ParanoiA

Why is it that people don't get this? Most of the animosity comes from POV's that seem to pretend this is NOT the case. As if we just woke up one day and decided to unleash our military on some poor middle eastern nations for the fun of it. My question to JohnB would be what is the alternative? How do we handle this unprecedented enemy / nation state scenario where: 1) The terrorist don't get pissed and ramp up recruitment efforts... 2) All the nations of the world love us deeply...including the ones shielding the enemy combatants... 3) That doesn't require any additional laws of any kind whatsoever - because our structure prior to 9/11 was perfect huh?? Why change a thing? 4) That both democrats and republicans firmly agree on... Most of all, I'd like to know why it is that we can't disagree without fury thrown in the mix. Ok, so maybe GWB has made decisions on an enemy that NO NATION ON THE PLANET has defeated, using all the various schemes and approaches - from baking brownies to all out war. So why all the pretention at America's approach?

But it is a type of deterent to despotism. Yes we have a formidable army, ( 1 million or so?? ) but consider what it would take to unleash it on more than 300 million americans on their own soil, in the streets, with a decent percentage of them with guns. It's not near the same as taking them unarmed, not by a long shot - particularly since you probably wouldn't have to take them at all. It matters. Whew...you had me worried man. Yeah, waking up to an intruder at 3 am is a self defense moment. I would never kill an intruder who's capacitated. I'm just not too concerned with how they get capacitated. And I don't agree in citizens using lethal weapons on anyone for any reason other than self defense. If you're in your house and someone is stealing your car, then I don't think you have a right to shoot them. Let the cops do it... That's a very decent question to ask. As long as we're not introducing legislation. I don't think anyone should be required to consider the well being of an intruder like that. If he breaks in while they're there, they should be within their rights to shoot him for fear of their own life - like you and I both have said, we don't know what their intentions are. But as a human decency question, sure I completely agree. I totally agree with your situation. That was the practical thing to do. But you clearly had a great advantage, and you were prepared to take it further if you needed to. What if he was breaking into a young single mom's apartment - fight or flight kicking into a chick with a gun and children to defend - can you really blame her if she ends up killing the guy?

This is just Schumer's plan at work. The idea is to keep the administration in chaos. Keep the republicans on the defensive. People always believe the accuser over the accused. Where there's smoke, there's fire sort of mentallity. No one considers the smoke to be manufactured by the accuser... I guess what bothers me about it is that I am relatively convinced everything the democrats are doing is anti-bush - none of it is for america, for the troops - it's about trashing Bush. When can we ditch the party system?

all I can say is...wow.... yeah, we're so far apart I can't imagine the sense in continuing any further...

