quote:

---

Originally posted by AEther Storm:
Whoah, hold it, you speak Dutch?? I have got to hear/read that!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by paragondave:
volgende keer dat ik in Nederland!

---

Holy Crap!! Dude..

Ok, back on topic now.

__________________
I'm a geek, you're a geek. Let's trade.

You are talking to a guy who grew up single parent, 4 kids, dad in jail. I could have ended up like many of my other 'entitled' friends and not given a crap about myself, my morals, my future. One of those guys hit me up on facebook the other day. I said...wtf do I want to have to do with a Methhead? Or my other buddy who is a gang member? Screw him too. While those clowns were off trying to get laid, and party, and crying and whining about how life didn't do them right, I was reading, and studying and yeah I was part of the 'magic kingdom'. Oh and guess what, I bought my magic cards with money I earned for working. Welfare saved my butt in a lot of ways, but I recognize that it has grown to the point of doing far more harm than good. That's why I consider it a web, more than a net.

I have been homeless twice growing up. Eating at homeless shelters...'women and children eat first'. You talk all the **** you want about Christians, and many are messed up, but the core of their value system is what makes America what it is. And, yeah it has secular elements. Our values are an amalgam of various systems.

Now, because I am literate, and because it is such a hot button issue, I have personally read the whole bible (New King James Version, don't get me started about the hundreds of translations) and the Koran. I didn't know anything about the history of either of the compilations at the time of my reading but reading the Koran; it's literally like it was written by someone who loathes tolerance and Christianity. To understand how far back that feud goes, is important to understand and to respect what Christian values mean to America. Anyone, even an Atheist is able to accept them because they are largely morally and ethically sound. Muslim value system (again based on the text) is simply borked. While Christians adopted and molded their values, Muslim run countries are still stuck in the days of Jihad.

But to address you and Aether, when did I say that Muslims are all bad? I didn't, I wouldn't. Heck I had a romantic relationship with a beautiful Muslim woman in Malaysia. Her form of Muslim tradition was more like our form of Christianity, secular.

My whole issue with secularism and abandoning a moral value based ideology (here also why Hilary Clinton is bad for the nation) is that we have adopted a progressive ideology. Hilary Clinton is a Marxist. She wants to use her power to drive "progress". Nothing is wrong to her if it helps us progress. Intolerances can be so easily justified this way. I think all of Europe should be VERY afraid of this.

And just to drive the point home. I am not the one who calls people idiots, who wants everyone to be like me. That's you Paragondave. No I do not plan on writing 'PGD' in your post in order to trade magic cards. You want to improve upon a system like MOTL and breathe life into it, just like into a country, you have to be tolerant.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicksmagic:
too deep without boots.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicksmagic:
But to address you and Aether, when did I say that Muslims are all bad? I didn't, I wouldn't.

---

Well, not literally, but you kinda did here:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicksmagic:
As a person who has traveled to a few of those countries let me be the first to say that Muslim countries don't have their **** together. Almost by definition, seeing as how their messed up (using your word, stupid) religion is directly related to their government. I once got recruited by the CEO of a company working in Saudi Arabia with almost no background info (only because he had heard of my company) simply because the people working for him were so woefully incompetent that almost ANYONE from outside of the region was seen as better. Oh and we plan to try to give them (edit: Muslims generally, not Saudis) more nuclear power.

---

To revert back, to call a religion messed up is not very nice eh? It depends on your point of view. To people of other beliefs, Christianity could seem messed up. It's all about perception.

quote:

---

Heck I had a romantic relationship with a beautiful Muslim woman in Malaysia. Her form of Muslim tradition was more like our form of Christianity, secular.

---

Nice. You know, I'm always bummed that they wear those cloths around their heads/hair? Not to be a sexist, but you can never really assess the beautiful appearance of a woman until you see the whole picture. IMO.

quote:

---

My whole issue with secularism and abandoning a moral value based ideology (here also why Hilary Clinton is bad for the nation) is that we have adopted a progressive ideology. Hilary Clinton is a Marxist. She wants to use her power to drive "progress". Nothing is wrong to her if it helps us progress.

---

I'm starting to get it, but do you have examples? Progress can't and maybe shouldn't be discouraged, but the means to can.

quote:

---

I think all of Europe should be VERY afraid of this.

---

I am afraid of the US. But not them alone. The fact that they (and very most undoubtedly other nations) are spying on us and the rest of the world in any way they can freaks me out. I don't care that they know everything about me, from the last Euro to my personal life. I'm not interesting for them. It's the fact that no one bothered to ask me in the first place, they just do it. ****es me off. Who knows how they are manipulating things/people. Bah.

quote:

---

America is actually a symbol of tolerance. Don't let the media fool you foreigners into believing otherwise.

---

I don't trust the media at all. But I do view documentaries on immigrants in the US for instance. Mexicans, Cubans, etc. I've come to understand that it really depends in what state you end up and where you originated from compares to the level of tolerance you'll encounter. Texas being the most notorious. Is America tolerant, or more tolerant than other countries? I don't know. I think it really depends on where you come from. A Christian from Sweden coming to the US would be tolerated/accepted much faster than a Muslim from Iran for instance, wouldn't you agree?

