Chicago Turns on Obama

[Tommy Gun]

On Thursday, 12 November, as Obama was arriving in Chicago, there was a terrible traffic jam in downtown Chicago because of people demonstrating against Obama -- right on Obama's very own turf!
Below are photographs of the demonstrators and their placards and signs.

[Tommy Gun]

Slide 2

[Tommy Gun]

Slide 3

[Tommy Gun]

Slide 4

[jayboat]

November 12??? What is that, like yesterday on your clock?

This is a sure sign that he needs to be impeached and then sent back to Kenya.

[Tommy Gun]

Slide 5

[Tommy Gun]

Slide 6

[Chris]

That crowd looks pretty much white, middle-class. The same people you'd find downtown during lunch hour.

Show me that protest going on in Cabrini Green and then I'm impressed.

[jayboat]

Here's my favorite cute little political sign.

http://www.mad.co.il/fun/pictures/2006/11/bush%20blow%20job.jpg

[Tommy Gun]

November 12??? What is that, like yesterday on your clock?

This is a sure sign that he needs to be impeached and then sent back to Kenya.

Well perhaps if the lamestream media had covered it I'd been aware in a more timely manner.

Like it or not, the groundswell against his administration and the progressives in Congress continues to grow.

[Ted]

Here's my favorite cute little political sign.

http://www.mad.co.il/fun/pictures/2006/11/bush%20blow%20job.jpg


Classy Libs as usual.....:rolleyes:

[jayboat]

Classy Libs as usual.....:rolleyes:

Yeah, it's right up there with the middle one on post 6.

[Tommy Gun]

Bush certainley had his issues but Obama's constant cast of blame is wearing thin. My favorite was when Obama recently pointed out the deficit negative Medicare bill passed under Bush. What he failed to mention however was that the Democratic opposition was due to it not being LARGE enough. Yes they wanted to spend more. Truth in politics...I love it.

[Chris]

In reality, only a tiny sliver of the population really cares about what Obama is doing. Employed peoiple for the most part are going about their daily lives. And that's most people.

In that group, you have a very small quantity of people that are truly aware of what's going on. Then there's that chunk that read a couple of headlines and catch 10 minutes of the evening news that add Obama, et al, to their daily list of things to b.itch about that they really don't know much about. Then you have that big group of people that voted for the man expecting him to deliver on the promise of lots of freebies that haven't shown up yet. Bu as sure as the sun coming up in the east tomorrow, they'll be right back voting for the guy from the same party next time- when he's promising them the moon.

[Chris]

Yeah, it's right up there with the middle one on post 6.

I personally would have picked the middle one in Post 5.

Comparing the present plight of the American taxpayer to the Holocaust is slightly extreme.

[Chris]

Truth in politics...


Like "jumbo shrimp"?

[Tommy Gun]

I wouldn't under estimate the frustration and disdain for the Government right now. And that includes Republicans. Massachusettes proved that. There is more awareness and people talking politics than I can ever recall...a few years back when the economy was screaming nobody cared; I don't think that to be the case any longer. I think it's positive...the awakening of the silent majority; the independents are pizzed.

[runninhotracing]

On Thursday, 12 November, as Obama was arriving in Chicago, there was a terrible traffic jam in downtown Chicago because of people demonstrating against Obama -- right on Obama's very own turf!
Below are photographs of the demonstrators and their placards and signs.

We dont want him here :boxing_smiley: He's doing a fine job phuching up everything right from washington :mad:

[BUIZILLA]

This is a sure sign that he needs to be impeached and then sent back to Kenya. the koolaid's working... :bump:

[cigdaze]

This is a sure sign that he needs to be impeached and then sent back to Kenya.

We knew you'd come around.
:cheers2:

[Chris]

I wouldn't under estimate the frustration and disdain for the Government right now. .

No doubt. There were alot of promises made and not much has come through. But all those first-time voters- the one's that delivered the election to Obama- do you actually see them voting for a centrist Republican?



a few years back when the economy was screaming nobody cared;
.

As soon as it gets moving again, everyone will go right back to there comfortable ambivalence. And the guys looking to profit from a career in politics will still be out there making it work.

[Tommy Gun]

No doubt. There were alot of promises made and not much has come through. But all those first-time voters- the one's that delivered the election to Obama- do you actually see them voting for a centrist Republican?

As soon as it gets moving again, everyone will go right back to there comfortable ambivalence. And the guys looking to profit from a career in politics will still be out there making it work.

No I don't see them voting for a centrist Republican; I don't see them voting at all. Heck, the way things are going Obama won't be on the ticket.

[mikes280]

November 12??? What is that, like yesterday on your clock?

This is a sure sign that he needs to be impeached and then sent back to Kenya.back to his roots:eek:

[Chris]

We used to have "swing" voters. Now we have "surge" voters. That group that might come out and vote if some special circumstance moves them. Was it really a one-time fluke? Or can this trick be pulled off twice? Maybe the next one is Hillary's.

[Scarab KV]

In reality, only a tiny sliver of the population really cares about what Obama is doing. Employed peoiple for the most part are going about their daily lives. And that's most people.

In that group, you have a very small quantity of people that are truly aware of what's going on. Then there's that chunk that read a couple of headlines and catch 10 minutes of the evening news that add Obama, et al, to their daily list of things to b.itch about that they really don't know much about. Then you have that big group of people that voted for the man expecting him to deliver on the promise of lots of freebies that haven't shown up yet. Bu as sure as the sun coming up in the east tomorrow, they'll be right back voting for the guy from the same party next time- when he's promising them the moon.

