American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Esten;435061]And the government is funded by taxpayers. So, regarding medical treatment for the poor, it's basically "a system wherein money is taken at gunpoint from people who earned it for themselves, to be used to buy medical services for strangers who do not wish to pay for their own medical needs." Correct?[/QUOTE]Esten,

As a compromise to those who wish to buy votes, I stated that I would support a tax funded system of free public hospitals in the USA. Of course, I'm envisioning concrete block facilities staffed with doctors and nurses trained at tuition-free government medical schools and working for military payscales.

I also said that such a system would never work in the USA because...

[QUOTE]Nevertheless, the Argentine system of both free public and paid private health care would never work in the USA for a very simple reason: Argentina cannot borrow money internationally, and thus the amount of money they spend on their free public health care system is limited to what they can pay for from their own internally generated tax revenues.

In other words, they are forced to balance their national budget.

However, if we had a system of free public hospitals in the USA, the gutless politicians in charge of our government, bowing to the inevitable political pressure, would borrow another trillion dollars from the Chinese every year (above our current borrowings, mind you), all in the name of "investing" in our medical care system. In addition, there would also be the inevitable creep in employment costs as the same gutless politicians buy the votes of the government employee union members with salary and pension increases, eventually driving the cost of the free public health care system higher than the private care system.[/QUOTE]In other words, the liberals would eventually bankrupt such a system, so it's not actually a solution.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;435062]As you know, Singapore has been under 1-party rule since independence. So you can say that Singapore have an authoritarian government, albeit elected within democratic guidelines. Fortunately, it is under "good governance" because the elected government is honest, dedicated, innovative, and planning within a very big picture. Social engineering is very vital to its core everyday message as well as in its long term planning. In other word, Big Brother is not only behind you, but all around you. Not really a problem for industrious, family oriented, law abiding citizens. American society today hardly fit that description.

So, can Americans tolerate that? No way, not even if they promise that every citizen can be a millionaire if you follow the rules. You want to pack a gun. No problem, $500,000 just to obtain a license to buy. Then another $25,000 per year to renew. That's how it works there. Just google their car purchasing process. So you want to smoke pot? Ahhh, you don't want to go there.

As for their living longer, well, you figured that one out. Really, not too hard.

P.S. The gun stuff, I made it up. Just an example of how government regulates activity and everyday life.[/QUOTE]Philosophically I don't agree with Singapore's stance on several issues related to civil liberties. But since I don't use drugs or chew gum they don't effect me. Significantly, they don't throw you in jail for seeing prostitutes. The four floors of w*ores (Orchard Towers) there are awesome.

Given issues that are important to me, like taxes, safety and security, quality of public services, rule of law, and ready availability of women, Singapore looks like a very desirable place to live. If you were a woman I'd marry you to get Singapore citizenship, even though I disagree with you on many issues and believe you're too old for me.

On the subject we're discussing, the difference between Singapore and the USA is that Singapore puts a gun to your head and tells you that you must contribute to your own personal savings account for medical care, retirement and education. The United States, in addition to running something like a Ponzi scheme for Medicare, puts a gun to my head and tells me that I must pay for other people's medical insurance. I actually wouldn't have a complaint if I paid a reasonable amount in taxes and IF funds were administered in a way that resulted in efficient, cost-effective, basic medical care being provided for people who really need it and can't afford it through no fault of their own. But that's not the case.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;435070] I actually wouldn't have a complaint if I paid a reasonable amount in taxes and IF funds were administered in a way that resulted in efficient, cost-effective, basic medical care being provided for people who really need it and can't afford it through no fault of their own. But that's not the case.[/QUOTE]So let's be clear. "Government" by itself is neutral, but the kind of society we have determines the kind of people who is in government. And so society gets the kind of government it deserves. So just look around you, or even in the mirror, and the dysfunctional forces that permeates American life. You can say that Singapore has reach the mountain top, but the road ahead is even harder as we have witness what has happen to Japan & the USA.

Three years ago, Geyland mongering reached it's peak. I considered it as one of top 5 red zones in the world. Sadly, it become too rowdy for Singapore, and the iron fist was flashed.

