TargetTalk

Hey Gerard, here's what many Americans think of your Socialist buddy Zero:

Here are the words of Karen and Billy Vaughn, who lost their only son in Afghanistan:

"As Commander-in-Chief, your actions — or lack thereof — Mr. President, cost lives. As you bumble about in your golf cart, slapping on a happy face and fist-pounding your buddies, your cowardly lack of leadership has left a gaping hole — not only in America’s security — but the security of the entire globe. Your message has come across loud and clear, sir: You are not up to this job. You know it. We know it. The world knows it.

Please vacate the people’s house and allow a man or woman of courage and substance to seize the reigns of this out-of-control thug-fest and regain the balance we, America, have provided throughout our great history.

Thanks to your “leadership” from whatever multi-million dollar vacation you happen to be on at any given moment, the world is in chaos. What’s been gained, you’ve lost. What’s been lost, you’ve decimated. You’ve demolished our ability to hold the trust of allies. You’ve made a mockery of the title “President.” And you’ve betrayed the nation for which my son and over 1.3 million others have sacrificed their very lives."

Not to mention one of the most corrupt administrations in American history. I don't trust him as far as I can piss.

6string wrote: Firearms related deaths (including accidents, homicides and those related to the commission of a crime!!): 32,351

About 2/3 of that figure are suicides. The anti-gunners like to include the suicides even though it has been shown that the number of suicides would remain statistically the same even if firearms were effectively non-existent (see Japan).

I see the Washington Post is jumping on the bandwagon:


You know its getting bad when the Washington Post editorial board calls into question Obama’s competence:



The president’s goal, to the extent he had one, seemed to be to tamp down all the assessments of gathering dangers that his own team had been issuing over the previous days.


This argument with his own administration is alarming on three levels.


The first has to do with simple competence. One can only imagine the whiplash that foreign leaders must be suffering. They heard U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power denounce Russia as “today . . . they open a new front . . . Russia’s force along the border is the largest it has been . . . the mask is coming off.” An hour later, Mr. Obama implicitly contradicted her: “I consider the actions that we’ve seen in the last week a continuation of what’s been taking place for months now . . . it’s not really a shift.”


Similarly, his senior advisers uniformly have warned of the unprecedented threat to America and Americans represented by Islamic extremists in Syria and Iraq. But Mr. Obama didn’t seem to agree. “Now, ISIL [the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant] poses an immediate threat to the people of Iraq and to people throughout the region,” he said. “My priority at this point is to make sure that the gains that ISIL made in Iraq are rolled back.” Contrast that ambition with this vow from Secretary of State John F. Kerry: “And make no mistake: We will continue to confront ISIL wherever it tries to spread its despicable hatred. The world must know that the United States of America will never back down in the face of such evil.”


The discrepancies raise the question of whether Mr. Obama controls his own administration, but that’s not the most disturbing element. His advisers are only stating the obvious: Russia has invaded Ukraine. The Islamic State and the Americans it is training are a danger to the United States. When Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. says the threat they pose is “in some ways . . . more frightening than anything I think I’ve seen as attorney general,” it’s not because he is a warmonger or an alarmist. He’s describing the world as he sees it. When Mr. Obama refuses to acknowledge the reality, allies naturally wonder whether he will also refuse to respond to it.


BTW Most American shootings occur in four cities; the four with the toughest gun laws. I'm sure I would be considered non-PC and racist if I mentioned which ones.

Were the statistics from these cities eliminated, the US would have a very low incidence of shootings.

6string wrote:I assume that the range and the now-deceased range officer had a good safety record up the the point of this tragedy? Nonetheless, all concerned parties exercised exceedingly poor judgement. Combine that with a moment of bad luck and the outcome was a disaster.
Introducing restrictive new laws as a response shows a failure to recognize the nature of risk (including acts of stupidity) in daily life. The difference is, there are no widespread calls in the media to ban motor vehicles, power tools, swimming pools, bicycles, etc.
2011 stats for the US:
Accidental injury deaths: 187,464 (approx. half are household related)
Accidental deaths by poisoning: 46,047
Motor vehicle traffic deaths: 33,783 (not including deaths to pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists, which increases the number to almost 50,000)
(SUVs are more than twice as likely to kill a pedestrian than a sedan, and large pickups are even worse…. Anyone heard calls to ban "assault trucks"?)
Firearms related deaths (including accidents, homicides and those related to the commission of a crime!!): 32,351

Too many people who would use this tragic event to justify further restrictive firearms laws are blatant opportunists looking to forward their political agenda.
Add to that, too many firearm owners who would do so are either naive or self-serving, acting to elevate themselves above other firearms owners and protect their chosen sport, be it hunting, target shooting, etc.