Who said there wasn't cooperation? What exactly do you think I'm saying in my OP? I said that unfettered capitalism is akin to survival of the fittest in the economic world. There's cooperation between employees to form a business - grouping up. All working together, with pack leaders and so forth. competing with other groups of humans, or businesses, and etc. I'm not going to paint the whole damn picture, it's really very obvious. You can still cooperate but not "carry" people. I've always heard "shall endorse no religion", but that's cool. Point still stands. God is not a religion. Theism is not a religion. In God we trust on the dollar bill is not establishing any religion. You just want to stick it to the religious. I harbor no anger so could care less about chicken little, the big bad wolf or god. Theism is not a religion. The difference is, one suggests the code and rules of conduct, right and wrong - moral compassing. The other simply recognizes the existence of god or gods and remains generic. Religion is basically that code. Theism is not. Atheism may be a faith, but I would disagree with anyone that it is a religion. Believe it or not, I get your point but I don't get the fury. I think most of the energy spent on making a stink about god is retaliation for perceived oppression by the religious right. I'm not entirely against it, but "god" on currency? Please.... Then I'll retract my statement as I don't have the time or care to disprove the scientific study based on the Methods section. I guess I see it like this: Someone touts a study that suggests all liberals like pink. Since I know 5 liberals who don't like pink - the study sounds invalid. I don't even have to read it to know it's wrong. Since I know just about every idealogue practices intolerance, whether they realize it or admit or not, I suspect the study is BS. Yes I could gain credibility from reading it, but I'd rather practice guitar or pound out a good drum beat. When it matters enough to me, I'll check it out. You totally misunderstood my post. I was making the point that if I was prejudiced, then I would already be convinced of GW. Since that's where my suspicions lie. That's what I meant by "if anything, that's where my prejudices would lead me..." Since I'm not convinced, obviously I'm not following my suspicions. I'm assuming my prejudice would follow my suspicions. Completely false. I have every intention of reading the above, and more because I doubt I'm going to get an unbiased report in ONE publication. But I have quite a busy life here, and I'll get to it when I can. Even if I already did, I'm still going to continue this particular discussion as if I haven't - because you have failed to get my point. GW IS NOT EMPIRICALLY PROVEN. Again...with definitions... A model is not empirical. A model is a "near" perfect simulation in which you can pretend is empirical. But it's NOT empirical. It would be like doubting the world is round. People do that, and no one pays any attention to them - it's emprically proven otherwise. Well, people are doubting GW, and lots of people DO pay attention to them precisely because it isn't empirically proven. Geez this is getting tiring... You know, you all make people not want to believe in GW. I'm starting to form a prejudice now because I want you to be wrong. Maybe if you had let me walk in the door, look around a bit, rather than jump all over my ass because I won't just accept GW 100% right out of the gate... So..let me get this straight....when I say "I believe in GW today, but i'd rather be convinced"...that's just like saying "I've already made up my mind and GW is complete crap cuz Rush says so...". Yeah I can see that.... I guess Pangloss and I are both in the "denier" club then. Feels weird being a "denier" and yet arguing with conservatives on my floor about GW... Well, I'd agree with you, but since I disagree with one small fraction of it that means I'm prejudiced and against the whole damn thing... While I agree some "symbolic" steps have been made, I can "smell" all of the toxins you have yet to cut down on. This is a violation of my rights. What if it was mustard gas coming out of these exhaust pipes huh? Automobiles should be banned from use on public property and roads. Maybe if you could tell me which sentences you're reading and which one's you're not, it would be very helpful. I made it quite clear we have every "legal" right to do any of this. We are organizing and using our mass as leverage to get something we want from our employer. We can choose to use that leverage frivolously, or responsibly. I think forcing the company to listen to us is wrong - a frivolous application of our organization skills. This would be like you hiring some kid to work in your garage, and him forcing you to listen to his ideas of how you should organize it. That's wrong. In my opinion. I love unions. I think it's quite democratic and american to organize. But hey, since I disagree with you on one little aspect of it, I'm a total denier right? I have made up my mind and am completely against the union and any organization, right?

No. Absolutely not. That's ridiculous. I'm not going to think of them a goddamn bit. They created the situation. They created the "them or me" dilema. You don't get second chances in life Snail. This is not the time to show them consideration. It's noble on film, it's great for comic book heros but it results in dead home owners in real life. I'm sorry if a 17 year old is dead in my living room and all he wanted was a DVD player to pawn for crack. He looks the same as the 17 year old that wanted to kill my whole family to live out his Xbox Home Invasion fantasy game in real life. Killing is not required by anyone. I don't know anyone that wouldn't support non-lethal weaponry. I just don't know anyone that would use it. But it's a cool idea, if it will work.

Actually, yes I do agree. In fact, your reference to child endangerment sounded just fine to me. I don't have a lot of sympathy for reckless gun owners - just defensive of responsible gun owners. What I worry about is this: I leave my gun cabinet unlocked at night time, with the door open a slither so I can get to it quickly and quietly. In fact, I put my keys inside it so there's no way I'll forget to lock it back up in the morning. I've been doing this for years. What about if one of my kids gets a wild hair and decides to check out dad's gun in the middle of the night? Keep in mind, they've both received the speech on numerous occassions and they know how I am about gun safety, so this is highly unlikely - but still possible. A gun control advocate would declare me irresponsible and criminal and push for my incarceration for life. A level headed person might see the sense in keeping the firearms accessible at night, in the privacy of the parent's room. Which one is going to judge me? I like holding people responsible for being irresponsible, but I get squeamish about scenarios that aren't cut and dry.

