1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Doesn't bother me in the slightest. Drink, screw escorts, go to church, read comic books, whatever makes them happy. Leave me and mine alone. don't try to take my f----g money, stuff, etc and don't be too horribly incompetent and stupid us into a war or cause a fuel crisis, currency collapse, or something. That's all I want from my government and I am certain I will die disappointed.  

sounds nice but am calling bs. gd wants the water running through his property to be clean as well as the air he breathes to be less than lethal. manage that w/o government interference? he also wants the government to protect him if other and more powerful people (or more desperate, 'cause while power corrupts, powerlessness corrupts absolute) wanna take his stuff... and think o' all the stuff he wouldn't have save for the government, such as drivable roads 'tween wisconsin and tennessee, vaccines and the internet. etc.

gd has a romantic notion o' world sans government interference, a fantasy based on some kinda jerimiah johnson movie setting which ignores how mr. johnson were as often as not struggling to survive the predations o' his fellow humans as well as the indifferent violence o' nature. most o' the other mountain men no doubt died young, painful and unmourned. you know where the rl jerimiah johnson died? a veteran's home in santa monica, ca. the government were taking care o' mr. johnson in his golden years 'cause the mountain man sh!te don't work so well once you hit senior citizen status. heck, life expectancy when jerimiah johnson were born were 29 years, which is misleading. the reason the number is less than 30 is 'cause in the late 1820s, like most o' history, a significant % (majority) o' children died before they reached adulthood. chances are w/o government and its benefits, gd wouldn't be alive much less posting on the internet.

calling bs. gd wants his idealized minimalist government, but only in the candyland world he has imagined would exist where his fellow humans is compassionate and fair and mother nature ain't a b!tch goddess bent on his extinction. 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited May 27, 20223 yr by Gromnir

53 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

sounds nice but am calling bs. gd wants the water running through his property to be clean as well as the air he breathes to be less than lethal. manage that w/o government interference? he also wants the government to protect him if other and more powerful people (or more desperate, 'cause while power corrupts, powerlessness corrupts absolute) wanna take his stuff... and think o' all the stuff he wouldn't have save for the government, such as drivable roads 'tween wisconsin and tennessee, vaccines and the internet. etc.

gd has a romantic notion o' world sans government interference, a fantasy based on some kinda jerimiah johnson movie setting which ignores how mr. johnson were as often as not struggling to survive the predations o' his fellow humans as well as the indifferent violence o' nature. most o' the other mountain men no doubt died young, painful and unmourned. you know where the rl jerimiah johnson died? a veteran's home in santa monica, ca. the government were taking care o' mr. johnson in his golden years 'cause the mountain man sh!te don't work so well once you hit senior citizen status. heck, life expectancy when jerimiah johnson were born were 29 years, which is misleading. the reason the number is less than 30 is 'cause in the late 1820s, like most o' history, a significant % (majority) o' children died before they reached adulthood. chances are w/o government and its benefits, gd wouldn't be alive much less posting on the internet.

calling bs. gd wants his idealized minimalist government, but only in the candyland world he has imagined would exist where his fellow humans is compassionate and fair and mother nature ain't a b!tch goddess bent on his extinction. 

HA! Good Fun!

What can I say, I was born 182 years too late.

48 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

What can I say, I was born 182 years too late.

you did catch the part 'bout how you likely woulda' died before reaching adulthood, yes? even then, am questioning sanity o' gd if he would rather have lived through the american civil war as a southern man, even as a white southern man, as 'posed to living 21st century USA.

possible worst o' all for gd, you woulda' had fewer gun rights back then compared to today. 

HA! Good Fun!

6 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

What can I say, I was born 182 years too late.

I agree, people were much happier and content in those days.  Think about all the violent protests and unhappiness nowadays that people put themselves through. No one complained about " white, male privlidege " back then....everyone was happy and we know this is true because the level of civil disobedience was almost non-existent  

22 hours ago, Gorth said:

@BruceVC

To continue the conversation about governments... what do you expect from a government? Are they hired to lead you or are they hired to do the administrative work of running a country on your behalf?