I have to disagree with your assessment of who cares. The sliver is a lot larger then you think. I'm in a lot of different environments in different parts of the country during the coarse of the week. From loading docks, the ports, drivers on the radio, coffee counters to the front offices of our distributors, the economy and Obamas politics is the hot topic. I've heard more political discussions in the last year then I did in the previous 20. These issues will not be going away any time soon. The working man (Blue and White) is pi**ed off and no matter how uninformed he is, he's gonna have a good memory next time he votes.
I think Massachusetts is just the beginning.

[jayboat]

I personally would have picked the middle one in Post 5.

Comparing the present plight of the American taxpayer to the Holocaust is slightly extreme.

Slightly extreme??? As in kinda dead? :) That's the one I meant.

The rethugs LOVE to compare dems to Nazis- bleck and o'really do it all the time. It's practically an automatic talking point for them.

[Bobcat]

I think even Jay's can of turd polish is running low......:sifone:

[cigdaze]

Slightly extreme??? As in kinda dead? :) That's the one I meant.

The rethugs LOVE to compare dems to Nazis- bleck and o'really do it all the time. It's practically an automatic talking point for them.

You're absolutely right. And it's about as predictable as the presence of the ever-endearing term rethug on our forums.

;) :sifone:

[Chris]

I have to disagree with your assessment of who cares. The sliver is a lot larger then you think. I'm in a lot of different environments in different parts of the country during the coarse of the week. From loading docks, the ports, drivers on the radio, coffee counters to the front offices of our distributors, the economy and Obamas politics is the hot topic. I've heard more political discussions in the last year then I did in the previous 20. These issues will not be going away any time soon. The working man (Blue and White) is pi**ed off and no matter how uninformed he is, he's gonna have a good memory next time he votes.
I think Massachusetts is just the beginning.

I guess by "really cares" I meant people willing to do more than complain and vote.

The issues we're dealing with right now are symptomatic of our system as a whole. Unless significant change occurs, you're going to vote one bum out and his replacement is going to come to you via the very same process that brought that one to you.

[Ted]

Slightly extreme??? As in kinda dead? :) That's the one I meant.

The rethugs LOVE to compare dems to Nazis- bleck and o'really do it all the time. It's practically an automatic talking point for them.


First of all the Nazi thing goes both ways there Jay. On our side we have religious nazis, anti-gay nazis, anti-abortion nazis, anti-drug nazis, etc.


However, if we were to actually look at policy and decide which party is pushing the country towards socialism.....

During the past year we have or have tried to socialize in at least some part:

The banking industry, the auto industry, and healthcare.

I could make a lot of other comparisons like stance on privately owned guns, genetic engineering, etc. but that would just be piling on :bump:

[jayboat]

First of all the Nazi thing goes both ways there Jay. On our side we have religious nazis, anti-gay nazis, anti-abortion nazis, anti-drug nazis, etc.


However, if we were to actually look at policy and decide which party is pushing the country towards socialism.....

During the past year we have or have tried to socialize in at least some part:

The banking industry, the auto industry, and healthcare.

I could make a lot of other comparisons like stance on privately owned guns, genetic engineering, etc. but that would just be piling on :bump:

Ted, I'm talking about the non-stop publicly voiced screeching of the faux news bobbleheads. Nazi-comparison is commonplace for them.

When you use 'comparisons' about subjects such as privately owned guns you automatically lose all credibility with me. Sorry. I guess we need those automatic weapons for hunting those terrahist whitetails. And what aspect of genetic engineering are you referring to?

While we're on the subject of biology, let's talk about stem cell research. Your boy dumbya and his disciples opposed it on non fact-based RELIGIOUS principles. In the last year since Obama lifted the bans there have been numerous major breakthroughs. Imagine where we might be if we hadn't been stuck in the religious muck for eight years. :ack2:

Your arguements hold no water, but as always, you seem content to sit smugly in your bubble.

[fund razor]

You're absolutely right. And it's about as predictable as the presence of the ever-endearing term rethug on our forums.

;) :sifone:

And Dumya, and bleck, and oreally....ad nauseum.

I think that it should be "live by the slur, die by the slur."

Change Jay's screen name to Gayboat and lock it.

[catastrophe]

Arent we all looking at a perfect example of a problem with the Healthcare/Health Insurance system, right on this board??

Should a perfectly active , taxpaying, self employed businessman on here go without lifesaving/lifeenhancement treatment because he lives in the wrong county??

Thats BS to me.

With regards to the other arguement, I see pro Rep threads started on here 10 to 1.
Most are just goading the few centerists on here and contain little or no factual info.

Its all good fun though:)

[cigdaze]

With regards to the other arguement, I see pro Rep threads started on here 10 to 1.
And why would you suppose that is?
:)

[Trim'd Up]

When you use 'comparisons' about subjects such as privately owned guns you automatically lose all credibility with me. Sorry. I guess we need those automatic weapons for hunting those terrahist whitetails. And what aspect of genetic engineering are you referring to?

Your arguements hold no water, but as always, you seem content to sit smugly in your bubble.

Typical anti-gun rambling. What's your definition of an automatic weapon? I don't really see the need, or the demand for fully automatic weapons outside of military use, but I'm sure that's not what your talking about. I do use an "assault weapon" per the anti-guners definition for deer, coyote, ground hogs, praire dogs, and feral hogs on a regular basis. I don't see how a gun being black, having a detachable magazine, or a collapsible stock makes them more dangerous, or less use-able for hunting/target use.

[Chris]

Arent we all looking at a perfect example of a problem with the Healthcare/Health Insurance system, right on this board??

Should a perfectly active , taxpaying, self employed businessman on here go without lifesaving/lifeenhancement treatment because he lives in the wrong county??

Thats BS to me.



The issue is that we have quite a few people out there that CHOOSE not to be insured. If you want to spend that grand a month on bass boats, expensive cars or a nice house, that's the upside of living in a free society. Me- I pay for the insurance. But if you roll the dice and come up short, that's the deal you made.