I'm actually excited and dissappointed on this front. I'm excited about the possibilities and the consequence of solving alot of our gun accident issues - not to mention law enforcement defense as well. But I'm dissappointed because it should already be out and about and practical to buy and perhaps even require their use in new firearms. I love the idea of knowing that neither the intruder, my kids nor anyone else can fire my gun but me. And perhaps my wife. My favorite is the fingerprint model. Supposedly, you can program it for various users.

But that's why I don't agree with additional legislation. Couldn't you make the same case with prescription medication? How about cyanide? How about liquid draino? That stuff classicaly kills kids, where's the legislation on that? Yes, degree is important. It's also important to realize you don't need a law to govern ever single possible variation of human thought and action. I would rail against such laws with respect to medications, poisons, as well as guns because it's too oppressive - its enforcement relies heavily on passing "judgement" rather than clearly crossing a legal line. That's how innocent people get hanged for being witches...

"...unless the factories are regularly raided by pirates." - now that's funny. I thought it was determined that gun theft happens outside of the factory as well. That's also what the NRA is bitching about, concerning the ballistic database. Because innocent people will get accused of selling a gun illegaly, when it may have been stolen or "borrowed" (such as drugged out family members..). Then we get legislation punishing gun owners for not keeping their guns out of reach of anyone - in their own home. That's coming very soon. Real gun control advocates seek to scare the idea of gun ownership out of everyone's mind.

Well that's true, and that falls under my previous post. You're right. But you're basically outlining what happens when everyone has the same weapon. Right now, by and large, all of the criminals have these weapons and the rest of us do not. So you're using this logic to keep yourself unarmed. That's fine, you'll only get mugged....with no end in sight. However, if you risk a little bit more and fight back with weaponry, there will be death - either you or him. Maybe, like you say, they start shooting first so they continue to win. But then a simple mugging becomes a more complicated murder - they have to invest far more than what they're comfortable with and it becomes less attractive. Which is actually, your point in the previous post. I'd rather fight back. Freedom isn't free. I'm not free when I'm afraid to go out at night, when I have every right to expect peace at 3 am walking to the store. It's worth it. Why does it have to be an invading army to fight for freedom?

That's not true. They DO read the print - there's nothing fine about it. It's repeated at closing over and over again. The problem is not that people didn't know - it's that they didn't care. Poor people don't think about tomorrow - only today. That's why they're poor. That's why they didn't work for a degree. That's why they don't save money and buy things with cash. They are only concerned about today. I'm not being mean, just honest. I've been there, and I know how they feel but it doesn't change the outcome. Then there's the post-poor. They landed a great job, or maybe they finally got treated right at work and got a promotion, or something similar and now they have just enough money to qualify for stuff but a crappy credit score. They don't know how to manage money - particularly since they've never had any. They're still "poor" in the brain. They don't really believe the interest rate will go that high. Why? Because they have no freaking idea - they've never paid attention to such things and aren't entirely sure what the word "interest" even means, much less how it will tear them apart in a couple of years. So, like everything else that results in a new expensive toy for a poor person - they ignore it. If they don't ignore it, they don't get this house. If they don't blissfully, willfully remain ignorant, then they won't enjoy the two years before the interest destroys their life. Just my take on it. I don't think anyone is ripping anybody off or pulling the wool over anyone else's eyes - rather the home buyers just want to hear the word "yes". My wife, a real estate agent, actually advised a client not to do one of these several months ago and the client never came back. I don't know if they went to somebody else, or if they truly changed their mind, but she suspects the former since they didn't like her reality check.

