Is Obama a good POTUS?

[rigney]

"As many have stated time and time again, guns do not kill people, only psychopaths and wackos kill people. "

Not really.

People get killed in accidents too.

 

"Fact is though, should all guns be taken away from sane and legitimate owners, only perps, nuts and the police will have them. If that should happen, good luck."

Oh My God!

How terrible that would be!

Oh, hang on, that's the situation where I live.

Odd as this may seem to many people across the pond, it's not actually a big problem.

Any nutter waving a gun about on the street will very probably get shot by the police.

Many of the crooks with guns are content with shooting one-another. It's not ideal, but it doesn't bother me much.

Sometimes some poor soul gets caught in the crossfire.

The culprits are generally (alas, not always) caught + held to account.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-19047312

Unfortunately the way you stated it is usually the case. Some get a slap, others a sentence, a few get stiff sentences, but very few get the full sentence. My neighborhood speaks for itself.

http://www.cleveland.com/crime/

[Arete]

I specifically said 10 times the price.

 

Swansont was specifically pointing out how your statement deviated from reality with specific examples of how "wackos" have purchased their firearms legally.

 

I think we're all still waiting for you to support your statement:

 

The federal Government has made bold steps to take away our guns.

 

If you can't provide an example, it renders the statement baseless which puts a rather large hole in your credibility. What actions by the federal government are you referring to?

[John Cuthber]

Rigney,

Your neighbourhood may be rough- that's not the point.

Your country might have sentencing that's as bizarre as its gun laws. That's also not the point.

 

What you are putting forward as some doomsday scenario ( "only perps, nuts and the police will have them") actually works quite well.

 

Anyway, far be it from me to distract you from actually answering the questions that you were asked earlier.

Given that the government actually said " I believe the majority of gun owners would agree we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons, and we should check someone's criminal record before they can check out a gun seller.

When you said

"The federal Government has made bold steps to take away our guns."

Did you class yourself as a criminal or a fugitive?

'cos those are the only groups that the government is trying to take guns from.

Edited August 27, 2012 by John Cuthber

[rigney]

Rigney,

Your neighbourhood may be rough- that's not the point.

Your country might have sentencing that's as bizarre as its gun laws. That's also not the point.

 

What you are putting forward as some doomsday scenario ( "only perps, nuts and the police will have them") actually works quite well.

 

Anyway, far be it from me to distract you from actually answering the questions that you were asked earlier.

Given that the government actually said " I believe the majority of gun owners would agree we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons, and we should check someone's criminal record before they can check out a gun seller.

When you said

"The federal Government has made bold steps to take away our guns."

Did you class yourself as a criminal or a fugitive?

'cos those are the only groups that the government is trying to take guns from.

Don't be an ass friend, although you may need a remedial reading program. I didn't make the statement and am not from Oklahoma. It was the wording of Oklahomans making the statement that our federal Government has made bold steps to take away their guns. Oklahoma, a week ago, passed a law confirming people in the state have the right to bear arms and transport them in their vehicles. I'm sure that was a setback for the criminals. The Liberals didn't like it -- But......

Guess what........... Oklahoma did it anyway.

The way I'm beginning to read this forum is that most, if not all of you are left wing leaning liberals, or am I just becoming parinoid?

Edited August 27, 2012 by rigney

[Phi for All]

Don't be an ass friend, although you may need a remedial reading program. I didn't make the statement and am not from Oklahoma. It was the wording of Oklahomans making the statement that our federal Government has made bold steps to take away their guns.

Do you remember then saying:

 

This is Oklahoma's stand on the issues, not mine; although i agree with them.

You may need a remedial remembering program.

 

The way I'm beginning to read this forum is that most, if not all of you are left wing leaning liberals, or am I just becoming parinoid?

I had an interesting conversation poolside this weekend with some Republican and Democrat friends about conservatism and liberalism. It turns out we're all conservative when it comes to our teenage daughter's clothing. It turns out we're all liberal when it comes to the government telling us what we can do with our own bodies, especially regarding the recent attacks by Tea Party conservatives on women. We're all conservative when it comes to government spending (and it turns out that we all hate corporate subsidies, and one family is in the oil business). We're all liberal in regards to healthcare reform; none of us likes the current overall system (not necessarily just Obamacare), and feel there are too many people with their hands out between us and our doctors.

