Republican VP with strong ties to big oil

[Gypsiyee]

I am right with him on not going for publicly subsidizing sending kids to private schools. For the most part, that's just a giveaway to the people who are rich enough to be sending them anyway. Even with a "tax break", no one in the lower or even lower-middle class is going to be able to afford to send their kid to a private school, given the cost. So, that sort of tax break only REALLY helps the wealthy and to a lesser extent, the near-wealthy. Tell me again why this is a good plan? Especially considering how much funding it will cost the public schools, making them even worse for those still there? Oh yeah, I love that plan: Benefit the rich, screw the poor! Sounds like a typical GOP plan, at that. Kudos to Obama for opposing it.

I'm against the death penalty, period. So, I'm perfectly in agreement with not voting to extend it even further. I don't know why he is against it, but as for me, I'm against it because our system of justice is imperfect, and I never ever want to have the State be in the position of murder of an innocent man. How many people now have been freed off of Death Row via DNA evidence and the work of the Innocence Project? It's several, but even 1 is way too many. Sorry, but since humans are imperfect, the death penalty is always a bad idea, simply because there's no way to be SURE that no innocent person is ever put to death. Again, kudos to Obama for opposing this.

On the Gun issues, *shrug* I am not a big fan of handguns myself. But, the questions here are moot, given the recent Supreme Court decision. Personally, the concept of drunken frat boys having concealed firearms scares the crap out of me. I've known way too many people that get hyper-aggro when drunk, and have hair tempers. Right now, they just get into fights. Add in weapons.... bleah. Besides which, last I checked, statistics show far more people are harmed by their own guns that they have for 'protection' than intruders are shot. Show me some statistics of how many "wives are raped because their husband didn't have a gun" from a neutral (ie, non-NRA) website. Is there even 1 a year? Talk about making up an out there scenario to use as a straw-man...

As for the last one, you're saying that a poor 13 year old, with no health insurance, who was molested by her father and got pregnant has to carry that kid to term because you don't want the federal government to put ANY money towards it? How about someone who's raped and also can't afford the procedure? She's SOL too? Because she was "asking for it" or something, I bet you'll say? How about some woman who develops severe complications, and the only medical option is to abort the fetus, or the mother dies? According to you she's fucked if she can't afford it out of pocket, huh? Real nice. Yet again, Kudos to Obama for sticking up for those less fortunate.

As for drilling, if we're not using it all for fuel, we've got way more than enough domestic production to use for things like jet fuel, plastics, etc. New drilling wouldn't get us ONE DROP of production for a decade, and could fuck up the environment even worse than it already is. YOU may not live in a coastal state, but those of us that DO don't want our beaches covered in crap, thanks. Having SEEN it in places like Santa Barbara, I don't trust the oil companies in their promises of environmental friendliness any further than I can throw a derrick. No, I much rather investing heavily into green power and renewable fuels so that by the time that new drilling would be coming on line, we no longer NEED it. We can then tell the entire middle east to go fuck itself.

So lets recap, shall we? You're for screwing the poor at every turn, giving monetary breaks to those already wealthy, risking the state killing innocent people, and forcing 13 year olds who were raped by a family member to carry the fetus to term, or worst case, letting someone die if she can't afford the abortion herself, if she has severe medical complications develop.... Excuse me if I don't shout hosanna's at you and proclaim you the next Albert Schweitzer...

-Arlos

I was going to respond, but I'd only be echoing your post - very well put. Only thing I can add is about capital punishment - the cost of the capital trial alone is more than the cost of life imprisonment, and personally I think someone who commits that sort of crime is hardly worthy of a death equivalent to the humane treatment they give to sick animals to put them out of their pain. I find far more justice in them having to live a miserable life with no chance at enjoying it for the rest of their existance.

Also, who needs more than one handgun a month? Jeezo.

[vonkaar]

Mindia... she's married to someone who works for big oil. Her husband works for an oil company. Palin is directly connected to oil production by way of marriage.

That = strong ties.

"Strong ties to big oil" does not equal, "Ties with someone strong in big oil."

You write as if I posted a 3000 word essay describing Palin's corruptable nature due to her evil husband's controlling stake Oil business. I wrote 8 words, stating one single fact - Palin has strong ties to the oil industry.

Freak the fuck out, ya?

[ClakarEQ]

I couldn't find the video, didn't look too hard though, but still, we've got another "crazy" trying to be VP
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/ ... 27574.aspx
Not saying God spoke to her but OMG this women is more and more frightening to me.

[araby]

Upon first glance she seemed like a good choice for him, but now that more and more is being uncovered about her, it really is making me wonder what McCain was thinking. I've heard they had her take a test and they spoke three times prior to meeting...I've heard a LOT of things. I heard she and her husband were involved in wanting Alaska to secede from the US. I heard she doesn't think Polar Bears are an endangered species.