In the future, please refrain from such personal sensitive issues like marriage proposals in the forum.(smile).

Singapore is a densely populated city state on an island with a polyglot of races, albeit the majority is Chinese. They do what has worked best for them after early trial and error. They have found that being authoritarian works for them, and avoids a sanitation problem with concomitant diseases. The big differences between Singapore and the rest of the world are that, they pay police and other civil or public servants a living wage, come down hard on corruption of any form, and have strict, onerous laws which are ENFORCED. If one obeys the law, one still has a great deal of freedom. Contrary to popular belief, Singapore banned chewing gum because youths were using it to disrupt the subways (arguably one of the best in the world) by holding a train car's doors open, thereby stopping the train until the offending doors were cleared.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=Tres3;435078]Singapore is a densely populated city state on an island with a polyglot of races, albeit the majority is Chinese. They do what has worked best for them after early trial and error. They have found that being authoritarian works for them, and avoids a sanitation problem with concomitant diseases. The big differences between Singapore and the rest of the world are that, they pay police and other civil or public servants a living wage, come down hard on corruption of any form, and have strict, onerous laws which are ENFORCED. If one obeys the law, one still has a great deal of freedom. Contrary to popular belief, Singapore banned chewing gum because youths were using it to disrupt the subways (arguably one of the best in the world) by holding a train car's doors open, thereby stopping the train until the offending doors were cleared.

Tres3.[/QUOTE]Early on, Singapore also had to deal with racial tension between the Chinese and the Malays. The threat of communism was also present as there was no national identity and most Chinese still look to the China as the motherland. With no natural resources except human labor, Singapore by sheer determination, is a vibrant futuristic city state. But now, it is plagued by that killer of ethical & moral instincts, consumerism.

This thread diverges and converges however the one thing that I can say that is 100% correct:

[quote=Jackson's comment]Nevertheless, the Argentine system of both free public and paid private health care would never work in the USA for a very simple reason: Argentina cannot borrow money internationally, and thus the amount of money they spend on their free public health care system is limited to what they can pay for from their own internally generated tax revenues.

In other words, they are forced to balance their national budget.

However, if we had a system of free public hospitals in the USA, the gutless politicians in charge of our government, bowing to the inevitable political pressure, would borrow another trillion dollars from the Chinese every year (above our current borrowings, mind you), all in the name of "investing" in our medical care system. In addition, there would also be the inevitable creep in employment costs as the same gutless politicians buy the votes of the government employee union members with salary and pension increases, eventually driving the cost of the free public health care system higher than the private care system.[/quote]This is an accurate description of a couple of dynamics.- one; what the US has engaged in for the past 32 years, a lot of deficit spending that has radically accelerated our economy into a place that has massive bubbles, costs, debt and operating deficits and two; what is happening in Argentina where the gov cannot borrow (ex from Venezuela), lives within their (limited) means and "what you see is what you get and what was actually paid for (without any borrowing). Yes there's some manipulation by CFK and some theft by her friends etc... But the basic system is not operating at a deficit.

I firmly believe in American exceptional ism.- we have had it and we still have some of it today. The driving question is will it be there in the future and what do we need to do to insure that it will be there. Having players pick up all their chips from the table, push back and run away after 30+ years of large deficits with the predictable steep uptick in the economy, leading the debt to be shouldered by all seems a bit unfair, as is saying "I earned it". Yea, you earned it all right, while sailing along with a huge tailwind that pushed anyone forward with a profile larger than 1 mm. Those with a larger profile went farther...

Just as an aside.- what does Singapore look like with a rising tide? (I hope we don't have a bunch of climate change deniers here...

Everyone seems to forget that Argentina had universal health care long before the country unilaterally repudiated the foreign debt, and could no longer borrow overseas. I do not pretend to know, but speculate that part of that repudiated debt went to finance the health care system.

