead me down a path to mine own destruction! I shall have to quit mine addictions henceforth and continue down the difficult path of finding gameful employment. If only I lived in Canada. Then I could continue my crack cocaine addiction at mine own leisure as only the mounties are armed up there."

Guy Humual wrote:

Hitdice wrote:

To take the metaphor a bit too far, if you eat everything pictured except the coco puffs, you've still had a balanced breakfast. (In my over-worked metaphor, coco puffs is arming teachers. As I have said in every thread on the subject, I own guns and am in favor of gun control.)

I agree, kind of why I said I think gun control is a healthy part of the breakfast metaphor then the coco puffs :)

Honestly if all you guys did was enact some gun control I'm sure there might be some long term benefits but there are lots of short term fixes like the one you suggested that would also help keep children safe at school. Better doors might have saved as many lives as low capacity clips.

Might have. Or he might have just shot out an actual window and gone in through the window.

I suppose we could remove all the windows or put bars in them so no one could get in even if they shot the windows out. Fortify all the schools!

OTOH, I liked staring out the window when I was supposed to be paying attention. At some point the security goes to far.

I did say might have! Believe me I am a big gun control advocate, but I'm also the type that likes to find compromise and common ground, I tend to think that most people aren't as far apart on some issues as the talking heads would have us believe. Framing an issue as pro-guns or against guns doesn't help because many folks who are looking for gun control aren't against guns and many of the folks that are opposing gun control aren't trying to arm everyone.

I'm trying to keep our discussion healthy here :)

Would you say that this is more or less likely to happen in a school with armed teachers or principals?

Let's not forget about the fellow that shot up his army base because he didn't want to get sent overseas. Too bad that military base didn't have guns in it. It probably would have deterred that gunman.

No one is saying that gun control will stop gun crime. No one. What we are saying is that gun control might stop mass murder, or at the very least limit it's potential.

Gun control isn't about stopping people from getting guns, nor is it about taking guns away from law abiding owners, it's about the type of guns people can access in the future. I'm perfectly fine with folks being grandfathered in.

Also most gun suicides are suicides of opportunity. It would be a very rare individual that goes to the gun store to buy a gun to shoot themselves. Most people that are felling suicidal try some other means and often fail . . . unless they already have access to a gun.

What you replied with isn't what you asked.

Is the constitution of the US worth more than 26 lives? Yes.

Laws are constantly changing, the constitution is just a piece of paper, the ideas are important, but suggesting that it can't be amended or completely scrapped because it's somehow perfect is absurd at best, decidedly diabolical at worst.

Better question is, can you legislate away irresponsible behavior?

Of course you can't, that's why you need to restrict access to dangerous weapons: to prevent them from being used against the public. I don't think any private individual needs a fully automatic weapons, I doubt they need semi automatic handguns or semi-auto rifles with more then an eight round clip. Most people these days don't need explosives. Restricting these items seems like common sense to me, but then again I live in a country where armed militias and street gangs don't roam the streets in a state of constant war, a veritable post apocalyptic hell scape, where the only way to survive is to have a weapon ready at all times. We generally rely on the police or at worst, the military.

Hey hey, another crisis adverted. Turns out all I needed to do was buy another Mayan Calendar. I got "The Ladies of Yog-Sothoth" this time. I'm already liking it better then the Garfield Mayan calendar I had last time. Why does a creature that doesn't know time or space need a calendar you may ask, well turns out most of my friends are stupid four dimensional beings and they get upset when I miss birthdays. Still, after 7000 years Garfield does loose some of his edge. I can totally see why people were thinking it was the end of the world. I mean a cat eating lasagna? How could that not be funny? Still, the Monday jokes just didn't seem to translate well. Not one of Jim Davis' better product placements.

Guy Humual wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

So, if I were to summarize the thread up to this point:

1)Some folks see stricter gun laws as a solution to the mass shooting phenominon, seeking to reduce them becasue they realize 100% prevention is not possible.
2)Some folks think mental health should be a factor in allowing folks to own a firearm, and laws should change to make this easier to check, other than that the current laws are strict enough.
3)Some folks think private citizens have no need to own a firearm of any kind, and that an amendment to the contstitution is what is needed.