I also heard she keeps a bible in her bra.

That part is true, spread it.

[ClakarEQ]

I also heard she keeps a bible in her bra.

That part is true, spread it.

You're such a rumor weed , not her bra nor a bible, it's a crucifix and a cavity /doh

[Diekan]

I am right with him on not going for publicly subsidizing sending kids to private schools. For the most part, that's just a giveaway to the people who are rich enough to be sending them anyway. Even with a "tax break", no one in the lower or even lower-middle class is going to be able to afford to send their kid to a private school, given the cost. So, that sort of tax break only REALLY helps the wealthy and to a lesser extent, the near-wealthy. Tell me again why this is a good plan? Especially considering how much funding it will cost the public schools, making them even worse for those still there? Oh yeah, I love that plan: Benefit the rich, screw the poor! Sounds like a typical GOP plan, at that. Kudos to Obama for opposing it.

I'm against the death penalty, period. So, I'm perfectly in agreement with not voting to extend it even further. I don't know why he is against it, but as for me, I'm against it because our system of justice is imperfect, and I never ever want to have the State be in the position of murder of an innocent man. How many people now have been freed off of Death Row via DNA evidence and the work of the Innocence Project? It's several, but even 1 is way too many. Sorry, but since humans are imperfect, the death penalty is always a bad idea, simply because there's no way to be SURE that no innocent person is ever put to death. Again, kudos to Obama for opposing this.

On the Gun issues, *shrug* I am not a big fan of handguns myself. But, the questions here are moot, given the recent Supreme Court decision. Personally, the concept of drunken frat boys having concealed firearms scares the crap out of me. I've known way too many people that get hyper-aggro when drunk, and have hair tempers. Right now, they just get into fights. Add in weapons.... bleah. Besides which, last I checked, statistics show far more people are harmed by their own guns that they have for 'protection' than intruders are shot. Show me some statistics of how many "wives are raped because their husband didn't have a gun" from a neutral (ie, non-NRA) website. Is there even 1 a year? Talk about making up an out there scenario to use as a straw-man...

As for the last one, you're saying that a poor 13 year old, with no health insurance, who was molested by her father and got pregnant has to carry that kid to term because you don't want the federal government to put ANY money towards it? How about someone who's raped and also can't afford the procedure? She's SOL too? Because she was "asking for it" or something, I bet you'll say? How about some woman who develops severe complications, and the only medical option is to abort the fetus, or the mother dies? According to you she's fucked if she can't afford it out of pocket, huh? Real nice. Yet again, Kudos to Obama for sticking up for those less fortunate.

As for drilling, if we're not using it all for fuel, we've got way more than enough domestic production to use for things like jet fuel, plastics, etc. New drilling wouldn't get us ONE DROP of production for a decade, and could fuck up the environment even worse than it already is. YOU may not live in a coastal state, but those of us that DO don't want our beaches covered in crap, thanks. Having SEEN it in places like Santa Barbara, I don't trust the oil companies in their promises of environmental friendliness any further than I can throw a derrick. No, I much rather investing heavily into green power and renewable fuels so that by the time that new drilling would be coming on line, we no longer NEED it. We can then tell the entire middle east to go fuck itself.

So lets recap, shall we? You're for screwing the poor at every turn, giving monetary breaks to those already wealthy, risking the state killing innocent people, and forcing 13 year olds who were raped by a family member to carry the fetus to term, or worst case, letting someone die if she can't afford the abortion herself, if she has severe medical complications develop.... Excuse me if I don't shout hosanna's at you and proclaim you the next Albert Schweitzer...

-Arlos

I was going to respond, but I'd only be echoing your post - very well put. Only thing I can add is about capital punishment - the cost of the capital trial alone is more than the cost of life imprisonment, and personally I think someone who commits that sort of crime is hardly worthy of a death equivalent to the humane treatment they give to sick animals to put them out of their pain. I find far more justice in them having to live a miserable life with no chance at enjoying it for the rest of their existence.

Also, who needs more than one handgun a month? Jeezo.

Who are you to tell me I can't buy more than one handgun a month? I only own one - never had the desire to buy more, but if I wanted to and as long as my background checks out... I should be able to.

Secondly, as for Arlos' "drunken frat boy" comment. I don't have an issue with institutions banning weapons from their property. However, if both of you take the time to check you'll find that concealed permits do not lead to increased crime. Although what's sad is that people (not just liberals) who dislike guns will never review the research or give its due credit.

[edit] Research into the effects of concealed carry laws on crime
There have been many studies and papers published in academic journals regarding the effects of various concealed carry laws on crime rate.[30] Academics have also taken the discussion to books, blogs, and oral debates.

