Vote for President

[Pooh & Annie]

If Clinton wins the election I'll be disappointed in our crony system of government because she broke the law in her handling of top secret e mails. Instead of getting community service and a reprimand she gets the Presidency and the White House.

http://nypost.com/2015/09/27/yes-hillary-clinton-broke-the-law/

There is nothing outrageous there. When they find something that put a single person or dangerous secret at risk, people will listen. Until then, like everything else they've nickel and dimed her for over the last 25 years, it won't stick. And it shouldn't.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[NOsaintsfan]

There is nothing outrageous there. When they find something that put a single person or dangerous secret at risk, people will listen. Until then, like everything else they've nickel and dimed her for over the last 25 years, it won't stick. And it shouldn't.

By using a private server to conduct official business she flat out broke the law. Furthermore as the Secretary of State she sent classified information over an unsecured server. Someone in that position should not only know how to handle classified material they should be setting the tone by which the rest of the department conducts classified communication.

This doesn't concern you? Forget the fact that if I did it I would be in prison, you think she deserves to be responsible for the most sensitive material our government produces as any president would be?

 

[Planktonmd]

In order for this country to have any chance at competing on the international level and regaining some of it's lost glory we have to focus on one thing: Education! By improving education we rebuild the middle class and we improve the economy, otherwise we are doomed!
How can a presidential candidate who refuses science and says that climate change is religion be the one who we need to build a more educated society?
How can you believe in fairy tales and survive in 21st century???

 

[deleted171991]

Nobody is interested in educating people. Educated people make educated decisions, and are much more difficult to manipulate. That's why neither party has made significant strides, and that's why American K-12 education is a joke.

There are no vocational schools, which should replace 60% of the college track (oops, a certain industry would not make billions anymore from giving graduates semi-worthless degrees for tens of thousands of dollars). Add to this the religious and social sciences tilt (when all advanced education systems have a very strong component of natural sciences), and it's the perfect recipe to raise hugely indebted know-nothing whiners (yes, that my opinion about ME-llenials).

Basically American K-12 is an extended kindergarten, and colleges are mostly just high schools for adults. I graduated high school 20+ years ago, and I still learned more math and physics than what they teach nowadays in most American colleges. A famous medical school I know uses a pass/fail system for exams, and basically everybody passes. Let's not speak about the way children are raised, as if life were (special) Olympics, where just participating makes everybody a "winner".

Just look at Korea, or other Asian countries... Politicians know this very well, they just have zero interest in the nation's future; they are only interested in the present (votes).

 

[PainDrain]

Not to diverge from the subject to far but in regard to climate change and denialism. I recently had a conversation with a relative who is a conservative and a climate change denier. I noted that conversations with this type of person typically follow a standard pattern. First they deny the climate is changing. Then after being presented with evidence that it is changing the narrative becomes "it has been changing for thousands of years". When presented with the overwhelming evidence that the climate has change more rapidly in the last 100 years than in the last 1000 years the narrative becomes the scientists are making this up to keep their jobs. Like scientists make such a killing in the climate science biz that they are fabricating the evidence to pay for their 3rd and 4th homes and that new Ferrari in the driveway. When pointed out that 99% of scientists agree the climate is changing and man is likely the culprit the narrative then changed to "so what if it is getting warmer?". Also when pointing out that the most vocal of climate deniers have little scientific background and tend to have direct ties to the petroleum industry there is little thought given to how this could possibly be a propaganda campaign. There is very little concern over the fact this is the ONLY planet with life and we are basically killing ourselves. At the end of the conversation it typically degrades to the "it's so expensive and China isn't changing" and "India isn't changing. By this point in the conversation when pointing out that China will likely suffer issues in the coming years with cities and massive areas that are uninhabitable due to pollution it becomes another "so what" statement.

I find the conversations exhausting and there is little concern for the coming generations who may not be able to survive this mess.

 

[NOsaintsfan]

Not to diverge from the subject to far but in regard to climate change and denialism. I recently had a conversation with a relative who is a conservative and a climate change denier. I noted that conversations with this type of person typically follow a standard pattern. First they deny the climate is changing. Then after being presented with evidence that it is changing the narrative becomes "it has been changing for thousands of years". When presented with the overwhelming evidence that the climate has change more rapidly in the last 100 years than in the last 1000 years the narrative becomes the scientists are making this up to keep their jobs. Like scientists make such a killing in the climate science biz that they are fabricating the evidence to pay for their 3rd and 4th homes and that new Ferrari in the driveway. When pointed out that 99% of scientists agree the climate is changing and man is likely the culprit the narrative then changed to "so what if it is getting warmer?". Also when pointing out that the most vocal of climate deniers have little scientific background and tend to have direct ties to the petroleum industry there is little thought given to how this could possibly be a propaganda campaign. There is very little concern over the fact this is the ONLY planet with life and we are basically killing ourselves. At the end of the conversation it typically degrades to the "it's so expensive and China isn't changing" and "India isn't changing. By this point in the conversation when pointing out that China will likely suffer issues in the coming years with cities and massive areas that are uninhabitable due to pollution it becomes another "so what" statement.

I find the conversations exhausting and there is little concern for the coming generations who may not be able to survive this mess.

The reason so many people doubt that climate change is being driven by man is because plenty of things are out there that casts doubt upon it. For example:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...cientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

That's only a couple of articles but many more exist.

I'm not trying to debate the one way or another I just want to point out that there are reasons that people doubt man driven climate change. It's not simply because people are stupid.

The fact that climate change supporters proclaim that the issue is "settled" and that "all science is conclusive" makes some people skeptical. Climate change may be man made but the way supporters come across is a little cult like and gives some people pause.

Don't just dismiss people who are skeptical as stupid.

 

[Man o War]

Nobody is interested in educating people. Educated people make educated decisions, and are much more difficult to manipulate. That's why neither party has made significant strides, and that's why American K-12 education is a joke.

There are no vocational schools, which should replace 60% of the college track (oops, a certain industry would not make billions anymore from giving graduates semi-worthless degrees for tens of thousands of dollars). Add to this the religious and social sciences tilt (when all advanced education systems have a very strong component of natural sciences), and it's the perfect recipe to raise hugely indebted know-nothing whiners (yes, that my opinion about ME-llenials).