The problem is, our compassion as a society reinforces the behavior. So a decent chunk of what I pay in premiums goes to pay for the hospital visit for the guy that spent his insurance premium on a weekend in Vegas. So our system rewards the individual with the irresponsible behavior.

So the retort is "why then not defeat the flawed system and allow one central processor to administer the whole thing and make it compulsory for everyone to pay?" Nice theory. But it has to practical flaws. First, no system exists that could be relied upon to administer it efficiently and cost-effectively. When they fix Social Security, get back to me on this new idea. Second, I don't believe it would survive a constitutional challenge.

I only wish I had a solution.

[Trim'd Up]

And Dumya, and bleck, and oreally....ad nauseum.

I think that it should be "live by the slur, die by the slur."

Change Jay's screen name to Gayboat and lock it.

:cheers2:

[Birdog]

Typical anti-gun rambling. What's your definition of an automatic weapon? I don't really see the need, or the demand for fully automatic weapons outside of military use, but I'm sure that's not what your talking about. I do use an "assault weapon" per the anti-guners definition for deer, coyote, ground hogs, praire dogs, and feral hogs on a regular basis. I don't see how a gun being black, having a detachable magazine, or a collapsible stock makes them more dangerous, or less use-able for hunting/target use.

I think alot of non gun owning people really dont know that automatic weapons have been banned in the USA for many years.
Like you said...They think any "evil" looking gun is an automatic.

[Chris]

Typical anti-gun rambling. What's your definition of an automatic weapon? I don't really see the need, or the demand for fully automatic weapons outside of military use, but I'm sure that's not what your talking about. I do use an "assault weapon" per the anti-guners definition for deer, coyote, ground hogs, praire dogs, and feral hogs on a regular basis. I don't see how a gun being black, having a detachable magazine, or a collapsible stock makes them more dangerous, or less use-able for hunting/target use.

I have a simpler argument.

It doesn't matter if it's useful or suitable for any purpose. It's our constitutional right to be able to own one. Just as we have many other rights- such as freedoms to speak, assemble, worship and so on.

[Ted]

Ted, I'm talking about the non-stop publicly voiced screeching of the faux news bobbleheads. Nazi-comparison is commonplace for them.

No one will support the hard core lefties in major media, but there are MORE than enough soft cores to make up for it.


When you use 'comparisons' about subjects such as privately owned guns you automatically lose all credibility with me. Sorry. I guess we need those automatic weapons for hunting those terrahist whitetails. And what aspect of genetic engineering are you referring to?


Really? Are there not a large number of people on the left that would be more than happy to take away ALL of the privately owned guns? As for genetic engineering, if we go to the fringe we have designer abortions on demand and cloning just for the sake of "science" is NO problem, after all with NO spiritual considerations we shouldn't worry about Xeroxing off a dozen Jays or so, right?


While we're on the subject of biology, let's talk about stem cell research. Your boy dumbya and his disciples opposed it on non fact-based RELIGIOUS principles. In the last year since Obama lifted the bans there have been numerous major breakthroughs. Imagine where we might be if we hadn't been stuck in the religious muck for eight years. :ack2:


Actually genetic research (mostly based right here in Maryland) is progressing past the whole stem cell idea on a daily basis. And I would suggest that if the far left was not so strident in their calls for abortion on demand, anywhere, at any point in the pregnancy, then the far right would have no voice on these matters. But once again we have the old "Camel's nose under the tent" driving the discussion. I personally am pro choice (shocking huh?) and wish both ends of the spectrum had no voice, but they feed each other. And I suspect if you were not pulled so hard by the likes of Kos and DU you would find very few arguments of mine you didn't agree with.

Your arguements hold no water, but as always, you seem content to sit smugly in your bubble.

Many of your issues with the conservatives here are based on your pre-conceptions and condescension. Think about that.

[Birdog]

I have a simpler argument.

It doesn't matter if it's useful or suitable for any purpose. It's our constitutional right to be able to own one. Just as we have many other rights- such as freedoms to speak, assemble, worship and so on.


Ahhh...That pesky Constitution again......:)

[catastrophe]

I have a simpler argument.

It doesn't matter if it's useful or suitable for any purpose. It's our constitutional right to be able to own one. Just as we have many other rights- such as freedoms to speak, assemble, worship and so on.

Of course you are correct re the right to own one.
And for those that love hunting and sport use, thats great.

But for the most part on here, what we read is the choice of gun to use on a perp, how accurate one to the other is to blow someones head off, the goal to have your 100 pound wife carry one in the car to stave off the boogie man.

" A gun carrying society is a safer society...a more polite society !!"

If thats the method of making people polite God save us.

[Chris]

Like the ACLU- they should be renamed the ASCLU. American Some Civil Liberties Union.

It's not a cafeteria plan where you get to choose the one's you like.

[Trim'd Up]

I have a simpler argument.

It doesn't matter if it's useful or suitable for any purpose. It's our constitutional right to be able to own one. Just as we have many other rights- such as freedoms to speak, assemble, worship and so on.

I agree completely, but that argument has NO meaning to a liberal. They don't believe in the constitution.

[Birdog]

Of course you are correct re the right to own one.
And for those that love hunting and sport use, thats great.

But for the most part on here, what we read is the choice of gun to use on a perp, how accurate one to the other is to blow someones head off, the goal to have your 100 pound wife carry one in the car to stave off the boogie man.

" A gun carrying society is a safer society...a more polite society !!"

If thats the method of making people polite God save us.

If you are so interested in what we Americans say & think...You should at least educate yourself on what OURE founding Fathers wrote about it..
The 2nd Ammendment had NOTHING to do with hunting...

[Chris]

Of course you are correct re the right to own one.
And for those that love hunting and sport use, thats great.