In his book, More Guns, Less Crime, University of Maryland scholar John Lott's analysis of crime report data has shown statistically significant effects of concealed carry laws. One major conclusion was that locations which enacted more permissive concealed carry laws had a decrease in violent crime but an increase in property crime. The possible reasons for this rise in property crime are twofold:

Property crimes include trespassing, and concealed-carry statutes that include prohibited-area laws introduce the possibility of trespass where the individual would otherwise be in violation of a weapons law by carrying concealed (e.g. unlawful carry) or would not carry and be lawful.
Concealed carry allows potential victims of violent crime to prevent such crime; as a result, the assailant, if not fatally shot, is instead charged with a property crime such as burglary instead of homicide.
In both cases, crime is reduced overall, and criminal activity that does occur is recategorized as to type and severity because of the effects of the change in law.

Don Kates summarizes the consensus reached by criminological research into gun control thus:

"Unfortunately, an almost perfect inverse correlation exists between those who are affected by gun laws, particularly bans, and those whom enforcement should affect. Those easiest to disarm are the responsible and law abiding citizens whose guns represent no meaningful social problem. Irresponsible and criminal owners, whose gun possession creates or exacerbates so many social ills, are the ones most difficult to disarm."[31]

Regardless of the interpretation of statistics, the trend in the United States has been towards greater permissiveness of concealed carry. In Florida, which introduced the "shall-issue" concealed carry laws used as a model for other states, crimes committed against residents dropped markedly upon the general issuance of concealed-carry licenses,[32] which had the unintended consequence of putting tourists in Florida driving marked rental cars at risk from criminals since tourists may be readily presumed unarmed.[33] Florida responded by enacting laws prohibiting the obvious marking of rental cars. In 1991, the Luby's massacre prompted Texas lawmakers to pass a concealed carry law that came into effect in 1995.[34]

Research comparing various countries' violent crime rates, murder rates, and crimes committed with weapons, have found that legal ownership of guns, including concealed carry guns, generally reduces crime rates.[35][31]

University of Washington public health professor Brandon Centerwall prepared a study comparing homicide rates between Canada and the U.S., as the two countries are very similar, yet have different handgun ownership rates. He reported "Major differences in the prevalence of handguns have not resulted in differing total criminal homicide rates in Canadian provinces and adjoining US states."[36] In his conclusions he published the following admonition:

"If you are surprised by my findings, so are we. We did not begin this research with any intent to "exonerate" handguns, but there it is -- a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where NOT to aim public health resources."[36]

Permit holders are a remarkably law-abiding subclass of the population. Florida, which has issued over 1,346,000 permits in twenty years, has revoked only 165 for a "crime after licensure involving a firearm," and fewer than 4200 permits for any reason. [46]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_ ... ted_States

You just don't like guns and - therefore - because YOU don't like them no one should be able to have them.

Stats and research show over and over again that the vast majority of gun crimes are not committed by law abiding concealed permit holders - but by CRIMINALS WITH GUNS THAT ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL.

But, still we'll keep passing laws that do nothing to prevent crime but are wonderful at harassing law abiding tax payers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcsaTa9P ... re=related

The point of the video is that this illegal commits crimes with a gun (that was obviously not registered) and the liberals go out of their way to ensure his freedom. Now, had that been a home owner that protected himself... what do you think the great leaders of San Fran Shitsco would have done? He'd be in prison for a very long time.

By the way – not just San Fran Schitsco, but the entire Socialist Republic of California is a PRIME example of how liberal politics DO NOT WORK. Look at that place. It’s a nightmare.

How is giving tax breaks to MIDDLE CLASS families screwing the poor when it comes to choosing private schools over the broken public school system? They can easily put a cap on the break. If you make more than 100K a year you do not qualify for the tax break. See? Easy. The issue here is public school = government control = liberal's wet dream. The bigger, the more powerful, the more controlling the federal government is, the happier the liberal is. So, explain to me who giving tax breaks to families who make less than 100K a year to send their kids to private school is fucking over the poor.

I still say we need to drill NOW while working on alternative sources of fuel. I wonder if your hatred of capitalism is more of a motivator than your love of the environment in your opposition to more drilling.

Finally, do you really think for a second that I believe the public funding of abortion is going to stop with incest and rape victims? It’ll turn into a tax funded means for birth control for party girls that the lack the maturity and responsibility to avoid getting knocked up in the first place. If you could ensure, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this wouldn’t happen then I would support such spending – but we both know what’ll happen in a few years time.

[Arlos]

Nice ignoring of most every single other point I made in my post, where I specifically said that the gun issue is effectively moot at this point given the recent SCOTUS decision regarding the handgun law in DC. I should have been a bit more specific, though, in my concealed carry comments, in that what concerns me most is the push by many in the NRA lobby for UNLIMITED concealed carry, without necessary of going through the permit process, which is by its very nature self-selecting of more responsible individuals.