 

So yes, I think you've become paranoid and you're just trying to put a circus-tent-sized label on everyone you think may object to your gun or your feelings about minorities or anything else you've been told the liberals are making bold steps to deprive you of. You can't stand the fact that someone who may be a liberal could actually have a good grasp of what's going on with our country, and so you only buy black and white paint to color your world. You're convinced liberal is bad, so you try to bring every discussion around to ground you feel safe objecting to. You end up arguing against things no one else is arguing about.

[ecoli]

!

Moderator Note

The personal attacks need to stop now. Thanks.

[swansont]

Just what isn't the case friend? No way would I try Bull S-ing you, since you're much too smart for me. Come to Cleveland, Oh. and get your world wide view of the sad situation here, if you have the stomach for it. No mamby pamby stuff at all. Personally I don't like it, but crooks and felons seem to relish in it. Maybe you could help us? By the way, your:Hmm, that's odd. All legal. No shady dealers overcharging them? is your statement, not mine. I specifically said 10 times the price.

The FACT is that rampage killers DO get guns at legal and legit places — I gave some examples — which means your claim that "Unscrupulous or mentally deranged people wanting to purchase firearms … don't go to legitimate dealers anyway" is FALSE.

 

Do you not remember making that claim? Why can't you afford anyone the simple courtesy of acknowledging that you were in error?

 

Don't be an ass friend, although you may need a remedial reading program. I didn't make the statement and am not from Oklahoma. It was the wording of Oklahomans making the statement that our federal Government has made bold steps to take away their guns. Oklahoma, a week ago, passed a law confirming people in the state have the right to bear arms and transport them in their vehicles. I'm sure that was a setback for the criminals. The Liberals didn't like it -- But......

Guess what........... Oklahoma did it anyway.

The way I'm beginning to read this forum is that most, if not all of you are left wing leaning liberals, or am I just becoming parinoid?

You posted it and said you agree with it. You don't get to run and hide behind the convenience that you quoted someone else. There's a word for people who post things only to incite a response.

[rigney]

The FACT is that rampage killers DO get guns at legal and legit places — I gave some examples — which means your claim that "Unscrupulous or mentally deranged people wanting to purchase firearms … don't go to legitimate dealers anyway" is FALSE.

 

Do you not remember making that claim? Why can't you afford anyone the simple courtesy of acknowledging that you were in error?

 

 

You posted it and said you agree with it. You don't get to run and hide behind the convenience that you quoted someone else. There's a word for people who post things only to incite a response.

You're right in saying that all nuts don't get their weapons illegally, though I expect most of them do. But neither am I trying to run or hide from the truth friend. Fact is I agree with practically everything those Sooners have accomplished. My problem is that I have such a hard time expressing my thoughts without offending some one from your camp. And since I keep on getting it wrong, I'll let the guy in this link speak for me. Please don't take offense as he explains it since he finally has a better handle on the existing situation than I ever could. Thank you!

Edited August 29, 2012 by rigney

[Phi for All]

rigney, the problem with voter registration is not that a black man is President. The problem with the new voter registration reforms is that, for some bizarre reason, once you request the forms you have 48 hours to turn them in or YOU WILL BE FINED. Since voter fraud happens about as often as people get struck by lightning, it's clear that the laws are meant to frighten away certain voters (who are mostly Democrat, it turns out).

 

The problem with food stamps is not that a black man is President. The problem is the economic downturn, which is a clear result of failed Republican economic policies, financial sector mismanagement, sluggish consumer demand and wars fought under the Bush administration. Unemployment was already at high levels when Obama took over, so why is it so unusual that more people are using food stamps?

 

The problem with illegal aliens is not that a black man is President. The problem is extremely complex since many business owners (aka "job-creators") rely on unskilled and undocumented laborers. Many people object to the "illegal" immigrant, and justify that objection with rants about how much money they cost the country. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office in a report that examined 29 reports on state and local costs over a 15-year period, the truth is that the negative impact of illegal immigrants is a very modest one, and it really doesn't warrant all the hype and expenditure we've been placing on it. Like the voter fraud fears, it should be a non-issue for all the money we've spent combating it. We have bigger fish to fry, dude.

 

The problem with Trent Lott "losing his job as majority leader" is not that a black man is President. It's that Trent Lott thought we would've been better off without the civil rights movement of the 60s (or as Trent put it, "all these problems over the years") and voiced that opinion openly. Your video makes it sound like he was fired, instead of yielding to pressure from his own party and resigning his position as Senate majority leader. And Senator (and Senate Majority Leader) Robert Byrd renounced his Klan affiliation back in the 1940s, long before the civil rights movement, and also long before he ran for the Senate, so your video is really sounding like just a pack of lies and suppositions.

