U.S. Federal Election

[johnzo]

Seeing as how Odds n' Sods was the only redeeming thing about a lot of Bomber losses .. I wonder if we could get DoD credentialed to cover the Republican convention...

[do or die]

One thing some folks overlook, because of her gender....is that when Hillary gets attacked.....she will kick you in the groin......

A Trump/Clinton Presidential race, could get mighty ugly.

 

[do or die]

2 minutes ago, johnzo said:

Seeing as how Odds n' Sods was the only redeeming thing about a lot of Bomber losses .. I wonder if we could get DoD credentialed to cover the Republican convention...

That convention will be like watching a car wreck.....you should look away, but......

[The Unknown Poster]

11 minutes ago, do or die said:

One thing some folks overlook, because of her gender....is that when Hillary gets attacked.....she will kick you in the groin......

A Trump/Clinton Presidential race, could get mighty ugly.

 

Interestingly, Chelsea Clinton and Ivanka Trump are very close friends. 

Who would both sides choose as running mates as this point?  Trump seems to be on the offensive against everyone so...Palin?  I dont see that working out.  He'd be wise to choose someone who has been a respected public servant for many years and someone seen as a capable politician.  Hilary should pick someone young, with an eye for providing the Democrats with a candidate for 2024.

[Jimmy Pop]

One of my favourite election quotes over the past few weeks, from Matt Taibbi at the Rolling Stone...

Quote

Trump found the flaw in the American Death Star. It doesn't know how to turn the cameras off, even when it's filming its own demise

 

[Jimmy Pop]

On 3/4/2016 at 11:58 AM, max power said:

To me that all sounds great. Not a fan of legalizing pot.

What would be scary about being "pro gun".  That means he just supports the already-existing 2nd amendment. It's not like he's trying to flood the streets with more guns in criminals hands.

I guess if I made my living killing unborn babies I would be scared of someone like him. But those people should be scared, they're evil.

Just my personal opinion, not a slight at all - but this is some scary rhetoric for 2006...let alone 2016.

"not a fan of legalizing pot" - meaning you support the proven-unsuccessful crime & punishment approach? What's scary about legalization? Increase in use amongst youth? Worries around distribution? Government involvement?  Legit questions...very curious.

"what would be scary about being "pro gun"?  I mean, in a word: America. That's what's scary about the "pro gun" crowd.  The sheer numbers that Americans are killing EACHOTHER.  I'll FULLY admit I don't know all the nuances and specific issues at hand here - I just don't understand why a phrase like "gun reform" scares so many.  I can respect that as a law abiding US citizen you have a right to own a gun. Fine, fair. But do you need 13 of them? Do you need semi-auto rifles? Is is socially responsible to issue guns so freely, with lack background checks?  How about the gun tradeshow loopholes Michael Moore exposed a decade ago?

I'm not going to touch that last comment. 

I find these conversations very interesting and engaging. We, as Canadians, should be caring and paying attention in my opinion - if for no other reason that being thankful for where we live.

[Taynted_Fayth]

Gun collections are a very real thing, especially for ppl who use them for hunting, i have a few friends with dozens of rifles, bows and knifes.  Anytime you have a wide variety of something youll get people starting up collections if its something you iike.  There shouldnt be a license difference between owning 1 or owning many, just stricter regulation on who gets a gun period

[The Unknown Poster]

8 minutes ago, Taynted_Fayth said:

Gun collections are a very real thing, especially for ppl who use them for hunting, i have a few friends with dozens of rifles, bows and knifes.  Anytime you have a wide variety of something youll get people starting up collections if its something you iike.  There shouldnt be a license difference between owning 1 or owning many, just stricter regulation on who gets a gun period

Im not sure your point.  I think we are all smart enough to know the difference between a gun collector, hunter and the like.  Unless collectors are amassing large quantities of assault rifles, in which case it aint for collecting.

The gun lobby has done a good job of freaking people out about big brother coming into their home and taking their only protection.  Its all nonsense of course.  No one needs an assault rifle for anything.  

[do or die]

Sure you do....in case 25 deer invade your home.....