The reason "tax breaks" for private schools don't help the middle class is that most middle class cannot afford the tuition for private schools! A lot of them have absolutely astronomical tuition rates, and just being able to deduct that from your income (which might save 10% of the cost) is nowhere near enough for anyone but the already well off to afford to send their kids.

So, it fucks over the poor by taking money OUT of the public school system, which is the only place they can afford to send their kids, REGARDLESS of if there are tax breaks or not. Thus, those schools that their kids are in get WORSE. This was about a tax giveaway to the wealthy who didn't need it, and would be sending their kids to private school if they wanted to anyway, and big time thumbs up for Obama for voting against it.

And please, your characterization of liberals and government is so laughable as to be absolutely pathetic. Liberals want government to be there to help people who need it. Not for government to run your life. Now, the Conservatives on the other hand, want the government in your bedroom...

Furthermore, where in hell have I ever stated that I in any way hate capitalism? I hate unchecked greed, and the naked hunger for profits at all cost, and damn the consequences. That leads to gutting the middle class and despoiling the environment. You really think that companies would have stopped dumping toxins into the nations waterways and wouldn't have re-created Love Canals all over the country if not for environmental laws FORCING them to behave otherwise? Riiiiight.

As for abortion, maybe if the rabid right wing would actually stop being so idiotic and insisting on "abstinence only!" sex education, which has been shown time and time again to be utterly useless, we might have *gasp* less abortions! What a shocker! Going back to Palin's family as an example of this, maybe if her 17 year old had had actual instructions in sex ed, birth control & condom usage, she wouldn't have GOTTEN pregnant in the first place?

Ultimately, the Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is a right protected by the constitution. You may not like it, but that's the law of the land. Just like I may not care for the 2nd amendment, but it's still the law of the land. As a result, yes, federal health care dollars might get used for people who cannot afford them to exercise a constitutionally protected right. Argue all you want on whether it SHOULD be protected, and try and get the law changed, that's your right, but WHILE it is legal, you shouldn't have any more say in funding it than I have in whether or not MY tax dollars go to a war I do not support. Furthermore, I utterly disagree with what you say will be the outcome of such an expenditure. Once again, an extreme case as a straw man.

Oh, and as for California... Funny, San Jose has the 2nd lowest crime rate among all large cities. Los Angeles is 3rd, San Diego is 4th. A quick check of San Francisco's crime rate has it coming in at less in absolute totals than Omaha, yet has 2x the population. Dallas, Red State Central and Gun Lover central had THREE TIMES the violent crime rate of San Jose.

Many bay area public schools regularly test among the highest scoring in the nation. I got a great education in many aspects from a public high school in this area, and it wasn't even one of those top performing ones. Yeah, the state has some problems, largely lately with a lot of the Republicans in state congress being asshats (even the Governator has been calling them out for blocking the budget), but which state DOESN'T have some issues these days? You calling the state completely fucked up just shows how little you know about it.

-Arlos

PS. crime rate info here: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004902.html
Big city crime rates here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14910822/

[Eziekial]

Hi, what's going on in here?

[leah]

Hi, what's going on in here?

MORE THAN ONE HANDGUN A MONTH, that's what!!

seriously . . . why? i don't care if homey wants to buy a handgun. i don't like guns, and i like concealed carry laws even less, but it's going to happen anyway so whatever. but why on earth would you need to buy more than one per month???

edit: TYPO

[Diekan]

Hi, what's going on in here?

MORE THAN ONE HANDGUN A MONTH, that's what!!

seriously . . . why? i don't care if homey wants to buy a handgun. i don't like guns, and i like concealed carry laws even less, but it's going to happen anyway so whatever. but why on earth would you need to buy more than one per month???

edit: TYPO

Because if you're a law abiding citizen that has a clean background you should be able to buy as many as you want.

[Diekan]

Nice ignoring of most every single other point I made in my post, where I specifically said that the gun issue is effectively moot at this point given the recent SCOTUS decision regarding the handgun law in DC. I should have been a bit more specific, though, in my concealed carry comments, in that what concerns me most is the push by many in the NRA lobby for UNLIMITED concealed carry, without necessary of going through the permit process, which is by its very nature self-selecting of more responsible individuals.

The reason "tax breaks" for private schools don't help the middle class is that most middle class cannot afford the tuition for private schools! A lot of them have absolutely astronomical tuition rates, and just being able to deduct that from your income (which might save 10% of the cost) is nowhere near enough for anyone but the already well off to afford to send their kids.

So, it fucks over the poor by taking money OUT of the public school system, which is the only place they can afford to send their kids, REGARDLESS of if there are tax breaks or not. Thus, those schools that their kids are in get WORSE. This was about a tax giveaway to the wealthy who didn't need it, and would be sending their kids to private school if they wanted to anyway, and big time thumbs up for Obama for voting against it.

And please, your characterization of liberals and government is so laughable as to be absolutely pathetic. Liberals want government to be there to help people who need it. Not for government to run your life. Now, the Conservatives on the other hand, want the government in your bedroom...