Racism sadly is a global problem, not just secluded to a few countries. Through parents, friends, social environment, beliefs, history, you name it, there will always be racism one way or the other.

And for the record, Europe is not much better. United we (should) stand, but divided we fall. We welcomed the Syrian refugees, because they all are justed to flee their war-plagued country. But when it comes to housing them, no community would want to set up a shelter (this is just for the Netherlands). Even in my own city people protested against a shelter for 800 refugees, while there are 80.000 people living here. Embarassess (spelling?) the hell out of me.
And on the other side, there are reports of (male) refugees harassing the (female) volunteers who work at the shelters. Unacceptable. To them I say, send them home again.

__________________
I'm a geek, you're a geek. Let's trade.

Again, progressives are just lost. Totally lost. Marxism and progressiveism are probably the worst ideas of the 19th century. We basically owe 2 world wars to it and countless global conflicts...yet here we go again.

As far as Muslims. Let me just clear myself up. Muslim led countries are a bad idea. Even many Muslims agree. And as far as tolerance of Muslims. They are fighting an uphill battle because their religion specifically calls for world domination. Again, at least the Bible has the New Testament. As I alluded to earlier, you REALLY have to try to pick and choose 'nice' stuff from the Koran.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicksmagic:
If you fear the US, only fear it so much as people like Obama and Hilary control it. Again, they will stop at nothing to have their way. They feel like it is their mission to force the US to adopt an international code of ethics. That's where most Americans disagree. We are by and large very happy with things like free speech, freedom of religion and so forth. But we value freedom above all else. Forcing Americans to "modernize" and adopt ethical standards is not only wrong, it's not ethical.

Again, progressives are just lost. Totally lost. Marxism and progressiveism are probably the worst ideas of the 19th century. We basically owe 2 world wars to it and countless global conflicts...yet here we go again.

As far as Muslims. Let me just clear myself up. Muslim led countries are a bad idea. Even many Muslims agree. And as far as tolerance of Muslims. They are fighting an uphill battle because their religion specifically calls for world domination. Again, at least the Bible has the New Testament. As I alluded to earlier, you REALLY have to try to pick and choose 'nice' stuff from the Koran.

Most Iranians call themselves Persians here and that is their way of saying to your average American that they just want to be left alone and free like any American would.

---

In my experience, anyone who think a certain religion or race is better/worse than others is almost always a racist to various degrees. We are all human. There are good and bad people in each race/religion/group/country/etc... Good people are going to do good things and bad people are going to do bad things.

What you need to understand though is the person/group in charge of said race/religion/country does not represent the majority of people in said race/religion/country. This person (people) is acting in his/her own interest and not speaking on behalf of the entire race/religion/country.

And comparing to countries with poorer record than America is just silly. Instead of trying to improve equality and opportunity for all, don't do the lazy thing and point to other countries and said "at least you are not in Country A/B/C where they don't have X/Y/Z rights".

Also, stop taking whatever religious texts verbatim. I don't know if the Koran call for world domination, but even if it does, normal Muslims do not share that viewpoint. Likewise, there are Christians who feel that they do not need to convert/save everyone that they meet. But on the opposite spectrum, there are certainly people who feel that way for any religion.

Healthcare

I'm sure that there are other people who thought deeper and have more knowledge than me about this topic, but I just want to throw in my 2 cents.

My day job is an actuary on the Auto/Property side. There are 2 main differences between Life/Health insurance and Auto/Property insurance:

1) One is not mandatory (Life/Health) and the other is mandatory (Auto/Property).
2) In the absence of insurance, one is still being covered by the public (Health) and one is only covered partially by the public (Auto/Property).

By making it mandatory, you are ensuring that everyone is paying into the system and not just getting a free ride when an adverse event occurs. Healthy people will always pay for sick people. Good drivers will always pay for bad drivers. Mathematically, you would pay less if everyone is required to pay for insurance. Insurance is a risk-sharing mechanism, and the more people are in the insurance pool, the cheaper the cost for everyone.

So why did we see insurance prices went up after Obamacare implementation? One, prices for health insurance almost always go up. What is encouraging is that the pace of increase is actually lower than prior years, but this could just be fluke. I hope it is not.

Two, people who have been denied insurance coverage due to pre-existing medical conditions finally get to buy insurance again. Of course, these people will cost more than a regular person. Some of these folks are sick for no other reason than the genes in their bodies. The Property insurance equivalent is if your house got burned down in a wildfire and now you can't get insurance again anywhere you go. Sure, we can make health insurance cheaper for everyone by denying the coverage for these people who are likelier to incur a larger health bill than the rest of the insurance pool. But then you would leave these sick people to their own devices. In other words, they can die for all you care. Is that really a moral thing to do regardless of your religion/race?

Also, Health insurance needs to be designed to be more like Auto/Property insurance. The purpose of insurance is to protect you from large and catastrophic losses, not adding up all the small stuff that you will go through in a year and then tack on fees/profits on top of that.

But all of these points are moot because the general structure of healthcare in the US is just ****-poor compared to pretty much every other developed countries in the world. We spend the most on healthcare while getting so-so services. The pharmaceutical industry in the US is the most successful in term of lobbying. I do not like Obamacare since it doesn't try to address some of these structural defects, but at least it's a step in the right direction in ensuring that everyone has access to insurance coverages. But there is still a long way to making healthcare more efficient for everyone.

