forky123 Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 Sorry, but blaming HC for the state of the US is fairly insane. The whole political system in the US is broken and putting in someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is also fairly close to insane. The two party system worked when there was a little bi-partizan cooperation but now, with the two parties willing to cause severe damage to the US to further there own ends, it's a mess. I'm continually amazed that the US will bomb another country indiscriminately for a small number of deaths in a terrorist act, not actually perpetrated by the US "target de jour", and yet allows 30,000 deaths a year from guns based on a 240 year old piece of paper that in no way suggests people should be allowed to wander round carrying assault rifles. I don't live in the US and only care who becomes president because the entire direction of the US will be decided by who holds the balance of power and, especially, who elects the next few Supreme Court justices. Trump stands for hatred, bias, bullying and discrimination and is simply not fit to be president. kokopelli and vinapu 2
Manly69 Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 Like i said i care for neither. Trump cannot be judged for having a hand in it [ yet ] But surely you cannot deny she hasn't. You only have to google Hillary Secretary of State foreign policy performance. If a child of mine came home with a report card like that i would be most concerned. Anyway we are all entitled to our opinion,whether others agree,disagree.
Guest ronnie4you Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 It is amazing to me that somebody who last contributed I think his only post in this thread on August 25 cares whether this thread continues. Just don't click on it. The Tawan thread has gone on forever and it holds no interest for me and I just don't click on it. I would not think of posting is it not time for the Tawan thread to die. There are members who are interested. This is a discussion Forum. You don't get to mute it just because you don't enjoy the discussion. Just Don't Click On It!! You are right, of course. I was wrong.
firecat69 Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 Like i said i care for neither. Trump cannot be judged for having a hand in it [ yet ] But surely you cannot deny she hasn't. You only have to google Hillary Secretary of State foreign policy performance. If a child of mine came home with a report card like that i would be most concerned. Anyway we are all entitled to our opinion,whether others agree,disagree. Anyone who googles something like that and does not realize large portions of what you get are things fed into googlesphere by idiots like Breitbart. That was the kind of BS Rudy G said to Google about the health of Hilary. It would be nice if some of the people who want to blame her for everything has only been in Elective Office for 8 years in her life and the rest of the time took orders from others. She has never held an Executive position where she made the Big Decisions. Hilary has got plenty of faults but her decisions have seldom not been from her Bosses.
KhorTose Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 She has never held an Executive position where she made the Big Decisions. Hilary has got plenty of faults but her decisions have seldom not been from her Bosses. Actually she was in charge of the tasks force on healthcare in 1992-1993, giving her one more year of executive authority. Her plan was sound, but way too complicated, and it allowed the insurance companies to issue the policies. No single payer, but even without the single payer it was shot down by the insurance companies, the doctors, the pharmaceuticals, and the republicans. Sad, in a way, as it was a very good plan if it had been simpler and had a single payer. I don't know what anyone else is planning to do, but I am voting for Hillary. Sorry Firecat, I sure the shit am not doing it out of love or even admiration. If you want to run off and spend passionate moments with her, please be my guest. I still find many of her actions over the past 30 years and at the DNC this year, display very questionable ethics. Of course, the fact she has any ethics at all, places her above Donald Trump. Alexx 1
steveboy Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 I know brace myself for the barrage of Clinton defenders... You may expect much criticism, but in reality your post is more a source of laughter. Your litany of problems in the USA pales in comparison with problems elsewhere in the world.
steveboy Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 I don't know what anyone else is planning to do, but I am voting for Hillary. Sorry Firecat, I sure the shit am not doing it out of love or even admiration. If you want to run off and spend passionate moments with her, please be my guest. I still find many of her actions over the past 30 years and at the DNC this year, display very questionable ethics. Of course, the fact she has any ethics at all, places her above Donald Trump. You are right. As far as I can remember, it has never been so much a "choice of the least evil".