Furthermore, where in hell have I ever stated that I in any way hate capitalism? I hate unchecked greed, and the naked hunger for profits at all cost, and damn the consequences. That leads to gutting the middle class and despoiling the environment. You really think that companies would have stopped dumping toxins into the nations waterways and wouldn't have re-created Love Canals all over the country if not for environmental laws FORCING them to behave otherwise? Riiiiight.

As for abortion, maybe if the rabid right wing would actually stop being so idiotic and insisting on "abstinence only!" sex education, which has been shown time and time again to be utterly useless, we might have *gasp* less abortions! What a shocker! Going back to Palin's family as an example of this, maybe if her 17 year old had had actual instructions in sex ed, birth control & condom usage, she wouldn't have GOTTEN pregnant in the first place?

Ultimately, the Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is a right protected by the constitution. You may not like it, but that's the law of the land. Just like I may not care for the 2nd amendment, but it's still the law of the land. As a result, yes, federal health care dollars might get used for people who cannot afford them to exercise a constitutionally protected right. Argue all you want on whether it SHOULD be protected, and try and get the law changed, that's your right, but WHILE it is legal, you shouldn't have any more say in funding it than I have in whether or not MY tax dollars go to a war I do not support. Furthermore, I utterly disagree with what you say will be the outcome of such an expenditure. Once again, an extreme case as a straw man.

Oh, and as for California... Funny, San Jose has the 2nd lowest crime rate among all large cities. Los Angeles is 3rd, San Diego is 4th. A quick check of San Francisco's crime rate has it coming in at less in absolute totals than Omaha, yet has 2x the population. Dallas, Red State Central and Gun Lover central had THREE TIMES the violent crime rate of San Jose.

Many bay area public schools regularly test among the highest scoring in the nation. I got a great education in many aspects from a public high school in this area, and it wasn't even one of those top performing ones. Yeah, the state has some problems, largely lately with a lot of the Republicans in state congress being asshats (even the Governator has been calling them out for blocking the budget), but which state DOESN'T have some issues these days? You calling the state completely fucked up just shows how little you know about it.

-Arlos

PS. crime rate info here: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004902.html
Big city crime rates here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14910822/

The Supreme Court should not have as much power as they currently do. They essentially run with no checks and balances which I find very disturbing – even if they vote in favor on an issue that I support.

A voucher system in addition to a tax break for middle class families would be enough to afford working parents the opportunity to send their kids to a private school. Not giving them a free ride, but offering a great deal of assistance. However, the teacher’s unions have done a masterful job of keeping vouchers out of the picture. Why? Because as with most unions, quality of work takes a backseat to “sick days and pay raises.” Something on the order to 1/3 of all teachers in the state of Georgia can’t pass proficiency tests in the very subjects they teach – yet they can’t be fired either because of the teacher’s unions. And, middle class parents who want to take their child out of the hands of these incompetent union workers are powerless. If it’s money for the public school system you’re worried about then the government needs to CUT pork and other wasteful spending and put that money into the education system.

http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/bg1840.cfm

My personal favorite out of the list:

2. Unused Flight Tickets Totaling $100 Million

A recent audit revealed that between 1997 and 2003, the Defense Department purchased and then left unused approximately 270,000 commercial airline tickets at a total cost of $100 million. Even worse, the Pentagon never bothered to get a refund for these fully refundable tickets. The GAO blamed a system that relied on department personnel to notify the travel office when purchased tickets went unused.[3]

Auditors also found 27,000 transactions between 2001 and 2002 in which the Pentagon paid twice for the same ticket. The department would purchase the ticket directly and then inex-plicably reimburse the employee for the cost of the ticket. (In one case, an employee who allegedly made seven false claims for airline tickets professed not to have noticed that $9,700 was deposited into his/her account). These additional transactions cost taxpayers $8 million.

100 million wasted. 100 million that could have been distributed to each of the 50 states for a nice 2 million cut to be used on the public school system.

But rather than do something about the federal government’s out of control pork and waste spending we refuse tax breaks to middle class families who actually NEED that money for the benefit of their children’s education.

As for capitalism. I love it. Capitalism breeds invention. It begets innovation and competition. It is because of capitalism that cell phones are one app away from “hunting John Connor” and are now the size of credit cards, for example. I DO agree that “unchecked” capitalism is dangerous. I would say it’s even more dangerous to the future of this country than terrorist organization could ever hope to be. So, yes we do need tight restrictions placed on big companies to combat runaway greed. However, some of the regulations do more harm to the American worker than good. Some regulations and taxes are so ridiculous companies find it simply easier to pack up and leave than to stay. Taxing the fuck out of big industry isn’t going to solve the problem. Lest ye forget, companies don’t pay taxes. They pass them down to the consumer to absorb in higher prices.

