Further, it's well documented that traffic deaths, at the very least, are on par with gun deaths..

So, according to you, that trips the "Free For All" alarm..

Where is the hysterical public outcry for car restrictions that you said would occur???

Answer: non-existent...

Ergo, this proves that all of this is nothing but an anti-gun political agenda...

535

Do you think the families of those who take their own lives with a gun blame the gun???

Next, even if auto deaths outnumber gun deaths, automobiles are used by far more in everyday life than guns are.

A distinction without a difference. Explain why it matters...

The difference is that Congress didn’t allow the auto industry to determine what the laws governing auto makers should be.

If you actually believe that, I have some swampland in FL I want to sell you.. :D

529

Car deaths outpace gun deaths by far when you exclude suicides...

Ergo, there is a flaw in your argument...

First, do you think the families of those who take their own lives with a gun feel like they deserve to be excluded? A person shoots another person with a gun and they die. A person shoots themself in the head and they die. Why would you not include them in the number of gun deaths? Do you only count vehicle deaths where the person killed was not the driver? I mean, how can you know that a single car fatality of the driver wasn’t actually a suicide? Oh wow! You cannot!

Next, even if auto deaths outnumber gun deaths, automobiles are used by far more in everyday life than guns are. People interact with cars exponentially more often than they do with guns, so the likelihood that there would be more occurrences of death is not surprising. The flaw with your argument is that if the number of interactions people had with guns were equal to the number of interactions they had with automobiles, you’d see exponentially more gun deaths occurring.

Here’s the last thing that you have completely ignored... family members of those killed by automobiles are the reason why laws were passed requiring automakers to add shoulder restraint seat belts to all of their vehicles. They are the reason we have air bags. They are the reason that we have DUI laws on the books. The victim families of auto deaths did speak out for their loved ones. The difference is that Congress didn’t allow the auto industry to determine what the laws governing auto makers should be.

Yes, you have to have insurance to DRIVE your care.. Take it out of your home..

But you DON'T have to have insurance to OWN a car...

If your car is safely in a "cabinet" there is no need to insure it..

if driving a car was as much of a free for all that gun ownership is in this country,

What's an indication of a "Free For All"??? How about the number of people killed???

Car deaths outpace gun deaths by far when you exclude suicides...

So, since the car deaths far surpass gun deaths and you think that gun deaths are in "free for all" status, then you must think that cars are REALLY in "free for all" status...

And yet, there is no public outcry for more car regulations...

Ergo, there is a flaw in your argument...

Would you like me to point it out to you?? :D

508

SO????

What does it MATTER that a tool is designed to kill???

Does that make it inherently evil???

Then why did the NRA give Dickey their “political prostitute of the year” award for getting the amendment passed?

What do I care what the NRA does???

Gun violence is a health care concern,

Yea, and rain is a national security concern???

That's why you liberals were thrown out of power. Because you can't be trusted with reality..

The ATF is not funded to conduct such studies.

So we fund it to do that study... Duh....

The CDC is an organization dedicated to fighting disease.. It has as much business studying gun violence as it has studying traffic safety..

You can argue inanities and yer fantasies until the cows come home, but here are the overriding facts...

Gun ownership is as much of a constitutional right as free speech is...

Every law anti gun law that is permissible under the 2nd Amendment has been passed..

"These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
-Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

What causes you to conclude I "flunked economics"? I agree totally with your entire [112] post, where you came to that conclusion.

It is such an idiotic statement that I didn’t really think it needed commentary.

As someone who has lost multiple family members to gun violence, YES, it does matter! I’ve lost good friends and family to car accidents as well, and if driving a car was as much of a free for all that gun ownership is in this country, you’d see people screaming for some regulations to reign it in. We already have those for automobiles. You have to have a drivers license to drive a car. Vehicles have to meet safety standards to be street legal. Your vehicle can be impounded if left someplace it isn’t supposed to be. You have to have insurance to drive legally.

The car serves multiple purposes and is useful. Deaths occur, but their usefulness far outweighs the possible threat to life when used properly.

Guns are designed to kill. The Second Amendment clearly states that they are intended for use in state militia’s in the defense of the state. It wasn’t so you could skeet shoot on the weekends, it wasn’t so you can have a phallic substitute for your own “short comings”, it was to kill those that threaten the country.

Center For DISEASE CONTROL to study gun violence??

It's utterly moronic to even MAKE the suggestion..

Then why did the NRA give Dickey their “political prostitute of the year” award for getting the amendment passed? NASA isn’t listed in the Dickey Amendment, nor is the EPA or FDA. So it’s pretty clear that the CDC is who would be tasked to conduct studies on the matter. Gun violence is a health care concern, that’s why the CDC would study it. The ATF is not funded to conduct such studies. You have to really try hard to make such a ridiculous argument!