Freedom

America is the only country with freedom on this planet?? That's new to me. I'm certain a whole swath of Europe have the same rights, with the exception of guns for good reasons in my opinion.

Marxism/Progressiveness

Come on... don't be that lazy/naive and say that the those things are responsible for the 2 worst events in human history. These are just convenient ways for people to separate themselves from the oppositions other than country/race. War is mostly about power/resource anyway.

Also, what the heck is your definition of progressiveism anyway that make it so bad? Gay marriage doesn't affect traditional marriage in any way. A woman's body is her own decision, not anyone else's. Inequality is at its worst since The Great Depression. Tax cuts for the rich don't really work. Reagan had to increase taxes 7 times after his cut. Bush's cuts also didn't bring in economic prosperity as he promised.

Moral-based policies
I'm sure Christ's morals were to help the sick, the poor, the infirmary, the oppressed, etc... Pretty much any other religions also share the same viewpoint.

Addressing inequality would help the poor.
Obamacare help the sick and the infirmary (and the poor - being poor from paying outrageous medical cost due to being uninsured/underinsured).
Legalization of gay marriage and abortion help the oppresseds (non-straight folks and women).

Gun Rights/Control
America is not Europe. Though the majority are of European decent and as much as we seem to try to emulate Europe, we are very different culturally. White America is different from White Europe, Black America is different from Black Europe, etc. What works for one may not necessarily work for the other.

We are also very different within ourselves. We have dense urban areas and vast swaths of land that are sparsely inhabited. In those sparse areas, guns are a necessity. You can't ban their guns (and any attempts to take them will result in bloodshed), but there also is no way to keep the guns from rural areas from getting into the urban areas (see: Chicago).

We also have seen that outright banning guns doesn't help the gun crime statistics; in fact it makes things worse (again, see: Chicago). Why? Because criminals will acquire a gun regardless, and the law-abiding are unarmed. The police aren't everywhere, and if you're looking to shoot someone (something that is already illegal), it's much safer if you know your victim isn't going to be shooting back.

The solution isn't to add more restrictions on gun ownership, but rather to enforce the ones we have right now. For example, background checks are required, and most criminals will fail these. So, they get someone else to buy them for them. This is illegal, but it's never prosecuted. So you have a series of repeat offenders that never get more than a slap on the wrist contributing to the problem.

Racism
It's gotten way overblown in this country the last few years. Now, when in doubt, call someone a racist and walk away. Don't like illegal aliens? You're a racist! Think Michael Brown was a thug? You're a racist! Think we should vet the Syrian refugees before letting them in? You're a racist and an Islamophobe! Rational thought and objectivity be damned.

The civil rights movement in the 60's was something to be proud of. Black Lives Matter is a rabble. They don't want equal treatment under the law (they already have it), they don't want special treatment (they have that too under Affirmative Action), they want extra-special treatment. Actually, I don't know what they want, and it seems they don't either. Fight injustice, raise awareness, these are vague intangibles as opposed to concrete objectives. The movement is doomed to failure the same way Occupy was, and all it does is tear the scab off the wound, but if you ask me, I think that's exactly what the race baiters intended. There's money to be made by stirring the pot and playing off people's emotions (see: Al Sharpton).

Speaking of racism, when worlds collide:
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/25/11113454/black-endorsements-matter-cartoon

Immigration
We'll focus on Mexican immigrants, as they seem to be the ones most in the news. This one amazes me how both sides are so wrong here. On one hand, the existence and support of sanctuary cities by the Left is deplorable and in direct violation of federal law. If you are caught here illegally, back you go. The 14th Amendment was to naturalize former slaves, not to allow anchor babies. Seem harsh? Yep, but you knew the rules when you came here, you took that chance. Mexico would treat me no differently if I snuck into there.

Also, that whole granting them healthcare, welfare and driver's licenses while not paying taxes is a little...

On the other hand, building a wall is moronic. Many illegals were here legally to begin with on visas and simply overstay their welcome. You also have multiple generations living here, so are you really going to waste the time and money to deport Grandma?

Identifying the problem is the first step. Let's explore, shall we? Why are they here in the first place? What made them uproot and try to sneak into the States? Seems to be one of three main causes: 1) they're looking for work and want to make a better life for themselves; 2) they're desperately trying to escape bad things back home, such as the drug cartels; or 3) They're criminal, trying to escape prosecution.

So, do we as Americas have a problem with 1) or 2)? I think most of us would be fairly welcoming. We pride ourselves on this being the land of opportunity, so we should make it MUCH easier to become a legal resident of this nation. Will people complain about them taking American's jobs? Yeah, but that's been the case for the past 150 years and it's always turned out fine; it's certainly not going to be something new. By that same token though, we need to come down on those we don't want here. Enforce the laws, and send people home.

Now I wanted to address two topics that gaea brought up.
I do indeed have a problem with the way that same sex marriage and abortion were (are) handled in the US. They were both done so in a progressive manner.