Basically American K-12 is an extended kindergarten, and colleges are mostly just high schools for adults. I graduated high school 20+ years ago, and I still learned more math and physics than what they teach nowadays in most American colleges. A famous medical school I know uses a pass/fail system for exams, and basically everybody passes. Let's not speak about the way children are raised, as if life were (special) Olympics, where just participating makes everybody a "winner".

Just look at Korea, or other Asian countries... Politicians know this very well, they just have zero interest in the nation's future; they are only interested in the present (votes).

Agree, agree, agree. Great post.

 

[PainDrain]

The reason so many people doubt that climate change is being driven by man is because plenty of things are out there that casts doubt upon it. For example:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...cientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

That's only a couple of articles but many more exist.

I'm not trying to debate the one way or another I just want to point out that there are reasons that people doubt man driven climate change. It's not simply because people are stupid.

The fact that climate change supporters proclaim that the issue is "settled" and that "all science is conclusive" makes some people skeptical. Climate change may be man made but the way supporters come across is a little cult like and gives some people pause.

Don't just dismiss people who are skeptical as stupid.

NOsaintfan you are doing exactly as I stated above.

Again, look at your source. The articles you cite are from an economist/lawyer who works for s think tank funded by the petroleum industry. Heartland has been caught literally, due to leaked documents, funding a network designed for the purpose of undermining science. If you look at his claims of calling out the 97% figure it's actually fairly superficial and Taylor mentions a handful of papers out of a 1200 paper sample size. So what, maybe the figure is 90% or maybe it's closer to 99%. From this stance one can also argue that there are "scientists" out there who argue for intelligent design but that the vast majority of scientists support evolutionary theory. Does that mean when looking at the overwhelming evidence evolution is BS? Same could be applied to climate change. There is an "all or nothing" theory when examining the evidence in the denial crowd. It's either all of the evidence shows its man made or it isn't and we shouldn't make any changes in our lifestyle unless it's absolute.

 

[NOsaintsfan]

NOsaintfan you are doing exactly as I stated above.

Again, look at your source. The articles you cite are from an economist/lawyer who works for s think tank funded by the petroleum industry. Heartland has been caught literally, due to leaked documents, funding a network designed for the purpose of undermining science. If you look at his claims of calling out the 97% figure it's actually fairly superficial and Taylor mentions a handful of papers out of a 1200 paper sample size. So what, maybe the figure is 90% or maybe it's closer to 99%. From this stance one can also argue that there are "scientists" out there who argue for intelligent design but that the vast majority of scientists support evolutionary theory. Does that mean when looking at the overwhelming evidence evolution is BS? Same could be applied to climate change. There is an "all or nothing" theory when examining the evidence in the denial crowd. It's either all of the evidence shows its man made or it isn't and we shouldn't make any changes in our lifestyle unless it's absolute.

I wasn't arguing for or against man driven global warming. I was pointing out that their is plenty of material available to make people skeptical. Do a simple google search and tons of stuff comes up.

Most people only pay attention to headlines, many headlines doubt the validity of the global warming research.

 

[NOsaintsfan]

NOsaintfan you are doing exactly as I stated above.

Again, look at your source. The articles you cite are from an economist/lawyer who works for s think tank funded by the petroleum industry. Heartland has been caught literally, due to leaked documents, funding a network designed for the purpose of undermining science. If you look at his claims of calling out the 97% figure it's actually fairly superficial and Taylor mentions a handful of papers out of a 1200 paper sample size. So what, maybe the figure is 90% or maybe it's closer to 99%. From this stance one can also argue that there are "scientists" out there who argue for intelligent design but that the vast majority of scientists support evolutionary theory. Does that mean when looking at the overwhelming evidence evolution is BS? Same could be applied to climate change. There is an "all or nothing" theory when examining the evidence in the denial crowd. It's either all of the evidence shows its man made or it isn't and we shouldn't make any changes in our lifestyle unless it's absolute.

As an aside, common sense will tell you what we're doing to the environment and planet is not a good thing.

I think the real differences of opinion come down to what do you do about it and how aggressive we should be. There's no denying that some of the things called for would have drastic negative effects on the economy and our overall way of life.

All that said if the environment goes to crap were all in big trouble.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

By using a private server to conduct official business she flat out broke the law. Furthermore as the Secretary of State she sent classified information over an unsecured server. Someone in that position should not only know how to handle classified material they should be setting the tone by which the rest of the department conducts classified communication.

This doesn't concern you? Forget the fact that if I did it I would be in prison, you think she deserves to be responsible for the most sensitive material our government produces as any president would be?

1) In prison for what? There is evidence of her knowingly sending top secret, potentially dangerous info over an unprotected account? I'd like to hear it.
2) She's not a techy. And she's in her 60s dealing with a newer technology of which her techy advisors told her was ok to set up at home, especially considering that the guy who developed the system (Colin Powell), set the precedent of using a private server to email state dept folks, ambassadors, foreign dignitaries, etc. With everything on her plate you expect her to overrule her advisors and precedent and say "hey I don't know $hit about any of this and no one has told me it's wrong and I'm not planning on sending confidential info but let's not do it."
And again, where is the evidence that she knowingly put dangerous, secret info at risk of being discovered?

I've NEVER liked her. I've always considered her to be an opportunist who uninvitedly got involved in politics during her husband's presidency. But if it's not Bernie, her politics/philosophies are most in line with mine. I find myself defending her more and more often when I see the weak attempts at painting her as a dangerous felon. She's been profoundly hated by a LOT of powerful people for 25 years now, yet despite her 25 years under a very public microscope, all I've seen is a lot of nickel-and-diming.

 

[PainDrain]

I wasn't arguing for or against man driven global warming. I was pointing out that their is plenty of material available to make people skeptical. Do a simple google search and tons of stuff comes up.

Most people only pay attention to headlines, many headlines doubt the validity of the global warming research.

As an aside, common sense will tell you what we're doing to the environment and planet is not a good thing.

I think the real differences of opinion come down to what do you do about it and how aggressive we should be. There's no denying that some of the things called for would have drastic negative effects on the economy and our overall way of life.

All that said if the environment goes to crap were all in big trouble.

I completely agree that there is a lot of "chatter" with regards to climate change denial, but another piece of my argument is that if you seriously look at the vast majority of the skeptical voices they have dubious qualifications (economists, libertarian political operatives) and clear conflicts of interest. They use the same strategy that the tobacco industry used by creating an echo chamber of false and misleading talking points. Many of the same think tanks that are now vocal climate change opponents started out putting out policy statements and claims about tobacco and its health effects. The Heartland Intitute is a perfect example. They previously did work for big tobacco. These are not true think tanks, they are propaganda machines.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

As an aside, common sense will tell you what we're doing to the environment and planet is not a good thing.