Very true. In terms of education, it would help if people would quit giving them excuses and using "class envy" to get voters. I can't believe we can repeatedly tell poor minorites that the rich is stealing their labor, and that affirmative action is necessary to make people not be racist - and believe this doesn't compliment the criminal mind. It's easy to hurt people and justify it when you've been practically conditioned to believe these people are hurting you everyday, hiding behind the law and their money.

But you said: That kind of threw me. So, I thought you were also trying to make the point that by fighting back, you get worse in return. As for the rest, I was mainly addressing the anti-gun part of the forum. Admittedly, I'm not sure where you are on that one. Dak hinted to it in an earlier post as well. Gun education would be a good idea at this point, since most criminals probably haven't had any. That would give us an edge up.

I agree. This is why training is important. Don't just buy a gun and think you're finished - you need to know how to use it, clean it, practice with it, lock it up - and when NOT to use the damn thing. I disagree. Muggers aren't going to turn murderer that easily. Some will, no doubt. This reminds me of the mentallity of being afraid to piss off the aggressor even more, so you just lie back and take it. Pacifists use this alot. If someone starts punching me, I'm going to punch them back. I know they'll get even more pissed, but too bad - that's how it works. You want the bully to leave you alone? You better make him bleed. So if you're going to get all squeamish about hitting him back, fine, just take it and I'm sure he'll have no problem dishing it out day after day. Crime is a serious thing. There's no risk-free, nice way to go about it. No matter how nice you are, people will die. No matter how mean you are, people will die. Yes, promoting gun ownership and provoking the public to fight back might seem scary and more people will likely die. But it's worth it if it leads to lower crime in the future. I believe it will. Crime is a choice. Don't believe that people have no choice or are cornered. We are all cornered. Any day now I could lose my job, and then a couple months later lose my house and cars - my family. I don't need to kill anyone though, or steal for my stuff. I CAN be expected to be dealt hard blows in life and NOT hurt others as a result of it. MOST of us do it everyday... Edit: That last paragraph was in reference to the view that crime is of pure necessity, irrelevant to consequence.

Well, oddly enough I was out on Jury duty this week...go figure Ok, accidents are not preventable without literally taking the fun out of life and that's a freewill kind of decision that doesn't infringe on my rights. Heart disease and cancer IS getting the attention I'm talking about. Thank you. I get worked up because the media wants to splash the faces of every white little girl that gets raped and killed and put their parents on TV begging the world to take notice and do something and we all go "damn..what a shame" and don't seem to listen to what they're saying. The media loves death - it pays the bills. And their favorite death is the "precious" white innocent, while no one gives a shit about the minority kids that suffer the same fate without the cameras and community support. Some of you will experience this, sadly enough, and of those, you will remember this post and wonder why you didn't pissed off before you suffered the consequences. Well that's just it. You can't eliminate crime at this point in our evolution without trampling over everyone's rights and I would never be for anything like that. Dissolving the DEA and every other victim-less crime unit in the united states and redirecting these resources to homocide investigation, police presence and so forth would go a long way to reducing crime significantly. Another would be encouraging citizens to buy firearms and learn to use them. Criminals already have them and by definition are not effected in any way by laws of the land. So, laws of the land are only followed by law abiding citizens, again, by definition. So gun laws are insignificant and more dangerous to the security of the country, since the ultimate defenders of the constitution are the citizens - not the government, the military and etc. I firmly believe that getting rid of criminals is more effective than getting rid of guns. Using guns to get rid of criminals is quite effective and should be promoted. Solution? No. Evolution is the solution as far as I can tell, since the very best deterent to crime is simply the lack of desire to commit it. I'm guessing we're a few million years away from that - if that's even possible. So, just my suggestions above to start. But most of the point of my post is really about emotion. As in...where is it? First the wheel has to sqeek before anyone knows to grease it. I love to use Iraq as an example, to point out the lobsided, politically motivated nature of ourselves. We love to whine and bitch about soldiers dying in war but nothing to really complain about citizens dying in peace. Very strange... Where's the calls for the president's head on that? What about more troops? What about more armor? There are alot of smart people in this country that have some terrific ideas on how to stop crime significantly. I just think we all need to start demanding this from our greasy politicians. We've got plenty of unrealistic demands being hurled around about Iraq, why not about crime?