Yes, thank you Don, that's exactly what this is about. The assumption is that "producers" are more important than the rest of us, and that they are deserving of whatever boosts we can provide them. I call it the "Harvey Weinstein Argument".

You flunked high school geometry, right?

You flunked economics, right? Because the middle class has been a 'thing' for awhile now. They're the ones who will have to pony up more for healthcare and college tuition so that hedge fund managers can get an Xmas boost.

You flunked high school geometry, right?

For your info, after you eliminate the "top half" and the "bottom half", there ain't nothin' left!! The "top half" and the "bottom half" INCLUDES "the middle", right?

:D

Like Neil, you forgot to address something..

Honestly, why does it matter what the tool was designed for?? ANY tool can kill... What does it matter that one tool was DESIGNED for that function and one tool was not??

I mean, come on.. What does the fact that one is designed to kill and one is not have to do with ANYTHING???

Just a reminder.. :D

Simple.. Word gets around you have guns but have no ready access to them???

Well, I am sure, as associated with LEO as you are, you can figure out the rest..

Utter bullshit. I have given you legitimate reasons for the registry and your response has been to claim that it won’t stop mass shootings from happening, which you cannot know to be the truth.

No, you have not...

Why aren’t you supporting the suggestion to get rid of the Dickey Amendment so that the CDC

Center For DISEASE CONTROL to study gun violence??

It's utterly moronic to even MAKE the suggestion..

Welcome to Weigantia...

Only to those who are enslaved by Party ideology...

Great comments in both 79 & 80!

Bravo!

A gun at home in a safe or case is useless.... It's WORSE than useless, it's actually an encouragement for home invasion...

Might be the dumbest comment you’ve ever said....and that is not an easy title to earn! Tell me how it encourages your home to be robbed? Wouldn’t not having a gun in your home serve as an even bigger encouragement? Why risk possibly getting shot if you know that there are no guns in another home? And how, exactly would a person breaking into your home know that your gun is safely stored and not tucked gently between your cheeks as you sleep?

Most home invasions aren’t violent and even those that are rarely result in the owner being killed or seriously injured. Please note that I said “rarely” as I know the NRA loves to share the same horror stories over and over, (but then claim that gun control advocates use tragedy victims grief for their own political agendas).

I know you love to think you’ll go all Chuck Norris on a home invader, but you are just as likely to mistakenly put a bullet in your child sneaking in after breaking curfew.

A gun registry and gun insurance are already unreasonable demands and simply fly in the face of the facts and the 2nd Amendment..

Utter bullshit. I have given you legitimate reasons for the registry and your response has been to claim that it won’t stop mass shootings from happening, which you cannot know to be the truth.

Why aren’t you supporting the suggestion to get rid of the Dickey Amendment so that the CDC and other science agencies could actually study gun violence and make suggestions without the threat of losing all of their funding if the solutions they come up with displease the gun lobby? Probably because you aren’t interested in anything that goes against your own overly inflated opinion?

The filter ate my first reply. I'll try again:

Paul Ryan let the cat out of the bag the other day on Ross Kaminsky’s radio show. You can Google it. You didn't expect him to blow a trillion dollar hole in the budget and not back-fill it with huge cuts to federal programs, many, if not most of which subsidize State programs, did you?

How do corporations who owe taxes but "already pay no fed taxes" (if indeed there are such) profit from additional tax cuts?

So, by your logic, if the 1.3 Trillion Dollar cost of the tax cuts doesn't come from the lower half, and not from the top half, it must come from the middle. Oops!

Sorry, it's still you.

We're not even discussing "budget cuts", we're discussing TAX cuts, right? You have no idea what effect those could have on state and local taxes.

How do corporations who owe taxes but "already pay no fed taxes" (if indeed there are such) profit from additional tax cuts? If they already pay no fed taxes, there wont be anything to buy their own stock with, right?

Again, it's still you being disingenuous.

Thanks, I'll hang it on the wall.

You know gawdam well that we're only talking about fed income taxes

And you know 'gawdam well' that lots of those cuts to the federal budget has to be made up for by the States, usually in the form of higher local taxes, so who's being disingenuous?

And you know 'gawdam well' that many Corporations manage to pay no federal taxes, yet are being gifted by Republicans with more tax breaks they don't need, and don't plan to use for anything more than buying up their own stock. So who's being disingenuous?

"Tell Vlad he has to give me some slack so I can win this election. Once I win, then I can be flexible for him.."
-Hussein Odumbo

501

Tell me that your "85 yr-old widowed mother" paid fed income tax last year, and I'll cut you a very little slack on this one, otherwise stop the bullshit.