Same-Sex marriage: First they redefined family. Prop 8 happened in California while I was in college. I knew nothing about it, so I went to a "prop 8 educational class" at the college. Let me tell you, ANY time that a college or University in California tells you that they will educate you, beware. I learned this on that fateful day. I was honest to goodness totally unaware of prop 8 as I had heard that it was a preserve marriage act. I was pretty liberal at the time. Well, it started off with psychology professors spinning a story about how people are born gay and that it is natural. I mean 'male sheep have sex with other male sheep' kinda stuff. 2D:4D relationship stuff. We are really talking "way out there" crap. The whole time I listened to the groundbreaking 'evidence', I was like "who cares, what on Earth does this have to do with prop 8?' I never cared really about Gays or their plight. I mean, it's just not an issue when compared to really pretty much anything. The ultimate #firstworldproblem. Well then an openly gay professor (again, I don't care one way or another about his gayness) goes on to pretty much cry in front of us, saying how proposition 8 was going to destroy his 'family'. Um...okay, 2 gay guys shacking up does not a family make. Nor does 2 straight people for that matter.

But here's the clincher. This is actually what set me on the path to reuniting myself with the critical thinker (aka conservative) that I am. He went on to say, in an impassioned speech that "Anyone who has a yes on prop 8 sign on their lawn or in their window is a bigot. So the next time you see a prop 8 sign on someones lawn, you need to knock on their door and ask them 'How long have you been a Bigot!?'"

The audience erupted in applause and I realized that my days as a progressive, liberal thinker were done. That very day. I used to make excuses for us. I know and fear that kind of attitude. I said nothing of course, stunned. To this day, I wish I would have put a stop to that kind of rhetoric. I have handled overtly racist cops with the kind of tact that would make my African American Godfather proud, even to the point of being taken to the police station. Proposition 8 passed, but was killed not by an election, or the will of the people. But by SCOTUS. Another epic fail by them to defend the constitution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicksmagic:
don't forget your boots.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by paragondave:
I guess you're super glad you're a straight, white male born in America, eh? Makes you an expert on black, immigrant, gay and women's reproductive issues, right? Nice perspective you got there.

---

Are you saying that if I am not a gay, black, woman, immigrant that I should not have an opinion on any of these topics?

I never claimed to be an expert. But since you have claimed to be an Atheist, I see where the angst and venom come from. Very heavily edited for content: Again, I don't profess to claim any religion, but I also don't claim that there is no God. Doing so professes my ignorance, not only of myself but of my race (the human race).

You have no center man. Neither do your buddies. That's why you anger so easily. That's why you fight death off with every ounce of your might (even to the point of using human fetuses to further medical research). I've witnessed this. The deathbed confessions of empty souls.

A good and long standing human practice is to look at the stars and question them. Ask the basic questions and try, honestly to answer them. Are the stars full of long gone souls? If you don't believe that, why not? Why do others think that? What makes you similar to them?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicksmagic:
Are you saying that if I am not a gay, black, woman, immigrant that I should not have an opinion on any of these topics?

---

since you asked...

Not saying that at all, but your perspective would be a bit different. The one you have would be that of someone unaffected by the outcome of any legislation affecting them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicksmagic:

I never claimed to be an expert.

---

shall I point to where I might get the idea that you think yourself one or can you scroll back and reread your own words?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicksmagic:

But since you have claimed to be an Atheist,

---

I didn't claim anything. I stated a fact about myself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicksmagic:

I see where the angst and venom come from. Why so many of you die vile, angry deaths, and live vile, hateful lives. Full of anger, and pride.

---

generalize much? This here would be why you come across as bigoted. That happens when you generalize about groups of people that you know very little about. This would apply to your statements about gays, blacks, Mexicans, women and now atheists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicksmagic:

Again, I don't profess to claim any religion, but I also don't claim that there is no God. Doing so professes my ignorance, not only of myself but of my race (the human race).

---

ummmm, so me claiming that I do not believe in a deity as described by other men makes me ignorant and you smart?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicksmagic:

You have no center man.

---

You profess your ignorance by making blanket statements about people you know nothing about.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicksmagic:

Neither do your buddies.

---

Do you know any of my buddies? Which ones? Spider Joe? Cool Mickey? Godless Chuck or Pregnant Sally? We should all get together and party!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicksmagic:

That's why you anger so easily. That's why you fight death off with every ounce of your might (even to the point of using human fetuses to further medical research). I've witnessed this. The deathbed confessions of empty souls.

---

wow, where to start with this?
I anger when people I love are threatened. I am angered by willful ignorance and people picking on the disadvantaged. I stopped truly being afraid of death over 30 years ago when my son was born. More important things to worry about after that. I don't use human fetuses to further medical research, not sure how you connected that dot, oh yeah, you generalize a bunch. Empty souls? I am biting my tongue here.[/B][/QUOTE]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicksmagic:

A good and long standing human practice is to look at the stars and question them. Ask the basic questions and try, honestly to answer them. Are the stars full of long gone souls? If you don't believe that, why not? Why do others think that? What makes you similar to them?

---

Do you really think you are the first to star gaze and ask questions of the universe? To answer your last 3 questions here...cuz science.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicksmagic:

You see, I can sit in a room with any person and find something in common with them. I have the capacity to empathize. I see the humanity in people (even unborn people). But I won't apologize for being able to articulate and share my experiences; not for being white, not for being straight, not for being a man, not for being American.

---

I have not seen any evidence of your ability to empathize with anyone who is not like you in any of your posts in this thread.