From the posts in this thread, I think I've got my answer. You all aren't really all that concerned about it. But I'll bet all of you have a well thought out, passionate response to GWB and the Iraq war. On this subject? I get...'well you know man..there's always going to be crime dude...we didn't choose it...what do you expect from us'. But I'll bet some of you get enraged when someone thinks like that on the Iraq war. 'well you know man...we're just trying to stop terrorism dude...we didn't ask for it...what do you expect us to do?' I didn't hear that crap about GWB. Oh, we get pages and pages of ideas and rage fueled posts on that. But murdering little kids? Not much on that one... I expect people to get pissed off like they do about taxes. I expect people to get enraged like they do about the Iraq war. I expect people to support folks like Bill O'rielly, who is currently putting child rapist/murderer's pictures on TV, including the Judges that granted these freaks parole. Yes I know Billy is the anti-christ to some, but I don't hear BS half-hearted defeatist appeals about crime - he's doing something. Better than any of us can say. I think Dak might be right after all. Everyone operates under the "it won't happen to me" mindset. I asked why we accept crime, and I think I see why. We have no hope. (I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm preaching at you..I guess I am, but it really gets me worked up. I don't personally have to do anything to contribute to the anti-bigot movement - it's driven by the mass of the majority POV. I simply do my part when it comes up - voting, hiring and etc. I guess I'm just disgusted there is no similar mass driven movement fed up with any fraction of violent crime - where we collectively battle by each doing our little parts)

Ok, I define "accept" as being complacent and not throwing shit fits to our government officials about it. Not being outraged and spending as much passion and rebellion as we see in the Iraq war. Where's the campouts in front of the president's house on that? Where's the picket lines on Pelosi's lawn about violent crime? Arguably, it could be considered worse than the war considering we've lost more citizens on our own soil at peacetime than soldiers in Iraq during wartime. I agree, voting for legislation aimed at curbing violence is not "accepting" crime. Dak is of the position that people won't do that either. I don't agree. I have a hard time believing liberals would take that attitude, and we stay liberal enough in America. However, I could see conservatives pinching pennies and justifying it with appeals to human nature and how we'll never stop crime and blah blah blah. Edit: Just to be clear, it's not like I'm not guilty of the same complacency. I'm directing this more to us as a country. Someone needs to shake us out of this sleep. Wake up! A murder rate of any value greater than a single digit is a FAILURE. We can do better.

Ok, but that's a valid point only when we're talking about the complete elimination of crime. I'm talking about not accepting the thousands, hundreds - even tens, if it got that low - of citizens killed, raped, assaulted every year, that we accept currently. We're a long way away from getting to the point that the total elimination of crime is relevant. But I love the concept. And I do generally agree with the rest of your post.