I personally don’t know whether or not Palin’s kid is versed in birth control and abstinence. Maybe she is and maybe she isn’t. I am against abortion with the only exceptions being cases of rape in incest. But, again, as I said before, allowing the public to fund the procedures won’t stop with pregnancies resulting from those grotesque situations. We all know, once again, that it will evolve to include “every day” pregnancies as well. Then it will transform into a form of tax payer funded birth control. Like Obama says, “I don’t want my daughters punished with a baby.” I don’t like my tax money being spent on a war I don’t support either – but I rest well at night knowing (or at least hoping) that some of that money is being used to keep the lives of our military personnel a little safer through the purchasing of body armor, etc.

And again, as far as gun laws are concerned. Passing more laws does NOTHING to fight crime. They merely harass people who already obey the laws to being with. The majority of guns used to commit crimes are not bought from “Big Daves Guns and Fishin Shop.” They’re bought from the trunk of a 78 Ford LTD in a dark alley. I fully agree we need to have laws that require background checks every time a person buys a gun. I would even go as far as to require a mandatory safety course for first time purchasers. If they can do it for hunters (hunter’s safety course), they can do it for handguns too. But, we need to stop creating gun law after gun law and start actually gasp PUNISHING people who commit crimes with gun – severely. Like you, I don’t want an unchecked system where just anyone can buy as many guns as they want without some forms of checks in the system. The NRA is an extreme group that I do not support.

[Arlos]

See, I am FOR taxpayer funded birth control. If poor teenagers actually had access to free or negligible cost birth control pills, condoms, etc., AND were trained in their effective and safe use, we could cut the number of teen pregnancies in this country dramatically. This would, of course, lead to far less abortions being performed, as well as drastically cutting into the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. I fail to see how that is not a win-win all around.

Less pregnancies, less abortions, less disease.... All of these are worthy objectives. Given the UN-worthy objectives government funding is put to, why in hell SHOULDN'T it be used to subsidize birth control? Include the Morning After pill here too, which prevents any fertilized egg from lodging in the uterine wall, to be flushed out by natural processes.

If the education and necessary products were freely available in high schools, this country would be far, far better off. Yet time and time again, the far right blocks doing any of this, insisting on "abstinence only" programs that study after study have shown DO NOT WORK. It almost seems like they WANT there to be more abortions, so they can make a bigger issue out of them when they occur. I still don't understand their attitude.

As for education, voucher systems are an entirely different kettle of fish altogether. I still don't like them, because there's all-too-frequently little control over the curriculum, and since money would be going to religious schools, I don't feel that that is a legitimate public expenditure, given the necessary wall that should exist between church and state. Also, do please note that the vote you are slamming Obama over had *NOTHING* to do with Vouchers. Not one thing. It was strictly a measure that would allow deducting the tuition costs of private school from your income. This would, as I have noted repeatedly, not helped lower and lower middle class families one iota, as they still could never afford the actual tuitions in the first place. It solely was a money giveaway to the well-off, and it would have screwed the poor for the reasons I already went into. Think you might be a bit less vitriolic on this one particular vote?

As for Georgia, obviously their education system needs help. Georgia, however, is not the same as the rest of the country. In some areas public education is doing very very well. I don't like there being incompetent teachers any more than you do. I just believe that the system can be fixed and improved, rather than believing we need to chuck the metaphorical baby out with the bathwater and go to effectively anarchy, with little uniform standards of what someone will and won't get taught.

As for guns, our stances are more alike than you think. I have never called for banning them, due entirely to the 2nd amendment being in place. Now, if offered the chance to sign a petition for a constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd, I would probably sign it, but until such a thing happens, I support following the law as laid out in the constitution. I agree that safety training and background checks should be required as well.

Again, my biggest concern with handguns is the movement by the NRA and many in the far right wing that are advocating unrestricted concealed carry by anyone who can legally purchase one. *THAT* scares the crap out of me, and I will never support. Nor do I like the idea of shooting to kill someone who is not actively threatening your own life, even if they are burgling something. I mean, burglary isn't a capital crime in the court system, why should it be in those circumstances? Sure, if someone's coming after you with a knife and you are afraid for your life, shoot to kill. But if it's just some guy who snuck in and is making off with your DVD player? Over the top, IMHO, and mistaken identity and shooting the wrong person by accident is apallingly likely.

Also, I don't like handguns for more practical reasons, in that a) they're inaccurate as hell, and b) the rounds aren't even slowed down by interior walls, so any miss has the chance of hitting a family member or even a neighbor. No, if you want practical home defense, get a shotgun, and use smallish pellets. a) they're far more intimidating, b) they're easier to hold, aim and shoot even for people with weak wrists (assuming we're not talking about a 12 gauge with a super magnum round or something), c) at home defense ranges, even small/medium pellets will take someone down quite thoroughly, yet won't be flying through interior drywall with enough force to kill your 2 year old on the other side of the wall.

