The lousy job of political reporting.
In the middle of the last century, stories were told of poets in the then USSR commanding audiences of tens of thousands for readings. America was astounded. Poetry? Not rock and roll? Granted, the Soviet Union backed those poets and rock stars were, of course, not allowed to tour. But, I think it is apocryphal. People will gather any time there is something interesting to see.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Dr Dreadful
Hell, I heard tell that a number of people in foreign countries with an interest in our election feel that they should be able to vote in it owing to the influence and impact American policies have on them and their respective countries.
I remember seeing a poll on just that topic in 2004. People in a selection of countries were asked who they would vote for in the US election if they could. The results suggested that Bush wouldn't have stood a salmon's chance in a sushi kitchen of being re-elected. As I recall, he was viewed more or less favorably in Africa, India and parts of South America, and generally loathed everywhere else.
This Pew survey stops short of asking the direct question, but still shows pretty clearly who the rest of the world would prefer to see installed in the White House come next January.
27 - The Obnoxious American
Doc,
I remmeber that poll as well. I think it's hilarious when Americans pay heed to these insane polls. We too have our druthers regarding foriegn leaders (i.e. Jong Il, Ahmadinejad, Putin, etc) but that rarely makes a difference.
What self hating Americans need to keep in mind is, sure our election effects other countries, just like their elections effect our lives as well. That doesn't mean that they should have a say in the way we govern.
Until we become a global utopia, let's consider our (America's) interests in context of America's interests, and do away with this nonsense of considering someone else's opinion when they have their own adgenda.
28 - zingzing
"He is lauded for his reception by leaders OVERSEAS."
i'm one to think that having political leaders of other countries who seem to like the direction you are heading is a good thing for foreign policy. they don't have to like you (not that that's a bad thing), but they do have to be willing to work with you. currently, many, many other nation's leaders don't even respect our government or its foreign policy. they seem to respect obama. and respect is a damn good first step.
"I am willing to bet that there are at least a few Americans who probably don't even know the name of the GOP candidate."
that's probably true, but it's probably true the other way around as well. did you know that during the late 1800's, some residents of central london didn't know that they lived in london, or that they lived in england? there's a lot of ignorance out there.
"I know that hard core lefties still think that the U.S.S.R. had it right, and can't agree that capitalism is a good thing."
yep, they're called "socialists." there is that fringe. there's also a fringe on the right called "white supremacists," but no one is going around saying that "i know that hard core righties still think that black people have no rights," etc, etc. i think some "socialist" programs are alright, but full on u.s.s.r. style communism just doesn't work, no matter how naively wonderful the idea is.
"The Iraqis [...] are making progress. It seems that only Dems have a problem seeing this. Is it perfect? No. but if you agree the situation on the ground isn't that great, why would we leave? So that full on genocide can take place?"
it's gotten so much better that us leaving will result in "full on genocide?" well, that's an improvement. somewhere along the line, you've lost the reality of the situation.
"you should also acknowledge that removing Saddam was a policy started by Bill Clinton."
really? i'm being serious in asking why you would say that. you mean with sanctions? i'm not going to look it up now, out of sheer laziness, but i would think that stuff was started under the first bush. not really sure. enlighten me.
"Was the war handled correctly? Yes, initially."
that's arguable. it was entered into under very poor intelligence and a total lack of understanding for what was going to happen. many people cried out, "but what do you do after you've dismantled their government infrastructure?" well before any troops were on the ground. it was fucked up from the start.
"Why would I vote for someone whose whole plan consists of leaving without ensuring that the whole place doesn't go to heck in a wicker basket? We don't need yet another "killing fields.""
did you vote for bush? because the whole place has gone to "heck in a wicker basket." it is a "killing fields." we're not helping the situation over there. a steady decrease in troops will alleviate some of the pressures that are causing this. if iraq sees that we aren't going to be there, and that they had better figure something out before two summers from now, well, they just might set about figuring something out. it's their country, not ours, so they're the ones that have to get it done, in the end.
29 - Lisa Solod Warren
Well Obnoxious American, I like your moniker....
You really believe the rich get rich because they work for it? All of them? Get serious. Some do, some don't. Some middle class Americans work their asses off and don't get rich. Same for the poor. 18 million dollar bonuses for destroying a company or depleting a pension fund.
And I notice you said nothing about McCain's continued and horrific voting record against veterans benefits. He wants to keep them fighting? Then help them out when they return.