[Arete]

You're right in saying that all nuts don't get their weapons illegally, though I expect most of them do. But neither am I trying to run or hide from the truth friend. Fact is I agree with practically everything those Sooners have accomplished. My problem is that I have such a hard time expressing my thoughts without offending some one from your camp. And since I keep on getting it wrong, I'll let the guy in this link speak for me. Please don't take offense as he explains it since he finally has a better handle on the existing situation than I ever could. Thank you!

 

 

Given the video, could you point out exactly where anyone on this board has accused you of racism?

 

I've tried before but I'll try again:

Here's a summary of what both parties have had to say on gun control:

http://www.ontheissu...gun_control.htm

http://www.ontheissu...gun_control.htm

 

Now, rather than presenting sensationalized, out of context quote mines, half made up Jefferson quotes or things that are just plain not true - could take a minute to look at what each party actually intends to do regarding gun control and tell us specifically, what about each parties' approach you object to or agree on and why?

 

Or try with tax reform:

http://www.ontheissu..._Tax_Reform.htm

http://www.ontheissu..._Tax_Reform.htm

 

Or any other issue?

Edited August 29, 2012 by Arete

[swansont]

You're right in saying that all nuts don't get their weapons illegally, though I expect most of them do. But neither am I trying to run or hide from the truth friend. Fact is I agree with practically everything those Sooners have accomplished. My problem is that I have such a hard time expressing my thoughts without offending some one from your camp. And since I keep on getting it wrong, I'll let the guy in this link speak for me. Please don't take offense as he explains it since he finally has a better handle on the existing situation than I ever could. Thank you!

The thing that offends me is not your opinions, per se, but that the facts you present to buttress your argument are fabricated or unsupported or simply false. It's as if your justification for everything is because the moon is made of cheese. It fails to work as a legitimate argument.

 

As for the video, I second Arete's call to show where anyone accused you of racism in this thread. The video itself could be satire — of republican attitudes, showing that they don't understand racism. If it's serious, it's just pathetic, given all the failed reasoning and logical fallacies it contains. As Phi points out, there is a huge disconnect between the statements and cries of racism. It also has little to do with the argument at hand, so it serves as yet another failed distraction and excuse for you not to back up your statements.

 

You said you agreed with the Oklahoma actions, many of which are unconstitutional. How do you reconcile that dilemma?

[Phi for All]

And since I keep on getting it wrong, I'll let the guy in this link speak for me.

I'm quite shocked that you would let this person speak for you, when you've told us that you supported Dennis Kucinich in the past. Seeing as how Kucinich is known for delivering one of the strongest liberal perspectives of any member of Congress, how did you suddenly switch to what seems like blind support of the most extreme conservative perspectives? Was it simply because he was mayor of your city or did you really feel then that he represented your point of view?

[rigney]

I'm quite shocked that you would let this person speak for you, when you've told us that you supported Dennis Kucinich in the past. Seeing as how Kucinich is known for delivering one of the strongest liberal perspectives of any member of Congress, how did you suddenly switch to what seems like blind support of the most extreme conservative perspectives? Was it simply because he was mayor of your city or did you really feel then that he represented your point of view?

I've known and liked Dennis throughout his entire political career and still do. So enough said about that. And while the guy in that clip doesn't exactly speak for me, he comes close to telling it as I see it happening. Got the following from an acquaintence this morning who works at a government employment agency. Tell me what you think of it?

"I don't dislike Obama because of his skin color. I dislike him because he's ruining our country and turning it into something I don't recognize. Working in the employment field I see lazy asses daily who wouldn't take a job tasting in a pie factory, because they're receiving unemployment checks, especially those receiving government extensions of unemployment money. There are lots of jobs available. An agency was here this morning looking to hire folks for warehouse positions starting at $10 an hour. The manager went out to the client waiting area and announced that his company was hiring. Of the 30 or so people in the waiting area not one person got up to talk to this potential employer. But they all came to the counter to check in and see about their unemployment money. The man now in our highest national office is destroying the work ethic of an entire country. That's the biggest reason I wouldn't vote for him.

Edited August 29, 2012 by rigney

[dimreepr]

I watched this episode today and for some reason this thread sprung to mind, I can’t think why...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zrk00nYqbsI

 

 

 

[rigney]

The thing that offends me is not your opinions, per se, but that the facts you present to buttress your argument are fabricated or unsupported or simply false. It's as if your justification for everything is because the moon is made of cheese. It fails to work as a legitimate argument.