I think the real differences of opinion come down to what do you do about it and how aggressive we should be. There's no denying that some of the things called for would have drastic negative effects on the economy and our overall way of life.

All that said if the environment goes to crap were all in big trouble.

I'm convinced that in the not very distant future, the legacies of all the current politicians/pundits will come down to whether they took steps to curb our damage to the planet, or ridiculed the idea like many on the right. If environmental changes continue to head in a catastrophic direction, Fox News dicks who bragged about buying more SUVs and reveled in their production of waste will be remembered as scourges to humanity. And yes, I know in the long run, it matters little unless India and China don't get on board.

 

[Random Anesthesiologist]

NOsaintfan you are doing exactly as I stated above.

Again, look at your source. The articles you cite are from an economist/lawyer who works for s think tank funded by the petroleum industry. Heartland has been caught literally, due to leaked documents, funding a network designed for the purpose of undermining science. If you look at his claims of calling out the 97% figure it's actually fairly superficial and Taylor mentions a handful of papers out of a 1200 paper sample size. So what, maybe the figure is 90% or maybe it's closer to 99%. From this stance one can also argue that there are "scientists" out there who argue for intelligent design but that the vast majority of scientists support evolutionary theory. Does that mean when looking at the overwhelming evidence evolution is BS? Same could be applied to climate change. There is an "all or nothing" theory when examining the evidence in the denial crowd. It's either all of the evidence shows its man made or it isn't and we shouldn't make any changes in our lifestyle unless it's absolute.

And then you have the global warming legislators who stand to benefit from CO2 "credit" purchase. Talk about your conflict of interest, yet skepticism is frowned upon? There are prominent people in that industry who have spoken out about the quality of research being done and the legit question of climate change source.

Why is it when Andrew Wakefield was exposed as a fraud, it was accepted by the scientific community, but when climate change data is exposed as fraudulent, the skeptics are berated even more? Also, in science, nothing is truly ever "settled". That's the beauty of science.

 

[Planktonmd]

I mean let's assume that the evidence is not 100% in favor of the notion that we are currently taking this planet towards disaster, although I think it is, can we agree that there is a distinct chance that this theory might be right? And if the choice is either do nothing or take preventive measures... wouldn't it be stupid if we did nothing and it turned out we indeed destroyed the planet???
And isn't it frightening to some of you that someone who is trying to become the leader of this country can say : "climate change is religion not science" ON PUBLIC TV???

 

[Nathanimalable]

You mean like Trump handled his company that has declared bankruptcy and reorganized its debt 4 times?
Or how he would be much more rich if he never started his company and just invested his money? (http://www.moneytalksnews.com/why-youre-probably-better-investing-than-donald-trump/)

Not trying to single you out, but I just don't understand the mindset that "he's a businessman so he'll fix the economy, which is relatively "fixed" anyways (http://thehill.com/policy/finance/2...conomy-better-now-than-when-obama-took-office)

Dang I didn't know that. I need to do some more research!

 

[PainDrain]

And then you have the global warming legislators who stand to benefit from CO2 "credit" purchase. Talk about your conflict of interest, yet skepticism is frowned upon? There are prominent people in that industry who have spoken out about the quality of research being done and the legit question of climate change source.

Why is it when Andrew Wakefield was exposed as a fraud, it was accepted by the scientific community, but when climate change data is exposed as fraudulent, the skeptics are berated even more? Also, in science, nothing is truly ever "settled". That's the beauty of science.

You apparently have read the talking points of the denial crowd. "Senators are pushing this to make money"..... Where is the proof? Better yet, how about James Inhofe or Scott Walker who literally owe their careers to the petroleum industry? I find far greater and stronger links between the vocal deniers and the petroleum industry than those pushing for anti-global warming measures and some supposed carbon exchange (that doesn't even F-ing exist at this point).

And where is this rampant climate change fraud? The "hockey stick" model debate was eventually shown, after repeated attempts to discredit it, to be largely accurate. The "email controversy" was nothing but bullshT as well, but it's now considered part of the conspiracy.

 

[Vergie]

Rand Paul or bust. The only one who can cohesively put together a rational argument. Hopefully he can pull a good showing out of his ass in Iowa and get a much needed boost.

 

[RapSeqInt]

Rand Paul or bust. The only one who can cohesively put together a rational argument. Hopefully he can pull a good showing out of his ass in Iowa and get a much needed boost.

Interesting read on him today. Really sad, too. I liked what he represented before he tried pandering to the GOP masses. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/30/what-went-wrong-with-rand-paul.html

 

[Ronin786]

Not a Trump fan, and regardless of the polls, I doubt when voters (not poll answerers) actually get in the voting booth, they're not voting for Trump.
And neither was Obama, but we see how that worked out.

It truly amazes me than anyone would even consider voting for Hillary - there's not a single positive thing anyone can say about her.

At this point in time, her only positive is that she's not Donald Trump.

That said, his making a farce of the entire GOP isn't helping anybody else in their run against Clinton.

 

[Psai]

The reason so many people doubt that climate change is being driven by man is because plenty of things are out there that casts doubt upon it. For example:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...cientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

That's only a couple of articles but many more exist.

I'm not trying to debate the one way or another I just want to point out that there are reasons that people doubt man driven climate change. It's not simply because people are stupid.

The fact that climate change supporters proclaim that the issue is "settled" and that "all science is conclusive" makes some people skeptical. Climate change may be man made but the way supporters come across is a little cult like and gives some people pause.

Don't just dismiss people who are skeptical as stupid.

You posted two forbes articles written by the same person who is a lawyer, not a scientist. Are you kidding me? The vast majority of actual scientists who actually study climate change are in agreement that the globe is warming significantly and that human activity is playing a huge role. It's not a cult, it's like saying there's no proof for gravity or that the earth being round is just a theory.

 

[PainDrain]

Interesting read on him today. Really sad, too. I liked what he represented before he tried pandering to the GOP masses. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/30/what-went-wrong-with-rand-paul.html

What's really sad is libertarianism, I mean an entire ideology based on a fantasy. What fantasy you ask? The fantasy of a "free market" where a magical force will decide right from wrong, winner and loser. It seems like a wonderful notion but it is crushed by reality and morality. Rand himself argued that he wouldn't have signed Civil Rights Act because market forces would eventually equalize everyone. Really? It would have suddenly removed Jim Crow institutionalized racism?