And, by the by. We do plenty to get rid of foreign leaders who don't suit us. Allende, Noriega, Pinochet (after they served their usefulness) and lately, Saddam. No one asked us to go in and take him down. We did it because he was a horrible man. But there a dozens of awful leaders in the world who to awful things to their people. Want to take them all out?
30 - The Obnoxious American
"We too have our druthers regarding foriegn leaders (i.e. Jong Il, Ahmadinejad, Putin, etc) but that rarely makes a difference. "
Further to this point, when we weigh in on who should lead a foriegn country, (some) Dems claim that we are being imperialist. Yet they are willing to take direction from Europe. And based on what exactly? Their higher quality of life (chuckle), their superior diplomatic or military strenght? (double chuckle). Economy? (hardihar har).
Anyone who furthers such a view that the populace of other countries should have a say or that their opinion of our leaders is somehow important really needs to go back to school. God help this great land if we are truly led by people following this wrong headed philosophy.
Bottom line, it is only Americans who can represent American interests. Sometimes that means making a choice that other people in the world don't agree with. As soon as they have to pay taxes here is when I will care.
31 - zingzing
"What self hating Americans need to keep in mind is, sure our election effects other countries, just like their elections effect our lives as well. That doesn't mean that they should have a say in the way we govern."
what's self-hating about paying attention to another's person's opinion of you? it may be a little insecure, but trying to improve yourself based on criticism from another does not equate to self-hate. you think us lefties hate ourselves (or our american selves, i guess)? ha. we just don't believe that we're automatically the best, just because we're american. not saying you do either, but at least one side is ready to admit its faults.
"Until we become a global utopia, let's consider our (America's) interests in context of America's interests, and do away with this nonsense of considering someone else's opinion when they have their own adgenda."
and what part of trying to get along with the rest of the globe really interferes with "america's interests?" i think that it would be quite a nice thing not to be the butt of jokes and bombs made out of airplanes. don't you?
32 - The Obnoxious American
Zing:
"Was the war handled correctly? Yes, initially."
Note, that's a typo, I meant to type "Incorrectly"
"yep, they're called "socialists." there is that fringe. there's also a fringe on the right called "white supremacists," but no one is going around saying that "i know that hard core righties still think that black people have no rights,"
I think that the number of people on the left spouting socialistic values is much higher than the number of right wing white supremists. Just look at the author of this article. Just look at Obama's platform of higher taxes and government healthcare. By the WSJ's analysis, Obama will mean a tax rate of 62% for some Americans. Some will be earning just 37 cents on each dollar. This isn't capitalism my friend.
"we're not helping the situation over there. a steady decrease in troops will alleviate some of the pressures that are causing this."
We can agree to disagree here. I think the surge has proven this point wrong.
33 - Lisa Solod Warren
why do Americans who criticize this country's policies have to be labeled self-hating? Is love it or leave it the only way? Surely not. Oh, yes, love it or leave it would be anti-intelligent and anti-informed, for sure. NOW I get it.
34 - zingzing
"By the WSJ's analysis, Obama will mean a tax rate of 62% for some Americans. Some will be earning just 37 cents on each dollar. This isn't capitalism my friend."
yeah, that'll happen. welcome to america, ever been here? no way in hell any such thing happens.
35 - The Obnoxious American
Dear sweet Lisa, Whenever people's arguments don't stand up to facts, they always bring my moniker into the equation.
"You really believe the rich get rich because they work for it? All of them? Get serious. Some do, some don't. Some middle class Americans work their asses off and don't get rich. Same for the poor. 18 million dollar bonuses for destroying a company or depleting a pension fund."
You're blurring being rich with being a criminal. Sorry if you are a middle class American working your ass off, but that doesn't mean you should have a say in what a particular company compensates it's employees. No one is saying it's ok to deplete a pension fund.
What's so entertaining about this line of reasoning is, back in the enron days, all my lefty friends swore to me that no one would go to jail, as they were all in cahootz with Bush. Guess what, they are in jail now. Wonder of wonders.
If someone breaks the law, they should go to jail. But if someone is successful, we shouldn't tax them into submission. I think that's a reasonable position. And the fact is, rich people are doing something to get there. There simply isn't a class of royalty out there. Poor people become rich, rich become poor. It's not nearly as static as you suggest. But raise taxes to be penalizing, and it might very well become much more static.
Bottom line, raising taxes does NOTHING to help the economy.
"And I notice you said nothing about McCain's continued and horrific voting record against veterans benefits. He wants to keep them fighting? Then help them out when they return."
This point is laughable and shows your lack of experience on the issue. I won't even address it. My advice, read up on John McCain, his platform, history and legislation. Don't be a sheep and take everything the dem talking points hand you.