6string,
In adding a footnote about firearm deaths to your post above, I should have indicated that I completely agree with what you said. And I would add that there is something completely out of line with citizens of other countries - e.g. Canada, Australia - who tell us in the US how we should change the laws that we (not they) live under. Commenting on events is one thing, advocating law changes something else.

Godwin point attained, jump ship!

I wasn't going to jump in this thread because I know how it ends and a consensus is never going to be achieved. But this statement really pushes my buttons.

FredB wrote:And I would add that there is something completely out of line with citizens of other countries - e.g. Canada, Australia - who tell us in the US how we should change the laws that we (not they) live under. Commenting on events is one thing, advocating law changes something else.

So FredB, freedom of speech doesn't apply to those who don't live in the USA?

You are free to say what you like about my country or my laws, why can't I say the same about yours?

Freedom isn't just saying what you want to hear, it's having the decency to listen to those who do not agree with your views. Only then can you really debate something...

Unfortunately the US understanding that they have some sort of inherent superiority over all other nations and peoples admits little in the way of debate. Even within US borders one must be careful to toe the party line. Witness the way patriotism came into question during the past decade whenever someone dared wonder out loud about the unjustifiable war on Iraq and Afghanistan. The world police can do no wrong. Healthy debate is foreign to patriotic Americans, who, as you say rmca, are very liberal in the doling out of criticisms of other countries but seem incapable of tolerating the same in return. Sort of similar to the way Israel gets away with war crimes for months on end. God gave them the right, it seems, and now who is questioning their annexation of an additional 400 hectares for their settlements? Few dare. But I suppose in mentioning Israel I inch the discussion further in the direction v76 indicated... Hush now, let them bang their drums for another war, unjudged and unjudgable. Of course the US owns no responsibility for the middle east situation's deterioration... Bush didn't trigger any of that, oh no.

rmca wrote:I wasn't going to jump in this thread because I know how it ends and a consensus is never going to be achieved. But this statement really pushes my buttons.

FredB wrote:And I would add that there is something completely out of line with citizens of other countries - e.g. Canada, Australia - who tell us in the US how we should change the laws that we (not they) live under. Commenting on events is one thing, advocating law changes something else.

So FredB, freedom of speech doesn't apply to those who don't live in the USA?

You are free to say what you like about my country or my laws, why can't I say the same about yours?

Freedom isn't just saying what you want to hear, it's having the decency to listen to those who do not agree with your views. Only then can you really debate something...

rmca,

I must not have been clear about my point, because I agree with everything you said above. Of course you have the freedom of speech to say anything you want about my country or my laws, just as Gerard has the same freedom to spout his venomous tripe about my country.

What was I trying to say was that I feel it's quite inappropriate for someone who is not a citizen of a country to advocate law changes in that country which will not apply to him. It's the difference between saying "US gun laws are too lax," and "You (the US) should pass this particular strict law (which won't affect me)."

Maybe it's too fine a distinction to worry about, but I would never consider advocating a specific law for Portugal or Canada - it's just not my business.

Fred, of course you're free to disagree with Gerard, but to call his comments "venomous" is akin to calling Rover's last post here "temperate."

Perhaps William doesn't agree with his State motto.

To the inflexible mind, one of the most vile acts one could commit is to hold up a mirror, to hint at the truth. Rhetoric about any given administration is just so easy. To Rover I am an Obama acolyte, simply because I fail to agree with his rebel yells. To FredB I am a viper because I dare mention the many criminal wars the US has undertaken. One is supposed to respect 'might.' According to its own collective mythology the US entity raised itself out of the mire, attained a lofty position on the moral high ground, and now feels not only justified but actually responsible for adjusting the behaviours and internal politics of other nations. Not so simple of course, especially where oil is involved, but in terms of public relations this story sells very successfully.