How about environmental policy? Their answer is to privatize everything and allow pollution to be controlled, again by the magical market, rather than by regulation. Tell me, how the hell am I supposed to clean up my land if a polluter up-wind or up-stream has polluted it? How would I "win" in this scenario? Answer...I wouldn't.

Healthcare. Anyone remember what happened to Ron Paul's campaign manager died without healthcare and left his mother having to pay his bills? Now that is the free market for you.

 

[pgg]

I wasn't ignoring this post. Just wanted to give my reply the time it deserved.

Regarding gun control, and the neverending stream of lies from its proponents:

What were the lies and what did Obama try to do that he was initially hiding?

Obama is an astute politician and a smart man. He was smart enough not to openly push for new gun control measures before his re-election in 2012, because he knew how toxic the subject was, not just to him but every Democrat running for any office nationwide. Nothing (nothing!) gets out the R-line voters like an attack on gun rights.

His reticence was extremely frustrating to gun control proponents who were disappointed that he spent all of his first term political capital on health care reform, and none on gun control. In March of 2011, Sarah Brady met with the president and demanded some answers. "I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."

Even though he knew what a disaster gun control efforts would be for Democrats' election prospects, after Sandy Hook, he still misjudged the issue and made a broad push for federal level gun control that fortunately was a complete and unmitigated failure. On the bright side, the NRA raised a lot of money and got a lot of new members.

Obama's big lie, from 2008 until he won re-election in 2012, was that he didn't really want more gun control.


But those aren't the only lies.

Everything, EVERYTHING, that gun control proponents put forth is a lie, starting with their stated intent. It's not "common sense" regulation. It's not reasonable "compromise" that respects the 2nd Amendment and the rights of citizens.

It is a complete ban and confiscation of firearms. "Reasonable" and "common sense" regulations are simply the incremental baby steps they think are presently attainable. The goal is a total ban and confiscation. More on that in a moment.


Even you - a person I have a great deal of respect for, based on years of prior posts here - can't help but couch your argument for gun control in lies, both subtle and blatant:

You're actually forced to wait 5-7 business days for your AR-15 to arrive in the mail from grabagun (a real site). Unless a show is in town. Then you can get it now. Godd@mn brutal compromise.

You're lying in two ways here.

First, in your deliberate, calculated, and cynical strawman construction. You're pretending that our objection to new gun control is based on convenience; the implied accusation is that we're just too lazy and impulsive to to wait a mere few days, which is no big deal. In doing so, you pretend our actual arguments don't exist, and reduce gun rights to a trivial matter of whim and idle desire for toys.

Second, you lie with your claim that guns can be obtained mail order. I know you know that any firearm ordered by phone, mail, or internet must be shipped to a federally-licensed dealer, which must complete the background checks and paperwork. You can't get a firearm shipped to your home, unless you are a federal firearms licensee yourself.

The very first link on grabagun.com, the web site you sarcastically name, is their "ordering guide" and here's a screenshot (pay attention to step 5):

You're so irrationally and emotionally attached to your anti-gun position, to the point that you actually express contempt for me personally (your "godd@mn brutal compromise" response to my resistance to new gun control) and I'm a law abiding, responsible, productive, public servant. You and I have agreed on these forums many times over many social issues. And yet you can't help but angrily dismiss my position as whiny and childish. Why?

What's more, your choice to single out the AR-15 in your statement exposes another flaw common to gun control arguments: a fixation on cosmetic appearance. Most of the assault weapon bans in the United States are based on the presence or absence of nothing more than cosmetic features. An AR-15 is just a semi-automatic gun that fires a .223 rifle cartridge. It is functionally no different than any of a dozen kinds of varmint hunting rifles. But bans are based on "scary" appearance - the angle of the grip, the number of holes in the flash hider, etc.

There is no rational basis for your (or others') fixation on AR-15 style rifles. They're the most common and popular rifles in the United States because they're inexpensive, accurate, low recoil, easy to use, and reliable. Despite their popularity, they are used in a miniscule number of crimes (less than 1%).


Hillary Clinton lies about gun control efforts too.

Like you, she resorts to cynical mocking and strawman construction:

The NRA tries to keep gun owners - the ones who are members - really upset all the time so they can keep collecting their money, because they tell them that they're the only thing that's going to stop the black helicopters from landing in the front yard and people's guns being seized.

For good measure, she throws in a modern-day pre-emptive Godwin (substituting Iranians and communists for Hitler):

You know, the NRA's position reminds me of negotiating with the Iranians or the communists.

So here she is, pretending that the NRA is the tool of gun industry (worse than communists and theocratic totalitarians!) and not the member-driven grassroots organization it really is. But the big lie is that she denies that the end objective is a complete ban of guns and forced confiscation. Because in her very next breath, she tells us more about "reasonable" gun control:

Australia’s a good example, Canada’s a good example, [and] the UK’s a good example. Why? Because each of them had mass killings, Australia had a huge mass killing about 20 or 25 years ago. Canada did as well, so did the UK. In reaction, they passed much stricter gun laws.

[...]

The Australian government was able to curtail the supply and set a different standard for gun purchases in the future. It would be worth considering doing it on the national level

Obama also lies about gun control in the same vein, continually denying that confiscation is the goal, but saying things like this

We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.

So both favor the Australian model of gun control, which can be quickly summarized as follows: after the Port Arthur shooting in 1996, their government passed a law that instituted a mandatory buy back, aka confiscation in exchange for cash.

When such prominent gun control proponents as a sitting president and and his party's intended successor tell us their hope is enact Australia-style firearm confiscation in the United States, how can you honestly pretend that confiscation is not really their end goal?

You can't, not without lying.


The next Big Lie of gun control proponents is that it's to protect the poor and minorities. All gun control is racist and classist. It began in earnest after our Civil War, in an effort to keep those uppity black ex-slaves unarmed and helpless to resist. To touch on a few other noble milestones of "common sense compromise" ...

The 1934 National Firearms Act effectively banned ownership of many firearms by poor and middle class people, because the $200 federal tax (over $3000 in today's dollars) was unaffordable in the midst of the Great Depression. Moreover, sound suppressors ("silencers") were on the NFA list not because they're dangerous, but because poor starving people were using them to illegally poach meals. Good "compromise" that was; infringe on the Constitutional rights of poor people because they're poor.