"And, by the by. We do plenty to get rid of foreign leaders who don't suit us. Allende, Noriega, Pinochet (after they served their usefulness) and lately, Saddam. No one asked us to go in and take him down. We did it because he was a horrible man. But there a dozens of awful leaders in the world who to awful things to their people. Want to take them all out?"
If they threaten us and/or our interests, then perhaps. What's the alternative, just live with it? What's Obama's alternative exactly? I don't think there really is one. On the one hand he wants to leave Iraq, but then go into Afghanistan. Not very consistent.
And BTW, we won in afghanistan before, we will again, it won't take leaving Iraq to do it either - it's not an either or choice. That said, going to war with Iran is.
36 - The Obnoxious American
Zing,
With Obama at the helm and democratic houses, it's a real possibility. It is after all the platform that the left runs on. Why would I expect this not to happen? I am just listening to Obama and other democrats stated position. And it's scary.
To your and Lisa's points about listening to other countries, I am not saying we should reflexively act against the wishes of the rest of the world. But we should not be beholden to them either.
Look at the Kyoto protocol. We dissented and caught massive flack about it. But in the end, Bush was right. Even the Kyoto signing nations couldn't hold up their end of the deal, and the premise of Kyoto has been proven not to help the environment very much. And didnt the G8 or some world group agree recently that India and China need to be regulated the same as everyone else? Had we signed on to this, it would have been bad.
This is just one example, there are others. Sometimes we have to make choices in our interest. I agree that Bush has made these situations more difficult than tthey could have been. But spasming to the extreme opposite side of things isn't a good idea either.
In terms of hating America, neither of you can deny that there is a large contingent of Democrats who hate Bush, and feel that by extension this country needs a comuppance. I know many of these people (I live in liberal NYC remember?). Perhaps I was too strong on the rhetoric, but Obama's trip, gladhanding foreign leaders smacks of euro appeasement, as does his primary platform. So there is at least some truth in my characterization.
37 - The Obnoxious American
"Oh, yes, love it or leave it would be anti-intelligent and anti-informed, for sure. NOW I get it."
And lisa, please don't put any words in my mouth, or engage in such drivel. If you want to challenge a statement I made, then challenge it. This is just a crappy way to debate.
38 - zingzing
"With Obama at the helm and democratic houses, it's a real possibility. It is after all the platform that the left runs on. Why would I expect this not to happen? I am just listening to Obama and other democrats stated position. And it's scary."
yeah, but it's not true, and it never will be, and you know this. it's not a possibility at all. do you have a link to this wsj article?
"In terms of hating America, neither of you can deny that there is a large contingent of Democrats who hate Bush, and feel that by extension this country needs a comuppance."
hating bush does not equal hating america. i know that's not what you said, but it's nowhere even close to a logical extension. this country doesn't need to get spanked in the ass for how stupid we can be, we just need a change in direction. no one is calling out for the destruction of america. we want this country to change because we love it. if we hated it, we'd revel in its quick descent, and wouldn't say a word on the way down.
39 - Lisa Solod Warren
Then don't call me a socialist without my permission or knowing anything about me....
and please, OA, please, look up McCain's record on voting for, or rather against, veterans benefits. I DID NOT take it from Democratic talking points, my dear, never do. I do the research. I check my facts.
40 - Jordan Richardson
Poor people become rich, rich become poor. It's not nearly as static as you suggest.
And it sure as hell isn't as fluid as you infer.
41 - The Obnoxious American
Zing,
So Democrats didn't relish in the troubles relating to "Bush's War" in Iraq? Democrats don't, to this day, deny that any progress has been made? Or that at this point it might be worth trying to actually finish the job and not just leave?
Iraq is a prime example of Dems wanting to undermine this country. We all know what leaving Iraq pre-surge would have meant for this country's future.
To this day, democrats keep talking about our standing in the world, but the reality is our standing is pretty good. Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, are all for us, Putin, Jong Il, Ahmadinejad and Chavez not so much. All is as it should be.
Aside from being adored in berlin, what do you really think an Obama presidency and it's pro-euro policies would actually do to benefit this country? Be specific.
In terms of taxing, I agree, Obama wouldn't mean socialism. But he would lean there. Maybe in 20 to 30 years of high taxation, and the bad economic condition taht comes along with that, socialism would have more appeal, it would make more sense.
You see, Dem positions are a walk down the road in that direction. I am still over here excited about opportunity, and as Americans you should share my excitement, not sell if for government healthcare. (BTW, for all those that felt the Government failed in Katrina, how do you at the same time support the idea of Government Healthcare? Hmmmmm)
BTW, WSJ article here.