Many of us that are supporting choice one are also supporting choice two. There are no easy quick fix solutions. Reducing poverty would go a long way into tackling feelings of hopelessness and despair that many of these suicidal gunmen feel.

I myself am more in a camp 2 than 1...but would not oppose 1 out of hand necessarily. It depends on what the proposed increases would be.

Using the shooting in CT as an example, the current federal and state laws would catch most everything except mental health issues, which I think we all agree were the root cause of that event. I don't see a way CT could make them tighter otherwise without it being a complete ban.

EDIT: clarified thoughts a bit...

Mental health is one of the big problems in this case without a doubt. I've heard reports that the mother confided in others that her son was becoming more and more difficult to control, but on the other hand, within six months of the shooting she took her son to the gun range, and so she was effectively training him how to use the weapons. Perhaps if the shooter had been assessed by a mental health advocate he might have gotten the treatment he desperately needed, perhaps if there had been stricter rules on who can or cannot have access to firearms the mother might have voluntarily removed them from her home. This is all possible. However there is also the possibility that the mother was fooling everyone including herself as to what her son was capable of, perhaps others could have seen this coming but the mother hid any violent outbursts from the public. It's possible that she wouldn't have sought help even if it had been readily available. This is why I'd also like to see more gun control. Perhaps nothing could have prevented the shooting, but from what I've heard the shooter had three handguns and a semi automatic rifle. All four weapons had a lot of bullets. Maybe if the shooter had to reload more often more of the kids would have been able to run to safety. Maybe teachers would have had more time securing their classrooms. Maybe the first responders would have had more time to get there.

I know that's a lot of perhapses and maybes but this is the sort of thing people need to be thinking about, rather then pretending nothing is wrong and going the other way, talking about arming teachers, posting armed guards. This is turning schools into military zones.

So, if I were to summarize the thread up to this point:

1)Some folks see stricter gun laws as a solution to the mass shooting phenominon, seeking to reduce them becasue they realize 100% prevention is not possible.
2)Some folks think mental health should be a factor in allowing folks to own a firearm, and laws should change to make this easier to check, other than that the current laws are strict enough.
3)Some folks think private citizens have no need to own a firearm of any kind, and that an amendment to the contstitution is what is needed.

Many of us that are supporting choice one are also supporting choice two. There are no easy quick fix solutions. Reducing poverty would go a long way into tackling feelings of hopelessness and despair that many of these suicidal gunmen feel.

For those of you who think that you can't possibly look at the results of gun control in other countries (even other countries like Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand which aren't a million miles away culturally in general) then why do you think the US has such a high rate of murder and violent crime than countries like that. When I asked that before only Andrew R answered and his belief was that Americans are just inherently more violent than those countries and will have more murders than them whatever the gun control laws.

That strikes me as just such a depressing view to have of your own people. But for the rest of you why do you honestly think this is the case? Why are you so convinced that gun control in America would have bad results and increase crime while strengthening gun control in Australia does indeed appear to have improved matters?

I get the feeling that some of this stems from American Exceptionalism. Things that work in other countries wouldn't work in America because America is different. Being from Canada I do notice slight differences in their culture for sure, their news media for example is crazy these days, but for the most part the average American is as decent as any citizen of this earth. Their biggest problem right now isn't the dishonest talking heads it's the level of debate that the country has come to expect. I wish they could debate things without the need to win or demonize their opponents. I wish they could look for compromise. I wish people everywhere would realize that people can have contrary positions on certain things and still be friends afterwards.

I'm not the one trying to hold its rights from others

So you support felons, psychotics, terrorists, and known sex offenders owning guns. Interesting. Personally I'd like to take their rights to own firearms away but I'm unreasonable like that.

Angstspawn wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

As long as you realize not all folks who own firearms fit into that bucket.

Any one can get out of his mind for a short time. Given there is a weapon in his/her range there's a chance for a drama.

Therefore anyone with a firearm nearby (not just the owner) is a potential danger. It makes too many people to control and at the end too many victims not to do anything!

I'm going to let you in on a little secret ... people kill people all the time. And not with guns.