In 1967, the Mulford Act banned open carry in California because an organization of black men publicly, and peacefully, carried firearms for the purpose of self-defense and to protest the denial of their civil rights. Another characteristically proud moment for gun control. Pass a ban because a minority asserted and exercised Constitutional rights guaranteed to us all.

In 1986, the NFA was amended to close the national machine gun registry. Not because crimes were being committed with NFA-registered machine guns ... in the preceding 52 years, despite more than 240,000 legally owned machine guns in the United States, there had been exactly TWO crimes committed. (One of which was committed by a corrupt police officer.) What an achievement, to limit the rights of citizens for absolutely no purpose at all! Five decades, no crime - have to solve that "problem" with another valiant common sense compromise.

The 1994 federal "assault weapon" ban banned a wide variety of semi-automatic rifles based on cosmetic features, but not function. It was crafted by people who knew nothing about guns except that some looked scarier than others, and it was (of course) absolutely ineffective.

I could go on with a dozen more examples. The amazing coup of gun control proponents is that they've convinced the poor and minorities that gun control is actually for their benefit, when the last 150 years of gun control initiatives have been primarily aimed at poor minorities.


The last Big Lie of gun control proponents is the lie that they aren't useful to resist government oppression and tyranny, the very reason the 2nd Amendment was written in the first place. The typical strawman is that Billy Joe Jim Bob the ignorant racist southern redneck teabagger couldn't possibly resist the government's Army with its tanks and planes and helicopters.

But that's not how and where an armed populace can resist tyranny. Two examples, and I'll end this post.

During the (mostly ill-fated) Arab Spring, pro-democracy demonstrators in Egypt weren't being beaten, abducted, and murdered by the regular army. They weren't being chased by tanks and planes and helicopters. They were being beaten, abducted, and murdered by thugs in the night. Forceful intimidation was systemic and driven by political factions. Firearm ownership is severely restricted in Egypt; people could not legally own long guns, but some few had licenses for handguns. Notably, those neighborhoods where a few residents owned firearms were not targeted for intimidation. Mao Tse Tung was speaking of the communist party when he wrote "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" but the truth is that even peaceful resistance depends on the demonstrators' ability to resist and deter intimidation.

The last example I'll give you is one that is actually pertinent to our election and this thread. Perhaps the most shameful thing the United States has done since the Civil War was the internment of Japanese Americans beginning in 1942. It was blatantly unconstitutional, plainly evil, and a terrible stain upon FDR's presidency and every American who permitted it to happen. How different might that have gone, if most of those Japanese citizens had been armed? Would FDR have dared order them rounded up? Maybe they wouldn't have had to abandon their homes and businesses. Why is this relevant today? Because Donald Trump is making the same argument about Muslims today. How do you enforce a travel ban on Muslims without registration? I sincerely hope every Muslim in the United States goes out and buys a gun.


Gun control proponents have a lot to be ashamed of, if they could only quit lying to themselves and the rest of us long enough to honestly assess what they've done.

And gun control proponents wonder why we resist "compromising" on new "common sense" laws ... it's because we see their lies for what they are. There's no common sense to any of it. And each compromise is a small step backward, toward their thinly disguised goal of disarmament and confiscation.

Or not so thinly disguised:

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in -- I would have done it.

We agree about many of the republicans. The centrists like Kasich aren't the buffoons ruining the party though.

You're right, we agree on this ... and many other things too.

Someday I have faith that you'll let reason and logic dictate your position on gun control, and we'll agree on that subject too.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

I appreciate your thoughtful post, and any time I have to research and learn more about a subject, it is a valuable experience for me. This is one of those times. I'm sorry if I get fired up, but I WILL get fired up sometimes if it's something I believe strongly in. Regardless, my mind can and HAS been changed PLENTY of times when I am taught or learn more about a subject. We'll see.
Anyway, there are a few things you say that make it pretty clear to me, at least, that you're going more on emotion and rigid beliefs than honest discussions on the matter:

Obama's big lie, from 2008 until he won re-election in 2012, was that he didn't really want more gun control.


But those aren't the only lies.

Everything, EVERYTHING, that gun control proponents put forth is a lie, starting with their stated intent. It's not "common sense" regulation. It's not reasonable "compromise" that respects the 2nd Amendment and the rights of citizens.

It is a complete ban and confiscation of firearms. "Reasonable" and "common sense" regulations are simply the incremental baby steps they think are presently attainable. The goal is a total ban and confiscation. More on that in a moment.

I looked through several sites to see the things he said going back to the 90s regarding guns. He was consistent throughout that he supported gun rights and wanted nothing but enforcement of the laws on the books. He wasn't in favor of the non-renewal of the assault rifle ban, but he took no effort, EVER, to limit gun rights, despite consistent pestering by gun right opponents.
As you mentioned, the only time he made ANY effort was after Sandy Hook, at which point he asked his advisors to look into what laws weren't being enforced and what laws might have prevented the massacre. The result was a suggestion of background checks extending to private sellers. The effort went nowhere due to strong opposition.

You're either insincere or ignoring facts, or both, with your conclusion about his intents. You say this is the start of his effort to completely "ban and confiscate" ALL guns. If that was the initiation of this policy, we'll see it's completion sometime around 2097.
You then go on to say ALL gun control advocates ultimately want complete bans and confiscation.
I could spend an hour writing about how this is a caricature of tea-party, far-right paranoia. I won't. But this is factually incorrect, and I know that because I am personally a gun control advocate who doesn't want to ban and confiscate everyone's guns. I want a LOT more control on them, more than MOST gun control advocates, yet I still want law abiding people to be able to have guns. That's not a lie.
I'll do the next part in a separate post

 

[Pooh & Annie]

Second, you lie with your claim that guns can be obtained mail order. I know you know that any firearm ordered by phone, mail, or internet must be shipped to a federally-licensed dealer, which must complete the background checks and paperwork. You can't get a firearm shipped to your home, unless you are a federal firearms licensee yourself.

The very first link on grabagun.com, the web site you sarcastically name, is their "ordering guide" and here's a screenshot (pay attention to step 5):

You're so irrationally and emotionally attached to your anti-gun position, to the point that you actually express contempt for me personally (your "godd@mn brutal compromise" response to my resistance to new gun control) and I'm a law abiding, responsible, productive, public servant. You and I have agreed on these forums many times over many social issues. And yet you can't help but angrily dismiss my position as whiny and childish. Why?