We accept it because it's become a part of life so much so, that aren't really striving to rid of it. Just like the drug war. They're not really fighting it, they're just doing damage control. Same with violent crime. Your post is true, but it's a horrible attitude. When you accept they'll always find a way around it, then you quit trying at all. You just keep things the way they are. And the way things are is unacceptable to me. Think of the Iraq war. Everyone is up in arms and NO ONE is accepting it. They consistently fight and bitch, a consistent struggle of power and ideas have covered the front page news for years now on it. Yet, we've lost a little over 2000 soldiers. Meanwhile, we've lost more than that in citizens in our own damn country. And no one is up in arms, consistently fighting and railing against this - demanding action by our politicians. Some of these are little kids who have had gruesome, stomach turning, heart aching crimes commited against them. Yet everyone is more concerned over grown soldiers that volunteered for war. That is what I mean by acceptance. We have accepted it way too much, for way too damn long. I'm sick of it. We should be ashamed of ourselves. We have let ourselves down - particularly our kids. And that's when I'd shame them and ask them to come up with a price for their son or daughter. How much is this one worth? Where's the cutoff? 50 bucks a month? 100 bucks a month? I realize that's highly emotional. But why not? Is there really a limit to how much we'll spend to regain control of our country? It's more important than just about anything being fought over in DC right now. Incidentally, this is also why I propose the elimination of victimless crime. When you can get a serious handle on violent crime - I mean next to zero rate - then we can talk about non-violent crime. Which I'll never agree with anyway, but how can you justify a building full of DEA agents when we know those resources redirected to violent crimes would help decrease violent crime? We're basically saying we'd rather catch 5 murderers and 5 drug dealers than 10 murderers. I'm sure the yield wouldn't be that linear, but I think the point still applies. Too bad I'm not a whore celebrity, like Brittney, or I could get the whole country behind me...

Maybe the sampling of everyone's fingerprints and DNA would be a violation, but I don't think camera's on every corner would be. I'm sure everyone would bitch, but really, what's the difference between people's eyes watching you and cameras? In big cities, it's not uncommon to see tens, or even hundreds of people walking down a sidewalk at any given time. That's a lot of eyes that could be looking at you. Why not cameras? I don't agree. That idea hasn't been proposed to the voting public. At least not here in KC. Again, I think people would bitch a little, but when you remind them of how many sexual child predators live in their neighborhood, I'll bet they'll rethink it. Someone with passion and anger needs to lead such a movement. That would help alot. Well that won't work actually. It's not proven by a long shot. Go tell Switzerland your supposed "fact". Murder of the innocent will plummet when the innocent start murdering the murderers. The more stories you hear on the news about dead criminals, the more they lose their power and begin to fear us like they should. That will never happen in this country. (No I don't mean vigilante justice, I mean shooting the intruder instead of compying with him...) I don't know how murder helps feed your family. You're talking about stealing. I'm not. I'm talking about violent crime. Rape and murder, assualt - that sort of thing. These things don't help with poverty, although they may help cope with poverty. I shouldn't have to feed you and clothe you in order to keep you from killing my daughter because you're poor and this is your release. I don't think that's happening anyway. I don't know, monsters like Couey really get parents nervous. As I mentioned above, a movement built off of anger and frustration could go a long way with the american public. A few photos, gut wrenching stories - can get people motivated to realize it really can happen to them.