-Arlos

[leah]

i'm sorry, diek, i still don't understand why you'd need to buy more than one. it's just silly. they're not saying you can't buy one at all--just limiting it to one per month! even if you bought one each month, you'd still end up with 12 handguns at the end of a year. wtf would you do with 12 handguns?? they're not like high heels that you'd swap out to wear with this dress or to go with that bag. they're just guns, man. i honestly can't think of one good reason for a person to buy more than one handgun per month unless the one they bought last week was lost or stolen.

[Harrison]

Hi, what's going on in here?

MORE THAN ONE HANDGUN A MONTH, that's what!!

seriously . . . why? i don't care if homey wants to buy a handgun. i don't like guns, and i like concealed carry laws even less, but it's going to happen anyway so whatever. but why on earth would you need to buy more than one per month???

edit: TYPO

Because if you're a law abiding citizen that has a clean background you should be able to buy as many as you want.

I want a collection someday, myself. Personally I want to own a WW2 Garand. That would be an awesome wall piece.

As far as handguns go, I want a Glock 22.

I don't see why there should be a limitation on the amount of handguns you can buy per month anyways. You can't kill more people with more handguns. You only have two arms. *shrug* That's how I view it.

[leah]

then why buy so many all at once??

i think the logic is probably "the more you have, the more there are to get lost or stolen or misused" you know? i can't say as i know anything about this measure, but i don't see how it could possibly be a bad thing?

[Harrison]

*shrug* I'm just saying.

I don't see why one is necessary. If the proper measures are in place to ensure proper ownership, there isn't a need for such a restriction.

[Eziekial]

Would you be ok if we passed a law limiting the number of movies you could rent a month? Or the number of kittens you could adopt? Or the number of bibles you could buy? What if I told you that there was a law to limit the number of radical anarchist websites you could visit in a month. Is that ok? Seriously, how many different versions of the Daily Kos does anyone really need???!!!

[Diekan]

The problem is... as they say... “it's how it all starts.” First we restrict the purchase to one per month. Then it's only a matter of time before it's one every six months... then one a year. I don't like the resulting snowball effect that will assuredly follow. It’s just another law that does nothing to prevent crime.

Again, I’ll say it is not the people who out buying guns legally that are committing most of the crime. It’s the criminals who are obtaining guns through illegal means. Yet, we pour our energy into creating new legislation directed at the law abiders. Where is the sense in this?

It’s like passing a law to force convenience store owners to card people under the age of 30, instead of under the age of 25, before they can buy beer in an effort to curve to teen drinking. It does NOTHING to curve underage drinking. It just annoys the piss out of the 29 year old who’s trying get in and out of the store. Sorry that’s the best analogy I could come up with at the moment.

[vonkaar]

yup, it's a proven fact

Imposing gun limits leads to the complete removal of all legal guns in the USA, creating mob rule and Mad Max chaos across the nation.
Abolishing the death penalty leads to a 3 million percent increase in violent crimes... criminals aren't AFRAID anymore and Mad Max chaos reigns...
Banning offshore drilling leads to the total collapse of the government and Mad Max chaos across the world...
Legalizing gay marriage leads to people marrying animals, which happened in the Director's cut version of Mad Max

[Diekan]

yup, it's a proven fact

Imposing gun limits leads to the complete removal of all legal guns in the USA, creating mob rule and Mad Max chaos across the nation.
Abolishing the death penalty leads to a 3 million percent increase in violent crimes... criminals aren't AFRAID anymore and Mad Max chaos reigns...
Banning offshore drilling leads to the total collapse of the government and Mad Max chaos across the world...
Legalizing gay marriage leads to people marrying animals, which happened in the Director's cut version of Mad Max

Brilliant! You're right... we should keep our heads buried in the sand and refuse to address the real cause of crime. After all it makes so much more sense to pass more and more useless laws!

I think we need a law that requires you to wear a green shirt when buying alcohol. That'll keep those dastardly kids from getting beer!

You've completely missed the point. No one is saying we don't need any gun laws or control of who buys them. But, now it's getting to the point we're just passing idiotic law after law that does nothing to deal with crime.

[numatu]

Ultimately, the Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is a right protected by the constitution. You may not like it, but that's the law of the land. Just like I may not care for the 2nd amendment, but it's still the law of the land. As a result, yes, federal health care dollars might get used for people who cannot afford them to exercise a constitutionally protected right.

This is a frightening thought.

Just because something is constitutionally protected does not mean it's compulsory for the government to actually pay for a specific service.

I also don't believe the government should be buying anyone arms, as it is guaranteed a right by the Constitution. On further extension, the government shouldn't pay for the travel expenses for a person to attend a party's national convention in order to exercise their constitutionally protected right to protest.

