Politics 20/20

[Guard Dog]

4 hours ago, Gromnir said:

 

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state."2nd amendment honks may claim God is on their side, but the better part o' the entirety o' US history and and all relevant Court decisions until 1939 (and perhaps far more recent as miller serves only to confuse,) is favoring state and local gun control... and such gun control ran the gamut from incidental to draconian. definition matters not save for your arguments regarding strict gun control laws.

 

You know what? I'd be OK with this. State and local governments are far more persuadable and in tune with their constituent populations. Plus if you find your current resident State heavy handed and ornery then it's easy to move to a different one. There is no escaping Leviathan-On-The-Potomac. States already do a good job administering concealed carry permits (which is a privilege not a right). So getting the goddamned Federal government out of gun control and regulation and making it solely a state and local government issue is a win. As long as they are mindful of Scalia's caveat that prohibition is NOT reasonable regulation. 

Quote

@Guard Dog

am not certain as to causes. urban is more likely to result in homicides and violent crimes as 'posed to rural regardless o' general poverty stats. fact. why? dunno. most homicides is actual crimes o' passion as 'posed to planned, but even gun violence which don't end in death and would appear to be premeditated is having similar skew towards urban. sure, w/i the municipality, poverty appears to be a major contributing factor, but why is so much more likely in urban?

am recalling a british paper which found that impulsivity in rats increases once a non-specific population density is reached, with a sharp escalation in the prevalence o' aberrant behaviours once the threshold is exceeded.

*shrug*

HA! Good Fun!

Population density is certainly a possible causation. God knows I was a LOT happier when I realized I was the only human in visible range in any direction I looked. But I am rather anti social. But I have found, anecdotally, that folks in small towns are much happier and community minded than folks in urban or even suburban communities. 

The reason I most attribute to the disparity, and this might make you laugh, is the prevalence or religion and (as a consequence) moral instruction of kids. That is not to suggest children brought up without a heavy dose of religious instruction are not given moral instruction by their parents. Many certainly are. But valuing community and Gods fellow creatures are a pretty big part of the church experience. IMO only, the first step to not murdering or exploiting fellow humans is to be taught that they have value. That their lives are meaningful beyond what use the individual thinks they might be. 

Like I said, purely my own opinion.

 

[Hurlshort]

Everything is fine! https://gizmodo.com/so-who-else-thinks-the-white-house-is-totally-pulling-1845269694

[Theonlygarby]

42 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

Everything is fine! https://gizmodo.com/so-who-else-thinks-the-white-house-is-totally-pulling-1845269694

Surprised he is using a sharpie, thought for sure he was a crayon kind of guy.

[Pidesco]

Crayon for rough drafts, sharpie for big boy writing.

[Maedhros]

3 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

The reason I most attribute to the disparity, and this might make you laugh, is the prevalence or religion and (as a consequence) moral instruction of kids. That is not to suggest children brought up without a heavy dose of religious instruction are not given moral instruction by their parents. Many certainly are. But valuing community and Gods fellow creatures are a pretty big part of the church experience. IMO only, the first step to not murdering or exploiting fellow humans is to be taught that they have value. That their lives are meaningful beyond what use the individual thinks they might be. 

Like I said, purely my own opinion.

 

Religion can be a factor, especially in a place where nearly everyone is religious and that adds to people's trust towards each other. However, in many parts of the world where religion isn't that important, you still have the same correlation of violence in rural/urban areas. Personally I think it's got to do more with trust. In places of conformity, there is less conflict and less violence.

Also, it's not like irreligeous people don't teach their kids morals. Many of the most peaceful places on this earth are largely atheist.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

3 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

The reason I most attribute to the disparity, and this might make you laugh, is the prevalence or religion and (as a consequence) moral instruction of kids. That is not to suggest children brought up without a heavy dose of religious instruction are not given moral instruction by their parents. Many certainly are. But valuing community and Gods fellow creatures are a pretty big part of the church experience. IMO only, the first step to not murdering or exploiting fellow humans is to be taught that they have value. That their lives are meaningful beyond what use the individual thinks they might be. 

Historically this doesn't hold up, religion has easily gone hand in hand with murder, exploitation, and other atrocities.

[Hurlshort]

28 minutes ago, KaineParker said:

Historically this doesn't hold up, religion has easily gone hand in hand with murder, exploitation, and other atrocities.

Historically, religion has gone hand in hand with pretty much everything.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

4 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

Historically, religion has gone hand in hand with pretty much everything.

Well yeah, so it seems strange to credit religion specifically for not murdering or exploiting people.

[Hurlshort]

1 hour ago, KaineParker said:

Well yeah, so it seems strange to credit religion specifically for not murdering or exploiting people.

Ah, my bad. I thought you were going to the opposite extreme of GD's point. I don't agree with GD's point either.  

[ComradeYellow]

Evangelicals constitute the vast majority of Trump's base.

Let that sink in.

[Elerond]

It is because god emperor protects america

[Gromnir]

'Don't Be Afraid Of It': Trump Dismisses Virus Threat As He Returns To White House

HA! Good Fun!

[ComradeYellow]

6 hours ago, Elerond said:

It is because god emperor protects america

Ah yes, conjuring illusory threats such as Muslims, Mexicans, Chinese Communists to play into peoples fears the same way liberals conjure the Russian threat.  Group think is a Hell of thing isn't it?

[Azdeus]

7 hours ago, Gromnir said:

'Don't Be Afraid Of It': Trump Dismisses Virus Threat As He Returns To White House

HA! Good Fun!

This pleases father Nurgle...

Edited October 6, 2020 by Azdeus

[Raithe]

[Raithe]

https://evolvepolitics.com/the-tories-have-passed-a-bill-giving-the-government-powers-to-legally-murder-their-political-opponents-yes-seriously/?