[Taynted_Fayth]

its still just a rifle, just higher powered and automatic, doesnt mean the one who bought it bought it for anything more then a collection piece and thats where the underlying problem is.  Guns dont kill people, people kill people. Some people who own guns for protection buy ridiculously powerful pieces too, but because it's a handgun, most people dont think too much of it 

 

Edited March 7, 2016 by Taynted_Fayth

[max power]

On 3/4/2016 at 4:15 PM, The Unknown Poster said:

50 minutes ago, Jimmy Pop said:

Just my personal opinion, not a slight at all - but this is some scary rhetoric for 2006...let alone 2016.

"not a fan of legalizing pot" - meaning you support the proven-unsuccessful crime & punishment approach? What's scary about legalization? Increase in use amongst youth? Worries around distribution? Government involvement?  Legit questions...very curious.

"what would be scary about being "pro gun"?  I mean, in a word: America. That's what's scary about the "pro gun" crowd.  The sheer numbers that Americans are killing EACHOTHER.  I'll FULLY admit I don't know all the nuances and specific issues at hand here - I just don't understand why a phrase like "gun reform" scares so many.  I can respect that as a law abiding US citizen you have a right to own a gun. Fine, fair. But do you need 13 of them? Do you need semi-auto rifles? Is is socially responsible to issue guns so freely, with lack background checks?  How about the gun tradeshow loopholes Michael Moore exposed a decade ago?

I'm not going to touch that last comment. 

I find these conversations very interesting and engaging. We, as Canadians, should be caring and paying attention in my opinion - if for no other reason that being thankful for where we live.

Much debate about the second amendment actually.  It's scary to see the ease at which people get guns and have someone not believe it's a problem. 

I think the biggest issue with gun reform is that no one on the right trusts the left with any further restrictions on gun ownership, because they ultimately want to take it as far as they can and ban gun ownership altogether. And that has historically been disastrous. The US was founded on and has far greater roots with total liberty, so there are more people concerned and protective about that.

It's actually similar to the abortion issue, just reversed. The left fights any restrictions at all on abortion, even to the point of allowing obviously heinous things like "partial-birth abortion" because they think the right will take that inch and then try to go all the way to a total abortion ban. (and of course they're right, abortion should be totally illegal)

Also, I'm pretty sure the gun show loophole is a myth. Maybe it was true a decade ago (although I doubt it, if Michael Moore supposedly exposed it), but it sure isn't now.

As for legalizing pot - I just can't figure out why we are making it more and more difficult to smoke cigarettes legally and simultaneously trying to legalize pot.

[max power]

37 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Im not sure your point.  I think we are all smart enough to know the difference between a gun collector, hunter and the like.  Unless collectors are amassing large quantities of assault rifles, in which case it aint for collecting.

The gun lobby has done a good job of freaking people out about big brother coming into their home and taking their only protection.  Its all nonsense of course.  No one needs an assault rifle for anything.  

Who needs marijuana for anything? Other than sick people who can already get it legally.

[Jimmy Pop]

4 minutes ago, max power said:

I think the biggest issue with gun reform is that no one on the right trusts the left with any further restrictions on gun ownership, because they ultimately want to take it as far as they can and ban gun ownership altogether. And that has historically been disastrous. The US was founded on and has far greater roots with total liberty, so there are more people concerned and protective about that.

It's actually similar to the abortion issue, just reversed. The left fights any restrictions at all on abortion, even to the point of allowing obviously heinous things like "partial-birth abortion" because they think the right will take that inch and then try to go all the way to a total abortion ban. (and of course they're right, abortion should be totally illegal)

Also, I'm pretty sure the gun show loophole is a myth. Maybe it was true a decade ago (although I doubt it, if Michael Moore supposedly exposed it), but it sure isn't now.

As for legalizing pot - I just can't figure out why we are making it more and more difficult to smoke cigarettes legally and simultaneously trying to legalize pot.

Bold 1 - is this fact-based, or fear mongering?

Bod 2 - agree to disagree, the "of course they're right" statements can sure go both ways, tread carefully.  Case in point, this statement, from Jimmy Pop right now:  Of course no legislator, or person unaware/unconnected to a particular woman has the right to tell her what to do with her body.

Bold 3 - So you're saying both should be treated the same, then?  I concur!  Tax the hell out of both, put warning labels on everything, restrict sales to certain locales and enforce the age requirement, expand research on effects and use the tax money for healthcare & preventive measures.  Most importantly (and what I find fascinating, given your views on the first 2 points) - don't tread on my right to partake in both, provided it's done in a way that doesn't harm others....helllllllllo alcohol. 

