1

So how is the media going to spin this so that all the issues will be discussed except the one that really matters? What hoops are the politicians going to jump through so that they can appear to be doing something but actually leave things exactly as they are now? I see that Bloomburg is calling on the president to take steps, although he has avoided actually suggesting what steps might be appropriate. The only people who are making suggestions are those people who do not rely on votes. Obama and Romney have been quick to offer their sympathies but little else.

The media has been quick to label the shooter as possibly schizophrenic. Blame a medical condition rather than a corrupt system. If the shooter is schizo then no one is to blame. The authorities have labeled him a lone-wolf terrorist. Naturally, if they label him a terrorist then the obvious response is to throw more money into the "war against terrorism" rather than to address the core issues.

They have labeleled the shooter a terrorist. I think, instead, he should be considered a canary; just like the ones they supposedly used in coal mines years ago. I think we're seeing the tip of the iceberg. As more and more people see the American Dream washed away by a torrent of debt; when people, especially those with college degrees (bought with loans which they will likely never pay off) realize that the only jobs in their future are McJobs, I think the number and frequency of incidents like that in Aurora will only rise.

I hope I am wrong.

8
Contributors
46
Replies
48
Views
5 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by Reverend Jim
Featured Replies
  • > Blame a medical condition rather than a corrupt system. What system do you mean? Who says its corrupt? Just because you think so doesn't make it so. And what do you think the President should or can do about it? There is little anyone can do to keep someone … Read More

  • >What system do you mean? Who says its corrupt? A system that sees nothing wrong with carrying concealed weapons in a church. A system that can't even pass a law that restricts handgun sales to *only* three per month. A system that allows someone to purchase 6000 rounds of ammunition … Read More

  • According to New York Mayor, Mayor Michael Bloomberg: >You know, to arm everybody and have the Wild West all the time is one of the more nonsensical things you can say, ... It just does not make any sense. The bottom line is if we had fewer guns, we would … Read More

  • > I already said I thought they should be banned. You are far more likely to die from a gun in states with the laxest gun control laws. [20 Deadliest Gun States](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/01/11/20-deadliest-gun-states-from-mississippi-to-arizona.html) My older son completed his PhD at Arizona State University just as the state legislature was considering allowing … Read More

  • > For a clarification of the usage of "everyone", I'm going to define that as "an over-whelming majority" That's only because the over-whelming majority was told by their president, a man who, under a non-currupt system should be trusted, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Your vice-president had strong … Read More

1

Blame a medical condition rather than a corrupt system.

What system do you mean? Who says its corrupt? Just because you think so doesn't make it so. And what do you think the President should or can do about it? There is little anyone can do to keep someone from walking into crowded theater and start shooting, with the possible exception of using metal detectors like those used in airports. How far are we willing to go to prevent this type of incident every few years? Should be put armed guards at the entrences of every public place, such as bars, restaurants, theaters, nightclibs, etc ? Are you willing to fork out another two or three billion dollars per year for it?

As for this shooter, I'm all for death penalty in such incidents, mentally ill or not.

Edited by Ancient Dragon

1

What system do you mean? Who says its corrupt?

A system that sees nothing wrong with carrying concealed weapons in a church. A system that can't even pass a law that restricts handgun sales to only three per month. A system that allows someone to purchase 6000 rounds of ammunition and a one hundred shot clip (drum) with no warning flags. A system that says even if you have several emails from someone stating their intention to "shoot-em-up" the authorities cannot prevent that person from legally obtaining a weapon. A system that refers to the systematic sexual assault of young boys over a 15 year period as a "sex scandal" instead of what it really is (rape). A system that allows more gun dealers than gas stations and ten times as many gun dealers as there are McDonalds. A system that (as of ten years ago) was still putting three million guns per year into circulation.

A lot of Americans are broke, or angry, or paranoid, or all three, and a lot of these people are heavily armed. It’s not exactly a shock that this combination of factors helps produce 15,000 murders per year.