Some examples (source):

Arson, Stabbing Rampage in Seoul South Korea : 10/20/2008. 6 people dead, 5 from stabbing. 7 others wounded, 4 seriously. An angry man felt people “looked down on him.”

Anti-police stabbing spree in Shanghai, China: 7/2008. 6 Police Officers stabbed to death, 4 wounded. 28 year old man angry at police attacked a police station with a knife.

Akihabara Massacre, Chiyoda City, Tokyo, Japan: 6/8/2008. 7 people killed (3 struck by car, 4 by stabbing), many more injured. Man slammed into a crowd with his car, then jumped out and began stabbing people to death.

18 year old slashes 4 to death in Sitka, Alaska, US: 3/25/2008. 4 people killed. 18 year old (old enough to purchase a rifle over the counter) kills 4 people, related to him, with a 5 inch knife.

Stabbing Spree kills 2, Tsuchiura, Japan: 3/23/2008. 2 killed, 7 wounded. Man “just wanted to kill anyone.”

Stabbing spree wounds 41, 6 seriously in Berlin Train Station: 5/26/2006. 41 wounded, 6 seriously. Thankfully no one died in this attack, but not for lack of trying on the part of the drunk 16 year old.

4 killed in stabbing spree in London, UK: 9/2004. 4 killed, 2 wounded. Mentally ill man attacks mostly older people.

6 killed over Xbox dispute in Deltona, Florida, US: 8/6/2004. 6 killed. 4 men (all old enough to legally purchase firearms)...

Notice anything about that list? Like how stabbing sprees don't seem to leave as many dead as shooting sprees? No one is saying that control will stop people from killing each other, most of us here aren't even asking for a ban on guns, but what many of us would like to see is tighter restrictions on high payload semi automatic weapons. Now there's lots of ways people can kill people, but if you're looking to kill people right now, in the US, there is no better alternative then a gun.

I agree with the people that say that armed civilians aren't going to be able to go all Rambo on the attacker and drop them with a single precise shot to the head. That is pure fantasy. But I disagree that there would be no effect if people were armed. It would slow down the attacker and thus give those people with proper training time to arrive and neutralize the attacker.

Having to reload every five or six shots would also slow the attacker down, probably at the cost of less lives.

Restricting guns will not stop it. Crap and diesel is all you need to explode people, a car can ruin people's day... it is all too easy. Understanding helps, control does not, and likely increases the risk, putting more people in situations where they feel trapped.

Gun control limits the severity of these attacks. We can't prevent them but which do you prefer, 20 living stabbing victims or 26 dead shooting victims?

Mental health is part of the solution, changing opportunity and society is part of it as well, but limiting or removing access to the sort of weapons that allows a lone gunman to kill 26 people is also part of the solution. We knew this after the Columbine massacre.

The gun lobby had a chance to do something after the first Columbine massacre. They fought tooth and nail against any sort of regulations. As far as I'm considered their hands are covered in blood. Does the late mother of the shooter bare some responsibility? Damn right she does, but is she and her son the only ones to blame? There's no way in hell anyone needs that many automatic or semi automatic weapons. You want to talk about hindsight? Well we knew after the first columbine massacre that weapons in the hands of deranged individuals could result in mass murder. That was over 12 years ago. People have done nothing.

Blame the kids.

Blame the parents.

Blame video games.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people . . . but if you're looking to kill people (and I mean a lot of people) there's no better choice then a gun.

I suppose the 2nd amendment is more valuable to you then those 26 lives, calling regrettable or unforeseeable is a lie, we knew over a decade ago what happens when unstable people can access weapons, and regret is something a person with a conscious feels. Anyone that puts frivolous items over the lives of children can only be described as monstrous.

Statistically aircraft are safer then cars, certainly far safer then guns.

What needs to be remembered is that there has never beena country where guns are more ingrained in the public life than the USA. It's not like Britain, Australia, or Canada where they were present but only as tools. Here, they are a figure of romance. Illegal or not, we won't give it up easily. Pass all the laws you want. A signifigant number of owners won't surrender them and will feel totally justified in this, and a lot of these guns won't be found. Ban guns, and they will still be everywhere here. It will not be hard to get one if you want one. It isn't even that hard in Britain (they said it themselves), and Britain never had our rates or glorification of gun ownership. This is why I severely doubt that gun ownership would actually work for the US.