steveboy Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 You only have to google Hillary Secretary of State foreign policy performance. If a child of mine came home with a report card like that i would be most concerned. Her report card is still light-years better than that of GW Bush. vinapu 1
vinapu Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 I fail to understand how calling it stupid for a certain group to complain about a result when they failed to participate in that result in the same %'s as other age groups a voting preference. If you don't participate by voting then yo have no right to criticize the results and if you do then you show your stupidity by the fact that you did not vote. it sounds like denying right to criticize quality of the air in the room to people who actually did not fart steveboy 1
vinapu Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 ", and yet allows 30,000 deaths a year from guns based on a 240 year old piece of paper that in no way suggests people should be allowed to wander round carrying assault rifles. finally somebody said it loudly
firecat69 Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 I'm no big supporter of the 2nd amendment because I think the Supreme Court has allowed it to extend too far . However those who banter around the gun violence in the USA without understanding the numbers should do a little studying. 2/3 of those gun deaths are suicides and I am sure they would have found another way. So really it is 11,000. Now compare that to the number of people who kill themselves in cars and of course cars win 3 to1. Should we ban cars? Of course not. The other things people need to understand when they might think their own country is so much better is that USA has 350 million people and trying to compare it to countries that don't even have the population of California is hard to do. Again I support gun laws being stronger just like I support those who drink and drive or text and drive being thrown in jail. There really is no difference in the fatalities. Dead is Dead! KhorTose 1
forky123 Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 Gun Death Rates are per 100,000 population: US - Total 10.43 - Homicides 3.43 - Suicides 6.69 UK - Total 0.23 - Homicides 0.06 - Suicides 0.15 Seems pretty clear to me. Even using your 11000 figure, that's the equivalent of nearly 4 9/11's per year. As to the 2nd amendment, it needs to be consigned to history. U.S Police are so terrified to do the most basic of tasks that they are repeatedly unlawfully killing people. I can't imagine how hard it must be for them to even pull over a speeding motorist when you don't know if they will have a gun. The result where they keep killing an armed people with no remorse or sanction is going to result only in more deaths on both sides.
firecat69 Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 Pretty easy not to have death by guns when you don't allow guns and are surrounded by water. That is not a criticism since I already said I am in favor of restrictions on the 2nd amendment. However let me remind you that the strong historical reason for USA to have guns was was to kick Imperialist countries out on their asses as we did to the British. Some things die hard and in another 200 years I suspect guns will be much less important in the USA.
forky123 Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 We don't allow guns because, guess what, we restricted them after the Hungerford massacre. Your 2nd amendment was based on part of the 17th Century English Bill of Rights. It has no place in the modern world and you have amendments to the constitution because things become out dated and need to be revised. The idea of a militia has not lasted 200 years so why the amendment?
firecat69 Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 Well gee in 1987 after how many centuries of no restrictions you sought not to ban guns but make them much harder to obtain. Frankly I applaud you for that and maybe in as many centuries as it took you to act, maybe the USA will wake up. Also I don't remember how successful you were in restricting guns when the Irish were killing many British citizens. Wasn't N Ireland part of the UK?
Manly69 Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 You may expect much criticism, but in reality your post is more a source of laughter. Your litany of problems in the USA pales in comparison with problems elsewhere in the world. I wasn't referring to the rest of the world. So your reply is irrelevant to my post. As for a source of laughter,do you deny the USA is facing the the problems i mentioned in my post ? But I'm glad you got a laugh out of it,something i think you need to do more often.
firecat69 Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 Be it Trump or Clinton who ends up being the next POTUS then god help them because they will be taking over to lead a country in a mighty fine mess. The number of gun deaths, its low wages,its dealings in the Middle East,racial tension,tension with Russia,China,and its multi trillion dollar debt. I am for neither one,but Hillary has been in politics for 35 years and has had a big say in where the USA finds itself now and you cannot discount the fact that she has a shady past history.. I know brace myself for the barrage of Clinton defenders... Possibly you'd do better worrying about the financial problems in Australia. Your $ is tanking as is your economy!
steveboy Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 As for a source of laughter,do you deny the USA is facing the the problems i mentioned in my post ? But I'm glad you got a laugh out of it,something i think you need to do more often. Don't worry, I get plenty of laughter in this forum, only surpassed in a forum I participate in that is about religion. The problems you mentioned: "The number of gun deaths, its low wages,its dealings in the Middle East,racial tension,tension with Russia,China,and its multi trillion dollar debt." The effect of these problems have not been escalating. They surely pale in comparison with the problems this nation went through last century. And these problems don't keep people from wanting to immigrate here. And you have to evaluate problems in a global context. How else can you place them in a scale that is completely relative? Do you live in a country without problems? That would be... laughable.