Obamacare is a two humped camel--a horse designed by a committee, but is it worse than we had before? I do not know, and only time will tell. Before Obamacare we had millions of working poor people, not just deadbeats, who had no insurance provided by their employers. Many of those employers cannot not afford to provide their employees with health insurance, but there are also many employers who are just plain greedy. I doubt that we will ever know which is which.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=HiLife;435083]
Just as an aside.- what does Singapore look like with a rising tide? (I hope we don't have a bunch of climate change deniers here...[/QUOTE]The government of Singapore is not a climate change denier either. For several years they have been investigating rising sea levels, including ringing the entire island with a sea wall that would keep the water out.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=Tres3;435092]The government of Singapore is not a climate change denier either. For several years they have been investigating rising sea levels, including ringing the entire island with a sea wall that would keep the water out.

Tres3.[/QUOTE]Sea levels are rising so slowly we have another 1000 years before we have to worry about it.

[QUOTE=HiLife;435083]
I firmly believe in American exceptional ism.- we have had it and we still have some of it today. The driving question is will it be there in the future and what do we need to do to insure that it will be there. Having players pick up all their chips from the table, push back and run away after 30+ years of large deficits with the predictable steep uptick in the economy, leading the debt to be shouldered by all seems a bit unfair, as is saying "I earned it". Yea, you earned it all right, while sailing along with a huge tailwind that pushed anyone forward with a profile larger than 1 mm. Those with a larger profile went farther...
[/QUOTE]Yes, of course, if you've got a business, you didn't build that. If you've done well it's government and deficit spending that's responsible for your success. You made some money in the past, created businesses and jobs, and now it's time for government to take that back. And with up to a 55.5% marginal income tax rate and a 40% estate tax that's achievable now. We need to get the money out of the private sector and put it in the government's pocket where it will do some good.

There are solutions for the problem, to prevent the industrious and talented and successful from taking their chips off the table. Exchange controls for example - make sure money doesn't leave the country, like what Argentina's doing right now. Or enforce the Reed Amendment, which makes it illegal for anyone who takes chips off the table to ever re-enter the United States. Actually, Jack Reed and Chuck Schumer are trying to do that right now with new legislation. They'll probably manage to slip it into a bill that will pass someday. So, HiLife, don't give up hope, success is just around the corner.

The reality, American exceptionalism is coming to an end. We're going to be just like Western Europe, only without the fiscal discipline of a country like Germany. The only question is whether we'll become like France or Greece.

[B]Freedom in America[/B]

The video below is only about 4 minutes. Well worth watching!

[URL]http://www.youtube.com/embed/n_YQ8560E1w?autoplay=1[/URL]

[QUOTE=Gandolf50;435099]Sea levels are rising so slowly we have another 1000 years before we have to worry about it.[/QUOTE]If you really believe that we have 1000 years before we have to worry about the sea level, then I have a bridge in New York that I would like to sell you.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=Punter127;435111][B]Freedom in America[/B]

The video below is only about 4 minutes. Well worth watching!

[URL]http://www.youtube.com/embed/n_YQ8560E1w?autoplay=1[/URL][/QUOTE]There is not too much that I disagree with when it comes to personal responsibility & freedom. But those southern democrats prior to the 70's, like George Wallace, ain't they republicans these days?

[QUOTE=Tres3;435112]If you really believe that we have 1000 years before we have to worry about the sea level, then I have a bridge in New York that I would like to sell you.

Tres3.[/QUOTE]Show me hard data, not conjecture that says otherwise. I still own ocean front property in NY and the levels have NOT changed in the last 45 years!

[QUOTE=Tres3;435112]If you really believe that we have 1000 years before we have to worry about the sea level, then I have a bridge in New York that I would like to sell you.

Tres3.[/QUOTE]Check out the US satellite survey measurements on ocean levels. Levels have risen something like 1/10 of a inch in the last fifty year or so. More likely caused by garbage dumping in the ocean and pollution. Now if you want to worry about something, worry about that!

[QUOTE=Gandolf50;435115]Check out the US satellite survey measurements on ocean levels. Levels have risen something like 1/10 of a inch in the last fifty year or so. More likely caused by garbage dumping in the ocean and pollution. Now if you want to worry about something, worry about that![/QUOTE]The State of Florida and Miami-Dade County would disagree with you. Miami-Dade is considering moving a sewerage treatment plant rather than upgrade it because they expect the current site to be under water before the new bonds are paid off. I am not going to argue the point with you any more because global warming deniers have their minds firmly made up, just like the anti-abortion fanatics, and there no amount of arguing can change their point of view..