As I indicated earlier, my sense is that the current administration is a tiny fraction less morally corrupt than the prior one. Faint praise it seems, but if that makes me an Obama fanboi I guess it does. I actually felt some slight hope when he was elected, but have long since settled into wondering what new crimes Hillary is going to commit when she sits on the throne. No doubt she'll make diehard patriots angry enough that they'll vote her out after one term, perhaps finally sticking that bad joke from Alaska in to replace her. Funny to think back on it now, but as a kid I was actually inspired a little by America. When I was very little. Then Vietnam happened and I got over it.

Hey Gerard, I actually agree with some of your statements.

We probably both agree with THIS that I just took off the web:


The cost of freedom is allowing idiots the same rights as responsible adults.

The problem is the idiots now out number the responsible adults.

But they always have! And through most of modern history (since there were cities) those most clever in the ways of grabbing power have controlled the idiots. Problem is, cleverness in attaining power seldom has anything to do with running a responsible and fair society. Hence the need for a shift to either an informed anarchic condition (universal free education and a just economy would be a prerequisite, obviously, so we were all on the same playing field) or a meritocracy, such as they're experimenting with in Singapore and Ecuador. There is no democracy; what we have today is just a routine shuffling of the cards with the deck stacked always to favour the already-powerful who lust for power and sometimes delude themselves that they have good intentions.

william wrote:Fred, of course you're free to disagree with Gerard, but to call his comments "venomous" is akin to calling Rover's last post here "temperate."

William,
Actually I'd call both posts venomous. And that has nothing to do with their ideas/content and everything to do with their hateful tone. In Gerard's case that tone is amplified by his smug self-righteousness; Rover at least is funny.

FredB wrote: I must not have been clear about my point, because I agree with everything you said above. Of course you have the freedom of speech to say anything you want about my country or my laws, just as Gerard has the same freedom to spout his venomous tripe about my country.

What was I trying to say was that I feel it's quite inappropriate for someone who is not a citizen of a country to advocate law changes in that country which will not apply to him.

I understand your point now, but I do not agree with it.

Someone who is not a US citizen has no power to change any laws in your country.
So when someone from another country says something about your gun control laws (or lack of), I wouldn't take it as a personal attack.
It's a chance to see what others think about something, and if their views can add something positive to the equation.

That said, I don't think that if the US passes a law that stated a minimal age for a person to operate a firearm, that it would be an attack on your gun rights.
To me it would be just plain common sense. The good kind of common sense!

A nine year old has not the physical force nor the maturity to operate any firearm. Even air guns should not be used at that age without active adult supervision.

Don't take my views personally, I do not wish to take anything away, just to add a view that differs from yours. The same way I would if the roles were reversed.

rmca

"But they always have! And through most of modern history (since there were cities) those most clever in the ways of grabbing power have controlled the idiots. Problem is, cleverness in attaining power seldom has anything to do with running a responsible and fair society. Hence the need for a shift to either an informed anarchic condition (universal free education and a just economy would be a prerequisite, obviously, so we were all on the same playing field) or a meritocracy, such as they're experimenting with in Singapore and Ecuador. There is no democracy; what we have today is just a routine shuffling of the cards with the deck stacked always to favour the already-powerful who lust for power and sometimes delude themselves that they have good intentions."

Gerard, this was the cause of the Second Amendment and it's the reason Americans are so "hot" about the subject.

The second amendment seems unlikely to have been authored so that small children could be given machine guns to play with. I agree with the people's right to keep and bear arms. I don't extend that to supporting blatant insanity.

Gerard, let's both get away from this topic. One man's blatant insanity is another man's god-given right. And there's no arguing with god-given stuff.

Rover, my state's motto taken to its logical (?!?) extreme leads not to a dream-world but to a libertarian/anarchist nightmare.

"Rover, my state's motto taken to its logical (?!?) extreme leads not to a dream-world but to a libertarian/anarchist nightmare."

William, I yield your point, but I have to say that it sounds better than the Socialist, bought-vote, corrupt, clown car in DC at the moment.

When's the last time DC wasn't a clown car of one political stripe or another?