And getting back to the 100-shot clip - I understand that if it hadn't jammed, there could easily have been dozens more dead. Of course you will respond, "if everone else in the theatre had been armed someone would have shot him before so many were killed or injured". You are retired so I'm assuming you remember the TV show, All in the Family. I recall one episode where Archie went on a local news show to give his solution to airline hijackings, which was to issue a handgun to every passenger as they boarded. Is it your belief that the more handguns that are in circulation the safer everyone is?

And in this case I have no problem applying the death penalty.

0

Is it your belief that the more handguns that are in circulation the safer everyone is?

Absolutely yes. At the same time I'm in favor of ban on assult weapons because they have no other purpose than to kill people.

I agree that all those situations you mentioned are unfortunate (for lack of a better word), but government can not control every aspacect of people's lives, as the discussion in this thread illustrates. When government tries to control our lives everyone complains about losing freedoms, yet when government does nothing people complain that goverment should do more to control our lives. Which way do you want it? Damned if they do and damned if they don't. If you want government to control your life then move to China. Sure USA is far from perefect, but its probably the best on the planet. Why do you think so many people attempt to enter the USA each day, legally or illegally. If our government was so awful why does USA has the largest immegration in the world (see this link)

Edited by Ancient Dragon

1

According to New York Mayor, Mayor Michael Bloomberg:

You know, to arm everybody and have the Wild West all the time is one of the more nonsensical things you can say, ... It just does not make any sense. The bottom line is if we had fewer guns, we would have a lot fewer murders. ... Do you really think that you’d be safe if anyone in the audience could pull out a gun and start shooting? I don’t think so.

New York has the strictest gun control legislation in the country and is one of the safest states in which to live.

Question - do you feel it was appropriate for the shooter to amass the weapons and ammunition that he carried into the theatre?

Question - what is the justification for owning an assault rifle capable of firing 5-60 rounds per minute?

Question - why is it that buying two packages of Sudefed at a time is enough to get you on a watch list but6000 rounds of ammo is not?

Every year there are 30,000 gun deaths. That amounts to ten 911-scale tragedies every year. When foreigners kill 3000 Americans, the country (and quite rightly) reacts strongly. Apparently, though, it's quite alright if Americans kill ten times that many Americans every year. There are the expressions of outrage and sympathy for a week or two and then it's business as usual until the next killing spree.

0

Every year there are 30,000 gun deaths

Two-thirds of those are suicides. Let's keep the numbers honest if you want to quote them.

Edited by Ezzaral

0

@Reverend Jim

According to New York Mayor, Mayor Michael Bloomberg:

He's actually New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg

or NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg

New York is a state or crown colony, not a city or province.

New York has the strictest gun control legislation in the country and is one of the safest states in which to live.

New York State has the strictest gun control legislation in the country and is one of the safest states in which to live.

When foreigners kill 3000 Americans, the country (and quite rightly) reacts strongly.

America is a melting pot. I'm not quite sure where you came up with that. Unless you mean American soldiers oversea that fight and died for us.

0

Question - what is the justification for owning an assault rifle capable of firing 5-60 rounds per minute?

None. I already said I thought they should be banned.

Question - why is it that buying two packages of Sudefed at a time is enough to get you on a watch list but6000 rounds of ammo is not?

Maybe he's a bad shot :) Agree with you on that one too. I favor putting reasonable limits on the quantity of ammo that can be purchased/kept by individuals without some justification for it. I doubt the NRA would agree with that though.

0

@Ancient Dragon

As for this shooter, I'm all for death penalty in such incidents, mentally ill or not.

Even if he's convicted, he still has to wait to be Executed. There's like 4 other Death Row in front of him.

0

@Ezzaral: where did you find that quote? According to the link below there were only about 9,000 deaths by firearms in 2010.

However, the figures themselves are astounding for Brits used to around 600 murders per year. In 2010 - the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were 12,996 murders in the US. Of those, 8,775 were caused by firearms.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

One is more likely to die from heart disease then gun deahs. Heart disease and cancer account for about half the deaths in USA. Gun deaths isn't even in the top 10 causes of death.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm/

Our tax dollars would be better spent trying to solve heart disease and cancer instead of something so insignificant as gun control.