Tres3.

[QUOTE=Tres3;435117]The State of Florida and Miami-Dade County would disagree with you. Miami-Dade is considering moving a sewerage treatment plant rather than upgrade it because they expect the current site to be under water before the new bonds are paid off. I am not going to argue the point with you any more because global warming deniers have their minds firmly made up, just like the anti-abortion fanatics, and there no amount of arguing can change their point of view..

Tres3.[/QUOTE]Try reading "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. While it is fiction, it is based on fact. Filled with foot notes to support all points of views. Very interesting. The fact is, there is and has been "warming"and then "cooling" periods since day one. I'm not saying that mankind should not clean up its act. But the whole global warming campaign is a bit of a sham. Read the book and get back to me. The temperature for the 70 years (a period of accurate records) actually shows, if anything a very slight decline in average temperatures.

Maybe we should start a new thread? .

[QUOTE=Tres3;435117]. I am not going to argue the point with you any more because global warming deniers have their minds firmly made up, just like the anti-abortion fanatics, and there no amount of arguing can change their point of view..
[/QUOTE]In the short-to-medium term, on a global scale, the only economically viable way to do what you want to do is to generate more power from natural gas and nuclear instead of coal. A big impediment are environmental fanatics on the left, who are a lot like the anti-abortion fanatics on the right. They've gotten hydraulic fracturing banned in France and New York so far. And after the Fukushima plant disaster in Japan, they've got public opinion on their side on the nukes.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;435120]In the short-to-medium term, on a global scale, the only economically viable way to do what you want to do is to generate more power from natural gas and nuclear instead of coal. A big impediment are environmental fanatics on the left, who are a lot like the anti-abortion fanatics on the right. They've gotten hydraulic fracturing banned in France and New York so far. And after the Fukushima plant disaster in Japan, they've got public opinion on their side on the nukes.[/QUOTE]I agree with you. The environmental folks must face the reality that global population is growing, and that population will demand more power. Wind and other alternative sources cannot meet that demand, and Obama would like to ban all coal fired plants, even the clean ones where investment in clean emissions has totaled billions of dollars. The environmental folks have to wake up and realize that you cannot have a cleaner world over the short-to-medium term. They are just as bad as the global warming deniers.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=Tres3;435121]The environmental folks must face the reality that global population is growing, and that population will demand more power. Wind and other alternative sources cannot meet that demand[/QUOTE]And I agree with you. What Bjorn Lomborg has written on the subject makes a lot of sense to me. There's not a lot we in the USA and Europe can do about global warming and sea level changes in the short-to-medium term, except solutions like Singapore's - building dikes or whatever. CO2 emissions in the USA are dropping because of greater usage of natural gas. Emissions in the European Union are stabilizing or dropping because of economic stagnation. (Aside: I guess maybe there are some advantages to economic policies like those favored by Obama). The future is in the hands of people in India, China and other developing countries. Stabilizing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere would cost their economies trillions of dollars, and benefits to them (and to us) would be considerably less.

P.S. To be fair some of the cuts in Europe are from greater use of renewables. In certain instances, these have backfired though, like the government promoting solar in Spain -- that's been a big boondoggle, that the Spaniards wish had never happened.

Is it just possible that at some point, we could be in the condition that Egypt faces today? 44% of Republicans polled (Farleigh-Dickinson) seem to think that armed rebellion might be necessary. Isn't all that talk about the 2nd amendment underlies that there are people preparing for action against the government? Nine days after Obama's relection, petitions for secession sprouted in all 50 states. As a distraught Egyptian wailed, "we have stopped talking and listening to each other". So there it is, that's where we are.

I am sorry for the long quote, but I was unable to cut and paste the link.

[QUOTE]A leaked draft of the UN's next major climate change report warns that global sea levels could rise more than three feet by the end of the century if greenhouse emissions continue unabated, The New York Times reported Monday.

The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) report is also more confident that human activities, like the burning of fossil fuels, are the chief cause of the atmospheric warming seen since the 1950's. The report's authors say it is at least 95 percent likely that humans are behind this warming, according to an initial report from Reuters last Friday.