 

As for the video, I second Arete's call to show where anyone accused you of racism in this thread. The video itself could be satire — of republican attitudes, showing that they don't understand racism. If it's serious, it's just pathetic, given all the failed reasoning and logical fallacies it contains. As Phi points out, there is a huge disconnect between the statements and cries of racism. It also has little to do with the argument at hand, so it serves as yet another failed distraction and excuse for you not to back up your statements.

 

You said you agreed with the Oklahoma actions, many of which are unconstitutional. How do you reconcile that dilemma?

Only by saying that I was unaware of what they did to be unconstitutional. And me! I am just one of a few illiterates they allow in the republican party, as compared to millions of my counterparts in the democratic camp.

[swansont]

Only by saying that I was unaware of what they did to be unconstitutional.

And you couldn't be bothered to check. Apparently it's simply not a priority.

 

And me! I am just one of a few illiterates they allow in the republican party, as compared to millions of my counterparts in the democratic camp.

Another potshot that uses a "fact", and yet that "fact" has no support. In short, I think you're being dishonest here and just made that up.

 

For starters, I've never lived in a place where membership in a party is up to anyone else — it's not a matter of allowing you in. Registering isn't — I could have registered as a republican in several states. I could have registered as a democrat. It was up to me. According to this all you need to do is go to their website and make a donation. So I don't believe you about being "allowed" to join.

 

I'd also like some evidence that there are millions of illiterates in the democratic party, as opposed to only a few in the republican. Failing that, a retraction of the claim. One or the other, if you have an ounce of integrity.

[Phi for All]

I've known and liked Dennis throughout his entire political career and still do. So enough said about that.

It's not enough, sir.

 

I asked why did you go from an ultra-liberal perspective to an ultra-conservative one? I think it's a fair question, and I'd really like it if you'd answer it, if it isn't too personal.

[rigney]

And you couldn't be bothered to check. Apparently it's simply not a priority.

Why should I check it out? I'm from Ohio not Oklahoma.

 

Another potshot that uses a "fact", and yet that "fact" has no support. In short, I think you're being dishonest here and just made that up.

Dishonest about what?

 

For starters, I've never lived in a place where membership in a party is up to anyone else — it's not a matter of allowing you in. Registering isn't — I could have registered as a republican in several states. I could have registered as a democrat. It was up to me. According to this all you need to do is go to their website and make a donation.

Man!, I wouldn't make a donation to the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Pope, for that matter.

So I don't believe you about being "allowed" to join.

 

I'd also like some evidence that there are millions of illiterates in the democratic party, as opposed to only a few in the republican. Failing that, a retraction of the claim. One or the other, if you have an ounce of integrity.

Hopefully you're right. I'm sure that among the many who voted democratic in 2008, most will have jumped ship by now. Edited August 29, 2012 by rigney

[JohnB]

Can I just say that if Aretes figures are right in that pic and you've only had 13 cases of voter fraud in 10 years then somebody isn't doing their job. We nail more than that each election.

 

One big difference in the systems is that we have the Australian Electoral Commission whose job is to police the voter records and Electoral Rolls. The AEC sends people out to door knock various areas and record every voter in every house and these names and addresses are compared to the Rolls. When it turns out that 1313 Mockingbird Lane is the local cemetary all names at the address are flagged and heaven help anybody who tries to vote using one of those names.

 

And what is the problem with producing ID to vote? I have to produce my AEC card or a photographic ID to be able to vote. But with no ID, you only have 13 cases of fraud? Somebody is dreaming.

 

No, seriously, that figure must be pure BS. I quote from the AEC report for the 1996 Federal Election in Oz.

Number of letters sent to electors by DROs requesting information on multiple marks. 15626

 

As in how many "Please explain" letters were sent by the AEC as a result of people being marked off on the Electoral Roll as voting multiple times.

 

Number of cases with admission of multiple voting. 986

 

So we get 986 people admitting to electoral fraud in one election and you get 13 people in 10 years with 10 times the population? Absolute bulldust. There must be holes in your voter registration systems that you could drive the Missouri through.

Edited August 30, 2012 by JohnB

[rigney]

Can I just say that if Aretes figures are right in that pic and you've only had 13 cases of voter fraud in 10 years then somebody isn't doing their job. We nail more than that each election.