"If only... IF only...."
-Hades, HERCULES

OK, you win the disingenuous prize for the day. You know gawdam well that we're only talking about fed income taxes in the ongoing argument about the tax cut bill being debated at this time.

Tell me that your "85 yr-old widowed mother" paid fed income tax last year, and I'll cut you a very little slack on this one, otherwise stop the bullshit.

And the beat goes on. Today we heard about the first ever 14-1 vote against the US in the UN Security Council, over Trump's trolling in the Middle East.

But Putin sent a very public word of thanks to Trump for sharing CIA intelligence with him. How nice.

What nonsense. Tell my 85 year old widowed mother that she doesn't pay any taxes. Tell my step-niece mother of four with two jobs that she doesn't pay any taxes. They would laugh, then get very angry.

"Simple logic..."
-Admiral James T Kirk

YOu must have missed that one.. :D

498

He is not...

I know, seven months seems like 2 years in this horrific Presidency.

Apologies.. I meant that the Russia Collusion probe has been spinning it's wheels for almost 2 years now..

497

Yeah, about that Krugman Nobel prize, rumor has it that it was conferred by the same people who awarded their "Peace" prize to a guy who assassinated people on daily basis for two years.

Real (aka 'classical') economists see their job as advising industry and government as to the most efficient way to operate.

So-called 'political' economists (of which Krugman is the poster boy) see their calling as the redistribution of income from high-earners to low-earners.

Of course such an "economist" will invariably be against tax cuts of any description, because when you craft a tax collection system which omits the bottom half of all taxpayers, all tax cuts become "tax-cuts-for-the rich".

I know, seven months seems like 2 years in this horrific Presidency.

Maybe Santa will bring you a calendar and you can use it to count the number of years between May 17, 2017 and December 18, 2017.

Really?

Is he going to indict Kushner? If so, when?

You don't know what Mueller has.

Everyone knows what Mueller has.. His anti-Trump witch hunt is a leaky sieve..

At least I'm not claiming to know what he does or doesn't have.

Sure you are...

You stated before when I pointed out that there are NO FACTS, "I don't have any facts. But Mueller does" or words to that effect..

We know about the DNC hack.

No, you only know what the DNC has told you about the DNC hack. We ALSO know that the DNC refused to let their allegedly hacked servers be forensically analyzed.. The ONLY reason to refuse to allow them to be analyzed is because the analysis would prove that they DNC hack was no hack at all..

The more you insist Mueller has nothing, the more I remind my wife to pick up more popcorn at Safeway.

You must be eating a TON of popcorn, considering Mueller has been spinning his wheels for almost 2 years now..

:D

496

Nothing like some testimony under oath to generate material for an impeachment.

You don't know what Mueller has.

At least I'm not claiming to know what he does or doesn't have.

I can see the mounting fear in the Republican Party about his investigation however.

It is squeaky bum time all over Capitol Hill.

Hilarious. Pass the popcorn.

And you are even more desperate to prove to yourself that Mueller has nothing. I mean, you can't think you are going to change our minds - because we admit we don't know what Mueller has because he is in the middle of an investigation and isn't telling the general public.

We know about the DNC hack. We know about Manafort and Flynn. We can see that if you can connect the dots it isn't looking good for 45 and his family. We can read Don jr.'s emails.

The more you insist Mueller has nothing, the more I remind my wife to pick up more popcorn at Safeway.

pop-pop-pop

Oops. The only act more tone-deaf would’ve been giving a shout-out to Bronx City Councilman Andy King, who’s dealing with misconduct allegations of his own.
https://nypost.com/2017/12/17/democrats-bill-clinton-problem/

Democrats will *NEVER* have the moral high ground in issues of sexual harassment and sexual assaults and rapes until such time as they totally, completely and unequivocally kick the Clintons to the curb...

It's really THAT simple...

495

No, they are perfectly legal under the 2nd Amendment.

You can buy all the guns you can afford. Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment does the term "so we need to have a Socialist country to ensure everybody can afford all the guns they want or they get them for free".

So there goes the argument against insurance.

Registration: the 2nd Amendment insists on a "well regulated" militia. What military outfit do you know that doesn't keep track of its weapons?

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who urged Franken not to step down to begin with — at least not before he went through an Ethics Committee investigation — said the Minnesota senator was railroaded by fellow Democrats.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/18/manchin-franken-senate-resign-300843

Al Franken is thinking about reversing his resignation..

WHO could have POSSIBLY thunked this possible..

Oh.. wait.. :D

494

Yea, that's the claim. But there are facts that support the conclusion that it was the DNC itself who leaked the emails..