Last night in the House of Commons, the Covert Human Intelligence Sources Bill was passed by a margin of 182-20 at second reading.
The official description of the bill is to “authorise conduct by officials and agents of the security and intelligence services, law enforcement, and certain other public authorities, which would otherwise constitute criminality.”

The government say that the bill is to put into formal legislation a previously secret power known as the “Third Direction” – an unofficial directive which allows covert state actors, such as MI5 operatives or undercover police officers, to break the law if they believe their actions will prevent a threat to national security or stop another serious crime from happening.

However, critics of the bill – including human rights organisations, opposition MPs, and even a number of Tory MPs themselves – have claimed the legislation is “rushed“, “ill-thought through“, and effectively hands the government a “licence to kill” whoever they want for any reason they see fit.

Whilst similar laws exist in both Canada and the USA to allow state actors to commit crimes in order to maintain national security, the legislation in both of these countries explicitly excludes certain serious crimes such as murder and torture.

However, the Tories’ Covert Human Intelligence Bill makes no such stipulations – placing “no specific limitations on the type of criminal activity that may be authorised”.
Extraordinarily, the bill also extends these authoritarian powers to numerous ostensibly unrelated government agencies – such as The Competition and Markets Authority, The Environment Agency, The Financial Conduct Authority, The Food Standards Agency and even The Gambling Commission.
In addition, the Tory bill allows state actors to commit crimes against its citizens in three extremely ambiguous, and effectively all-encompassing, scenarios:

• In the interests of national security.
• For the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder.
• In the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.

Whilst it is widely accepted that the Third Direction directive allowed state actors to commit crimes specifically in order to protect national security, it is not believed there were any provisions regarding protecting the “economic well-being of the United Kingdom” or to “prevent disorder” – ambiguities which, if the new legislation passes, could easily be interpreted in whatever way a government wishes, including using them to suppress political opponents.

[Gorth]

Scottish separatists better start hiding in The Highlands.... those English military drones will be out to get them!

[BruceVC]

It now appears the spread and potential risk to people who work in White House is much more widespread than it first appeared

Most of the top people in the Pentagon have also been exposed and are in self-isolation

https://news.yahoo.com/military-leaders-quarantined-official-tests-170601426.html

[Pidesco]

3 hours ago, BruceVC said:

It now appears the spread and potential risk to people who work in White House is much more widespread than it first appeared

Most of the top people in the Pentagon have also been exposed and are in self-isolation

https://news.yahoo.com/military-leaders-quarantined-official-tests-170601426.html

 

There's no "it now appears" about it. It was pretty obvious that the spread was inevitable after the first cases were discovered, and the White House's shocking refusal to help with contact tracing just compounds the cluster-foodspearingcutlery.

 

 

[Gromnir]

4 hours ago, Pidesco said:

 

There's no "it now appears" about it. It was pretty obvious that the spread was inevitable after the first cases were discovered, and the White House's shocking refusal to help with contact tracing just compounds the cluster-foodspearingcutlery.

 

 

it is reassuring that the pentagon, unlike the wh, is taking serious and following cdc guidelines. sure, the vice commandant likely got covid-19 from the wh, as he attended a gold star event at the wh a day after the now infamous rose garden event. that said, charles wray and all the other military brass now in quarantine were wearing masks when they were forced to be in close contact with each other. furthermore, as soon as pentagon folks became aware o' a positive test by the coast guard vice commandant, the brass immediate had anybody who were in close contact with wray quarantine according to cdc guidelines.  

not being afraid o' covid is much different from being an idiot about the dangers o' covid. 

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

So who is planning on watching the VP debate tonight, I wont be watching as its too late but I will catch all the highlights from 5:30-6:00  am 

[Guard Dog]

On 10/5/2020 at 12:10 PM, Hurlshot said:

Historically, religion has gone hand in hand with pretty much everything.

Well, religion is pretty much what anybody makes of it. But the point I was going for was the church experience not so much as the religious experience. Being taught from a young age that you are a part of a community and that everybody in the community is valuable cannot help but have a positive impact on people. There’s something to be said about small town and rural life. Entire generations of people grow up together. You know each other, you know each other‘s families, there are strong community bonds and churches are a big part of forming that. Here in Covington there is a church softball league where all the churches field a team and compete with each other. Even the Jewish temple. it’s a pretty big deal in town and everyone seems to enjoy it. In urban environments there are many more people but they are surrounded by legions of strangers. For one reason or another Community bonds tend not to form. 
 

once again I am no sociologist so this is purely my own opinion based on my own observation. It’s not like I’m out there participating in this kind of thing. I am after all the crazy old man living in the woods by himself 

Edited October 7, 2020 by Guard Dog

[Hurlshort]

Debate isn't over, but it is pretty clear that the fly on Pence's head is the winner.

[Gromnir]

34 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

Debate isn't over, but it is pretty clear that the fly on Pence's head is the winner.

fly won, but am gonna give pence a distant second... but not by much over harris. overall pence scored a few more points than harris, but on covid and transfer o' power he sorta flubbed and flopped. 

harris really coulda' hammered pence on the rose garden and the white house failure to follow the cdc guidelines. curious omission.

harris wouldn't answer 'bout Court packing. am curious why the biden ticket thinks the issue is so untouchable.

meh. 

this debate pushes the polls even less than the last.

HA! Good Fun!

 

Edited October 8, 2020 by Gromnir

[Hurlshort]

I tend to agree. I don't think Pence did anything to really win the debate, but as Kamala Harris's first real turn on the national stage, I think she needed to do more. I was expecting her to either be aggressive, given her prosecutorial background, or to be the more charming candidate (which really shouldn't be hard against Pence.) But I don't think she pulled off either one of those. It seemed too safe.