Lisa,
See above in terms of my comments on socialism, especially the WSJ link. Your own comments bely a hatred of capitalism, distrust of companies. I call it as I see it. I think if a company wants to pay a CEO 18 mill then that's their business. It's up to the shareholders to continue to invest. Why would the government get involved? They shouldn't. Remember, it's a free country.
The government has no place dictating to business whom they should hire and for what pay. It's up to business to decide that based on the market. Democrats support more regulation on business, and higher taxes. They support more government involvement. All of this leads eventually down the road to socialism.
I don't agree with more government involvement. Government is not the answer. Obama is not the answer. We are the answer, we have to grow up and stop asking Uncle Sam to fix everything for us. Only we as a people can do that. Change we should be believing in is an end to the nanny state.
Jordan,
I'd ask you to consider your own situation. Not knowing anything about you, I'm sure in your twenties, you were living kind of poor, and as you got older, your earning power and lifestyle improved. When you were just starting out, you would have been poor, are you richer now?
For most people it is very fluid. I started out not paying rent, being evicted and having utilities turned off. Now I eat steaks at nice restaurants. Perhaps it won't always be this way. To suggest my condition is stagnant is lying. There are many people just like me.
42 - The Obnoxious American
Oh, and Lisa, again, way off the mark on McCain supporting Vets. Perhaps he didn't vote for a Democratic sponsored bill, and perhaps there was a very good reason for that. To suggest he hates vets, just makes you sound silly.
I would suggest you read up on the various bills and why McCain voted the way he did before throwing out such inflammatory and baseless statements. Otherwise, it's your own integrity that is in question.
43 - Dave Nalle
Lisa:
You might want to look up McCain's voting record and statements on veterans issues. McCain has only voted against three veterans related bills in his current term, and all of those were bills which basically disguised massive tax increases as veterans programs. The program improvements themselves largely survived without the tax increases, as part of the Defense Appropraitions Bill for that year, which McCain supported.
Saying that he voted against Veterans is incredibly deceptive, when the bills he voted against were unnecessary, highly partisan, violated the Senate's established budget rules and had no chance of passing, and when he has supported the largest increase in veterans benefits and soldier pay in our history under the Bush administration.
Dave
44 - Clavos
And it sure as hell isn't as fluid as you infer.
How do you know what he infers?
45 - Jordan Richardson
I'd ask you to consider your own situation. Not knowing anything about you, I'm sure in your twenties, you were living kind of poor, and as you got older, your earning power and lifestyle improved. When you were just starting out, you would have been poor, are you richer now?
It's pretty much been the same all along, really. My economic situation hasn't changed all that much. Of course, I got married and "left the nest" in one swoop of it, so having two incomes right off the bat certainly helped matters.
For most people it is very fluid. I started out not paying rent, being evicted and having utilities turned off. Now I eat steaks at nice restaurants. Perhaps it won't always be this way. To suggest my condition is stagnant is lying. There are many people just like me.
And there are many people who will never know your "steaks at nice restaurants." Besides which, it seems to me that your definition of "rich" is a little interesting. How would you define "rich?" Clarifying this point may help clarifying your actual philosophy, as in taxation of the very wealthy, we're talking people in the "hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and more" bracket. To me, that's rich. Simply eating steaks in nice restaurants doesn't necessarily mean someone is rich.
How do you know what he infers?
Lucky guess?
46 - Lisa Solod Warren
OA, the word is spelled belie, and it means to picture falsely-- so if my comments belie a hatred of capitalism, well then that means just the opposite of what I think you meant.
I don't hate corporations at all. When they do right by their workers and don't lie, cheat and steal, then they do good things and good for the country. When, like Countrywide, for one example, they get greedy and stupid, and cause a huge market disruption, then, no, they aren't doing any good. Or like Bear Stearns, who got a GOVERNMENT bailout, well, what does that say? I believe that if companies were well regulated and were subject to respectable business practices, then we would all be better off. States can do it if you would rather; I have no problem with that. But someone needs to pay attention. It would be lovely if people were good and kind and played by the rules (like my father, a super capitalist who never took advantage of the people who worked for him and so never needed a union to tell him how to behave --surprise, surprise!--but who also has voted as a Democrat his whole life) but too many people don't. I have no problem with people making money, lots of it, if they do good work and don't take advantage of those who help them do the work, but the huge discrepancy between the bosses with their gold parachutes and the workers whose pension funds get looted or who lose their jobs because of corporate malfeasance....shouldn't we as a country guarantee that people at least try and play fair?