I deliberately avoided addressing a couple of your previous posts for reasons I have already stated. If you would like me to do that here just say the word but you have failed to address and answer any of the questions I have asked previously.

edited for reasons previously described. Was abortion talk, and yeah I agree, why bother.

Also, your 'cuz science'...how that sounds dogmatic to me. I heard that 95% of climate scientists agree that fossil fuels were causing global warming. Oh, so much fail in that sentence. Came from a Stanford Graduate too, and was reported on CNN and several other outlets. Of course enough critics got it redacted, you know, since it wasn't true.

Science right now is re-inventing its self. If you didn't know it, that's because you don't follow science past the headlines. It's actually hard to do. JSTOR and other research journals are not readily available to the public. I mean, people actually quote abstracts as proof for their opinions.

So much pressure is put on Universities to follow corporate interests, to follow political policies that it is not the truth seeking field that it once was. I found this out first hand as a Bio-Psychology major. Ended up graduating with a BA in psychology largely due to my incapacity to understand the things we will do in the name of 'science'. Oh and I was still pretty liberal, pretty darn atheist (weak atheist, lol wtf is that?).

I mean, the simple fact of the matter is that liberals are bubble people. They care about themselves. Atheists chief among them. Cuz Science.

You go.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicksmagic:
Well, for one. I did edit out a lot of that post.

---

that's ok, I preserved it for those playing along.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicksmagic:
Really the point I like to drive home with Atheists is that they actually don't realize how little they empathize.

---

will you continue to simply make generalized statements about groups of people that you are not part of? I get it that you empathize with right wing conservative christians but I see no evidence of that for anyone else. What part of ALL men are created equal don't you get? And is it too presumptive of me to believe that that applies to all men and women the same?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicksmagic:

Mostly because they have mud in their eyes and wax in their ears. If it doesn't suit them, it's stupid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicksmagic:

I used to be an atheist..

---

and then what? You saw unequivocal evidence of a god?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicksmagic:

It's actually funny watching them interact. Many white, middle classed atheists simply can't talk about issues that don't involve their race and class, because they have no idea how to imagine it. They get silent in elevators when a black man steps in. Or worse yet, they catch themselves quoting south park in front of them.

---

My experience with other atheists are nothing like this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicksmagic:

edited for reasons previously described. Was abortion talk, and yeah I agree, why bother.

---

We are definitely not in agreement here. I never said 'why bother?'.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicksmagic:
Also, your 'cuz science'...how that sounds dogmatic to me. I heard that 95% of climate scientists agree that fossil fuels were causing global warming. Oh, so much fail in that sentence. Came from a Stanford Graduate too, and was reported on CNN and several other outlets. Of course enough critics got it redacted, you know, since it wasn't true.

---

You may have heard it explained that way on Fox News but what you should have heard was that burning fossil fuels is one of the contributing factors to global warming that we CAN and should affect.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicksmagic:

Science right now is re-inventing its self.

---

Science re-invents itself constantly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicksmagic:

If you didn't know it, that's because you don't follow science past the headlines. It's actually hard to do. JSTOR and other research journals are not readily available to the public. I mean, people actually quote abstracts as proof for their opinions.

---

this is true, you've proved it several times already with your statements.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicksmagic:

So much pressure is put on Universities to follow corporate interests, to follow political policies that it is not the truth seeking field that it once was. I found this out first hand as a Bio-Psychology major. Ended up graduating with a BA in psychology largely due to my incapacity to understand the things

---

because I think it's amusing to do so, I'll just leave that one right there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicksmagic:

I mean, the simple fact of the matter is that liberals are bubble people. They care about themselves. Atheists chief among them. Cuz Science.

---

Neither simple nor a fact. However, true to form, another generalized statement about a group of people you admit you are not a part of (anymore). You want to talk about dogma?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicksmagic:

2nd edit: I saw you ask if Ted Cruz was my man. As I said before, I won't vote for any Republicrat, but if someone forced me to vote, I would vote for Bernie.

---

As obviously educated as you claim to be, I would think no one would need to force you to vote. You would simply understand that not voting gives an advantage to whoever you disagree most with. Yes, this is admittedly voting the lesser of 2 evils but not voting is accepting the greater of 2 evils and doing nothing. This should voluntarily negate your voice when it comes to bitching about the results of your abstaining.

As anyone who's been around long enough can tell you, the Presidential election makes no guarantees on which legislation will pass in Congress. It does in some way validate and invalidate the issues that the candidates choose to discuss, and pursue if elected, as applies to the social conscience of the American people, I say, IN SOME WAY. Part of the reason so many Americans are losing faith in our system is that there are flaws in how the voice of the American people is heard, including in how we elect our representatives (think the electoral college and Bush V Gore).

**how did I forget to mention Supreme Court appointments?**

Yes, I know very intimately someone who went through the process. Yes, it took awhile, but no I can not say that she was properly vetted at all.

In fact, as I am sure you understand but just to help elaborate as many others don't, The Department of State is really just one small part of a gigantic cog of failure and incompetence that our government has put together to vet foreigners.

It's not anyone's fault except our own for continually re-electing bureaucrats, and apologizing for them. But they just want to create their own empires and justify their jobs.