Yeah, I think Mokele made that point earlier. But, there is competition and natural selection within a given species. It's not all about competition between the species - there's plenty of competition going on within the species as well. Mating preferences, pack leaders and etc... Human packs fight with other packs of humans. Comparing capitalism with natural selection is metaphorical - not literal. You can take issue all you want but there are 4 pages of posts that contradict it being an invalid association. Survival of the fittest is a description of part of the natural selection process - not the synonym. No, what you wrote was: The last sentence doesn't erase the first part of the paragraph. I agreed on your last sentence and don't agree on the previous 4. The company I work for invented the transistor - via research - for those integrated circuits. They're all mangled up together and incidental. Research begins where previous research left off. Both. Although, there's always a product at the end. I admire those who don't do it for money. And ones who do. Yes, I can see how the word god on the dollar bill violates your liberties...slippery slope right? No it's not. Intolerance is a trait possessed by people who can't stand others having a different view and find some way to force them to behave within their view. There is no party or ideological affiliation. Liberals just hate that because they used to pride themselves as railing against it. Maybe the study identifies this with conservatives. But since I "see" the trait, myself, in just about everyone, particularly political ideologies - then I know there's something being left out of that study. This is ridiculous. Am I supposed to spend the next years of my life soley reading papers on GW and learning climatology? How about all of the other political issues going on today? Are we supposed to get degress and read papers from dusk til dawn on the hundreds of issues relevant today? Of course not. We do what early humans started...we divide the workload. So and so gets super smart about this subject while so and so works his brain on this one and so on. Right now, all the climatology so and so's are arguing with each other. So... Now there's a good point. I could easily believe this. And if that's the case, I'll happily change my status to "convinced". I'll read your suggestions too, because I really wasn't sure where to start other than google searches. Ok, I don't argue with the conservatives on my floor about GW because I'm prejudiced in favor of their view. Although I probably would even if I was, just for argument's sake. I take the view of healthy skepticism because it's so polarized. That could be the result of your previous comment on the minority making it appear stronger than it is, but in my mind, there's too much money, ego, emotion and politics mixed up in order to easily make a conclusion. In all honesty, I suspect GW is not a cycle and there's nothing we can do to stop it now. I doubt humans are the cause of it, but most certainly accelerated it. If anything, that's where my prejudices would lead me. I don't know any conservative that would agree with that. Not many liberals either since they want humans to be the bad, evil animal that ruins everything. This is not the first time I've heard this. I think even Fox news mentioned this once. Noted. \ Your bias is overwhelming Lucaspa. Why even address my post? You already have me figured out and categorized and dismissed. That's intolerance. And since you have no facts to support your conclusions of my intent, it's also emotion based - religion. Models are not empirical. But they're convincing - very convincing. I swear, you and bascule drive me further away from believing GW than anyone with your intolerant, religious behavior about it. It's like going to church and saying you're interested but not convinced about god, only to have them throw it in your face that you're going to hell because you're not a total believer. Look man, I walked in the door. Why are you trying to run me off? Right. And what's wrong with that? You want to do it all? You act like turning a profit is evil or something. You make money too right? Did you earn your degree so you could work non-profit? Or did you expect to get fed with it? Maybe you don't mean it how I'm interpreting it, but it sure sounds like it. The only point, still the only point relevant here is that the private sector does invest in research. And the freedom to dictate smoking ends at my front door. Period. If I own the business, you're trampling on my rights to smoke in it. Public property is a different story and I would agree 100%. Congress shall "endorse" no religion. God is not a religion. And the government is not endorsing any particular worship of it/her/him. Chicken Little is also in the public library - shall we get it removed to? Got me there. But he also banned smoking which is also NOT a conservative / republican view. I'm not a GW opponent. I'm a regular guy who believes it, but isn't convinced. And you are a religious zealot that is intolerant of anything less than 100% belief, despite the state of affairs. You don't have right to do anything you want on your private property, so the gun analogy is just silly. It is NOT guaranteed that the smoke is going to hit you because you can walk yourself right back out of the restaraunt. If enough of you do that, the owner will rethink his approach on smoking or his business will eventually die. This is what I mean. You probably have a confused look on your face right now because you can't imagine not being able to force someone to comply to your beliefs. That you might have to leave rather than making them stop. What about car exhaust? Where's the outrage on that? Some of us don't drive at all, yet we have to inhale that crap. And that's public roads. Not when our interests are not at stake. This isn't about wages or benefits. It's about how the company chooses to run their business. It's wrong to assume you should have a right to force them to listen to your ideas. "Get another job if you don't like it but don't force your views on me" - is the principle I'm talking about. I always break things down to fundamentals - because it's the fluff that hides the obvious. You get people all worked up about corporations and how filthy rich and evil they are or whatever and forget that you are suspending principles and ethics based on your perception of that corporation suspending principles and ethics. It isn't right. And I haven't even started on the fact that you're forcing your narrow minded "worker" views onto people that are looking at a huge, dynamic picture that you aren't privileged to. Damn this a long post...

Yeah, you're definitely in their crosshairs then. Issues like this is what drove me away from conservative / republicans. Agreed. That is exactly what I meant. Agreed. This was in the context of the workflow. Management wants us to perform the work in such a way that we think is stupid and wasteful. Although, in his defense, he was concerned with losing his job due to their wastefulness. Yeah, the employer doesn't have a right to endanger us. True, but Sisyphus requested clarification.