This confidence is reflected in the study's language. It's "extremely likely" that humans caused "more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010," the Times quoted from the draft report.

The IPCC outlines several sea level rise scenarios for the end of the century, based on efforts to limit emissions in the coming decades. The most optimistic emissions reductions could bring only a 10-inch rise, explains the Times, on top of the eight inches seen in the last century. If emissions continue at a runaway pace, sea levels could rise "at least 21 inches by 2100 and might rise a bit more than three feet.

The National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration's 2012 State of the Climate report, released earlier this month, showed global greenhouse gas emissions reached a new record high in 2011, and estimates suggest the record was broken again in 2012.

"It's good to see that the IPCC has moved in the right direction this time by at least trying to account for the key contribution to sea level rise from melting ice sheets," director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center Michael Mann told The Huffington Post in an emailed statement, explaining that it was ignored in the previous IPCC report from 2007.

"However, the projections they provide are still overly conservative, with an upper limit of roughly one meter by 2100, when there is published work that suggests the possibility of as much as two meters (six feet) sea level rise by 2100," he added.

"This fits a pattern of the IPCC tending to err on the side of conservative, in part--I believe-because of fear of being attacked by the climate change denial machine.

Describing the IPCC's projections, Climate Progress' Joe Romm wrote on Sunday, "Like every IPCC report, it is an instantly out-of-date snapshot that lowballs future warming because it continues to ignore large parts of the recent literature and omit what it can't model.

A recent study published in the journal Nature Climate Change shows that with only 15.75 inches of sea level rise by mid-century, losses due to flooding in 136 of the world's coastal cities may approach $1 trillion annually, reported Climate Central.

IPCC spokesman Jonathan Lynn cautioned against drawing too many conclusions from the leaked drafts, but told the BBC on Monday, "We are not trying to keep it secret." He said, "After the report is finished we are going to publish all the comments and response so that people can track the process.

Reuters' breakdown of the IPCC draft also draws attention to the apparent slowdown in warming observed since 1998, despite rising greenhouse gas emissions. Romm contends the slowdown "turns out to be only true if one looks narrowly at surface air temperatures, where only a small fraction of warming ends up.

The Times emphasizes the international scientific panel's further confidence in the future effects of unchecked emissions and notes, the experts "largely dismiss a recent slowdown in the pace of warming, which is often cited by climate change contrarians, as probably related to short-term factors.

The IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report is set to be released in four parts between September 2013 and November 2014.[/QUOTE]Tres3

Thanks Tres3.- I think this was the article that appeared in the leftist NYT, no??

If you ask Siri (I just did) and let her search the web, the second hit is from National Geographic that said 0.13" per year for the past 20 years. (the site actually made a math errors equating 0.13 inches to 3.2 mm, they did not move the decimal over one more...

That means that over the past 20 years we have seen a 2.6" rise in sea levels, which jives with what is being reported everywhere else. The real question is what is the timetable froward looking like? Again the NYT has a good article, if you believe that leftist publication: [URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/science/timing-a-rise-in-sea-level.html[/URL].

Denial is a lot easier than facing the difficult facts and thinking through solutions. I guess denial and de nile are put us and Egypt a lot closer than we think. That said, 230+ years of a relatively stable democracy will be hard to undo, even for determined Republicans / Tea partiers that use their political affialiation as cover for anarchy. We might as well call it out for what it is, the elephant in the room. Here here!

There's an annual contest at the Griffiths University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term.

This year's term was. 'political correctness'.

The winning student wrote:

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end.

Tres3.

[URL]http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/12/12/chasing_ice_video_watch_a_manhattan_sized_iceberg_calve_off_from_greenland.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=Gandolf50;435114]Show me hard data, not conjecture that says otherwise. I still own ocean front property in NY and the levels have NOT changed in the last 45 years![/QUOTE]

An interesting article about hospital charges.