 

One big difference in the systems is that we have the Australian Electoral Commission whose job is to police the voter records and Electoral Rolls. The AEC sends people out to door knock various areas and record every voter in every house and these names and addresses are compared to the Rolls. When it turns out that 1313 Mockingbird Lane is the local cemetary all names at the address are flagged and heaven help anybody who tries to vote using one of those names.

You cant get away with stuff like that in America JohnB. It is referred to as voter discrimination, not fraud. Here, a mans home is his castle even if most people might think of it as a graveyard.

And what is the problem with producing ID to vote? I have to produce my AEC card or a photographic ID to be able to vote. But with no ID, you only have 13 cases of fraud? Somebody is dreaming.

 

No, seriously, that figure must be pure BS. I quote from the AEC report for the 1996 Federal Election in Oz.

As in how many "Please explain" letters were sent by the AEC as a result of people being marked off on the Electoral Roll as voting multiple times. So we get 986 people admitting to electoral fraud in one election and you get 13 people in 10 years with 10 times the population? Absolute bulldust. There must be holes in your voter registration systems that you could drive the Missouri through.

The progress America has made in science and industry over the past 250 years, pales in comparison to the regressive nature our political system has managed to take. If you look at the internet, there is enough on voter fraud to keep you busy reading for at least a full month. Here is one slightly biased to the right, so to get a full understand you will need to go through more than just this one.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/dead_voters_dying_democracy_mZiteqXrMHygrJhVFYOTxL

Edited August 30, 2012 by rigney

[ParanoiA]

And what is the problem with producing ID to vote? I have to produce my AEC card or a photographic ID to be able to vote. But with no ID, you only have 13 cases of fraud? Somebody is dreaming.

 

ID requires documents and private information that may be difficult for some folks to navigate due to personal circumstances. What if I lost my birth certificate or social security card? What if I have a bench warrant for my arrest? The poor and disenfranchised are there for a reason, and government ID requires interaction with authorities. Not to mention it costs money.

 

None of these would be good reasons not to require ID except that voting is a fundamental right to us, and I think it best to qualify rights as little as possible. People will be left out of the process with voter ID laws that never violated a voting law in their life, even though they have no ID. We all deserve a voice regardless of our station.

 

13? Yeah, they're dreaming. We can tackle voter fraud though without impacting the entire voting populace.

[swansont]

And what is the problem with producing ID to vote? I have to produce my AEC card or a photographic ID to be able to vote.

In addition to what ParanoiA pointed out, the idea of restricting voting via a poll tax (or similar gambit) became so reprehensible that we have a constitutional amendment prohibiting it. Forcing someone to get a photo ID simply to vote can fall into that category.

[Phi for All]

And what is the problem with producing ID to vote? I have to produce my AEC card or a photographic ID to be able to vote.

This is part of the fiction being spun by our Republican party. There IS no fundamental problem with producing ID to vote. What's happening is that several Republican-controlled states have placed new and unnecessarily stringent time restrictions (48 hours) on filling out the paperwork for these IDs, and if you fail you can be fined. This is enough to make many older people and those who fear the government anyway reluctant to even apply.

[CaptainPanic]

This is part of the fiction being spun by our Republican party. There IS no fundamental problem with producing ID to vote. What's happening is that several Republican-controlled states have placed new and unnecessarily stringent time restrictions (48 hours) on filling out the paperwork for these IDs, and if you fail you can be fined. This is enough to make many older people and those who fear the government anyway reluctant to even apply.

It's easy to get a creditcard, but hard to get ID. Where I live it's the opposite.

[John Cuthber]

Interesting this.

Who remembers the other thread

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68375-has-the-republican-party-lost-its-collective-mind/page__st__40

where we were looking for daft ideas from realistic Left wing candidates?

Thanks to Phi for All we were reminded of Raul Grijalva who was noted for two things

Pointing out that prescription drugs kill people too (a bit weird, but fairly accurate) and

 

"since the discrepancies involved with the 2004 presidential election, he supports a request that the United Nations observe and certify major elections in the US."

 

Well, that looks quite sensible to me.

 

Incidentally, as a UK citizen I don't need any sort of ID to vote.

Presumably that's because the difference I might conceivably make by voting several times is trivial.

 

 

Incidentally, I know that there is some sort of state provision for US citizens who are unable to find work.

I presume that, before they hand out food stamps or emergency cash (or whatever) they check people's ID in some way. I suspect there's some sort of ID card involved.

Well, if that's good enough to take money from the government, it should be good enough to let them vote.

 

Can we sell that idea to the republicans?