Politics 2015

[tinnitus photography]

 What the hell do you put on your brats? Your polish? 

no, i save my furniture polish for putting on steak tips.

[Hixter]

also, my pal Loring posted this:

Looks like your friend resigned his ACLU position over his Facebook post.

 

http://gazette.com/aclu-board-member-resigns-after-facebook-post-about-shooting-people-who-would-vote-for-trump/article/1565495

 

I'm worried that we're on the road to becoming like the UK where an offensive statement is grounds for arrest. Hate speech is ugly, but there's this whole first amendment thing...

[lost highway]

Yeah, the first amendment doesn't protect your job, for better and for worse.

[KevinG]

Looks like your friend resigned his ACLU position over his Facebook post.

 

http://gazette.com/aclu-board-member-resigns-after-facebook-post-about-shooting-people-who-would-vote-for-trump/article/1565495

 

There is certain amount of irony there

[Eternal Instigator]

They lobby against gun control which would disarm law-abiding citizens and/or turn them into felons at the stroke of a pen. 

 

 

Highly unlikely. There are about 5 million NRA members, so only 1 in 60 Americans are members. Nobody keeps murder stats for NRA members, but Texas does keep stats of a similar demographic: Concealed Handgun License holders. Every year about 3 of them out of a million are convicted of murder (not necessarily with a firearm). That's less than 1/13 of the murder rate for the nation as a whole. 

 

http://www.startribune.com/man-sought-after-gun-discharges-at-fridley-supertarget/361752711/

 

Whoops. Can't wait to find out if this is a law-abiding citizen or not. Even if the idiot doesn't have a CCW permit, there have been plenty of other examples of people who do have permits but still put the rest of us in danger due to carelessness. 

[Eternal Instigator]

You and your graphs.  What is not shown in that graph (or not directly pointed out) is 25% of respondance had no opinion or did not know.  Which is a huge number.  That should not be disregarded and if you look at the poll as I first did you see one bar is bigger than the other and that is it.      

Thank you for jumping on this one and providing the full results of the poll.

 

The right wing's go-to strategy is to provide incomplete and/or misleading "facts" to their low-information base, knowing full well that few will actually dig deeper on their own. Unfortunately for Hixter, this forum tends to be a little more savvy. 

[Hixter]

Whoops. Can't wait to find out if this is a law-abiding citizen or not. Even if the idiot doesn't have a CCW permit, there have been plenty of other examples of people who do have permits but still put the rest of us in danger due to carelessness. 

Not sure what this has to do with my NRA comments that you quoted?

 

Negligent discharges are always going to happen, even when you're dealing with highly trained police officers and soldiers. I remember reading an article that said that armed cops in the UK negligently discharged their weapons more frequently than they were intentionally discharged.

 

Thank you for jumping on this one and providing the full results of the poll.

 

The right wing's go-to strategy is to provide incomplete and/or misleading "facts" to their low-information base, knowing full well that few will actually dig deeper on their own. Unfortunately for Hixter, this forum tends to be a little more savvy. 

Sorry, but the figures cannot be discounted just because 25% of respondents had no opinion. The poll was a Huffington Post project and they are decidedly not right wing, but that didn't stop them from leading their story with this line:

 

A majority say that they view Islam unfavorably, and even Democrats are almost twice as likely to view Islam negatively than positively

 

Facts is facts.

[KevinG]

Sorry, but the figures cannot be discounted just because 25% of respondents had no opinion. The poll was a Huffington Post project and they are decidedly not right wing, but that didn't stop them from leading their story with this line:

 

A majority say that they view Islam unfavorably, and even Democrats are almost twice as likely to view Islam negatively than positively

 

Facts is facts.

If you remember from my original post on the matter I did say the facts are facts and it is a troubling statistic. However with 25% not offering an opinion it adds more to think about in the poll. You know there is nuance. The poll cannot be taken black and white.

 

The full study, as I said before, shows really we tend to fear or dislike what we don't understand. But of course those comments can get you compared to a cartoon character.

[Winston Legthigh]

 

Sorry, but the figures cannot be discounted just because 25% of respondents had no opinion. 

 

 

OK then, the figures can be discounted because two viable answers weren't even included as options:

 

1) I have no opinion on Islam.

2) I have a neutral opinion on Islam.

 

Without those two possible answers, the survey writer is purposely herding the answers towards being positive or negative. 

 

It's flawed from the outset.

 

Here's how those numbers should be interpreted:

 

Thesis: Conservative people are more likely than liberal people to be intolerant.

Wow! The data backs up that thesis!

 

Fin.

[Hixter]

OK then, the figures can be discounted because two viable answers weren't even included as options:

 

1) I have no opinion on Islam.

2) I have a neutral opinion on Islam.