Failure to communicate is all too common in the agencies. Between the department of state, the department of homeland security, the department of immigration...man so many things get lost/dropped/missed etc. But since there are so many people to blame, we don't actually hook anyone.

You alluded to the idea that I gather information from Fox news and abstracts...why would you think that? As far as global warming, that was from google news, and directly quoted from CNN, WSJ and a few others. They just copy paste (via AI) others articles, to the point where it looks like everyone is saying it. I mean, they take advantage of weak minds in the media all the time.

You may have missed the point I was making about the whole global warming issue. It was actually several articles addressing the need to better educate our children on global warming issues. But the author, and everyone of the news outlets that rely on AI to generate their propaganda, related information that was not true. "95% of climate scientists agree that global warming is caused by fossil fuels" <---what was reported.

"About 300 climate scientists agree that 'humans significantly impact global warming'"<---what the research said.

Do you see how those sound so different? And yet, these news outlets are trying to set policy? Encouraging people (as you say sheep) to act?

Anyway, I ironically have a MTG tournament to go to this weekend, and probably won't be back right away. Thanks all for the dialogue. Much appreciated and I'll be back in a bit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicksmagic:
Encouraging people (as you say sheep) to act?

---

please don't attribute things I never said, to me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicksmagic:

I'll leave with this little tidbit. Imagine it comes down to Trump and Hilary. Hilary gets elected. She gets convicted for any of a number of crimes she is currently under investigation for. Then pardons herself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicksmagic:
I'll leave with this little tidbit. Imagine it comes down to Trump and Hilary. Hilary gets elected. She gets convicted for any of a number of crimes she is currently under investigation for. Then pardons herself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by paragondave:
I am not sure where you got the idea that this is how that works but please feel free to explain this theory...when you get back from your Magic tourney.

---

She could pardon herself, but could still be impeached and removed from office

From Article Two of the Constitution

quote:

---

Originally posted by skizzikmonger:
She could pardon herself, but could still be impeached and removed from office

From Article Two of the Constitution

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gaeacradle:

---

Good post (for me at least)

quote:

---

I do not like Obamacare since it doesn't try to address some of these structural defects, but at least it's a step in the right direction in ensuring that everyone has access to insurance coverages. But there is still a long way to making healthcare more efficient for everyone.

---

As I stated, such a massive undertaking can not be set up without a (large) number of flaws. At some point you have to just fire it up and correct the flaws as you go along.

quote:

---

Originally posted by coasterdude84:
Seems we have several issues being discussed here at once, but I'll throw my 2 cents into a few of them.

Gun Rights/Control
America is not Europe. Though the majority are of European decent and as much as we seem to try to emulate Europe, we are very different culturally. White America is different from White Europe, Black America is different from Black Europe, etc. What works for one may not necessarily work for the other.

---

I totally agree.

quote:

---

We have dense urban areas and vast swaths of land that are sparsely inhabited. In those sparse areas, guns are a necessity.

---

Ok, why is that? Why does one need a gun in a sparsely inhabited swath of land? (with the exception of supposedly authorized/legal hunting)

quote:

---

You can't ban their guns

---

Maybe not

quote:

---

(and any attempts to take them will result in bloodshed)

---

That is because they have guns..

quote:

---

but there also is no way to keep the guns from rural areas from getting into the urban areas (see: Chicago)

---

Thus, lets just sell guns in the city so everybody can get one. If you can't beat them, join them!

quote:

---

We also have seen that outright banning guns doesn't help the gun crime statistics; in fact it makes things worse (again, see: Chicago). Why? Because criminals will acquire a gun regardless, and the law-abiding are unarmed. The police aren't everywhere, and if you're looking to shoot someone (something that is already illegal), it's much safer if you know your victim isn't going to be shooting back.

---

I seriously doubt if there are enough crime statistics that show that banning of guns do not decrease gun crime.
For the record, I respect your constitution and your right to bear arms, I just think it is a stupid right. Of course, criminals will ALWAYS find a way to get a gun, that's why they are criminals. They have their ways and connections. It's their business to know, so to speak.
I'm just saying, by readily selling guns 'on the corner of the street' you increase your chances of a nutjob, idiot or random dude A to buy one and get all vengeful or go bananas during rush hour. If you outlaw guns, only criminals will have them. I doubt that they will go nuts in a public place, shoot everyone in sight and then kill themselves, or get shot by the police. They don't kill schoolteachers for giving them a bad grade, or shoot your ex-girlfriend and her family for breaking up a relationship.

According to the NY Times, in 2015 mass shootings (4 or more dead/injured) occured more than once a day. A DAY!!
462 died and over 1300 injured. That's almost 5 people a day. I really wonder what the number of that would be if guns weren't sold that easily. Yes I know restrictions and back-ground checks are in place these days, but apparantly that doesn't do much very good. It's not about the criminals, it's about the people who wake up and snap.

quote:

---

Racism
It's gotten way overblown in this country the last few years. Now, when in doubt, call someone a racist and walk away. Don't like illegal aliens? You're a racist! Think Michael Brown was a thug? You're a racist! Think we should vet the Syrian refugees before letting them in? You're a racist and an Islamophobe! Rational thought and objectivity be damned.

---

Totally agree.

quote:

---

Originally posted by paragondave:
...Do you know any of my buddies? Which ones? Spider Joe? Cool Mickey? Godless Chuck or Pregnant Sally? We should all get together and party!!