Different cultures have different expectations. A government at odds with its people usually either doesn't last or resort to the use of force to get things the way it want it to. The Swiss put a lot of stuff up for referendums and let people decide, reducing the governments role in decision making. Scandinavian governments are there on their best behaviour, always under close scrutiny by the press and the people. Other countries have traditions of following leaders, some of them elected, some of them not.

Whats your opinion on what do you expect from your government and this will be outside of the obvious that I mentioned to GD like delivering public services and ensuring border control 

So in other words do you want your PM to be married, what about affairs  and other things ? 

Is this true?

4 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Whats your opinion on what do you expect from your government and this will be outside of the obvious that I mentioned to GD like delivering public services and ensuring border control 

So in other words do you want your PM to be married, what about affairs  and other things ? 

I don't care about their family lives... unless it's symptomatic of their personality. I.e. married/unmarried/same sex marriage... couldn't care less. It's completely irrelevant. I do expect my politicians to show traits I appreciate in a politician however. Honesty, dedication and hard work in all aspects of their lives. If they are not trustworthy outside a parliament, they are not trustworthy. End of story.

But what I expect of a government is a bit different. I think the Swiss are on to something. Let people decide on issues, big and small between elections. Most governments (and oppositions) will run on single issues or close to it. But all the "other issues" that barely get addressed? They are decided by governments in ways that sometimes take the people who voted them in by surprise. To take an example from decades ago... people vote in a government in Copenhagen on some promise of blah blah. Without consulting anyone else in the matter they sign a treaty to sell the oil rights in the North Sea to a private company. Or sign a treaty to build a bridge between Denmark or Sweden. Or... you get the picture. People were never asked if they wanted any of those things, because it happened between elections.

I know it's not viable in a lot of places in the world, but Denmark has the infrastructure to allow a lot of things to be done online, including elections. Might as well send out issues for referendums too. Even if Maastricht 1992 still scares the **** out of politicians (the politicians and the elite were like 95% in favour of Maastricht, problem was, the Danes themselves weren't). But we need a lot more direct democracy on a number of issues, without letting the politicians run roughshod over people, only asking if the "other party" is worse or less bad every 4 years or so.

1 hour ago, Sarex said:

Is this true?

It appears to be.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/uvalde-residents-voice-frustration-over-shooting-response-11653588161

Edit: Behind a paywall, this isn't 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/uvalde-mom-says-she-was-handcuffed-while-urging-police-to-enter-robb-elementary-during-school-shooting

Edited May 28, 20223 yr by KP wants Blue Velvet

Thats amazing! Handcuffs are hard to get out of.

EDIT: Did she leave the rest of the rest of the kids in the classroom? 

Moms are tough.

So they're cowards and incompetent. 

 

15 hours ago, Gromnir said:

you did catch the part 'bout how you likely woulda' died before reaching adulthood, yes? even then, am questioning sanity o' gd if he would rather have lived through the american civil war as a southern man, even as a white southern man, as 'posed to living 21st century USA.

possible worst o' all for gd, you woulda' had fewer gun rights back then compared to today. 

HA! Good Fun!

Actually if I'm picking the where as well as the when I'd prefer the antebellum American West before the Union Pacific and manifest destiny screwed it all up. I'd rather avoid the United States of that time altogether. Of course that is a purely romanticized notion. Not one person of that time would not happily trade places with me because life was both hard and short.  But as a man who enjoys trips to national parks I think you could see the appeal of seeing North America before the westward expansion. Plus there is an appeal to the idea of a simple life constrained only by physical needs with ample resources to meet those needs if you're smart about it. Just don't get sick. Or injured. Or elderly. Or on the bad side of whatever Indians happen to be around. Or whatever wildlife is around. 

1 hour ago, Malcador said:

So they're cowards and incompetent. 

 

and it's so much easier being brave a few thousand miles away with a keyboard as your weapon of choice. 

HA! Good Fun!

4 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

and it's so much easier being brave a few thousand miles away with a keyboard as your weapon of choice. 

HA! Good Fun!

Proof is in the results, though. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/federal-agents-entered-uvalde-school-kill-gunman-local-police-initiall-rcna30941

Good on BORTAC for having brains.