Edited by Ancient Dragon

0

@Ancient Dragon

Ezzaral got that qoute from Reverend Jim

That sentence was from Reverend Jim

Every year there are 30,000 gun deaths. That amounts to ten 911-scale tragedies every year. When foreigners kill 3000 Americans, the country (and quite rightly) reacts strongly. Apparently, though, it's quite alright if Americans kill ten times that many Americans every year. There are the expressions of outrage and sympathy for a week or two and then it's business as usual until the next killing spree.

0

@Ancient Dragon

The links that you provided and numbers from the articles are facts and it back up your statement. At least you provide the link where you got that info.

The qoutes and numbers that Reverend Jim provided doesn't make any sense? He has to back up or follow up of the things he said or at least provide the link of the info he got.

0

Is it your belief that the more handguns that are in circulation the safer everyone is?

Absolutely yes.

"For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides." - Kellerman, et al. 1998

In other words, empirical studies show, undeniably, that a gun is far more likely (22 times more likely, in that particular study) to be involved in an unfortunate accident, criminal act, or a suicide, than in an act of self-defense. Your comment is basically the same as compulsive gamblers who walk into a casino being convinced they will beat the house, even though all the odds are stacked against them. There are no rational arguments to defend the point of view that personal gun ownership improves safety overall. Facts are annoying, I know...

At the same time I'm in favor of ban on assult weapons because they have no other purpose than to kill people.

So... handguns are not assault weapons? I don't see many people shooting deer with Desert Eagles or Berettas. I guess, you'd say handguns are for self-defense, while assault rifles are for assault. Well, the M16 is common in Israel as a self-defense weapon that ordinary people carry around. I'm not saying that's a good idea either, I'm just saying the line is blurry. And if you start arguing that the primary purpose of assault rifles is for criminal actions and therefore should be banned (for civilians, of course), then you can't argue for the legality of handguns, since, as a matter of fact, their primary use is to commit suicide (also a crime...).

When government tries to control our lives everyone complains about losing freedoms, yet when government does nothing people complain that goverment should do more to control our lives.

Well, a lot of people are idiots who complain about everything and everything else. The government needs to exercise some control (otherwise, what is its purpose!), the trick is to be surgical about it. Target specific things for which there is a clear, overall positive impact, while being rather harmless to people's freedoms and pursuit of happiness. When you said:

Should we put armed guards at the entrences of every public place, such as bars, restaurants, theaters, nightclibs, etc ?

That is pretty much the complete opposite of targetted, surgical interventions by the government. For the average person, having to be searched or fundled everywhere they go is a huge infringement on their freedoms, on their sense of privacy, and on their ability to enjoy their everyday activities. And at the same time, such policies (massive security measures) have a pretty horrible track-record of being completely ineffective (most people with bad intentions work around the security, people who get caught are mostly innocent people with no bad intentions, and everybody gets pissed about the measures, with ensuing protests).

When we talk about stricter gun regulations, we mean measure like that you'd have to fill in a bit more paperwork when you want to buy a gun, doing basic background checks, and revoking rights to gun ownership when there is evidence of malintent or mental instability. This has a proven track-record of being very effective at reducing gun violence, not completely, of course, but these simple measures get you a long way. And most people wouldn't say those measures infringe on their liberties any more than the same basic measures that control whether you are allowed to drive a car or not (which is one example of a lethal weapon that is regulated effectively).

If you want government to control your life then move to China.

No, thanks!

Sure USA is far from perefect, but its probably the best on the planet.

Yeah!! U-S-A U-S-A! We're number 1!!!! (knockles pounding on chest)

Some things the USA is number 1 in the world for:

  • Highest annual prevalence of cocaine use,
  • Highest incarceration rate (and most people in jail),
  • Most privately owned firearms per capita,
  • Most billionaires,
  • Highest income inequality of all developed countries,
  • Largest external debt,
  • Highest government budget deficit,
  • Worst current account balance,
  • Largest Protectionist Economic Zone,
  • Largest arms exporter,
  • Largest military budget,

I'm sorry, I looked really hard to find a "quality of life" measure (e.g., education, happiness accessments, health, life expectancy, etc.) on which the USA turns up on top (or near the top), but I couldn't find any.... but we're number 1!!!