---

I really LOL'd on this one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicksmagic:
.. Really the point I like to drive home with Atheists is that they actually don't realize how little they empathize. Mostly because they have mud in their eyes and wax in their ears. If it doesn't suit them, it's stupid. I used to be an atheist...

---

I'm sorry? That is just plain insulting. You are calling me non-empathic? I don't believe in any religion but I don't generalize, I respect anyones' choice to believe in anything. I don't bother them and vice versa.
Just because you were an atheist and you probably were non-empathic and had mud in your eyes and wax in your ears (because one takes from ones' own experience), doesn't mean that all atheists are like that. Generalize much?

I can live with the fact that people can disagree, and have total different opinions about subjects, but watch what you're saying. Common sense.
Just because a Muslim flew a plane into the WTC, doesn't make my Turkish butcher a terrorist. He's one of the friendliest guys I know.

__________________
I'm a geek, you're a geek. Let's trade.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AEther Storm:

Ok, why is that? Why does one need a gun in a sparsely inhabited swath of land? (with the exception of supposedly authorized/legal hunting)

---

There are a number of reasons. One, self-defense. Wild animals such as bears, wolves, and cougars also live in these areas, and they seem to have little regard for human life. While rare, attacks do occur. Or, if someone does come after you, rest assured knowing the nearest police are only 45 minutes away (in some parts, such as Montana, it could be upwards of 2 hours). Two, as you said, hunting is a way of life in these parts, and in many cases, that is some people's livelihood. There are many who live off the land completely.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AEther Storm:

Thus, lets just sell guns in the city so everybody can get one. If you can't beat them, join them!

---

Sure, why not? I'm not planning on shooting anyone, just like I'm not planning to bludgeon anyone to death. So me owning a gun doesn't affect the statistics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AEther Storm:
I seriously doubt if there are enough crime statistics that show that banning of guns do not decrease gun crime.

---

Ah, but your quote is a bit misleading, in that naturally gun crime decreases, but what about crime in general? Permit me to do some copy-and-paste work:

United Kingdom: The UK enacted its handgun ban in 1996. From 1990 until the ban was enacted, the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010. In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing.

Ireland: Ireland banned firearms in 1972. Ireland’s homicide rate was fairly static going all the way back to 1945. In that period, it fluctuated between 0.1 and 0.6 per 100,000 people. Immediately after the ban, the murder rate shot up to 1.6 per 100,000 people in 1975. It then dropped back down to 0.4. It has trended up, reaching 1.4 in 2007.

Australia: Australia enacted its gun ban in 1996. Murders have basically run flat, seeing only a small spike after the ban and then returning almost immediately to preban numbers. It is currently trending down, but is within the fluctuations exhibited in other nations.

I'll also add in Chicago. Preface: I live outside the city, and I'd say 85% of it is perfectly safe for me to walk down the street, and there is no reason to go to the other 15%, so please don't feel deterred to come visit to watch the Sox play. But Chicago is one of the most regulated cities in the States with regards to gun control. And yet, someone was shot here every 2.84 hours in 2015, eclipsing the 2014 figure of 3.38 hours. Those high-crime areas are virtual warzones. All attempts to curtail this by decreasing the gun supply have failed. And even if you did somehow manage to remove all the guns, the murder rates would still be just as high. You'd just see a surge of stabbings and beatings. There is a cultural problem perpetuating the gang-banger mentality.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AEther Storm:
For the record, I respect your constitution and your right to bear arms, I just think it is a stupid right. Of course, criminals will ALWAYS find a way to get a gun, that's why they are criminals. They have their ways and connections. It's their business to know, so to speak.
I'm just saying, by readily selling guns 'on the corner of the street' you increase your chances of a nutjob, idiot or random dude A to buy one and get all vengeful or go bananas during rush hour.

---

Ah, the 2nd Amendment right is a one that causes some confusion. It's quite short, but the implications are actually much greater than you realize. It reads:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

---

But what exactly does that mean? Some take it to mean only members of a militia or military should have guns, but that's inaccurate. The Founding Fathers had no trust of any government, and feared that the new American government would become just as oppressive as the old British regime. They very much intended the government to provide only the minimum level of services, such as police, basic infrastructure, and a court system. The idea of anything beyond that was reprehensible. By guaranteeing the right to own arms, it forces the government to be responsible to the populous. A militia could spring forth from anywhere if the people are armed.

And consider this: in light of the evidence that gun control laws have little to no effect on crime rates, why then do governments constantly seek to disarm their populations?

quote:

---

Originally posted by AEther Storm:
If you outlaw guns, only criminals will have them.

---

Exactly. Would you like to bring a knife to a gun fight?

quote:

---

Originally posted by AEther Storm:
According to the NY Times, in 2015 mass shootings (4 or more dead/injured) occured more than once a day. A DAY!!
462 died and over 1300 injured. That's almost 5 people a day. I really wonder what the number of that would be if guns weren't sold that easily. Yes I know restrictions and back-ground checks are in place these days, but apparently that doesn't do much very good. It's not about the criminals, it's about the people who wake up and snap.