Sure, some of the bad guys are now in jail, but how fair is it that they get a couple of years in a country club prison while a drug USER gets ten to twenty in maximum security. I believe that one can be a free market capitalist and still invest in fair business practices, fair law enforcement, and fair opportunity for all. I also believe that giving people benefits like health insurance is a no-brainer, and that just because someone does not work for a big corporation they should not have to forgo healthcare. It is much cheaper to pay for wellness than it is for sickness, much cheaper in the long run to take care of kids while they are babies, then pay for what happens to them later. I believe in just and kind capitalism.
But we are a long way from the topic I wrote about, which was the way in which the press viewed Obama's trip and what it meant.
And as for McCain and the vets. Never said he hated them. But the institutional support for the men and women fighting and being wounded by this unfounded war is just not there. I personally know of several soldiers who are on their third tour and I also listen to those who have returned wounded of heart and mind, as well as body, and it breaks my heart. His recent vote against increased veterans benefits made no sense.
47 - Clavos
How do you know what he infers?
Lucky guess?
Wrong answer. You don't know what he infers; he hasn't said.
48 - Jordan Richardson
Obnox., I'm wondering how you feel about corporate bailouts from the federal government. Surely there is value for the government to keep the mega-corporations afloat and, as such, government intervention can be good for the overall economy. The federal government, therefore, relies on the taxpayers to supply support for the company via allocated federal taxes or foreign debt or whatever, giving Joe and Jim American the opportunity to support their favourite company and prevent it from going on.
This type of governmental intervention happens all the time and it falls under the subjective precedent that to allow these giants to fall would lead to economic turmoil. So, essentially, we need to keep the rich wealthy and, in fact, loosen things up to allow them to get wealthier.
Surely you oppose this type of thing and would rather companies have the ability to stand on their own two feet without taxpayer help with fortunes simply built by "hard work" and not tax breaks or bailouts or legal manipulation. A good company should be able to succeed, "get rich," and continue to acquire wealth without violating federal law, without needing federal handouts, without federal loans, without bailouts, without breaking environmental regulations, and without taking shortcuts that betray the public trust. But that's not how it works with the majority of American corporations. Changing their status to that of a "person" was the beginning of such a process. So there's a reason that rich corporations continue to get rich and it isn't necessarily because they've all worked hard to get there. You say there's no problem if a company wants to pay its CEO billions, but isn't there a problem if those billions come as a result of breaking the law, using shortcuts, and using government assistance?
49 - Jordan Richardson
Alright Clav, I don't know what he inferred. I apologize.
50 - Lisa Solod Warren
5/2008: McCain voted AGAINST the Webb GI Bill.
9/2007: McCain voted AGAINST bill to minimize periods of time between deployment of units sent to Iraq.
5/2006: McCain voted AGAINST $20 Million to VA for health care facilities.
4/2006: McCain voted AGAINST $430,000,000 to VA for Medical Services.
3/2006: McCain voted AGAINST increasing Vet-medical services $1.5 billion in FY2007.
3/2004: McCain voted AGAINST increasing Vet-medical care by $1.8 billion.
10/2003: McCain voted to TABLE an amendment for $322,000,000 for safety equipment for USforces. "Table"= vote never hits floor.
10/2003: McCain voted to TABLE a vote for $1 Billion for National Guard and Reserve Equipment in Iraq dueto:shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, & tactical vests.
51 - Condor
Okay Lisa a bit of history.
Watkins Glen in 1972 with The Grateful Dead, Allman Brothers, and The Band had the largest recorded crowd in the history of rock events. Over 600,000. That was the biggest. And perhaps the last of it's kind.
What killed the large concert crowds was logistics, as in sound systems, facilities, medical, police etc... and crowd control. The Dead still brought in fairly large numbers into the early 90's but scaled back over time due to the enormous pressure the band felt towards the vast problems associated with mega audiences and the need to ensure that terrible accidents didn't occur and these venues.
52 - Dave Nalle
Lisa, the way those URLs are formatted BC probably wouldn't block them, since they aren't set up as proper links and don't work and screw up the page format.
[Lisa, for the convenience of our readers I amalgamated the URLs Dave is talking about into a single comment and converted them into clickable links. You might want to properly format your URLs thus in future. If you don't know how to do that, try this little tutorial.
Sorry to interrupt, Dave. Carry on.