Loving your country is one thing, but claiming it's the best is another. One is subjective, the other is objective and quantifiable.

Why do you think so many people attempt to enter the USA each day, legally or illegally. If our government was so awful why does USA has the largest immegration in the world

The majority of people go where the money is (jobs). Other countries with remarkably high immigrant population include Russia, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Hong Kong, and Koweit, not exactly "heavenly places", just places with tons of dough. In any case, the net immigration rate to the US has been on a steady decline in the last decade (and in Canada, it is about twice that of the US, and steady).

And in this case I have no problem applying the death penalty.

Neither do I. Such a horrible massacre, and clearly no chance that this guy is innocent (falsely accused), I don't have a problem with the death penalty for that. Generally, I would object to the death mostly on the basis of possible false convictions. Here, it doesn't apply.

1

I already said I thought they should be banned.

You are far more likely to die from a gun in states with the laxest gun control laws.

20 Deadliest Gun States

My older son completed his PhD at Arizona State University just as the state legislature was considering allowing people to carry concealed weapons on University property. Can you tell me how, in a sane country, this can be justified? And if that can be justified, why should it not be legal for anyone to carry weapons into, say, a courtroom? According to the standard rhetoric, courtrooms would be a lot safer if everyone were pasking heat. Where does one draw the line?

You have a party (Republican) that responds to any measures attempted by the Democrats to improve your lives, with flag waving and rhetoric (and out and out lies) that your freedoms are being stripped away even though they (Republicans) were responsible for things like the Partiot Act and designated free speech zones. That is a corrupt system. I do not believe that here in Canada we are immune to the same problems. A previous Liberal government spent billions setting up a national long gun registry. This was several magnitudes greater than necessary (in Manitoba we built a state of the art control centre with state of the art computer systems to control our provincial energy grid for 64 million dollars). Our current Conservative government is determined not only to scrap the registry but to destroy all existing records.

But I digress. And, yes, I am aware of the distinction between New York City and New York State. I assumed that everyone would be aware that a person cannot be the mayor of a state.

but government can not control every aspacect (sic) of people's lives

I am not claiming that they should. Are you saying that the government should abolish all laws, because any time the government passes a law that restricts peoples' liberties you can make the same slippery slope argument. Again, this is the strategy used by the Republicans to oppose just about any measure proposed by the Democrats. Death Panels anyone? But then again, perhaps I should keep this about the issues rather than getting into politics.

I already said I thought they should be banned.

So you are in favour of the government controlling peoples' lives. Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways. You can't scream "totalitarian regime" only when the government tries to pass a law you disagree with.

And, by the way, my admiration goes out to Mayor (of New York City) Bloomburg for getting specific about what steps could be taken. I had assumed that, as a politician, he would leave it at "something has to be done" and let the higher ups take the heat for proposing specific measures.

0

You are far more likely to die from a gun in states with the laxest gun control laws.

You are far more likely to die of heart disease then from a gun. In 1990 33.8 million people died in automobile accidents -- where's your outrage and suggestion to ban automobiles from our roads?

I don't like your use of the word "corrupt". According to dictionary

Adjective:
Having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.

I don't mean to imply there is NO corruption in our government, that's why we have checks and balances. But to say the entire government is corrupt is unfounded.

> So you are in favour of the government controlling peoples\' lives

To some extent, yes. I am in favor of putting criminals behind bars and the death penalty for certain crimes. I'm not in favor of government interference in the lives of ordinary law-abiding people.

hey (Republicans) were responsible for things like the Partiot Act and designated free speech zones.

It was the Democrates who first set up free speech zones during the democratic national convention of 1988.