But for the most part on here, what we read is the choice of gun to use on a perp, how accurate one to the other is to blow someones head off, the goal to have your 100 pound wife carry one in the car to stave off the boogie man.

" A gun carrying society is a safer society...a more polite society !!"

If thats the method of making people polite God save us.

Yes, it is unfortunate that many uncivilized instincts have yet to be bred out of the human race. And until genetic evolution catches up to our quantum leap forward in civilized attitudes of the last century, we'll need a way of keeping those who don't play nice at bay.

This isn't anything new- the strong have been feeding on the weak since man first rose out of the primordial ooze. And just because we have some new-found societal aversion to the process doesn't mean we've eliminated the urge. So now being strong by being young and large has been balanced by one of our civilization's inventions-portable strength and power. Weaponry.

We can all hope for a world where everyone loves one another and looks after their fellow man. But we're not there yet.

If you want to look at a living example of banning firearms, take a look at Australia. All of the data collected shows no positive societal benefit. Every one of the relational factors have continued to trend exactly as they had prior to the ban. Several increased by several percentage points above their projected trend. None dropped.

The reality is- as proven in Australia's failed experiment, is that man has been causing harm to his fellow man since the beginning of man. There was never an upward trend due to the availability of a convenient device for causing that harm. And as long as the ability to harm others is present in man, man will continue to do so. So ban guns, then knives. Then sticks and rocks and pipes and shovels. That will be a good way to see man's creativeness at work, devising the best alternative to do harm to another.

[catastrophe]

Yes, it is unfortunate that many uncivilized instincts have yet to be bred out of the human race. And until genetic evolution catches up to our quantum leap forward in civilized attitudes of the last century, we'll need a way of keeping those who don't play nice at bay.

This isn't anything new- the strong have been feeding on the weak since man first rose out of the primordial ooze. And just because we have some new-found societal aversion to the process doesn't mean we've eliminated the urge. So now being strong by being young and large has been balanced by one of our civilization's inventions-portable strength and power. Weaponry.

We can all hope for a world where everyone loves one another and looks after their fellow man. But we're not there yet.

If you want to look at a living example of banning firearms, take a look at Australia. All of the data collected shows no positive societal benefit. Every one of the relational factors have continued to trend exactly as they had prior to the ban. Several increased by several percentage points above their projected trend. None dropped.

The reality is- as proven in Australia's failed experiment, is that man has been causing harm to his fellow man since the beginning of man. There was never an upward trend due to the availability of a convenient device for causing that harm. And as long as the ability to harm others is present in man, man will continue to do so. So ban guns, then knives. Then sticks and rocks and pipes and shovels. That will be a good way to see man's creativeness at work, devising the best alternative to do harm to another.

Dont think anyone in this discussion ever mentioned banning guns.

[catastrophe]

If you are so interested in what we Americans say & think...You should at least educate yourself on what OURE founding Fathers wrote about it..
The 2nd Ammendment had NOTHING to do with hunting...

Is there a point to that post??

[jayboat]

I have a simpler argument.

It doesn't matter if it's useful or suitable for any purpose. It's our constitutional right to be able to own one. Just as we have many other rights- such as freedoms to speak, assemble, worship and so on.

I don't have a problem with the constitutional argument AT ALL.

I would just like to see some common sense applied and I would bet that a majority of law enforcement personnel would as well.

MY POINT, in response to Ted's post, was his quick (and predictable) jump to the 'Obama's gonna take away our guns!' meme. It's horsehockey.

[Chris]

I don't have a problem with the constitutional argument AT ALL.

I would just like to see some common sense applied and I would bet that a majority of law enforcement personnel would as well.

MY POINT, in response to Ted's post, was his quick (and predictable) jump to the 'Obama's gonna take away our guns!' meme. It's horsehockey.

Believe me, I'm with you. The only thing I can't stomach any more than the firearm banners is the firearm owners that use them irresponsibly.

But we don't need any more laws. Lawmakers think we do- since all the can do is make laws and they need to placate their constituencies. It cracks me up every time some numbskull congressman sponsors a firearm ban/registration/licencing bill that's absolutely unconstitutional. They know it's going nowhere and they do it purely to show their constituents that they're "doing something". Many firearms laws are downright silly.

Do you know that we have a ban on the importation of firearms with certain features, such as pistol grips, detachable magazines and flash hiders? These same weapons are available throug an endless supply of American manufacturers- to the point that the market is saturated. Does that make any sense? Does anyone believe that ownership of these types of firearms will increase if imported models were available? And even so, does anyone see a correlation between them and an increase in crime? The FBI statistics prove conclusively that use of these types of weapons in crime is exceedingly rare- and that the last time domestic prohibitions on these so-called "evil features" was imposed, there was no statistical shift in any crime data.

[Chris]

And on the law enforcement desire to have firearms regulated...

I have many good friends in the profession. They have a valid desire to see all weapons of any type removed from the civilian population. That would only make their job easier and much safer. But if I had a wish, I'd wish for violence of all types to go away and then we wouldn't need these law enforcement officers at all. But that's not the way it works.

No weapons makes the job safer for the police, but it makes our lives less safe. No one in law enforcement will tell you with a straight face that what they do has any substantial effect at crime prevention. In fact, the concept of crime prevention has been deliberately purged from what the profession writes and speaks about. The threat of punishment is what makes our system work. And if you're not afraid of the punishment, it's not much of a barrier. So as admirable a job as that officer may do, he's most likely not going to be there at the moment you're having a bad or violent experience.

[Wardey]

Damn....You guys gave me a headache !!!!

[Birdog]

Is there a point to that post??

You forgot what you typed already ?

YOU said the 2nd Amendment was Ok with you for hunting
I pointed out that it has NOTHING to do with hunting


JAY "I would just like to see some common sense applied and I would bet that a majority of law enforcement personnel would as well."