Quote

Who needs marijuana for anything? Other than sick people who can already get it legally.

A wise man once posted... "The US was founded on and has far greater roots with total liberty".

Pardon the language, but what the hell gives you or anyone the right to tell me what I can and can't ingest?  Be it for health, be it for happiness, social connection, relaxation. It was hundreds of practical uses....all good, heck no. But that's besides the point.

Besides, medicinal use & availability isn't the slam dunk / easy to obtain product you seem to suggest.

[Taynted_Fayth]

I used to smoke weed, alcohol is 1000000x worse,  cigs smell worse but they are not even in the same discussion 

I wonder if the hesitation for relaxing on pot in the US has more to do with undermining themselves with all the horrible anti weed propaganda they used to spit out to try and spread fear in the futile war on drugs.  It would look pretty bad to suddenly be like, oh its ok now, after people have been punished with it like it was coke or other illicit hard drugs.

tho FWIW weed in the US and in Mexico is pretty bunk

[The Unknown Poster]

2 hours ago, Taynted_Fayth said:

its still just a rifle, just higher powered and automatic, doesnt mean the one who bought it bought it for anything more then a collection piece and thats where the underlying problem is.  Guns dont kill people, people kill people. Some people who own guns for protection buy ridiculously powerful pieces too, but because it's a handgun, most people dont think too much of it 

 

People don't need to collect assault rifles. Can I have a tank if I'm a collector? A strategic nuclear warhead?  Come on. 

Common sense is obvious here. 

[johnzo]

2 hours ago, max power said:

As for legalizing pot - I just can't figure out why we are making it more and more difficult to smoke cigarettes legally and simultaneously trying to legalize pot.

This one's easy: because the previous rules were stupid in opposite directions. Tobacco smoking rules were too permissive; it's stupid to allow people to light cigars on airplanes and in restaurants. And the dope laws were straight-up tyranny. Society doesn't benefit from jailing potsmokers (and, for a bonus, in the USA those laws were horrendously racist, targeting minorities far more than they targeted white people). 

And there's more work to be done in the USA on this. To this day, Americans who have any kind of controlled substance bust are ineligible for a bunch of federal stuff -- like student loans. How does it help society to keep 16-year-old Johnny Dopesmoker out of college?

So evolving in opposite directions makes complete sense.

Here in WA, the rules about smoking are largely harmonized regardless of what you smoke -- no smoking in public places, not within 25' of a doorway, etc.  Big exception that I know about is that you have to be 21 years old to buy dope, but only 18 to buy smokes. 

1 hour ago, Taynted_Fayth said:

I used to smoke weed, alcohol is 1000000x worse,  cigs smell worse but they are not even in the same discussion 

I wonder if the hesitation for relaxing on pot in the US has more to do with undermining themselves with all the horrible anti weed propaganda they used to spit out to try and spread fear in the futile war on drugs.  It would look pretty bad to suddenly be like, oh its ok now, after people have been punished with it like it was coke or other illicit hard drugs.

tho FWIW weed in the US and in Mexico is pretty bunk

TF is totally right on dope vs. booze, in my experience.  I've known dope addicts and alcoholics and the alcoholics have it far worse.

The legalization efforts in the US were all driven by citizen initiatives / referendums.  The powers that be were simply uninterested in legalizing dope, they were content to just fill the prisons with bullshit dope convictions and look the other way. To this day, the federal DEA refuses to acknowledge that dope is anything but grease on the slide to hell.   In fact, the federal "drug czar" is prohibited by law from ever advocating for a relaxation in drug laws.

As for bunk weed, it's interesting to see how the stuff is evolving here.  In the bad old days of prohibition, everyone was trying to grow stronger and stronger dope and what you got was straight-up Hypnotoad.  Nowadays you see an evolution in the other direction, milder strains are becoming popular because Mr. and Mrs. Dopesmoker don't want to be couchlocked by a single toke.

Edited March 8, 2016 by johnzo

[The Unknown Poster]

2 hours ago, max power said:

Who needs marijuana for anything? Other than sick people who can already get it legally.