Just now, Malcador said:

Proof is in the results, though. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/federal-agents-entered-uvalde-school-kill-gunman-local-police-initiall-rcna30941

Good on BORTAC for having brains.

am unsure what proof you believe you are offering. no doubt at some point law enforcement had the manpower, experience and equipment to deal with the shooter. few would question that observation. local cop leadership were quite possible wrong in their assessment o' the situation; dunno as info and timeline keeps changing.

regardless, randos making judgements 'bout the bravery o' those involved is... amusing. "brains," btw, is often gonna look like cowardice to keyboard warriors.

HA! Good Fun!

 

Idk, I've seen a bunch of randos here making all kind of judgments. Either way they chose to "server and protect", we didn't.

54 minutes ago, Sarex said:

Idk, I've seen a bunch of randos here making all kind of judgments. Either way they chose to "server and protect", we didn't.

...

sounds like you have issues with your wait staff as 'posed to the cops... and even if you got it right, that aspirational schtick don't have some kinda concrete meaning save what you want it to. 

am having no idea what were the actual situation at the school for local cops. were cops able to see into the classroom where the shooter were barricaded with students? did the local cops have any real experience with more than traffic stops and domestic violence calls? cop training is not same everywhere btw. if am supposed to bust in a room and take down a crazed shooter while avoiding collateral damage to hostages, am gonna wanna know we got some kinda applicable training and gonna wanna know the guy next to us has training too. am knowing one quasi regular poster on this board who has legit law enforcement experience and am also certain they is not gonna comment on this scenario, but we got marines with combat experience, which ain't the same. if shady or gd were sudden in charge o' a collection o' not soldiers but local police with unspecific training, and they were told they were gonna need to confront a shooter possessing body armour, semi-auto long rifles and avoid harming a whole bunch o' civilians in the room 'cause is gonna look kinda terrible if you accidental shoot any o' them, what would they want to get the job done? etc.

pretend scenario is instead a fire captain or chief who orders his crew into a situation which is likely to get them injured. captain would be fired and if firemen under their command were actual killed is likely the chief/captain would face criminal charges. firemen train and have equipment which is meant to reduce the danger o' an inherent dangerous profession. yeah, is some situations where firemen is gonna volunteer to do the heroic, but such is not the norm and is actual discouraged, 'cause by its very nature, heroic is beyond the level o' danger which is considered reasonable and chances are other firemen is gonna be put in a situation to then rescue the trapped or injured wannabee hero. regardless, how many o' us would call a firemen a coward 'cause the captain and crew didn't enter a building deemed too unstable to enter? got a story where a captain orders firemen to rush to their deaths and how many would be applauding the captain's bravery? converse, how many would be excoriating the captain's willful disregard for his crew's safety? 

btw, am knowing folks hate the law, but scotus decisions deshaney, castle rock v. winnebago, as well as the warren v. dc appellate decisions reaffirm what should not surprise but always does: the cops don't have a duty to protect any individual citizen. 'cause o' tv and other stuff, the community believes cops got a duty to be like the President's secret service protection detail, but willing to sacrifice themselves not just for the President but to save any citizen in danger. get real. 

aside: am not sure what is "bravery." a woman works two jobs to support her family; goes back to same crap job every day where she is forced to eat metaphorical sh!te sandwiches from customers and her bosses, and she does so 'cause she wants better for her kids. brave? we think so. 'course at some point, if she is working same terrible jobs just 'cause is more scary than finding something better, does that make her a coward? converse, at what point is the willingness to confront potential life-threatening danger displaying bravery as 'posed to being foolhardy? can be both foolish and brave? 

whatever.

Gromnir has had dangerous jobs with a high risk o' serious injury, but have never had to rush headlong into a situation where is certainty somebody with lethal intent would be shooting at us. am thinking in such a scenario we would want the sergeant or lieutenant, police or military, to consider our safety. call us a coward but we do not see self as expendable even if caution would look bad on tv or in newspapers.  again, am not yet knowing exact what happened and who made what decisions. more than a few o' you made up you minds when we knew even less than we do today.

the timeline is bothersome. wait for so long while kids is in danger don't make sense to us and am waiting for an explanation. is quite likely there won't be a good explanation 'cause is hard to imagine such a lengthy delay. however, regardless o' the facts, keyboard heroes complaining 'bout cowardice o' those involved would be amusing if it weren't so predictable... and wrong.