Just who do you trust to fool with the Constitution ?

[Tommy Gun]

Of course you are correct re the right to own one.
And for those that love hunting and sport use, thats great.

But for the most part on here, what we read is the choice of gun to use on a perp, how accurate one to the other is to blow someones head off, the goal to have your 100 pound wife carry one in the car to stave off the boogie man.

" A gun carrying society is a safer society...a more polite society !!"

If thats the method of making people polite God save us.


From what I can find the analysis of the effects of CCW has returned mixed results depending on who perfomed the analysis. But one thing is clear, the issuance of CCW has not increased the crime rate.

The Lott-Mustard Study

Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes, without increasing accidental deaths. If those states without right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, county- and state-level data indicate that approximately 1,500 murders would have been avoided yearly.

The Truth About "The Florida Model"

"Violent crime rates are highest overall in states with laws severely limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms for self-defense". (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1992)

The Violence Policy Center claims that over 2.6 years, from May 2007 through the end of 2009, concealed carry permit holders in the US have killed 117 individuals, including 9 law enforcement officers. Though in 2007, in the entire United States, there were 16,929 murders and 254 legally justified/self defense killings; in 2008, there were 16,272 murders and 245 legally justified/self defense killings in the United States. The FBI report for Jan.-June 2009 is still in its preliminary stages.

"Scholars engaged in serious criminological research into "gun control" have found themselves forced, often very reluctantly, into four largely negative propositions. First, there is no persuasive evidence that gun ownership causes ordinary, responsible, law abiding adults to murder or engage in any other criminal behavior—though guns can facilitate crime by those who were independently inclined toward it. Second, the value of firearms in defending victims has been greatly underestimated. Third, gun controls are innately very difficult to enforce.

"Therefore, the fourth conclusion criminological research and analysis forces on scholars is that while controls carefully targeted only at the criminal and irresponsible have a place in crime-reduction strategy, the capacity of any type of gun law to reduce dangerous behavior can never be more than marginal.

In 1980 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." 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."

I'd be curious to see how they compare today.

[catastrophe]

From what I can find the analysis of the effects of CCW has returned mixed results depending on who perfomed the analysis. But one thing is clear, the issuance of CCW has not increased the crime rate.



Point taken.
I agree.

[BBB725]

Of course you are correct re the right to own one.
And for those that love hunting and sport use, thats great.

But for the most part on here, what we read is the choice of gun to use on a perp, how accurate one to the other is to blow someones head off, the goal to have your 100 pound wife carry one in the car to stave off the boogie man.

" A gun carrying society is a safer society...a more polite society !!"

If thats the method of making people polite God save us.

I grew up in a rural area and kids would routinely bring shot guns to school and go hunting after school was done for the day and I'm guessing 95% of the guys carried knifes. So what you ask, well we never had a shooting or a knifing because people had respect for life not because it was illegal to own or bring it to school.

[Chris]

Good point. There's a whole new breed out there that's been raised with no regard for life.

I grew up in a an industrial town and the best way I can describe our school system is the term "Gladiator Academy". But no one ever got stabbed or shot (OK- there was one teacher that got smoked) The animals I was raised around today seem now to have had a much higher level of values than what you see today.

[catastrophe]

"I grew up in a rural area and kids would routinely bring shot guns to school and go hunting after school was done for the day and I'm guessing 95% of the guys carried knifes. So what you ask, well we never had a shooting or a knifing because people had respect for life not because it was illegal to own or bring it to school. "

Thank You

Then you agree that there were no shootings because everyone walked around in fear of one another or knew everyone else was armed.

The lack of incidents was based on the quality of the people rather than the quality of their marksmanship.

[Chris]

No, there was absolutely no quality of people going on. It was a place that you didn't want to be. One of my classmates threw a teacher out of a second-story window. In the 8th grade.

But no one ever used a weapon. It just wasn't done. Maybe it was an honor thing. Or just socially unacceptable at the time.

[catastrophe]

No, there was absolutely no quality of people going on. It was a place that you didn't want to be. One of my classmates threw a teacher out of a second-story window. In the 8th grade.

But no one ever used a weapon. It just wasn't done. Maybe it was an honor thing. Or just socially unacceptable.

I was responding to Brooks.

But you make a good point about the honour thing.

One could blame this all on women and the changing times.

Back in those days it was impolite for them to point out to their husbands that they had small d!cks.:rolleyes:

[BBB725]

"I grew up in a rural area and kids would routinely bring shot guns to school and go hunting after school was done for the day and I'm guessing 95% of the guys carried knifes. So what you ask, well we never had a shooting or a knifing because people had respect for life not because it was illegal to own or bring it to school. "

Thank You

Then you agree that there were no shootings because everyone walked around in fear of one another or knew everyone else was armed.

The lack of incidents was based on the quality of the people rather than the quality of their marksmanship.

It wasn't fear of one another as it was respect of life, two guys could go out back and punch each other silly, Once someone hit the ground the fight was over no one ran and got a gun to get even, the quality of people is another way to put it.

[Knot 4 Me]

I grew up in a rural area and kids would routinely bring shot guns to school and go hunting after school was done for the day and I'm guessing 95% of the guys carried knifes. So what you ask, well we never had a shooting or a knifing because people had respect for life not because it was illegal to own or bring it to school.Sounds like my high school years from '78 - '82. Respect for life and respect/fear of your elders. Fists were used to settle arguments.

[BBB725]

Sounds like my high school years from '78 - '82. Respect for life and respect/fear of your elders. Fists were used to settle arguments.

Mine was just in front of you 73-77, and when the fight was over they shook hands and got along

[jayboat]

Let's change direction for a second.

Wonder what you experts think of this chart?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/docpage-recoverystats1.jpg

[BBB725]

Let's change direction for a second.