During the 1988 Democratic National Convention, the city of Atlanta, Georgia set up a "designated protest zone"[5] so the convention would not be disrupted. A pro-choice demonstrator opposing an Operation Rescue group said Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young "put us in a free-speech cage."[6] "Protest zones" were used during the 1992 and 1996 United States presidential nominating conventions[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

Edited by Ancient Dragon

0

having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain

Right. Because we know that the hundreds of millions of dollars in political contributions, the gifts given to elected officials by lobbyists and the untold millions that are put into PACs are all donated altruistically with no quid pro quo expected. By the way, our Conservative government is trying to put an end to publicly financed campaigns because they know that by doing so it would cripple the opposition's ability to mount a proper campaign in response to their attack ads.

I'm not in favor of government interference in the lives of ordinary law-abiding people.

What do you consider interference? Any law, by definition, is "interference". Do you consider passing laws to disenfranchise millions of predominantly black voters in order to win elections to be interference? Oh, wait. That's not interference. That's corruption.

It was the Democrates who first set up free speech zones during the democratic national convention of 1988.

I'll give you that one. However, that just shows that the Democrats are as willing to suspend your rights when it suits them.

But to say the entire government is corrupt is unfounded

A general rule of thumb based on the cost of running a campaign is that a sitting senator/congressman must raise $10,000 per week starting the day he/she is elected in order to have enough money for the next election. It has been estimated that members of Congress spend anywhere from 30 to 70 percent of their time fundraising. When (for example) a Koch or a Trump offers you a sizeable chunk of that it is typically offered with the expectation of something in return. Do you think Michael Brows was appointed head of FEMA because of his stellar qualifications organizing horse shows? The morning Katrina hit, Brown wrote to Cindy Taylor saying "Can Ii quit now?".

Your government went to war in Iraq based on a lie. How many are dead because of that lie? Does that not count as corrupt?

Edited by Reverend Jim

0

By the way, our Conservative government is trying to put an end to publicly financed campaigns

Who is going to pay the bill then? Answer: taxpayers. Don't you already pay enough taxes with all that free (?) medical care? It's not really "free" because you pay for it with your taxes.

It's not our system/government that's corrupt, just some of the people in it. It's a world-wide problem, not just in North America.

What do you consider interference?

Any law which violates our US Constutional rights, such as the right to own and keep guns.

Do you consider passing laws to disenfranchise millions of predominantly black voters in order to win elections to be interference?

Not interference just unconstitutional. AFAIK there are no such laws left in the USA, they have all been abolushed years and years ago.

Your government went to war in Iraq based on a lie. How many are dead because of that lie? Does that not count as corrupt?

Stupidity yes, corruption no. President Bush didn't send us into that war alone, nor did he do it for the money. I dare you to prove your charges of corruption. Post links to relevant criminal investigations.

0

Not interference just unconstitutional. AFAIK there are no such laws left in the USA, they have all been abolushed years and years ago.

Under New Pennsylvania Voter Suppression Law, 43 Percent of Philadelphia Voters May lack Most Common Form of Photo ID

A large portion of those at risk of missing the vote reside in the Democratic stronghold of Philadelphia, a city where 44 percent of the population is African-American and where it is estimated that 18 percent of voters do not have the necessary card to present at the polls.

All of these voters may forfeit their most fundamental right of citizenship despite the fact that, as documented by a stipulation signed by the State of Pennsylvania and submitted to the Court in the above-mentioned case, there "have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states." See here

Florida GOP Takes Voter Suppression to a Brazen New Extreme

Senate hearing targets Ohio voter suppression law

The first example is happening now and the second was in 2000. If the suppression had never happened it is almost certain that Bush would have lost Florida. Your economy would likely not be in the toilet and Iraq would likely never have happened. I guess we'll never know. Do you actually do any research?

Estimated spending on congressional elections by political committees and non-profits. Data from www.cfinst.org

2006 $223 million
2008 $397 million
2010 $564 million

Thanks to Citizens United, third parties now have no limit on what they spend on advertising. I don't have the exact figures for 2008 but www.opensecrets.org estimated the cost at $5.3 billion.