HA! Good Fun!

ps (edit) while the cops do not have a Constitutional duty to protect (much less serve,) a small number o' individual states has legislated increased cop responsibility, though unlikely to the degree any o' you imagine. vermont and minnesota is the two states am knowing have increased cop duty standards. am recalling post parkland, florida legislators proposed increased cop duty but am not knowing the result. 

Edited May 28, 20223 yr by Gromnir

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/03/22/health/gun-deaths-school-age-children-trnd/index.html

School kids have a more dangerous "job" than cops.

*sigh*

keep in mind am in favour o' gun control (albeit recognizing the second amendment makes most such efforts impotent) but the cnn article linked is more than a little misleading, and as expected, kp makes worse. if you wanna put "job" in quotes, then keep analogous and only count kid deaths while kids is in school. 

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/a01

*feigned shock*

as noted previous, suicides account for a significant % o' gun deaths in this country. "in the line of duty" cop deaths is gonna near complete remove the single largest cause o' annual cop death.  am suspecting more cops die from accident than in the line o' duty, but is only a guess. is also far more school aged kids than cops. 73 freaking million juveniles, most o' whom is 'tween five and eighteen. there is less than one million cops in the US. etc.

guns is inherent dangerous. duh. the only purpose o' a firearm is to kill stuff. the problem is too many republicans and second amendment idolaters won't be honest 'bout gun control. we are told people need guns to protect themselves (albeit unironic from other people with guns) and defend their way o' life from the government. is only the corrupt government which has something to fear from an armed populace, right? school shootings, suicides by handgun and domestic disputes which evolve all too fast into lethal tragedies is, for second amendment defenders, collateral damage. fine. if you honest believe the freedom to own a handgun outweighs tens o' thousands o' deaths per year, then be honest 'bout it. never happens. instead, we get ridiculousness such as is people who kill people and not guns.

HA! Good Fun!

 

35 minutes ago, KP wants Blue Velvet said:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/03/22/health/gun-deaths-school-age-children-trnd/index.html

School kids have a more dangerous "job" than cops.

Well the kids are unarmed and have no armour, would make sense.

47 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Well the kids are unarmed and have no armour, would make sense.

The kids should be armed and armored. Tacticool gear for everyone.

11 hours ago, Malcador said:

Proof is in the results, though. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/federal-agents-entered-uvalde-school-kill-gunman-local-police-initiall-rcna30941

Good on BORTAC for having brains.

Malc I can imagine you wondering what is my opinion on the question " were these cops cowards" and or " did they act appropriately " ?

I have been avoiding getting involved in this specific debate because I have been tracking developments and facts and watching interviews. And I wanted to be sure about the points I can make that they are as well informed as reasonably possible 

But its also a fairly " long " post so I also didnt want to waste my time on making it if no one really wants to know what my opinion is. Because their are always debates that are active here or on Codex that people respond to and sometimes people agree with me and sometimes they dont. Like all debates ...thats the nature of a debate 

But the point Im making is let me know if you want to know what I think and @Sarex, and others, you may also want to know what I think?

 

16 hours ago, KP wants Blue Velvet said:

The kids should be armed and armored. Tacticool gear for everyone.

 

10 minutes ago, Sarex said:

 

Buying guns here is very easy if you have the money, when I bought my .44 it was no questions asked at all. And if you don't have the money, there are installment plans to pay for the gun.

I know I've said it before, but we need an entire culture shift around guns. They don't need to outlaw them to make that happen, although reasonable restrictions and limitations would help. The NRA should be leading the way towards responsible gun ownership, but instead they are hyperfocused on the politics of victimhood. Guns should be treated like dangerous tools. Instead they are glorified and worshiped.

For my next TED talk, I will be discussing how our obsession with cars is dumb too.