I don't buy that, we Canadians get American music, television, and movies, our cultures are pretty intertwined. The difference is it's much harder to get a rifle up here never mind a handgun. We still have gun violence, usually criminals and gangs, and often the weapons used were American and smuggled across the border.

Okay, so maybe I some of us don't want to take your guns, but maybe we want to restrict future gun sales. Maybe we want to limit fire arms to bolt action rifles, revolvers, and shot guns. Maybe military grade weapons should stay in the hands of the military and the police. Perhaps if we stopped the sale of new automatic and semi automatic weapons the illegal weapons on the streets would dry up?

I'm not American but as a Canadian the illegal gun trade is felt up here. Guns from the states have been used up here in Canada. While these guns are usually used on other criminals there are plenty of cases were innocent bystanders have been wounded and killed by illegal guns . . . course we don't have it anywhere near as bad as Mexico but that's a whole other barrel of fish.

I am left wondering though. How many lives were saved because of the second amendment ? And how many were lost ?

Most guns probably kill family members rather then home invaders. Accidental shootings and suicides are by far the more common fatality. I'm sure there have been many cases were a gun helped avoid violence, just having or showing a weapon can be a very strong deterrent, and while it may be true that many of these incidents don't get reported, I seriously doubt that gun ownership has saved as many lives as it's taken.

Historically however, within the past 100 years, Europeans have killed MILLIONS of their fellow countrymen with guns, rather than ten thousand per year here in the USA.

Wow, comparing the daily gun violence prevalent in the US with WWI and WWII. That's some messed up logic. One way of getting around Godwin's law I suppose.

I recognize that many on these boards are very distressed about the events of yesterday in Connecticut, as are we all. A terrible event that defies description. I think that some posters calls for stricter gun control measures were unfortunate and rather ill timed (and I am referring particularly to poster Scott Betts). I would expect those calls from certain politicians and celebrities so soon after this type of tragedy, but I was disappointed to see it so soon on the Paizo message boards. Regrettably, these types of tragedies often become “opportunities” for strong proponents of stricter gun control measures to promote their ‘agenda.’

It's always too soon to talk about gun control according to gun advocates.

Guy Humual wrote:

Are you saying that guns are as prevalent as cars and alcohol? Or that car accidents involving alcohol are as deadly as shootings? Or are you suggesting that people who suffer psychotic breaks decide to get liquored up and attempt to kill a bunch of people? Because it's my understanding that none of those things are true.

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say.

What I'm saying is that you can't really compare gun deaths to those involving cars and alcohol. Well I'm sure America does have a lot of guns I doubt every family has one while cars would be far more prevalent. Most people use cars or buses to get to work. There are probably more people driving everyday then shooting guns. This means that the chance of death by car should be far higher if the inherent danger were statistically the same.

While there are probably a lot of shootings that don't kill anyone there are probably many more cases of people being pulled over and arrested for driving under the influence, and plenty of motor vehicle accidents where alcohol was a contributing factor that didn't result in death. Point is we probably don't get reports of DUIs or fender benders but I'm thinking that shootings always make the news. What I'm saying is despite how much I abhor drunk drivers I doubt they're as fatal as gun violence.

And lastly I'm saying motor vehicles are not the weapon of choice for psychotics. I remember a few years back a man turned a bulldozer into a tank and smashed up a town but I don't remember anyone (besides him) being killed in that incident and I don't recall him being drunk. What I'm saying is that restricting cars and alcohol couldn't be anywhere as effective as simple changes to the gun laws could be. There are lots of reasons people buy cars and booze, intent to commit mass murder isn't high on that list. I suppose a school bus driver could match this despicable act but not everyone can go to Walmart and get a bus load of children.

Fatal car crashes can be called by many different reasons: inexperience, excessive speed, mechanical failure, unexpected objects on the roads, and yes, alcohol and drugs. The thing I'm trying to stress is while fatal car crashes and shooting deaths are usually quite tragic, usually when they do occur, only one of those tools is being used as intended.