Wonder what you experts think of this chart?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/docpage-recoverystats1.jpg

Can't argue with a graph can we?

Does the 1.4 million jobs for the census show on there too?:sifone:

[Ratickle]

Let's change direction for a second.

Wonder what you experts think of this chart?



I think you should get a better chart. If you look at the research behind it, the largest growth sector in the jobs market is government jobs.

Wonder what you may think of this chart. It's really about time we started putting the blame where it truly lies. Bush and Obama (Presidents) have very little to do with either jobs or deficits, it is mostly Congress which holds the control. The party in control at the time creates the policies for their speaking heads.....

[BBB725]

I think you should get a better chart. If you look at the research behind it, the largest growth sector in the jobs market is government jobs.

Wonder what you may think of this chart. It's really about time we started putting the blame where it truly lies. Bush and Obama (Presidents) have very little to do with either jobs or deficits, it is mostly Congress which holds the control. The party in control at the time creates the policies for their speaking heads.....

Wow! Someone that understands how little power the President has, Thanks Paul:USA:

[catastrophe]

Wow! Someone that understands how little power the President has, Thanks Paul:USA:

Yep

A good point that isnt brought forward often.

[jayboat]

I think you should get a better chart. If you look at the research behind it, the largest growth sector in the jobs market is government jobs.

Wonder what you may think of this chart. It's really about time we started putting the blame where it truly lies. Bush and Obama (Presidents) have very little to do with either jobs or deficits, it is mostly Congress which holds the control. The party in control at the time creates the policies for their speaking heads.....

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

and chartmakers. Right now gubt jobs is good jobs, eh?

It seemed like a sunnyside way to view in a world of bad news. Much of it brought on by congress' complete inability to function. (see: obstructionists, dumb repubs)

My counter to your superior chart would be that regardless of where we place the huge pile of blame on decades of washington-as-usual operations... our situation was in need of help, and Obama did the right thing. There was no painless way to fix this mess. Like losing weight- you didn't get where you are overnight, you ain't gonna fix it overnight.

[Ratickle]

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

and chartmakers. Right now gubt jobs is good jobs, eh?

It seemed like a sunnyside way to view in a world of bad news. Much of it brought on by congress' complete inability to function. (see: obstructionists, dumb repubs)

My counter to your superior chart would be that regardless of where we place the huge pile of blame on decades of washington-as-usual operations... our situation was in need of help, and Obama did the right thing. There was no painless way to fix this mess. Like losing weight- you didn't get where you are overnight, you ain't gonna fix it overnight.

You're on a diet????:sifone:

[jayboat]

You're on a diet????:sifone:

Hardly. :rolleyes:

[Ratickle]

Right now gubt jobs is good jobs, eh?

I disagree. Government jobs are, for the most part, very inefficiently spent dollars, (gleaned from us through taxes), which are usually unecessary. Go to the airport and look at the security operations since the government has taken over. And, the expense per person has more than doubled. If you don't want to review that, try Amtrack or call the IRS with a tax question......



Much of it brought on by congress' complete inability to function. (see: obstructionists, dumb repubs)

You can say dumb repubs, but as the chart clearly shows, it has been the largest deficits everytime the Dems are in control of Congress. The best oversight of the governments fiscal responsibilities seems to be when we have a Democratic President and a Republican Congress. Food for thought, huh?????



we place the huge pile of blame on decades of washington-as-usual operations...

The best comment in the post. I absolutely agree.


our situation was in need of help, and Obama did the right thing.

I completely disagree. His oversight is obviously that of a politician and not a plan based on the actual root causes of the issues. Even the head of the CBO told him it was a disaster for the future of this country. Still went ahead. Currently the estimates are we have over 102 trillion dollars of unfunded promisies made over the next 25 years, and the health care reform package that is being pushed would add another couple of trillion.

[Ratickle]

From the CBO's review of the Presidents plan......

In 2010, the deficit would measure 9.9 percent of GDP,
or $1.4 trillion, CBO estimates (see Table 1-1). The
cumulative deficit over the 2010–2019 period would
equal $9.1 trillion (5.2 percent of GDP), more than double
the cumulative deficit projected under the current-law
assumptions embodied in CBO’s March baseline. As a
result, debt held by the public would rise from 57 percent
of GDP in 2009 to 82 percent of GDP by 2019.

If you want, I can copy annd paste the entire report......:sifone:

[Ratickle]

Also from the CBO report......

Revenues

Under current law, revenues would grow from 15.5 percent
of GDP in 2009 to 19.9 percent in 2013, CBO
estimates (see Table 1-2). Much of the projected increase
in revenues occurs because certain provisions of the Economic
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
(EGTRRA) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation
Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) expire at the end of
December 2010.

So the huge deficits will occur, even though they project a 25% increase in the amount of money the government raises through allowing tax credits and deductions to expire.

[Ratickle]

And an oversight of the situation being created by those business as usual policies of the government....

"Daunting" and "bleak" were just some of the adjectives used by CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf on Tuesday to describe the 10-year budget picture. Spending is projected to outpace revenue, and the debt would soon be two-thirds the size of the overall economy. By 2020, interest payments on that debt would be more than $700 billion, about four times the size of the current amount.

"In sum, the outlook for the federal budget is bleak," Elmendorf said. "U.S. fiscal policy is on an unsustainable path to an extent that cannot be solved by minor tinkering."

[BBB725]

Paul, what most people refuse to acknowledge is that the government's revenue is based on the GDP, about 20%. So to grow revenue you have to increase the GDP, and that is done by lowering taxes not raising them.

[redhotsommer]

Jay...here's a question I LOVE to ask any of my Democrat friends:

Just who exactly do you think is gonna pay for this?