---

I question the NY Times source a bit on that one (remember, they're very anti-gun). May be accurate, but I'd like to see the data. I'd also like to see how many of those have occurred in "gun-free" zones. It's as if they think that tiny sign is going to deter someone.

I don't have the 2014 or 2015 data handy, but between 2009-2013 the US had 227 "rampage shootings", with 38 fatalities. Sure, it's the highest number among Western nations, but per capita, that puts us 6th (5th if you discount the incident in Norway), behind Norway, Finland, Slovakia, Israel and Switzerland.

quote:

---

Originally posted by puregoblinboy47:
President Trump. Get used to saying that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by coasterdude84:
There are a number of reasons. One, self-defense. Wild animals such as bears, wolves, and cougars also live in these areas, and they seem to have little regard for human life. While rare, attacks do occur. Or, if someone does come after you, rest assured knowing the nearest police are only 45 minutes away (in some parts, such as Montana, it could be upwards of 2 hours). Two, as you said, hunting is a way of life in these parts, and in many cases, that is some people's livelihood. There are many who live off the land completely.

---

Fair enough.

quote:

---

Sure, why not? I'm not planning on shooting anyone, just like I'm not planning to bludgeon anyone to death. So me owning a gun doesn't affect the statistics.

---

The fact that you own a gun doesn't increase the statistics no, but it increases the chance of the statistics being increased.

quote:

---

Ah, but your quote is a bit misleading, in that naturally gun crime decreases, but what about crime in general? Permit me to do some copy-and-paste work:

United Kingdom: The UK enacted its handgun ban in 1996. From 1990 until the ban was enacted, the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010. In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing.

Ireland: Ireland banned firearms in 1972. Ireland’s homicide rate was fairly static going all the way back to 1945. In that period, it fluctuated between 0.1 and 0.6 per 100,000 people. Immediately after the ban, the murder rate shot up to 1.6 per 100,000 people in 1975. It then dropped back down to 0.4. It has trended up, reaching 1.4 in 2007.

Australia: Australia enacted its gun ban in 1996. Murders have basically run flat, seeing only a small spike after the ban and then returning almost immediately to preban numbers. It is currently trending down, but is within the fluctuations exhibited in other nations.

I'll also add in Chicago. Preface: I live outside the city, and I'd say 85% of it is perfectly safe for me to walk down the street, and there is no reason to go to the other 15%, so please don't feel deterred to come visit to watch the Sox play. But Chicago is one of the most regulated cities in the States with regards to gun control. And yet, someone was shot here every 2.84 hours in 2015, eclipsing the 2014 figure of 3.38 hours. Those high-crime areas are virtual warzones. All attempts to curtail this by decreasing the gun supply have failed. And even if you did somehow manage to remove all the guns, the murder rates would still be just as high. You'd just see a surge of stabbings and beatings. There is a cultural problem perpetuating the gang-banger mentality.

---

Touché.
I still focus on the non-gang/criminal person. I see those people as one that will always get their hands on a firearm if they choose to. I'm merely suggesting that taking away the 'easy' way of obtaining a gun will lead to the fact that would-be criminals, or more specifically, those planning to perform a crime, are more easily discouraged and could give up.

quote:

---

And consider this: in light of the evidence that gun control laws have little to no effect on crime rates, why then do governments constantly seek to disarm their populations?

---

Maybe for the same reason as mine, just to decrease chances. Perhaps I should be a politician...

quote:

---

Exactly. Would you like to bring a knife to a gun fight?

---

Maybe this is too easy, but I would not be in a fight in the first place. I don't give anybody a reason to.
And if someone did pull a gun on my for whatever reason, then it's probably a Monday. I hate Mondays.
Also, I would be a lot more willing to shoot someone if they had a firearm themselves (self-defense). If someone is vulnerable and poses no immediate threat, why shoot them?

quote:

---

You're right, it's the people that wake up and snap that are they biggest threat. But the question is, how big of a threat are they? What is the likelihood of getting shot by someone who just snaps? And the million dollar question becomes, is it worth giving up your rights for a tiny amount of perceived safety?

---

Well, I suppose removing a threat, however unlikely, is still a threat less to worry about. The propaganda and influenced news we get here from the US learns that there are quite a number of random shootings (in cinemas, malls, traffic, etc) compared to what we are used to. I also don't see the hassle about 'giving up a right', I sense a lot of Americans are itchy about that one.

Again, don't get me wrong. You're a responsible owner of a gun if you never use it, but know how to use it, and stored it in a safe location where children or other people can't get to.
I worry about those that as said, could snap, children getting their hands on it and people that walk around carrying one. I, for one, would feel REALLY uncomfortable (and probably move away from) around someone carrying a firearm on the streets, even if he or she is someone I know. (police excluded)

EDIT: I just read that a gun store in Houston was raided for approximately 50 guns, some of which were used right or shortly after the raid.
This was of course a professional job, but still. If guns weren't sold in shops, this heist would not have occured and quite possibly, the other crimes committed afterwards as well.

Opportunity makes the criminal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by puregoblinboy47:
President Trump. Get used to saying that.

---

You realize that if he does become president (which I highly doubt, Hillary is gonna win which was almost evident from the start for me), America will become the next banana-republic. I'll laugh my ass off after ducking for cover

__________________
I'm a geek, you're a geek. Let's trade.