 

Without those two possible answers, the survey writer is purposely herding the answers towards being positive or negative. 

Of course the writer was herding the answers to be either positive or negative. The question asked was "Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the Islamic religion?"

[Winston Legthigh]

Of course the writer was herding the answers to be either positive or negative. The question asked was "Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the Islamic religion?"

OK, if I was asked that, I would say "um, neither" and then the survey taker would ask "no, you have to pick one" and then I would say "how about you fuck off, I'm not interested." and then he would probably check "unfavorable"

[Tweedling]

^^^

Hahahaha

[Eternal Instigator]

Negligent discharges are always going to happen, even when you're dealing with highly trained police officers and soldiers. I remember reading an article that said that armed cops in the UK negligently discharged their weapons more frequently than they were intentionally discharged.

 

I guess my point is that the more people are carrying guns in public places, regardless if they have a permit, the more often negligent discharge is going to happen. Innocents will injured or killed because they happened to be standing next to an incompetent idiot who is either so arrogant or so afraid of his own shadow, he'll bring a gun into a busy store where the chances of him needing it are next to nothing...and this type of gun-carrying "good guy" will not be the hero who thinks on his toes, keeps his cool and saves us all from a "bad guy". The NRA would have us all believe that CCW permit holders are trained to handle them safely but that's hardly the case, especially considering that training requirements vary from state to state with some requiring very little in the way of safely carrying a loaded weapon. They, and you apparently, would also like us to believe that getting accidentally shot by a "law-abiding" CCW holder is no different than the risk taken when we get behind the wheel of a car...except we're all well aware of the risk on the roads and have the ability to minimize that risk by being driving safely ourselves, buckling up and being aware of other drivers. Not sure what kind of world we live in where we should accept that standing in line at a crowded store has an inherent risk of being accidentally shot by someone they didn't even know was carelessly - and needlessly - carrying a weapon.

 

I think it's disingenuous to post any statistics on gun violence for numerous reasons - here's just a couple. First of all, the NRA effectively shut down the ability of the CDC to do any research in exchange for keeping their funding so the one centralized organization best suited to compile statistics can hardly touch them much less make them available to the public. Also, there is no consistency of how states report "accidental gun deaths" - one might call it homicide and another would call it accidental death. Pretty much every non-CDC organization that attempts to gather statistics admits that their figures are likely low.

 

In regards to your Texas statistics, I'm not sure how you can reasonably suggest the murder rate of CCW holders is a comparable demographic that could be used to estimate the murder rate of all NRA members. One would hope that someone with a CCW permit would be on the more responsible and trained end of the spectrum as opposed to the NRA rank and file, including rgiaw members who signed up just so they could put that sticker on the back of their truck because, dammit, they're a God-fearing 'Murican with rights and the NRA is the only group that understands and protects them (you know, the ones who are most likely to act violently out of anger...and who feel like their guns and that sticker made their manhood grow a couple inches). 

[KevinG]

So apparently it is perfectly acceptable to kill innocents in order to defeat ISIS. Things I learned from tonight's debate.

[Winston Legthigh]

So apparently it is perfectly acceptable to kill innocents in order to defeat ISIS. Things I

learned from tonight's debate.

You just learned that??

 

Are you unfamiliar with the History of Warfare?

 

What do you think happens when armed conflict occurs?

[KevinG]

You just learned that??

 

Are you unfamiliar with the History of Warfare?

 

What do you think happens when armed conflict occurs?

 

Apparently you misunderstand.  I know civilian casualties occur, but during the GOP debate pretty much everyone said it was an acceptable practice and actually encouraged (in the case of Trump).  Which you know is a War Crime.  Civilian casualties is not acceptable and not OK. 

So we have GOP presidential candidates opening saying things that are in direct conflict of the Geneva Convention and  not mention the other things that have been said that are unconstitutional.

The whole crowd last night was an embarrassment.  They all looked petty and childish.  Chris Christie was the most "presidential" out of the bunch.  And that is saying something.

[Winston Legthigh]

Deliberate attacks on civilians is a war crime. I'm not finding anything where any candidate said that a deliberate attack of civilians is acceptable or actually encouraged. 

 

Carson's quote below - deals with collateral damage, not direct attacks on civilian targets.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/15/who-said-what-and-what-it-meant-the-fifth-gop-debate-annotated/

 

BLITZER: Thank you. To be clear, Senator Cruz, would you carpet bomb Raqqa, the ISIS capital, where there are a lot of civilians, yes or no?

CRUZ: You would carpet bomb where ISIS is, not a city, but the location of the troops. You use air power directed -- and you have embedded special forces to direction the air power. But the object isn't to level a city. The object is to kill the ISIS terrorists.