ASSISTANT COMMENTS EDITOR]
And while I appreciate the effort to post the links, but I already looked at most of them, and the votes are hardly the whole story. Did you READ the actual bills? Did you look at who sponsored them and what they actually did in addition to the stated purpose - which you can never really trust? Get the facts and don't believe the smears.
Dave
53 - zingzing
"So Democrats didn't relish in the troubles relating to "Bush's War" in Iraq? Democrats don't, to this day, deny that any progress has been made? Or that at this point it might be worth trying to actually finish the job and not just leave?"
no, we didn't enjoy watching fellow americans dying for your side's stupidity. of course progess has been made, but short of civil war, where the fuck was this thing going? we're still creating new terrorists that hate us and new problems for iraq. the damn place is a mess. yes, it is worth it to "finish the job," but maybe the best thing is to back away and let them actually get to work. if you had someone serving you dinner every night, would you ever learn how to cook? for fuck's sake.
"Iraq is a prime example of Dems wanting to undermine this country. We all know what leaving Iraq pre-surge would have meant for this country's future."
iraq is a prime example of republicans undermining this country. you fucked iraq up, you fucked up america's economy by blowing shitloads of cash over there and you fucked up america's image overseas by letting us become fucking warmongers. jesus. leaving iraq pre-surge wouldn't have mattered diddly-fuck if we had never fucking gone there in the first place.
"To this day, democrats keep talking about our standing in the world, but the reality is our standing is pretty good. Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, are all for us, Putin, Jong Il, Ahmadinejad and Chavez not so much. All is as it should be."
yeah, right, right, right. look at it. a lot of people who should be on our side (and not just grudgingly because their economies are linked to ours) are not, because we have a totally fucked foreign policy. things are NOT as they should be. take a look at the world.
"Aside from being adored in berlin, what do you really think an Obama presidency and it's pro-euro policies would actually do to benefit this country? Be specific."
i don't fucking know what's going to happen in the future. i think europe would be a lot happier with us and would support us in what will probably be policies that they can agree with. they'd be a whole lot more likely to sit at the table and not snicker. what's really all that wrong with having europe on our side. they are a powerful ally.
"In terms of taxing, I agree, Obama wouldn't mean socialism. But he would lean there. Maybe in 20 to 30 years of high taxation, and the bad economic condition taht comes along with that, socialism would have more appeal, it would make more sense. "
yeah, but 62%? we're in a bad economic situation now. it's certainly looking grim. and this after bush's tax cuts. i'm not for high taxes either. i hate the amount of taxes that are taken out of my paycheck already. but you know what? that doesn't change much under either side. i've never noticed a bit of difference in my time earning a wage and paying taxes. the government is going to pay for itself, and in ridiculous terms. do you think reagan's arms buildup came cheaply? how'd he get the money?
"You see, Dem positions are a walk down the road in that direction. I am still over here excited about opportunity, and as Americans you should share my excitement, not sell if for government healthcare. (BTW, for all those that felt the Government failed in Katrina, how do you at the same time support the idea of Government Healthcare? Hmmmmm)"
a walk down what road? the same shit-covered path we're on now? our economy is tanking, our military is stretched too thin, our rights are being shaved off... shit. what opportunity do you see down the current path? really?
the government failed in louisiana because bush appointed his drinking buddies to high paying positions and ignored all the warning signs. i don't particularly trust the government to do a good job with health insurance either, but when you pay $180/month for shitty, shitty health insurance, you really stop and think, "how can it be worse?"
"BTW, WSJ article here."
i'll check it out.
peace.
54 - Clavos
Well said, Dave.
There have been good and sufficient reasons for each and every one of McCain's perceived "anti" vet/military votes, but you do have to dig down to find them.
For example, his most recent vote "against" was cast to prevent benefits so enticing they would encourage service people not to re-enlist, a critical consideration when you have an all-volunteer military.
The practice we should be following is the one we had in the Vietnam era, when substantial re-enlistment bonuses were offered to those with critical skills.
And I say this as a vet who has received VA benefits and health care for more than 30 years.
55 - zingzing
hey clavos, how come you took off after i pointed out that you don't want guns for the reasons the 2nd amendment was written? hmm?
56 - Clavos
Mere coincidence, son. The whole thing began to bore me, and I went to get something to eat, then sat down to read for a bit.
Just today, a storekeeper here in Miami blew away a putative holdup artist in his store with a 9MM. The storekeeper, who isn't even an American, made a point of telling the news reporter interviewing him that he was glad for the right to be armed in his store, and will cheerfully blow away the next guy who tries to hold him up.