Scott Betts wrote:

The underlying issue makes the person unstable. It doesn't make the person automatically use a gun. Restrict access to firearms, and you increase the likelihood that events like today will play out with a much lower body count.

By the same logic: Restrict access to alcohol, and you increase the likelihood that automobile accidents involving alcohol will play out with a much lower body count.

Are you saying that guns are as prevalent as cars and alcohol? Or that car accidents involving alcohol are as deadly as shootings? Or are you suggesting that people who suffer psychotic breaks decide to get liquored up and attempt to kill a bunch of people? Because it's my understanding that none of those things are true.

I do like Obama, he's charming and well spoken and he seems like a down to earth fella, but if he were the Republican candidate and Jill Stein were the Democratic candidate (and I were an American citizen) I'd vote for Jill Stein. Jill isn't in the Democratic ticket however, Obama sadly isn't on the Republican, and politics in general are far more to the right then I'm comfortable with. Our Conservative Canadian government is to the left of Obama. Given the choice between Obama and Mitt Romney there's no way I'd vote for anyone except Obama, I just couldn't take the chance on Mitt getting in, but if I were a republican supporter (one who was educated but not rich) I might be looking at voting for a third party candidate in hopes of bringing my party back from the brink . . . or if that failed, bolstering another party to perhaps getting onto the podium next election cycle.

How team Obama justifies the killing of a 16-year old American At least we are equal opportunity when it comes to nationality and age!

Edit- Robert Gibbs on why Abdulrahman's death is A-ok: "I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business." - At least he's a democrat psychopath and not a republican one.

This is the sort of thing that really pisses me off about the Obama administration. It's monstrous. They're blowing people up without trial, killing innocent bystanders, and the Republican party are naturally cool with that so there's no one outside of the news media to call them out on it. What's worse is that none of the major news networks thinks this is news. If the tables were turned there's no doubt in my mind this would be classified as terrorism.

For the most part I do like Obama, but this is truly horrific stuff. Something people should be ashamed of now rather then twenty years down the road.

I don't think the Republican party has a long term plan P.H., unless it's a return to autocratic rule or something.

I think she meant that Ayn Rand wouldn't approve of her worshiping Ayn Rand, since Ayn Rand was atheist herself.

It's still a stupid thing to say - something I'd expect out of a 16 year-old. She's a grade-A lunatic.

It's hard to tell, but when you say "____ is my god" it's very seldom meant literally because you're usually filling the blank with something that isn't actually recognized as a religion and it's usually something that you strongly approve of rather then actually worship. Is she saying that she has an actual shrine somewhere that she actually prays to Ayn Rand at?

But her wording "except that being an Objectivist I am also an atheist so Ayn Rand wouldn’t approve" confuses me. The way she words that it sounds like she thinks Ayn Rand wouldn't approve of her being an atheist rather then Ayn objecting to being worshiped as a god.

The thing that irks me about the republican party is that they want to paint Obama as some Marxist Nazi rather then the successful conclusion to the Bush presidency. Obama is probably the best Republican president since Ronald Regan. The people that should be complaining are the folks on the left, they're the ones that voted for change but got a lot of the same (there has been some change but not nearly enough in my mind), but because the folks on the right are so obsessed with winning that they've needed to create a fantasy world for themselves to retreat into. There are lots of really good things to call Obama out on but I suppose if the Republicans took that stance they'd end up being to the left of Obama.

Are you one of those people who say the Holocaust never happened?

That's kind of a large unpleasant leap to make. I appreciate that you're felling persecuted by people back home but I don't think this line of talk helps keep things civil in here.

Likes Obama, hates Obama

Guy Humual wrote:

Is it gay if you're on top?

Depends on who you are on top of I imagine.

Like Canada is on top of America. We're bigger and on top.

I found This interesting. I wish more religious leaders had a message like this.

Why are 47% of the American public so poor that they don't pay income tax? That seems to be the bigger problem in my mind.

Also how are these people supposed to take "responsibility for their lives", not everyone has a rich father that can get them into a swanky university and give them their first jobs. Some folks have less options then a son of a multimillionaire. People aren't poor because they choose to be poor.