Estimated spending for 2012 ranges from 6 billion to 9.8 billion. This money isn't coming from nickle and dime contributions by your average Joe. That money is from the hedge fund managers who are paying taxes at 1/3 the rate you are (because their millions in earnings are classified as capital gains). That money is coming from corporations who are paying no tax and still complaining that the tax rate is too high. Whose interests do you think are being looked after first?

In January of this year, the FEC deleted a whole set of contributions totaling millions of dollars made during the 2007-2008 election cycle so even if you wanted to you couldn't check where the money came from.

A 24-Year-Old Gets 3 Life Terms in Prison for Witnessing a Drug Deal

How many examples of corrupt do you need?

It's a world-wide problem, not just in North America.

But you said it wasn't a problem in the US. Now you are saying it is, but it's OK because everyone is doing it.

Edited by Reverend Jim

0

Who is going to pay the bill then? Answer: taxpayers

You misunderstood the situation. Traditionally, up until now, there has been a public (from taxpayers) financing of electoral campaigns. What this means is that there were strict limits on the amounts that political parties could raise from individuals (and couldn't take any money from companies/corporations). So, most of the money for political campaigns would come from taxpayer dollars which are handed out to political parties based on their proportion of popular votes and seats in parlement as of the last election, and there was some progression in the amounts so that small parties have a running chance too. Basically, this puts all major parties (3 or 4 of them, usually) on a more or less level playing field, but most importantly, parties do not have to rely on powerful and rich friends in order to have a running chance, which is a big plus for fending off corruption of politicians. And, the total campaign expeditures are not high enough to make them any kind of significant part of the overall government budget. This is a minor taxpayer expenditure, that makes a huge difference. Now, the conservative government is phasing out this system because they know that they have powerful and rich friends and that their competing parties do not (or not as much), and so, it will give them the upper-hand in the next election, and after that, we will end up with a system like the US where the body politic is completely flooded with dirty money and quid-pro-quos (i.e., corruption).

I much prefer spend a tiny fraction of tax-money for the benefit of leaving private interests of rich donors out of politics.

Don't you already pay enough taxes with all that free (?) medical care? It's not really "free" because you pay for it with your taxes.

Of course it is not free, paid through taxes, and a heck of a lot cheaper than in the US. And, of course, our system's main objective is to leave no-one behind (i.e., save lives and improve the well-being of all).

It's not our system/government that's corrupt, just some of the people in it. It's a world-wide problem, not just in North America.

Of course it's a world-wide problem. Fending off corruption has been one of the longest running "wars" in history, in all countries. But corruption is not about a few bad apples, corruption is a systemic problem that develops as a culture within any administrative body (public or private). Currently, in Quebec, we have huge ongoing investigations about corruption in the construction businesses (especially with respect to public infrastructure projects). By and large, people working in that business (biding for contracts, etc.) have little choice in participating to the corrupt activities (bribes, collusion with other companies to run up costs, etc.) because those that try to be honest participants basically get excluded by the corrupt system and go bankrupt. A corrupt system creates a set of rules by which you must abide, otherwise you are out. This filters out the honest people, and percolates the corrupt to top positions. That is what systemic corruption means. In the US, you cannot run a major company without an army of lobbists to "defend your interests" in congress, and without making lots of campaign donations (to both parties). These are the rules of the game, if you don't play by the rules (either because you're not good at bribing people, or you're too honest to do so), then you don't last very long, but if you are very good at it and you are particularly dishonest (and willing to go further than others), then you rise to the top. Things like allowing private-money interests to mix with the body politic, it works in favor of percolating the corrupt-nasty people to the top. That is systemic corruption, not a few bad apples. The US is not the only country with such problems, but probably one of the worst amongst developed countries, because the strongest indicator of corruption is the gap between the rich and the poor (and the US ranks highest on that).

Any law which violates our US Constutional rights, such as the right to own and keep guns.

Technically, you have the right to bare arms. Of course, at that time, that only included muskets and swords. Now, that could technically include bazookas and gatling guns. The US Constitution is a great document, but some things don't age as well as others, and it cannot be considered "sacro-saint".

AFAIK there are no such laws left in the USA, they have all been abolushed years and years ago.