To be honest, in my opinion it DOES make you sound whiny and childish. My opinion only. You mention 150 years of "brutal compromise." Our definitions of "brutal compromise" are WAY different.
You are ABSOLUTELY 100% right about the grabagun delivery system. You CANNOT have an assault rifle delivered to your home from grabagun.com. It has to go to a licensed dealer first. I HATE when people weaken their points by giving examples that are untrue or half-truths, and the example I gave was NOT completely true (I neglected to read the ordering steps).

So from grabagun.com it may take up to 10 days or so to get a semi-automatic, high capacity (a couple dozen or more rounds) assault rifle. And you have to go pick it up.

You're also guilty, however when you say that "any firearm ordered by phone, mail, or internet must be shipped to a federally-licensed dealer, which must complete the background checks and paperwork. You can't get a firearm shipped to your home, unless you are a federal firearms licensee yourself". That ONLY applies to licensed dealers, which you may or may not know.
Fortunately for assault rifle enthusiasts (and I CAN understand why an assault rifle would be fun to have. I went to the range several times with a buddy of mine while living in Arizona. He owned a HUGE collection), the private seller loopholes make ordering assault weapons very easy (in my opinion). Anyone who doesn't make a living by gun sales (which can be a slippery definition), can sell guns without ANY background check, and directly through the mail. Join some Facebook clubs or other online clubs and you can get Tec-9s or AR-15s sent to your door. No questions asked. Again, I don't consider the barriers causes by legislation (i.e. additional costs, non-licensed sellers, etc...) to be "brutal compromise."

I'll respond to the rest tomorrow.

 

[Random Anesthesiologist]

You apparently have read the talking points of the denial crowd. "Senators are pushing this to make money"..... Where is the proof? Better yet, how about James Inhofe or Scott Walker who literally owe their careers to the petroleum industry? I find far greater and stronger links between the vocal deniers and the petroleum industry than those pushing for anti-global warming measures and some supposed carbon exchange (that doesn't even F-ing exist at this point).

And where is this rampant climate change fraud? The "hockey stick" model debate was eventually shown, after repeated attempts to discredit it, to be largely accurate. The "email controversy" was nothing but bullshT as well, but it's now considered part of the conspiracy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...d-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html

You don't see a huge conflict of interest here?

Didn't his movie with the fake polar bears win some kind of award? Talk about talking points and denial ....

There's being a good steward of the earth because it's the right thing to do, and then there's mass hysteria based on fear mongering. Considering the earth was predicted to be on a downward spiral to freeze over the year I was born (which wasn't that long ago in the grand history of the climate), I'm going to go with being a good steward and not an environmentalist nutjob.

 

[PainDrain]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...d-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html

You don't see a huge conflict of interest here?

Didn't his movie with the fake polar bears win some kind of award? Talk about talking points and denial ....

So let me get this straight. Gore is a "carbon billionaire" because he invested in a company which has contracted services with roughly 15% of a group of other private companies, which won government contracts based on a need for better electrical grids. Wow. That's a stretch. Also his main critic in this article is Ms Blackburn of TN, who is beholden to King coal. Coal/natural gas ranks in at 4 for top industries funding her. She is a vocal opponent of anything having to do with environmental protection (check her voting record). Also, it's not like Gore is literally sitting in Congress drafting legislation with various "green" special interests talking in his ear and then making investments.

 

[Random Anesthesiologist]

So let me get this straight. Gore is a "carbon billionaire" because he invested in a company which has contracted services with roughly 15% of a group of other private companies, which won government contracts based on a need for better electrical grids. Wow. That's a stretch. Also his main critic in this article is Ms Blackburn of TN, who is beholden to King coal. Coal/natural gas ranks in at 4 for top industries funding her. She is a vocal opponent of anything having to do with environmental protection (check her voting record). Also, it's not like Gore is literally sitting in Congress drafting legislation with various "green" special interests talking in his ear and then making investments.

Nah, he was just Vice President and ran for president. His film received an Oscar and was played in tons of educational programs. It's not like anyone knows who he is or he can influence anybody.

If my problem were about the coal industry and hypocrites within it, then I would discuss Blackburn. But that's not the case here. Regardless of where she works, she's not wrong.

The EPA has no real checks or balances, and those who supported cap and trade have not lost any money by any means. Funny how you don't see our current democrat party as full of shysters as well. The bailouts to green energy were not fruitful, with a lot of money ending up in the hands of bankrupt companies. Crony capitalism is for everyone in politics, and environmentalism is just a different tool. For every complaint you might have about conservatives, there are problems with liberals too.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Climate Change. Religion. Abortion. Gay Marriage.

"It's the Economy Stupid" as Bill Clinton famously said years ago. That's the issue voters will pick to decide the next President. Our National debt/handouts/free loader system combined with the poor state of the economy will be the primary issues along with National Security.

For those who vote on the issues like Climate Change and Religion I wish you the best of luck this election.

 

[Planktonmd]

Climate Change. Religion. Abortion. Gay Marriage.

"It's the Economy Stupid" as Bill Clinton famously said years ago. That's the issue voters will pick to decide the next President. Our National debt/handouts/free loader system combined with the poor state of the economy will be the primary issues along with National Security.

For those who vote on the issues like Climate Change and Religion I wish you the best of luck this election.

 

[NOsaintsfan]

1) In prison for what? There is evidence of her knowingly sending top secret, potentially dangerous info over an unprotected account? I'd like to hear it.
2) She's not a techy. And she's in her 60s dealing with a newer technology of which her techy advisors told her was ok to set up at home, especially considering that the guy who developed the system (Colin Powell), set the precedent of using a private server to email state dept folks, ambassadors, foreign dignitaries, etc. With everything on her plate you expect her to overrule her advisors and precedent and say "hey I don't know $hit about any of this and no one has told me it's wrong and I'm not planning on sending confidential info but let's not do it."
And again, where is the evidence that she knowingly put dangerous, secret info at risk of being discovered?

I've NEVER liked her. I've always considered her to be an opportunist who uninvitedly got involved in politics during her husband's presidency. But if it's not Bernie, her politics/philosophies are most in line with mine. I find myself defending her more and more often when I see the weak attempts at painting her as a dangerous felon. She's been profoundly hated by a LOT of powerful people for 25 years now, yet despite her 25 years under a very public microscope, all I've seen is a lot of nickel-and-diming.