 

HEWITT: Neurosurgeon. And people admire and respect and are inspired by your life story, your kindness, your evangelical core support. We're talking about ruthless things tonight -- carpet bombing, toughness, war. And people wonder, could you do that? Could you order air strikes that would kill innocent children by not the scores, but the hundreds and the thousands? Could you wage war as a commander-in-chief?

CARSON: Well, interestingly enough, you should see the eyes of some of those children when I say to them we're going to have to open your head up and take out this tumor. They're not happy about it, believe me. And they don't like me very much at that point. But later on, they love me.

Sometimes you -- I sound like him.

(APPLAUSE)

You know, later on, you know, they really realize what's going on. And by the same token, you have to be able to look at the big picture and understand that it's actually merciful if you go ahead and finish the job, rather than death by 1,000 pricks.

HEWITT: So you are OK with the deaths of thousands of innocent children and civilian? It's like...

CARSON: You got it. You got it.

[KevinG]

Deliberate attacks on civilians is a war crime. 

 

The Fourth Geneva Convention says otherwise:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Part_II._General_Protection_of_Populations_Against_Certain_Consequences_of_War

 

 

I'm not finding anything where any candidate said that a deliberate attack of civilians is acceptable or actually encouraged. 

 

Trump said this in response to the question "How would intentionally killing innocent civilians set us apart from ISIS?"  

 

 

 

“We have to be much tougher, we have to be much stronger than we've been.  We have people that know what is going on … I would be very, very firm with families. And frankly, that will make people think, because they may not care much about their lives. But they do care, believe it or not, about their families' lives.”

 

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/12/15/3732671/trump-isis-kill-family-members/

 

And for Carson's comments and the others, that is a pretty callous way of looking at things.   Yes civilian deaths happen it is an unfortunate and tragic cost of war.  But there is one thing try to avoid it and it is another to not care (which is Carson's position) or to actively go after families and civilians (which is Trump's).  But props to Sen Rand Paul, for having the balls to call them out on this.  This means he is pretty much done in the race.    

[John Smith]

As far as I know Trump is the only one to say kill the families to get to the bad guys.

[Winston Legthigh]

The Fourth Geneva Convention says otherwise:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Part_II._General_Protection_of_Populations_Against_Certain_Consequences_of_War

 

 

So, deliberate attacks on civilians isn't a war crime? I'm confused. What are you intending for me to read, and what is my take-away supposed to be?

 

If you're saying that collateral damage to civilians is a war crime, then please cite that.

[calvino]

From the panel, Rand Paul always comes across the most sane person --- which is super scary. Christie seemed a bit unhinged to me, especially about the whole Russian no fly zone stuff.

Everybody, with exception of Paul, stated that they wanted to increase and update the military - but I don't recall anybody talking about how to pay for it -- must admit I stopped watching.

 

It would be interesting to have Sanders win and then he appoints Paul as Sect. of Defense --- I'd keep him out of domestic stuff, but I wouldn't mind him dealing with foreign relations with regard to war, not the humanitarian side of things. (of course none of this would happen and Paul probably wants the Sect. of Defense cabinet position to go away).

[KevinG]

So, deliberate attacks on civilians isn't a war crime? I'm confused. What are you intending for me to read, and what is my take-away supposed to be?

 

If you're saying that collateral damage to civilians is a war crime, then please cite that.

 

Sorry, I misread your original statement, I thought you said, isn't, which is my bad.  This is what I get when I try to post without my first cup of coffee.  

 

Collateral damage to civilians is not a war crime (I never said it was, I said Trump encouraging civilian casualties is).  Intentional killing of civilians is, which I think we all on the same page now.  

 

That callousness of the candidates is quite shocking.  Remember these guys are all Pro-Life.  So that we get this straight, it is ok to kill children and families of terrorists (be it on purpose or as a casualty of war), but not ok with a woman choosing to terminate a pregnancy.  One potentially defies international conventions (or at the very least is a callous act) and they other is a legal medical procedure upheld by the US Supreme Court.  I guess as long as we kill babies in a foreign country it is ok.   

[John Smith]

They are pro birth, not pro life. Once you take that first gulp of air you are on your own.

[PopTodd]

[Winston Legthigh]

I think a certain level of callousness is required to make the terrible war-time decisions a President has to.

 

Have you seen The Fog of War? Excellent documentary. McNamara has been vilified for his callous number-crunching, data backed, decision making.

 

But - war decisions are always terrible decisions. There's no easy answers. 

 

What is the best way to go after ISIS? History will let us know whether or not our decision makers were right or not. 

 

Just remember that debate bluster is just that. They're vying for attention to secure votes, nothing more. They're doing what they think is best to become more popular. Trump is a first-rate ass-hat, and perhaps one of the numbnuts that's running against him will have the courage to take another tack. But maybe not. Doesn't seem like that kind of strategy has any hold over those types of voters.