It occurs to me that the bad guys should put chalk marks on the stores, indicating to each other which ones are likely to result in their being holed, sort of like the system the hobos had of marking the houses they panhandled in days of yore.
But most bad guys are too stupid for that.
57 - zingzing
yeah, you ignored the 40+ murders that happened today, but latched onto the guy who killed a man for trying to take some of his money. good job, mr. storekeeper! hope you sleep well!
58 - zingzing
and don't call me son, pappy.
oh, pappy... you can call me son.
59 - Jordan Richardson
It's good to see that the world hasn't gone completely senseless and that individuals aren't completely desensitized to violent acts that there are still some that see the gleeful shooting of a robber as, at the very least, problematic.
I can tell you this, and you'll probably find me pretty fucking strange, but should someone enter my house and present no threat to me physically but rather simply want my large television, I won't be trying to kill him or her. To me, call me self-righteous because Jesus knows I am, there's simply no situation beyond self-defense, defense of my wife and future children, or defense of the innocent that will provoke me to use a firearm on another human being. No amount of money, chocolate bars, or flatscreens will change my mind about that.
Sorry!
60 - Clavos
good job, mr. storekeeper! hope you sleep well!
I'm sure he will, as would I, secure in the knowledge that he gets to sleep in his bed tonight, instead of lying on a slab in a morgue.
Would you prefer he stand meekly by and let them rob him? Possibly be killed in the process? Talk about fucked up!
Also today in Miami, another (unarmed) store clerk was killed during a robbery, and a cab driver (also unarmed) was also killed during a robbery. So, three holdups, three dead; two of them innocent, law abiding citizens. The only survivor was the armed good guy.
As for the 40+ murders: the vast majority of those are bad guy on bad guy, and will happen even if by some miracle, you could take all their guns away (like the gangbangers and drug dealers are going to let you).
61 - zingzing
if the vast majority of them are bad guy on bad guy, why did two good guys get killed today in one relatively mid-sized american city?
62 - Clavos
Because they were unarmed.
What part of "majority" don't you understand?
63 - Jordan Richardson
Clavos, I can be shot walking down my street to get the mail. I can be shot walking my dog. I can be shot going to the movies. I can be shot eating dinner out. I can be shot going to the mall. I can be shot going to visit my parents. I could have been shot at school. I could have been shot at church.
Is the lesson here that the reason I could be shot is because I'm unarmed? Should I, therefore for my own safety, always be armed, gun under my pillow and all that crap? Moreover, are you always armed? Does it make you feel safer if you are or does it simply make you feel like something always could happen?
64 - Clavos
No, I'm not always armed; in fact all my weapons are long guns, I don't even own a pistol or revolver. If I were a shopkeeper or cab driver (or other high risk worker), I probably would, and yes, would probably have it within reach at all times while working.
Is the lesson here that the reason I could be shot is because I'm unarmed?
In the context of the two zing was asking about: yes.
What's your point?
65 - Jordan Richardson
Point is simply a curiosity, Clavos.
I do think that it's a little erroneous to say that the reason they were shot is because they were unarmed. The reason they were shot is because someone shot them. They could have gotten shot even if they were armed and more people could have gotten shot or killed had a full-scale gunfight erupted.
It's interesting. Today in Canada we had a guy stabbed and decapitated on a Greyhound bus in Manitoba. It makes me wonder how someone having a gun on the bus would have altered that situation.
66 - zingzing
"Because they were unarmed. What part of "majority" don't you understand?"
ahh, but see, that's not the point. and even if a majority of murders are gang-related, there's still 2 dead people in miami who were innocent. they didn't die because they were unarmed, they died because SOMEONE SHOT THEM.
i'm sure there are a lot of gang-related murders. but there are also a lot of other murders. many, many more than there should be.
are you armed all the time?
67 - Clavos
The reason they were shot is because someone shot them.
That's circular, and a fallacy.
The reason they were shot was because they were in possession of something (money) which their armed assailants wanted. Had they been armed, it's true that a gunfight might have erupted and innocent bystanders killed or injured, but maybe not. We don't know the circumstances; if these were one-on-one crimes (likely, especially in the case of the cab driver), the outcomes could have been resolved with only the perps dead, as was the case in the third incident in Miami yesterday.
Today in Canada we had a guy stabbed and decapitated on a Greyhound bus in Manitoba.
Oh my. A homicide with no gun involved.
68 - Jordan Richardson
Clavos, you're awfully defensive. I didn't post the link or discuss the story for the purposes of making a point. I'm asking questions because I'm legitimately interested in the answers. I know that's hard to believe, but I'm trying to learn from this discussion, not just simply make a point.