[URL]http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/The-13-360-03-cat-bite-4744836.php[/URL]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;435170][URL]http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/12/12/chasing_ice_video_watch_a_manhattan_sized_iceberg_calve_off_from_greenland.html[/URL][/QUOTE]The Largest ice berg ever? This shows that glaciers are growing (or at least that one) which means it is not warming! If there are no glaciers (and yes some are receding) forming or growing, that would show "global warming". Record breaking ice bergs shows that "global warming" is NOT happening! This is common sense. But you can't see past the lies.

therefore, more ice berg formation=further destruction of glazers

the real truth of the matter is that a former usa presidential candidate was sited blasting the polar caps to cuase ice beg formation and a destruction of the polar caps to increase the sluggish sales of his book and videos. the slow economy in the usa hit even the top half of the top 1%

hint:this un-named politician's last name rhythms with the english slang term for puta.[thisisamongeringboardafterall]

[blue]===============================================

Miami Bob,

If you're going to bypass the Text Cleanup Scrip, then your text must be letter perfect.

This includes, among other things, correct punctuation and correctly capitalizing the 1st letter in a sentence and all proper nouns.

In other words, this forum is not your fucking cellphone.

For years I've edited your posts to conform with the Forum's Posting Guidelines, but today I've just decided that enough is enough and instead I will let you suffer the public embarrassment of being an grown man who cannot write like he has at least an 8th grade education.

Next time, I'll just delete your post like I do with other members who don't give a fuck about writing correctly.

Thanks,

Jax[/blue]

[QUOTE=MiamiBob;435173]therefore, more ice berg formation=further destruction of glazers

the real truth of the matter is that a former usa presidential candidate was sited blasting the polar caps to cuase ice beg formation and a destruction of the polar caps to increase the sluggish sales of his book and videos. the slow economy in the usa hit even the top half of the top 1%

hint:this un-named politician's last name rhythms with the english slang term for puta.[thisisamongeringboardafterall]

[blue]===============================================

Miami Bob,

If you're going to bypass the Text Cleanup Scrip, then your text must be letter perfect.

This includes, among other things, correct punctuation and correctly capitalizing the 1st letter in a sentence and all proper nouns.

In other words, this forum is not your fucking cellphone.

For years I've edited your posts to conform with the Forum's Posting Guidelines, but today I've just decided that enough is enough and instead I will let you suffer the public embarrassment of being an grown man who cannot write like he has at least an 8th grade education.

Next time, I'll just delete your post like I do with other members who don't give a fuck about writing correctly.

Thanks,

Jax[/blue][/QUOTE]


My thanks for the post went to Miami Bob and I meant it for Jax hence this post.
Don B

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;435171]An interesting article about hospital charges.

[URL]http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/The-13-360-03-cat-bite-4744836.php[/URL][/QUOTE]But the insurance company pays less than the amount you see on the hospital bill because they have negotiated lower fees. (Certainly our health care is too expensive. But the amount we see on hospital bills exaggerates the cost).

Bob.

Watch the full preview of the movie.

[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIZTMVNBjc4[/URL]

[QUOTE=Gandolf50;435172]The Largest ice berg ever? This shows that glaciers are growing (or at least that one) which means it is not warming! If there are no glaciers (and yes some are receding) forming or growing, that would show "global warming". Record breaking ice bergs shows that "global warming" is NOT happening! This is common sense. But you can't see past the lies.[/QUOTE]

[size=+1][B]CDC Gun Violence Study's Findings Not What Obama Wanted[/B][/size]

[QUOTE]Second Amendment: The White House asked the Centers for Disease Control "to research the causes and prevention of gun violence." We're pretty sure that what the CDC found wasn't what the White House was looking for.

The Democrats, and their media allies, obsess over some shootings while ignoring many others.

Kill innocents in a school or theater in large numbers, and the media will fixate on the tragedy while Democrats wail about America's "gun culture."

Shoot a minority who's wearing a hoodie and the left twists the story into something it isn't while the media turn the shooter into a "white" man, though he, too, is a minority — and an Obama supporter with a mixed ethnic background.

[highlight]It was under these raw and highly charged circumstances that President Obama asked the CDC in January to perform the study. He was surely looking to manufacture a crisis that he could take advantage of.[/highlight]

What that study revealed, though, does not fit in with the media-Democrat message.

"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals," says the report, which was completed in June and ignored in the mainstream press.