Texas, Arizona, Florida and a handful of other states are trying to restore such laws as we speak. In the past, there have been many incidents of "election rules" that are specifically targetted to stop african americans, latinos and the low-income people from being able to vote.

Stupidity yes, corruption no. President Bush didn't send us into that war alone, nor did he do it for the money. I dare you to prove your charges of corruption. Post links to relevant criminal investigations.

It is difficult to find criminal investigations about corrupt government activities, especially after the new president said "let's not delve in the past, and look to the future", which is one of the most idiotic and dangerous things Obama has ever said. All crimes are prosecuted after the fact, saying we look only towards the future is sanctioning complete lawlessness. Makes you wonder why he was so quick to make such a statement... corruption, maybe.

The problem with accusing people of corruption, is that its definition never ceases to move (i.e., "moving the goal post"). Any kind of conflict of interest (like an ex-CEO of a defense contractor being involved in one of the highest executive positions in government) used to be considered corruption, hands down. Revolving-door behavior between public and private sectors used to be illegal, considered corrupt-nasty behavior, now, it's hard to find anyone in public administration that isn't doing this or involved with people that do. Only a decade ago, some people were raising concern and outrage about G.W. Bush's sources of campaign financing (probably would have been considered corrupt-nasty a few decades earlier), but it never got any traction, now, the supreme court decided that it's perfectly legal and encouraged to do that and much more.

Food for thoughts, to summarize what systemic corruptions means in one sentence:

"Hero­ism breaks its heart, and ide­al­ism its back, on the intran­si­gence of the cred­u­lous and the mediocre, manip­u­lated by the cyn­i­cal and the corrupt." -- Christopher Hitchens

0

Law and order are everywhere the law and order which protect the established hierarchy. - Herbert Marcuse

0

I'm going to throw my hat in support of AD on this one.
On Bush and Iraq:
After 9/11, everyone was angry. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, everyone. We went into Afghanistan and Iraq to clean house. And we did. We thought it would be a quick "kill the bad guys, and save the day" war. Everyone did. It was only after things started to drag out that people started to complain and we started to wonder if going into Iraq was such a good idea.

(For a clarification of the usage of "everyone", I'm going to define that as "an over-whelming majority").

On the subject of guns:
Sure, they're a nuisnace while you have them, but you'll miss them when their gone.
Krystalnacht.
Nanking Massacre.
Stalin's USSR.
Early Communist China.
KKK.

On the subject of what kills who in the US:
Deaths_in_2009

Want to save lives? Outlaw the double cheeseburger.

Edited by DeanMSands3

1

For a clarification of the usage of "everyone", I'm going to define that as "an over-whelming majority"

That's only because the over-whelming majority was told by their president, a man who, under a non-currupt system should be trusted, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Your vice-president had strong ties to a company that stood to make untold billions as long as Americans could be duped into invading a country that posed no threat to the United States. Bush claimed that "God" told him to invade Iraq. It wasn't God, It was Chaney and Haliburton and the arms manufacturers.

0

George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a senior Palestinian politician in an interview to be broadcast by the BBC later this month.

Mr Bush revealed the extent of his religious fervour when he met a Palestinian delegation during the Israeli-Palestinian summit at the Egpytian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, four months after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."

The BBC persuaded Mr Shaath to go on the record for the first time for a three-part series on Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy: Elusive Peace, which begins on Monday.

That was from October, 2005

In the book , "Bush Family Fortunes", it was revealed that George Bush (jr) was advised that in order to win the presidency he would have to get the vote of the religious right. Perhaps that explains why at a press conference, President Bush stated that "I read the bible every day" but was unable to say what part he had read that morning. Just like Sarah Palin was unable to state the name of even one newspaper she read when asked by Katie Couric.

Unless you actually believe that Bush was on a mission from God (which should scare the living bejeezuz out of you if think he was being honest) then there has to be an alternative to going to war. U.S. intelligence figures have gone on record stating that Bush was informed unequivocally in January 2003 that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. The head of Iraqi intelligence, Tahir Jalil Habbush, met secretly with British intelligence in Jordan in the early days of 2003. In weekly meetings with Michael Shipster, the British director of Iraqi operations, Habbush conveyed that Iraq had no active nuclear, chemical or biological weapons programs and no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

So once you discount "voice of God" and WMD, what does that leave? Profit.