I'm still interested in your response, but from MY perspective...it's gonna be the middle class. Crazy how Obama keeps saying he's going to help the middle class and small business...and then does EXACTLY the opposite. My company currently pays almost 100% of health care for our 10 employees (last year we had to ask $10 per month to attempt to defer a tiny bit of the cost). This year, we are facing a 27% increase in that cost (every year it goes up AT LEAST 20%). This is purely voluntary on our part. If Obama gets his way, no longer is it voluntary...it's mandatory...with no room for negotiation. We are a very conservative company financially, and even with that, 2009 was the first year in our 30 year history we did not make a profit (we would have, but my father paid out bonuses to the employees that effectively put us in the red a bit...how many others out there can say a boss would do that for them?). We've watched tons of businesses in the manufacturing sector close their doors in the past couple years...and it will only get worse the more the government decides it needs to lean on small business.

Also...if/when the big hit comes...I daresay that many of us on this board might be forced to find a considerably less-expensive hobby...which means you won't have any more pretty boats to take pictures of...and how will you feel then?

[Tommy Gun]

My counter to your superior chart would be that regardless of where we place the huge pile of blame on decades of washington-as-usual operations... our situation was in need of help, and Obama did the right thing. There was no painless way to fix this mess. Like losing weight- you didn't get where you are overnight, you ain't gonna fix it overnight.

True, our situation was in need of help...as too doing the right thing; some yes mostly..NO FVCKING WAYThe "stimulus" has hardly been effective by any measure.

[Ratickle]

Let's change direction for a second.

Wonder what you experts think of this chart?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/docpage-recoverystats1.jpg

Kinda funny you post a chart from the speaker of the house, what do you think she would project? On the other side, it is a chart about job losses declining, not job growth. Or am I reading it wrong?????

Only one year with job growth under Obama?????? Exactly as good as Bush did.....

So now you're bragging that Obama is just as good as Bush? If you add up his columns of job losses projected as a total, they are greater.....

And his will be in months to lose a greater number of jobs, , not the years it took under Bush.....

Don't Be Fooled By Lower Unemployment Rate, Job Losses Continue to Mount

The U.S. economy shed 20,000 jobs in January, a tad worse than expectations for a reading of flat to up 15,000. The unemployment rate unexpectedly fell to 9.7%, a five-month low.

Another positive sign: The labor force grew by 111,000 last month and the so-called real employment rate fell to 16.5% from 17.3%.

But it's a mistake to view the report as unabashedly "good" news.

Beneath the headlines, the government reported the U.S. economy has lost 8.4 million jobs since the recession officially began in December 2007, a sharp upward revision from 7.2 million previously reported; that includes 930,000 jobs more than previously estimated in the 12 months ended March 2009.

In addition, the ranks of the long-term unemployed swelled to over 6 million and the number of "discouraged" job seekers rose to 1.1 million vs. 734,000 a year ago.

Looking at the report, one might logically ask: If jobs growth was minimal (or non-existent) and the labor force grew -- meaning more people are officially being counted as looking for work -- how did the unemployment rate fall?

"The payroll data and the unemployment rate come from two separate surveys, which explains some of the divergence in the data," writes Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial, attempting to explain this conundrum.

So, yes, there are quirks in the data, and even some of the pros found this morning's report a bit confusing. The report is a bit of a Rorschach test, with something for bull and bear alike to point to.

[jayboat]

Paul, I appreciate the dissertation.


Jay...here's a question I LOVE to ask any of my Democrat friends:

Just who exactly do you think is gonna pay for this?

I'm still interested in your response, but from MY perspective...it's gonna be the middle class. Crazy how Obama keeps saying he's going to help the middle class and small business...and then does EXACTLY the opposite.
.?

How do you feel about the President's weekly address today that oulined new help for small businesses?

Help is on the way for America's small businesses, President Obama told listeners this morning in his weekly address, in the form of "more access to credit, more incentives to hire, and more opportunities to grow and sell products all over the world." In a set of remarks sure to warm the heart of Main Street businesses anywhere, the President held up the entrepreneurial American spirit as the soul of the nation; more specifically, he discussed his specific proposals for encouraging small business growth in the current challenging economic climate:

$30 billion will move from TARP funds targeting Wall Street to a Small Business Lending Fund for community banks;

Fee waivers, increased guarantees and expanded SBA-backed loans for small business;

Tax credits for new job creation and wage raises;
Identify innovative businesses and offer targeted financing;
Help small businesses with refinancing of mortgages.


Also...if/when the big hit comes...I daresay that many of us on this board might be forced to find a considerably less-expensive hobby...which means you won't have any more pretty boats to take pictures of...and how will you feel then?

irrelevant. if things get 'that bad' we will all have a big change of lifestyle.

[Edward R. Cozzi]

...and of course we'll believe Obama...he hasn't lied about anything else.

[redhotsommer]

You didn't answer my question:

WHO is gonna pay for this??????????????

And as an "end-game" scenario...my last point was EXTREMELY valid. Look at the repo's right now...it's happening to people that haven't been totally irresponsible.

[BBB725]

[I]
How do you feel about the President's weekly address today that oulined new help for small businesses?

Help is on the way for America's small businesses, President Obama told listeners this morning in his weekly address, in the form of "more access to credit, more incentives to hire, and more opportunities to grow and sell products all over the world."

I'm a small business and know alot of other small business owners , so what I'm about to say isn't politics or theory, it real life.

1) We don't need access to credit, especially with government string attached

2) we don't hire to help the economy OK? We hire because business is picking up and our current labor force isn't enough.

3) More opportunities to grow and sell all over the world? How is the government going to do that? Force companies to buy goods?

Good political talk but it's useless,, you want some facts?

The current administration has tripled the number of OSHA inspectors and removed a program that they would inspect your shop without fines as long as you corrected every thing found not to code. I guess it not about safety any more it all about the fines.