There's quite a huge divide between rights and right to be subsidized.

[Arlos]

I think Vonkaar was just pointing out that in your commentary about the 1 gun a month limit, you were engaging in what is commonly known as the "Slippery Slope" fallacy, by engaging in a logic tactic called reductio ad absurdum.

Quite effectively, I might add.

Oh, and Numatu, you forget that I believe that Health Care SHOULD be subsidized by the government. I am ADAMANTLY for universal health care. The government already subsidizes many medical procedures for poor people. It just specifically excludes this one particular entirely legal procedure. I think that that's horse shit. Big difference between calling for a legal medical procedure to be included among a myriad of others that ARE subsidized, and calling for something that has never been subsidized to become so. Huge difference, even.

-Arlos

[Gypsiyee]

Ultimately, the Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is a right protected by the constitution. You may not like it, but that's the law of the land. Just like I may not care for the 2nd amendment, but it's still the law of the land. As a result, yes, federal health care dollars might get used for people who cannot afford them to exercise a constitutionally protected right.

This is a frightening thought.

Just because something is constitutionally protected does not mean it's compulsory for the government to actually pay for a specific service.

I also don't believe the government should be buying anyone arms, as it is guaranteed a right by the Constitution. On further extension, the government shouldn't pay for the travel expenses for a person to attend a party's national convention in order to exercise their constitutionally protected right to protest.

There's quite a huge divide between rights and right to be subsidized.

I can't totally agree with you that you can compare abortion to guns in this manner, since one is not just a right but a health issue as well.

[Lueyen]

As for abortion, maybe if the rabid right wing would actually stop being so idiotic and insisting on "abstinence only!" sex education, which has been shown time and time again to be utterly useless, we might have *gasp* less abortions! What a shocker! Going back to Palin's family as an example of this, maybe if her 17 year old had had actual instructions in sex ed, birth control & condom usage, she wouldn't have GOTTEN pregnant in the first place?

The only 100 percent effective method of birth control or preventing STD's is abstinence. The same can not be said with any other method, so to promote abstinence as the best most effective method. While I have no issue with sexual education for children in school, I think abstinence should be promoted as part of the curriculum, and I don't believe that contraceptives should be passed out in schools.

Alaska is one of a minority of states that requires sex education in schools, so Palin's daughter was not taught abstinence only in school. It could just as easily been argued that sex education beyond abstinence was a contributing factor. In reality no one can really say except maybe Bristol Palin.

Palin was against school programs that included sexually explicit material AND school based clinics that gave out contraceptives. That seems to be the basis for claiming she is in an "abstinence only" camp, which may or may not be the case. At this point finding concrete facts about her is difficult because people are playing very loose with facts if they have them at all. I am unsure to what extent if any she would support some form of sex ed, but I don't feel that opposing certain curriculum or passing out contraceptives in school makes one a proponent of "abstinence only". If you have a credible source with more info I'd like to see it (that sounds snide, I do really mean it as I may very well be at odds with Palin on this one, I just can't find what I would consider to be solid facts on her stance).

Ultimately, the Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is a right protected by the constitution. You may not like it, but that's the law of the land. Just like I may not care for the 2nd amendment, but it's still the law of the land. As a result, yes, federal health care dollars might get used for people who cannot afford them to exercise a constitutionally protected right. Argue all you want on whether it SHOULD be protected, and try and get the law changed, that's your right, but WHILE it is legal, you shouldn't have any more say in funding it than I have in whether or not MY tax dollars go to a war I do not support. Furthermore, I utterly disagree with what you say will be the outcome of such an expenditure. Once again, an extreme case as a straw man.

You are confusing the difference between forbidding the government from preventing you from exercising a right vs a right to have something provided for you. You have rights to purchase goods and services, but that does not in anyway mandate that you have a right to the government paying for them. Regardless of the issue you take with the use of the military on the issue of funding there is a constitutional mandate for military funding. There is no mandate for social services funding, so yes when it comes to using tax payer dollars for things other then what are lined out in our constitution people have every right to take exception to it, and that is not contingent upon your approval of how the military is used.

i'm sorry, diek, i still don't understand why you'd need to buy more than one. it's just silly. they're not saying you can't buy one at all--just limiting it to one per month! even if you bought one each month, you'd still end up with 12 handguns at the end of a year. wtf would you do with 12 handguns?? they're not like high heels that you'd swap out to wear with this dress or to go with that bag. they're just guns, man. i honestly can't think of one good reason for a person to buy more than one handgun per month unless the one they bought last week was lost or stolen.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

- Karl Marx "Critique of the Gotha Program" -1875

Thankfully in this country our liberty and freedoms to purchase goods and services are only curtailed by our own capacity to do so and the determination of the priority of needs and wants are left up to the individual and not society or government.

[brinstar]

guns don't kill people

guns help people kill people really well