By the way, you cry "proof?". In response to your claim

Not interference just unconstitutional. AFAIK there are no such laws left in the USA, they have all been abolushed years and years ago.

I gave you three examples which you have chosen not to respond to. I'd appreciate a response. I also gave some election cost numbers and another example of the guy who got three life sentences. Where is your response to those? Ignoring what you don't like is not a viable debating tactic.

Edited by Reverend Jim

0

I gave you three examples which you have chosen not to respond

You gave me no examples of any laws that are discriminatory. Requiring a photo id in order to vote violates no ones rights. Can't afford to get a photo id? Then stop spending money on drugs, hookers, having a baby every 9 months, and Big Macs.

As for the guy that got three life sentenses, I'm surprised he doesn't sue for unusual and curel punishment. Maybe he has, but that was a very interesting article you posted. I'm with you on that one. Unfortunately the War on Drugs program is a failure, and has been for some time now.

BTW: if you think I'm Republican, I'm not. I voted for Obama in the last election and intend to do so again. Mitt Romney was the best thing the Republicans could have done to assure Obama a second term.

0

The laws are not written so that they can be legally discriminatory. That would be unconstitutional. They are written so that predominantly poor and/or black people are more likely to be affected. Typically these people vote Democrat. Just because the law was not technically discriminatory that does not mean that wasn't the intention. These voter restriction laws are being passed exclusively by Republican legislators.

As well, electronic voting machines are coming into wider use. Ostensibly, this is to prevent "chad" and other problems that result in spoiled ballots. Unfortunately, the voting machines being put into circulation have already been shown to vulnerable to hacking, resulting in further disenfranchisement. These machines produce no backup. A proper electronic voting machine would allow the voter to select candidates. It would indicate to the voter when a ballot was incorrectly filled out. When the voter pressed "VOTE", a paper ballot would be printed that the voter could then read to determine that it was filled out as requested. Only then would the voter take that ballot and feed it into an electronic counter.

That method produces a backup that can be counted by hand in the event of a dispute. Any method that produces no manual backupp should immediately ring the alarm bells.

Back to "corrupt". Can you explain to me how a non-corrupt system can sentence an Ex-Mortgage CEO to three years prison for a three billion dollar fraud, yet a homeless man who steals $100, then turns himself in to the police after regretting his actions gets fifteen years?

Edited by Reverend Jim

Attachments job-fails-society.jpg 67.95 KB
0

BTW, I agree with you on Romney. Loved his first two ads. Blatant lies then a bullsh!t response to justify them. Although, Santorum provided more than enough fodder as well. I miss Sarah Palin. She was just so easy - like shooting fish in a barrel.

As for the previous post, we hear in Canada have our share of legal travesties. Donald Marshall and Davil Milgard for two. Both spend years in jail for crimes that they did not commit and for which the police knew they were innocent. No money involved but corrupt nonetheless. Same thing with the construction industry in Quebec. Rotten to the core.

Edited by Reverend Jim

0

I live in Illinois -- two of the last three governors are in prison right now for curruption.

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority.
Lord Acton,in a letter to Mandell Creighton (5 April 1887), published in Historical Essays and Studies (1907).

0

@Ancient Dragon

@Reverend Jim

I realize something both of ya have something in common.

1) Both of ya are retired!
2) Both of ya are baby boomer!
3) Both of ya have alot of time to do stuffs (like point of view of how the world runs, this thread is a perfect example).

You two are like that movie "Grumpy Old Men"

I found that it's amusing that Reverend Jim is not from the states, he's from Canada. He's criticizing and accussing American government system as being corrupted. It's like a conspiracy theories and it's hard to proof. The X-Files!

A qoute from "Canadian Bacon"

Gus: "Canadians are always dreaming up a lotta ways to ruin our lives. The metric system, for the love of God! Celsius! Neil Young!"

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.