How about Cap and Trade that will sent jobs screaming off shore cause we can't compete, abolish it period.

Lift import taxes and replace it with an OSHA and EPA compliance agreement. If the over seas companies work to the same rules I do I can compete with anyone world wide.

Lower my taxes , yep more money I can put back into the company.

Let me ask this Jay if I make 10 times the amount you make I should pay 10 times the amount of taxes, would anything less or more be fair?

The best thing the government can do for the small businesses I know is nothing, investigate Baseball any thing, just don't try to help me.

[Ratickle]

Great post Brooks.


Lift import taxes and replace it with an OSHA and EPA compliance agreement. If the over seas companies work to the same rules I do I can compete with anyone world wide.

I'd also add country adjusted minimum wage requirement, adjusted to the COL in each country at poverty level as compared to ours. And SSI adjustment to import tax rates adjusted similiarly.

ANything the government requires our businesses to do in this country by law, should be required of anyone importing into this country. Fair is fair.....


The best thing the government can do for the small businesses I know is nothing, investigate Baseball any thing, just don't try to help me.

Exactly.....

[MarylandMark]

irrelevant. if things get 'that bad' we will all have a big change of lifestyle.

Not all of us. I live within my budget so actually life gets better for me when things are 'that bad'. There weren't $9.99 meals at Outback 5 years ago. The broker the rest of the country is, the more buying power I have.

[Tommy Gun]

Not all of us. I live within my budget so actually life gets better for me when things are 'that bad'. There weren't $9.99 meals at Outback 5 years ago. The broker the rest of the country is, the more buying power I have.

Until you become unemployed.

[Tommy Gun]

[QUOTE=jayboat;434310]Paul, I appreciate the dissertation.



How do you feel about the President's weekly address today that oulined new help for small businesses?

Help is on the way for America's small businesses, President Obama told listeners this morning in his weekly address, in the form of "more access to credit, more incentives to hire, and more opportunities to grow and sell products all over the world." In a set of remarks sure to warm the heart of Main Street businesses anywhere, the President held up the entrepreneurial American spirit as the soul of the nation; more specifically, he discussed his specific proposals for encouraging small business growth in the current challenging economic climate:

$30 billion will move from TARP funds targeting Wall Street to a Small Business Lending Fund for community banks;

Fee waivers, increased guarantees and expanded SBA-backed loans for small business;

Tax credits for new job creation and wage raises;
Identify innovative businesses and offer targeted financing;
Help small businesses with refinancing of mortgages.

QUOTE]

I have a small business in its 21st year; a tax credit of new job creation is USELESS. I'd hire some one if business picked up and revenue increased enough to justify it...not because I'd save $5,000...one of the dumbest ideas I've heard yet.

I have a credit line that gets used for tax management...I don't want to borrow for fear the economy gets worse and I can't repay so I manage my business based on revenue and balance my budget...something the Gov't should try for themselves. Making funds available thru the SBA will have some postive effect.

"Identify innovative businesses...what more redistribution of wealth...why can't all be treated equally?

[MarylandMark]

Until you become unemployed.

Yea, I guess you have a point there. I'm employable, not that I want to test my theory but I've always felt a good worker is going to be able to get a good job at any time. If someone is good at what they do, job opportunities are endless. (outsourcing is not an option in my field which was why I chose to do what I do).

If you knew your top competitor wasn't treating their top person well, wouldn't you be trying to lure them to work for you- in any economy? I always think the answer to that is a resounding yes.

My employer cut 8K jobs last quarter and cutting another 13K this quarter- and I'm making more money because of it. I feel for those that have lost their jobs and just pointing out that some times cutbacks are good for those that are left.

[redhotsommer]

BBB...great points there! We don't need lines of credit either, and adding to our workforce is something we do WHEN AND IF WE HAVE THE WORK.

Jay? Hello? Please supply us with some liberal ideology that shows us we are incorrect...

I don't like it when these discussions get personal...but whenever I have to explain to someone outside the world of Serious Offshore or OSO just what happens as far as political stances are concerned...Jayboat is always the name that pops in my head as an illustration. While I respect your love of the boats and the lifestyle and your artistic ways with a camera...I have an even deeper respect of the way you routinely step into the "lion's den" with your particular viewpoint.

[Ratickle]

I have an even deeper respect of the way you routinely step into the "lion's den" with your particular viewpoint.

True dat........:sifone:

[BBB725]

BBB...great points there! We don't need lines of credit either, and adding to our workforce is something we do WHEN AND IF WE HAVE THE WORK.

Jay? Hello? Please supply us with some liberal ideology that shows us we are incorrect...

I don't like it when these discussions get personal...but whenever I have to explain to someone outside the world of Serious Offshore or OSO just what happens as far as political stances are concerned...Jayboat is always the name that pops in my head as an illustration. While I respect your love of the boats and the lifestyle and your artistic ways with a camera...I have an even deeper respect of the way you routinely step into the "lion's den" with your particular viewpoint.


Just don't get personal, treat it like your favorite color is blue and his is red and you both are discussing it but can walk away friend when your done.:cheers2:

[fund razor]

irrelevant. if things get 'that bad' we will all have a big change of lifestyle.

That's the way liberals think. They actually think that there are "great equalizers" in life; rather than a great responsibility to create one's own change. The trouble is, that they forget that there are meat eaters out there who will not settle for a "big" change of lifestyle. They will take their money and assets and create the lifestyle where they choose. Perhaps there will be no middle class... that I'll grant... but there ain't no way that you and oh... Tommymonza's in-laws are going to stand together in a soup line. What will change is the government's ability to redistribute the fruit of the productive to the unproductive. Cause the productive will leave the game, by any means necessary. ;)