She sent hundreds of classified documents over an unclassified server. The content doesn't really matter for my point. What matters is that she displayed gross incompetence at best and is guilty of treason at worst by doing so.

If you have never had access to classified material or accessed the SIPR net then I can maybe understand how you may think this is a simple mistake that a "non-techy" would make. In my former career I was a civilian with a secret clearance and I can assure you it is IMPOSSIBLE that she would not have known that her actions were against regulation.

She absolutely knew what she was doing was wrong. No way that she didn't. Her actions show either gross incompetence or a belief that she was above the rules. Either way ITS A BIG DEAL to anyone with any knowledge of how to handle sensitive material under government protocol. Especially for someone in her position.

If she accidently sent one or two classified documents over an unsecured server you could argue that it was a simple mistake and in essence it would be no big deal. She sent hundreds of classified documents over a long period of time. This shows what I outlined above.

If in my former job I had sent hundreds of classified documents over a unsecured server over a period of years like she did then I would absolutely be charged and convicted of mishandling sensitive information. If I was really unlucky I would be charged with treason. That is the simple truth.

Maybe others on here who are familiar with classified document access can weigh in and confirm what I am saying.

 

[NOsaintsfan]

I completely agree that there is a lot of "chatter" with regards to climate change denial, but another piece of my argument is that if you seriously look at the vast majority of the skeptical voices they have dubious qualifications (economists, libertarian political operatives) and clear conflicts of interest. They use the same strategy that the tobacco industry used by creating an echo chamber of false and misleading talking points. Many of the same think tanks that are now vocal climate change opponents started out putting out policy statements and claims about tobacco and its health effects. The Heartland Intitute is a perfect example. They previously did work for big tobacco. These are not true think tanks, they are propaganda machines.

I don't doubt you one bit. I was simply pointing out that if you read the news like most people do then you find many conflicting view points.

 

[NOsaintsfan]

You posted two forbes articles written by the same person who is a lawyer, not a scientist. Are you kidding me? The vast majority of actual scientists who actually study climate change are in agreement that the globe is warming significantly and that human activity is playing a huge role. It's not a cult, it's like saying there's no proof for gravity or that the earth being round is just a theory.

Did you actually read my post?

 

[deleted162650]

Libertarianism is no sadder nor based anymore on a fantasy than socialism/communism. The principle behind communism is actually quite beautiful, that one should produce according to his ability and consume according to his need. Too bad this runs completely counter to basic human nature and doesn't work unless you're a tree-hugging, Birkenstock wearing, granola crunching, patchouli dabbing hippie and you're completely surrounded only by more tree-hugging, Birkenstock wearing, granola crunching, patchouli dabbing hippies.

As with virtually everything in life, the right answer always lies somewhere in the middle. It's a shame that a centrist with ideas and policies that actually make some sense will never be elected under our ridiculous 2 party system. Dem or GOP, they're all the same.

I like to vote a mixed ticket. A government that is busy arguing amongst itself is a government that is too preoccupied to **** with me and that's just how I like it.

I should get a bumper sticker that says:

Gridlock 2016!

 

[PainDrain]

Climate Change. Religion. Abortion. Gay Marriage.

"It's the Economy Stupid" as Bill Clinton famously said years ago. That's the issue voters will pick to decide the next President. Our National debt/handouts/free loader system combined with the poor state of the economy will be the primary issues along with National Security.

For those who vote on the issues like Climate Change and Religion I wish you the best of luck this election.

I never vote based on the "wedge issues" such as guns, abortion, religion, or climate change. My main goal when picking a candidate has also never been about how it will affect a single aspect of my life but overall how it will affect our country (and thereby me), I think a lot of people don't consider that. People living in a friggin trailer down by the river with no more than two nickels to rub together will vote to keep their gun rights unperturbed. Meanwhile the candidate they voted for will slash their gov funded healthcare and SS retirement benefits, push to keep their wages low, allow tax loopholes for their employers and sign trade agreements to send their jobs overseas. How does this poor schmuck affect me? Well down the road I will likely get stuck taking care of, financially and otherwise, him and his kin. But if he had just voted based on some common sense maybe he wouldn't be so damn poor. Maybe his kids could go to decent schools, his wage may go up and he would create a drain on the system. I am not saying the Social safety net isn't broken but if we didn't have one do you really think it would create incentive or just increase our problems?

I considered myself a republican for many years until the party's true colors started to show. Both sides are beholden to special interests but the GOP lost me at the Iraq war (and I know the Dems voted also). Bush and the GOP basically set the stage for the issues we are currently dealing with. They couldn't have screwed up worse than they did in Iraq and it started almost immediately after the invasion with the disbanding of the Iraqi army. Conservative policy pushed for removal of Glass-Steagal and set the stage for the financial meltdown. People will point to Fannie/Freddie but that's a bull**** excuse to deflect from the real issue, which is a completely unregulated financial market (CDOs, derivatives, ect). The system still hasn't been fixed and the GOP keeps trying to water down Dodd-Frank and the Consumer financial protection bureau.

 

[ER BlueBlood]

Seriously? This guy's own foreign policy advisor basically called him a ******. He seems like a nice guy with a great backstory and he loves bringing up the slavery/Hitler/Obama analogies that everyone in crazy town loves, but he is not fit for the presidency.

He seems like an aloof, strange man, a poor physician with a room temp emotional IQ to boot

 

[ER BlueBlood]

Which candidate do you all believe will be better for physicians?

 

[NOsaintsfan]

I never vote based on the "wedge issues" such as guns, abortion, religion, or climate change. My main goal when picking a candidate has also never been about how it will affect a single aspect of my life but overall how it will affect our country (and thereby me), I think a lot of people don't consider that. People living in a friggin trailer down by the river with no more than two nickels to rub together will vote to keep their gun rights unperturbed. Meanwhile the candidate they voted for will slash their gov funded healthcare and SS retirement benefits, push to keep their wages low, allow tax loopholes for their employers and sign trade agreements to send their jobs overseas. How does this poor schmuck affect me? Well down the road I will likely get stuck taking care of, financially and otherwise, him and his kin. But if he had just voted based on some common sense maybe he wouldn't be so damn poor. Maybe his kids could go to decent schools, his wage may go up and he would create a drain on the system. I am not saying the Social safety net isn't broken but if we didn't have one do you really think it would create incentive or just increase our problems?