Ibe never smoked and haven't been a supporter generally. But this is asinine.  No one ever committed mass murder with pot. 

Besides which pot does have many legitimate uses.  

[Taynted_Fayth]

you'd really compare a tank or a warhead to an assault rifle? are assault rifles deadly? what gun isnt.  are all assault rifles used by homicidal maniacs. no. There are plenty of people out there who are fascinated by all the variety of weapons and modifications, that doesn't make them evil people.  again, an assault rifle is still a rifle, just automatic and higher powered (tho im not a gun buff, there might be more powerful hunting rifles on a "per shot" range). 

Is there a gun problem in the US, obviously, but i'd see more truth in Boyz n the hood's mention that its a subtle population control by the government, and there for doesnt really matter what side of the fence you sit on, congress wont change.  someone on here i believe mentioned, if Sandy Hook didnt change the gun laws in the US,  this isnt even a debate

[The Unknown Poster]

Well I guess then we shouldn't even try. We shouldn't even have a basis for starting the effort to control guns. I mean really. Come on now....

[johnzo]

5 hours ago, do or die said:

That convention will be like watching a car wreck.....you should look away, but......

As a Bomber fan, you've got tons of relevant experience dissecting train wrecks.  You'd be a natural to cover this thing. 

You watched the entire Mike Kelly season, so you're already prepared to cover a guy like Trump.

Edited March 8, 2016 by johnzo

[Taynted_Fayth]

this is the US, likely more then half the population supports their amendments just for the fact "its their right". you start taking those away and you'll rile up the crazy ones like that armed militia would be happening everywhere. If there is any truth to that population control, and why it's so ridiculously easy to obtain fire arms in the US,  then a lot of people and politicians seem to be ready to fight tooth and nail to uphold this constitutional right. I applaud Obama for trying a little at the end of his term, but it really wont matter.

 

**the key to this all,  is stricter regulation on licence approval to make it harder for shady bumpkins from getting their hands on firearms.  Will it stop them ultimately. not always, but from the times it does, or the hoops they gotta jump thru to obtain them,  who knows maybe it'll prevent a few deaths along the way,  and thats about all you can do.  Just like drugs,  people will always find a way if theres a will

 

 Thats why i like living in Canada.  theres guns out there, but your more likely to get stabbed by your uncle at a northend house party,  then worry about your kids being shot up at school.  remember when kids used to just settle their differences with a fight?

Edited March 8, 2016 by Taynted_Fayth

[Taynted_Fayth]

I thought someone here, or maybe i just saw it in the news, people in the US on the no fly list can still buy firearms,  too dangerous to fly but ok enough to go buy a gun

[johnzo]

 

7 minutes ago, Taynted_Fayth said:

 Thats why i like living in Canada.  theres guns out there, but your more likely to get stabbed by your uncle at a northend house party,  then worry about your kids being shot up at school.  remember when kids used to just settle their differences with a fight?

In the USA, just like in Canada, your murderer is probably someone you know, most likely a family member.  Spectacular mass killings like Sandy Hook where strangers kill a bunch of other strangers get all the news, but in terms of the number of dead, they're like 5% of the total last time I looked.

The biggest thing you could do to solve the USA's gun violence problem would be to disarm domestic abusers.  I would love to see the cops confiscate guns from anyone who is the subject of a spousal restraining order. I'm sure the mens' rights advocates would scream bloody murder about this but **** 'em.

[Taynted_Fayth]

We seem to be having issues with women being able to even get restraining orders, or them really mattering much lately, I think we just had a 49 year old woman shot down by her ex husband in st.boniface  a few months ago (i seem to recall she had a restraining order in place), and some young 20 year old get murdered by her ex despite repeated attempts for a restraining order in fear for her safety a few months before that.  

I suppose if they confiscated anyone with a restraining order, it would likely be a probationary period as you can argue you pose no threat at some point of non incident, i guess it would depend on the reason for the order and the persons history. but even then people can be creepo's

[Taynted_Fayth]

back to guns, when i see junk like this

I honestly dont think weapon for mass terror, i think of people with too much time and money on their hands.  but i was referring to this more

actually thinking about it,  it not just guys i know who hunt with a love for guns,  my buddy who used to be in the army as a weapons techincian loves this kinda stuff. He would be more likely to buy something like the above picture, then having a cache of these