And explain to me how it's not equally circular and fallacious to infer that the reason the individuals were shot is because they were unarmed? How is that more logically justified in your mind? You say yourself "we don't know the circumstances," so isn't it actually more logically sound to suggest that they were shot because someone shot them rather than to suggest they were shot because they didn't were unarmed?
Again, not trying to make a point. Simply trying to understand.
69 - Jordan Richardson
didn't were unarmed
Woops! That should simply read "were unarmed."
Also, I'll repeat my curiosity: I'm wondering how the Greyhound situation would have changed had someone on the bus been carrying a gun. Certainly any answers would be highly speculative, but would the situation have been safer? Could it have been avoided altogether? It's interesting to ponder how people act in the "heat of the moment," so to speak.
70 - Clavos
I take your point about the circularity of saying they were shot because they were unarmed; they were shot, as I said before, because their assailants wanted something (probably money) that they had.
Disarming the entire American population will not happen. Even if the 2nd Amendment is repealed, keeping anything away from Americans is impossible, as we learned during Prohibition; in large part because of the freedoms we enjoy, which curtail the authorities' ability to seek out and confiscate property.
Perhaps it's our Wild West heritage, I don't know, but we are a violent people, the statistics bear this out. The easy availability of guns makes them the preferred weapon, but as your incident in Manitoba suggests, the lack of a gun at hand will not prevent violence and death.
So, my contention is that prohibition, besides being unconstitutional, will not work. I believe, if we want to control the US homicide rate, we will have to come up with an alternative solution to the problem of gun homicide; one possibility is more draconian punishments for homicides, especially those that occur during the commission of another crime, or while armed.
We could try life sentences without parole. That won't stop the killers, but eventually, at least, they will be contained, and will only be able to prey on each other.
71 - Jordan Richardson
I wouldn't imagine taking guns away from Americans or anyone else for that matter. It is an inherent right that has been relentlessly abused by a populace so crippled with fear, paranoia, and conceptions of flawed heroism that it is relatively easy to argue the purpose of such a right in modern America. It is likely true that the Founding Fathers would deplore the heights to which the Right to Bear Arms has been taken, though. Most people would, at the very least, have to concede that things have gotten way out of hand in that respect.
I guess it all comes back to the question of whether violence leads to more violence or whether violence stops more violence from occurring. Is a heavily armed society safer than a society in which a few are armed? Does the constant saturation of a "gun culture" create less violent imagery or does it contribute to more violent imagery? And should a country with an obviously violent history and an obviously violent present have the "freedom" to own handguns and military-grade weaponry? Or should they have their toys taken away for while they learn to behave?
In a land where Hollywood movies have influenced the idea of self-defense to suggest that the average citizen can, heavily armed, overtake any threat he or she should come across in a blaze of glory, should guns really be so readily available or should we take care to note that the tightest of regulations are applied to gun ownership?
I'm tired of hearing about America's love affair with guns, hearing jokes about how Canadians are "unarmed Americans with health care," and hearing about people desperately holding on to their Second Amendment rights while forsaking all the others. When will America take a leadership role and acknowledge its violent history and violent present with action that makes a difference? It's about changing a violent culture, sure, but is celebrating the freedom of being able to carry a gun in a public park really something remarkable?
72 - zingzing
hmm. here's a question. a couple actually. are bullets that hard to make? what if we just stopped making bullets? people who have little reason to fire their guns would still have bullets, while those who use guns for the wrong reasons (or very often) would run out very quickly.
make the bullets illegal to ship or move across international borders.
you couldn't go hunting very often (which would save cute fuzzies), and you couldn't go to the range too often (whatever), and criminals would have to think long and hard about using guns for crime.
i'm sure there's going to be major problems with this.
73 - Jordan Richardson
Or just go with Chris Rock's advice.
74 - Dave Nalle
I guess it all comes back to the question of whether violence leads to more violence or whether violence stops more violence from occurring.
This is the basic problem in your reasoning which makes all that follows pure nonsense.
Guns are not violence. Guns do not create violence. Guns are merely a tool which can be used in the commission of a violent act or to prevent a violent act. The violence originates with the people and the gun can be used in either a positive or a negative way.
And if criminals have guns - and we have no way to stop them from getting them - then the only way to counter that is with private gun ownership for self-protection.
As for the founding fathers, many of them made specific statements on private gun ownership which indicate clearly that they would NOT be troubled by the current level of private gun ownership, but would see it as an appropriate response to the current level of crime.
Dave
75 - zingzing
dave: "Guns do not create violence."