KhorTose Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 How in the hell did we get from Hillary to guns? ALL prohibitions are wrong. Prohibitions I may believe in are just as wrong as the ones you believe in. In 5000 years we have discovered that you cannot ban: Prostitution drugs of any kind including alcohol guns or weapons of self defence Homosexuals religious beliefs Etc. All we are doing with prohibitions is creating a new class of criminals. In this case gun owners (thanks god it is not queers anymore in the US), and please violent crimes have not gone done in the UK. Award winning political fact organization exams a Facebook post and its true.http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/24/blog-posting/social-media-post-says-uk-has-far-higher-violent-c/
Manly69 Posted October 17, 2016 Posted October 17, 2016 True to form the regular My Way or the Highway posters putting forth their online vitriol and trolling away. Do i live in a country without problems ? No nobody does. Hillary not being in an executive role you said. The Secretary of State is a senior official of the federal government of the United States of ... regarded as the four most important Cabinet members because of the importance of their respective departments. Secretary of State is a Level I position in the Executive Schedule and thus earns the salary prescribed for that level. Administering foreign policy,no not all important according to one.. I do you find it childish the tangents you go off on to maintain your argument. And i know why, upon discussion off the forum with several other members why they are so reluctant to post about anything at all. Once again i await your stinging rebuttals,but there will be no further correspondence on this from my part,can't be bothered to be honest.
vinapu Posted October 17, 2016 Posted October 17, 2016 Gun Death Rates are per 100,000 population: US - Total 10.43 - Homicides 3.43 - Suicides 6.69 UK - Total 0.23 - Homicides 0.06 - Suicides 0.15 Seems pretty clear to me. Even using your 11000 figure, that's the equivalent of nearly 4 9/11's per year. As to the 2nd amendment, it needs to be consigned to history. No, I think it's the way USA is contributing to reducing overpopulation.
forky123 Posted October 17, 2016 Posted October 17, 2016 ALL prohibitions are wrong. Prohibitions I may believe in are just as wrong as the ones you believe in. No one here has said prohibition. It's about regulation and control. Violent crime exists in most countries to one extent or another and always will. Most countries have learned from school and other massacres to restrict and control gun sales. Looks like the US never will.
firecat69 Posted October 17, 2016 Posted October 17, 2016 True to form the regular My Way or the Highway posters putting forth their online vitriol and trolling away. Do i live in a country without problems ? No nobody does. Hillary not being in an executive role you said. The Secretary of State is a senior official of the federal government of the United States of ... regarded as the four most important Cabinet members because of the importance of their respective departments. Secretary of State is a Level I position in the Executive Schedule and thus earns the salary prescribed for that level. Administering foreign policy,no not all important according to one.. I do you find it childish the tangents you go off on to maintain your argument. And i know why, upon discussion off the forum with several other members why they are so reluctant to post about anything at all. Once again i await your stinging rebuttals,but there will be no further correspondence on this from my part,can't be bothered to be honest. You continue to make juvenile responses and show your mis-understanding of how the US Government works. Secretary of State makes no final decisions but proposes policies that may or may not be implemented. Perfect example is Syria. Well known that Hilary was in favor of attacking Syria when they crossed the Red Line laid down by Obama. Obama decided not to do what he promised to do and now Hilary has to listen to idiots in the USA blame her for the mess in Syria. Sorry the decision was not hers to make . She gave her counsel and was over ruled. Not really that hard for a thinking person to understand the difference between Executive Powers and Cabinet Secretary.
firecat69 Posted October 17, 2016 Posted October 17, 2016 No one here has said prohibition. It's about regulation and control. Violent crime exists in most countries to one extent or another and always will. Most countries have learned from school and other massacres to restrict and control gun sales. Looks like the US never will. People who continue to make these inane comments that the USA should change the 2nd Amendment need to take a Civics Class. I would love to see us do a better job vs guns but we have something called The Constitution . Witness how many amendments have been made in almost 250 years . It is very difficult and in fact almost impossible because of the type of Government we have with 50 separate states and populations that have different views on the matter. We have states with very strict gun laws, Makes no difference when surrounded by states with the Gun Culture. As an example we have many rural states where gun deaths are as low as some countries who like to brag about their superiority . When you have a country with the land mass of 1 of our states or a population that barely exceeds some of our states things become a lot easier. And always is the historical fact that our right to have guns is the reason we were able to kick the British Army out on their asses. That is why the 2nd amendment exists i the Constitution. It has become bastardized over the years but it always comes back to that. The Right to Bear Arms! It will not be changed in my lifetime!
Guest abang1961 Posted October 17, 2016 Posted October 17, 2016 I watched with much disbelief that a man of Rudy Guilani's stature spoke on behalf of Trump on CNN news lately. Obviously the presenter had the excruciating look on him but Rudy rattled on. This must be Trump's closest ally. Interestingly, I have a questions for the Americans on this board... How accurate is the polls? Had the polls favoured a candidate but the outcome is different? Was that Al Gore's time?