I considered myself a republican for many years until the party's true colors started to show. Both sides are beholden to special interests but the GOP lost me at the Iraq war (and I know the Dems voted also). Bush and the GOP basically set the stage for the issues we are currently dealing with. They couldn't have screwed up worse than they did in Iraq and it started almost immediately after the invasion with the disbanding of the Iraqi army. Conservative policy pushed for removal of Glass-Steagal and set the stage for the financial meltdown. People will point to Fannie/Freddie but that's a bull**** excuse to deflect from the real issue, which is a completely unregulated financial market (CDOs, derivatives, ect). The system still hasn't been fixed and the GOP keeps trying to water down Dodd-Frank and the Consumer financial protection bureau.

If only all our problems were as easy as blaming Bush.

http://spectator.org/articles/42211/true-origins-financial-crisis

Also are you really suggesting that people living in trailer parks are poor because the government makes them poor?

 

[ER BlueBlood]

If only all our problems were as easy as blaming Bush.

http://spectator.org/articles/42211/true-origins-financial-crisis

Also are you really suggesting that people living in trailer parks are poor because the government makes them poor?

Bush was the worst president in modern history of the US. Period. In fact, if you go back and watch clips of the guy now, you will be overwhelmed by his stupidity and wonder how he was ever more than a city councilman. The only more pathetic character was Palin.

 

[DNC127]

ANYBODY BUT HILLARY

 

[NOsaintsfan]

Bush was the worst president in modern history of the US. Period. In fact, if you go back and watch clips of the guy now, you will be overwhelmed by his stupidity and wonder how he was ever more than a city councilman. The only more pathetic character was Palin.

Thank you for your opinion.

 

[ER BlueBlood]

Thank you for your opinion.

You're welcome, and if you'd like to debate it you'll easily lose.

 

[NOsaintsfan]

You're welcome, and if you'd like to debate it you'll easily lose.

I like your confidence. You can only debate if your open minded. I have a feeling you want to argue not debate.

Something tells me you already know how you will be voting.....forever no matter who the canidate is. The political marketing had worked well on you.

 

[PainDrain]

http://spectator.org/articles/42211/true-origins-financial-crisis

Again read what I wrote. I don't think you have any Fing clue about what caused the financial crisis and quoting an article from Anerican Spectator shows that. They blame Fannie/Freddie and Congress but the real culprit was the secondary banking/insurance system. I suggest you look into what a CDS and a CDO is. That is why Lehman brothers failed, why AIG almost brought down the entire world economy and why the term "to big to fail" came about. It all started with Glass-Steagal at the urging of a libertarian, Greenspan.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/22/5086/

 

[NOsaintsfan]

Again read what I wrote. I don't think you have any Fing clue about what caused the financial crisis and quoting an article from Anerican Spectator shows that. They blame Fannie/Freddie and Congress but the real culprit was the secondary banking/insurance system. I suggest you look into what a CDS and a CDO is. That is why Lehman brothers failed, why AIG almost brought down the entire world economy and why the term "to big to fail" came about. It all started with Glass-Steagal at the urging of a libertarian, Greenspan.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/22/5086/

To suggest that the current political/economic climate and the issues we have faced in those areas over the last decade or so is the fault of one political party or even one person (Bush) tells me that you only have 1/2 a f'ng clue. Your beloved democrats will screw you and me as quickly as republicans will.

 

[Planktonmd]

If only all our problems were as easy as blaming Bush.

http://spectator.org/articles/42211/true-origins-financial-crisis

Also are you really suggesting that people living in trailer parks are poor because the government makes them poor?

No he is suggesting they are poor because they are stupid and they vote against their own interest!

 

[BLADEMDA]

With all the bad people out there trying to kill us or ruin our way of life the imminent threat we face as a nation isn't CO2 emissions.

While I support a clean planet and common sense solutions for a better Earth during our lifetimes these changes can be gradual without destroying our economy.

 

[Psai]

With all the bad people out there trying to kill us or ruin our way of life the imminent threat we face as a nation isn't CO2 emissions.

While I support a clean planet and common sense solutions for a better Earth during our lifetimes these changes can be gradual without destroying our economy.

You don't think climate change will have an effect on our economy? What do you think will happen when ocean levels rise, the number of devastating hurricanes increases and the amount of arable land decreases? Look at how the water shortage on the west coast affected california already. Our way of life is wasteful and unsustainable. It's not about our lives but those of our children and their children that will be affected.

Bad people trying to kill us or ruin our way of life? We're the ones in the middle east killing off all of their people.

 

[Random Anesthesiologist]

Again read what I wrote. I don't think you have any Fing clue about what caused the financial crisis and quoting an article from Anerican Spectator shows that. They blame Fannie/Freddie and Congress but the real culprit was the secondary banking/insurance system. I suggest you look into what a CDS and a CDO is. That is why Lehman brothers failed, why AIG almost brought down the entire world economy and why the term "to big to fail" came about. It all started with Glass-Steagal at the urging of a libertarian, Greenspan.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/22/5086/

And what is Bernie and Hillary's record on banking?

 

[BLADEMDA]

You don't think climate change will have an effect on our economy? What do you think will happen when ocean levels rise, the number of devastating hurricanes increases and the amount of arable land decreases? Look at how the water shortage on the west coast affected california already. Our way of life is wasteful and unsustainable. It's not about our lives but those of our children and their children that will be affected.

Bad people trying to kill us or ruin our way of life? We're the ones in the middle east killing off all of their people.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/10/20/new-study-climate-change-made-california-drought-less-likely/

Climate change is vastly over-rated and exaggerated for political reasons. I do think man has a small contribution to the trend but it's not the major component. The science is anything but proven and the left is using this to tax and spend their way to prosperity. fortunately, only a liberal few Americans will actually vote for the President based on this issue. The idea we should tax our citizens and push our economy down in order to fix a problem which technology will solve over time makes absolutely no sense.

I support common sense solutions using our abundant natural resources like natural gas over imported Iranian oil which will decrease Co2 emissions while at the same time spurring American economic growth.

Rather than waste tax dollars on solar and wind power the answer is natural gas with a transition to solar over the next two decades. This way Americans save billions in tax dollars on the solar subsidies while getting abundant, available natural gas today.