The study, which was farmed out by the CDC to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, also revealed that while there were "about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008," the estimated number of defensive uses of guns ranges "from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."

Here are a few more salient points from the study:

• "Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue."

• "Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies."

• One "body of research" (Kleck and Gertz, 1995) cited by the study found "estimated annual gun use for self-defense" to be "up to 2.5 million incidents, suggesting that self-defense can be an important crime deterrent."

• "There is empirical evidence that gun turn-in programs are ineffective."

Does anyone recall this study getting extensive media coverage or the administration plugging its key findings? Of course not. It doesn't support their anti-Second Amendment, anti-gun ideology. It's therefore ignored as if it never happened at all.


[url]http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/082113-668335-cdc-gun-violence-study-goes-against-media-narrative.htm#ixzz2chhWQztK [/url]

[/QUOTE]Looks like the control freaks got handed a shit sandwich on this one.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;435185]Watch the full preview of the movie.

[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIZTMVNBjc4[/URL][/QUOTE]To make a Iceberg, it needs to be cold. ALL icebergs float south and eventually melt. There would be smaller or no icebergs if the global warming theory was true.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;435171]An interesting article about hospital charges.

[URL]http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/The-13-360-03-cat-bite-4744836.php[/URL][/QUOTE]Rights, you remember individual rights, a long lost concept thanks to the progressives.

[URL]http://www.drhurd.com/index.php/Daily-Dose-of-Reason/Health-Care-Reform/Obama-logic-and-the-Right-to-Health-Insurance.html[/URL]

Don B

If you have never heard the term "useful idiot" it was the attitude held by Vladimir Lenin towards communist sympathizers in the West (America). While Lenin and the Soviets held them in utter contempt they also viewed them as tools for dispensing communist propaganda to other countries, thus infecting foreign cultures with their totalitarian tripe. After their mission was complete, they were no longer "useful.

It's a term the refers to brainwashed American Marxists who blindly support any ideology that gets themselves out of real work and causes others to pay their way.

It also refers to useful idiots who post inaccurate definitions of the term useful idiot on sites like the urban dictionary. While they believe that they are making some sort of statement, they are actually providing perfect examples of the term.

An American who espouses Marxist ideals is a useful idiot.

There are several in this forum.

Don B.

[QUOTE=DonB;435215]If you have never heard the term "useful idiot" it was the attitude held by Vladimir Lenin towards communist sympathizers in the West (America). [/QUOTE]According to Wikipedia there is no record that Lenin ever used that term. But I'm pretty sure the term has been used by at least a few wealthy gun company executives, who profit from the delusions of those who peg their individual freedom to the ability to buy a gun without a background check.

[QUOTE=Esten;435217]According to Wikipedia there is no record that Lenin ever used that term. But I'm pretty sure the term has been used by at least a few wealthy gun company executives, who profit from the delusions of those who peg their individual freedom to the ability to buy a gun without a background check.[/QUOTE]Esten, what drivel! From your post you leave the impression there are no background checks in place which you know is not the case.

Dealers have been doing background checks for years now. Just another liberal attempt to obscure / ignore the facts to further your own agenda.

As far as gun makers go, please continue to persecute them on the east and left coast. We would love to have them move to Texas, a non union at will state.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;435219]Esten, what drivel! From your post you leave the impression there are no background checks in place which you know is not the case.

Dealers have been doing background checks for years now. Just another liberal attempt to obscure / ignore the facts to further your own agenda.[/QUOTE]The gun control issue has always been about freedom, for gun owners. They equate a significant sense of their freedom with their ability to own a gun.

The Senate vote earlier this year did not impede this freedom, it merely closed loopholes that allowed people to purchase a gun without a background check. Nevertheless, there was a big outcry from the gun lobby and many gun owners over this. The rallying cry was their freedoms were at stake.

In other words, with the help of the gun lobby, many gun owners saw the Senate vote to expand background checks as an attack on their freedom.

[URL]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/dunkin-donuts-worker-pistol-whipped-botched-coffee-order-article-1.1433962[/URL]

[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MvQlN1MhmE[/URL]

The wife was yelling Shoot Him.