Also I doubt this was a spontaneous thing, likely these goons had this assault planned out well in advance and only needed some sort of protest to use as an excuse for the attack. This is not the work of the average Libyan. One of the problems with ousting Gaddafi is that you have all these nasty little well armed militia type groups running around with their own agendas. Libya is going to be the wild west for quite some time. I can only hope that this is an isolated incident and not a sign of things to come.

Also what might be nice is if there were some 4th group that could check facts and report on them? We could call them reporters or something and they would be independent of the government. Crazy idea I know. Maybe we could get comedy central to do this?

And then it all becomes law suits about whether each statement is a lie or just a narrow interpretation of the truth, cleverly phrased to make you think it's something it isn't.

Even if it is plainly true, you'll get sued to delay and confuse the issue.

The other thing is you let these folks say whatever they want and investigate after the election. The big thing is lying during an election should be seen as obstructing democracy. Someone should go to prison for that sort of thing. Point is, for some reason, people allow this sort of thing and it seems the worst ads usually win the election. Lying is rewarded. There has to be some way to end this.

The one thing that bothers me about US politics right now is the apparent inability of either side to reach across the floor and work with the other side for the betterment of the Country. One of the things I like about the American system is that it was built with that ability in mind and the lack of cooperation in these economic times is disgraceful. Let's not point fingers, saying one side is more to blame then the other doesn't fix the problem, but if Obama gets a second term, maybe we can see a bit more cooperation in the house and senate. I'm not asking people to like each other but your job is looking after your constituent, maybe this time they could spend more time doing that then trying to score political points or please your party. Compromise is what you're supposed to be looking for and if you can't do that then you have no business putting your name into the ring.

Here's some more:
What do you have when you have a thousand politicians at the bottom of the sea? A good start.

How many politicians does it take to shingle a roof? Depends on how thinly you slice them.

What's black and brown and looks good on a politician? A doberman.

What's the difference between a politician and a trampoline? People take their shoes off to jump on the trampoline.

What's the difference between a dead skunk and a dead politician on the side of the road? There's screech marks in front of the skunk.

In all seriousness though there are a lot of people that get into politics because they want to do good and change the world for the better. Most of those folks probably leave politics shortly afterwards because of how nasty the business is. I for one blame you the voter. If we didn't vote and reward nasty/dirty campaign ads campaigns wouldn't use them. Like it or not we have the politicians we deserve. Not all of them are bad people but the kind of people that politics rewards aren't always honest and forthright.

P.H. Dungeon wrote:

I need some clarification about how American government operates. It doesn't seem to me like Obama really ended up having much power in terms of things like economic policy because the republicans controlled the senate (or was it congress?). Am I wrong or isn't determining which party has the majority in congress and senate more important than who is president?

Well, for the first two years the presidents party controlled BOTH houses of congress, so as far as I'm concerned, yeah, Mr. Obama can be blamed somewhat for our current mess. He was able to ram thru several things, such as stimulus packages (2 I think), and the massive new healthcare fiasco...I mean "bill" (they had to vote on it to see what wad actually in it...).

Now this is maybe something Obama should be criticized for, he had control over the house and senate and he failed to capitalize on it. The problem is he tried to get consensus on things. People in his own party fought him stuff. I admire his ideals but he squandered an incredible opportunity. He couldn't have fixed the economy in those years but he could have passed some of the things he'd campaigned on.

[

You're cherry picking examples. Greece, Italy, and Spain have pretty high tax rates and are all on the verge of financial collapse.

The difference is efficency of their government, not the rate at which they tax.

Well I have heard it said that Greece has more civil servants then Canada and they have doctors there declaring that they made less then 20 000 a year. I've also heard people claim that they despite all those civil servants they don't have an IRS equivalent so they just have to trust that everyone is paying the right amount.

Without a doubt government efficiency is part of it but is it the only factor? America seemed to be quite successful in the 90s with higher taxes. Sure two wars and a financial meltdown that gutted that prosperity but taxes are the main way governments make income, how does cutting taxes stimulate growth if you're also cutting spending. Do you really think new jobs will snatch up all those out of work civil servants? If the average tax payer is getting less from their government and paying the same how is that not a tax increase on the working class?

I just can't understand how the US tax cuts are supposed to work.