So, no crime..

Our intelligence services tell us that it was either the FSB or the GRC who did it.

Yet they have no PROOF of that..

We've got the break in. We've got close associates lying about connections to the guilty parties in the break in.

No, you have "maybe there was a break in, maybe there wasn't.."

This is getting interesting ... unless you really really want to believe that your idol is pure as driven snow.

I never claimed that..

But it's going on 2 years and ya'all have NO FACTS that prove anything..

Mueller has NO FACTS that prove ANYTHING...

THIS is fact..

And, for some reason, they are more important to you than 30,000 Americans.

And the Democrat Party agenda of Social Justice is more important to you than 30,000 American lives.

OWN IT...

493

Yeah ... guns don't kill people.

Utter BS. It is their only 2nd Amendment purpose. Not hunting. Not skeet shooting. Not for collecting.

Own it - if guns are not for killing people then the whole 2nd Amendment falls apart.

The 2nd Amendment insists that we kill 30,000 people per year. You like that. I don't, and think that we can have the 2nd amendment and not have it cost 30,000 lives.

But that would cut into the profits of the gun manufacturers.

And, for some reason, they are more important to you than 30,000 Americans.

Own it.

The DNC emails were hacked illegally. There is the equivalent of the Watergate break in.

Our intelligence services tell us that it was either the FSB or the GRC who did it.

They then released them on Wikileaks, which, conveniently had recently moved their servers to Russia.

So Mueller needs to investigate that. And he is. And he is looking at who helped the Russians. And Manafort lied about money he got from the Russians for consulting work and has been charged.

And Flynn lied about meetings with Russia - which even 45 had admitted.

We've got the break in. We've got close associates lying about connections to the guilty parties in the break in.

This is getting interesting ... unless you really really want to believe that your idol is pure as driven snow.

Then it is squeak bum time.

For you.

Honestly, why does it matter what the tool was designed for?? ANY tool can kill... What does it matter that one tool was DESIGNED for that function and one tool was not??

This is an important point that warrants expanding on..

Are the ones killed by cars any less dead than the ones killed by a gun???

Do the loved ones of those killed by cars feel any less sorrowful than those who are killed by guns??

Do they say, "Well, I am sure glad my loved one was killed by a car and not a gun. Because, if they were killed by a gun, I would **REALLY** be so much more sad than I am right now.. Whew!! Dodged THAT bullet..." ????

I mean, come on.. What does the fact that one is designed to kill and one is not have to do with ANYTHING???

Further, it is undeniable that guns serve a legitimate and very good purpose...

As I have said, it's VERY easy to prove beyond any doubt that a gun, in and of itself, is NOT the problem..

492

That SHOULD read....

A gun registry and gun insurance are already unreasonable demands and simply fly in the face of the facts and the 2nd Amendment..

491

Of course, that SHOULD read:

A gun registry and gun insurance are already unreasonable demands and simply fly in the fact of the facts and the 2nd Amendment..

My bust...

490

Buddy, yer already there! :D

A gun registry and gun insurance are already unreasonable demands and simply don't fly in the fact of the facts and the 2nd Amendment..

If you are home, your gun is either in your hand or it is in the safe/case.

A gun at home in a safe or case is useless.... It's WORSE than useless, it's actually an encouragement for home invasion...

You can’t drive on a gun to work, you can’t swim in a gun, you can’t cook with a gun.... you do kill with a gun.

That's a distinction without a difference..

Do you think the dead or the families of the dead CARE that they or their loved ones were killed by a tool that was DESIGNED to kill or DESIGNED to be a conveyance???

Honestly, why does it matter what the tool was designed for?? ANY tool can kill... What does it matter that one tool was DESIGNED for that function and one tool was not??

489

I am pretty much against a gun registry,

Then why don't you speak out against it when others bring it up???

The problem with a gun registry is that is serves absolutely NO USEFUL PURPOSE in preventing or help preventing gun violence or crowd-based mass shootings..

The *ONLY* reason to have a national gun registry is to make gun confiscation easier... That's it..

Now there is one location that has a gun registry.. Do you know where that is??

US Military Installations. All privately owned firearms must be registered with the base Security Police Chief or the base Provost Marshal office..

And do you know WHY?? So that in cases of civil unrest, authorities knows where the guns are so that they can be confiscated..

The *ONLY* reasons to have a gun registry is to 1> solve gun crimes after the fact (which is rendered totally moot by facts and circumstances) and B> facilitate gun confiscation...

That's it..

I can see why you would be against a gun registry.. Any rational person w/o a political agenda would be..

What I don't get is why you don't stand up and be counted when those who DO have the political agenda put forth the idea..

488

Why cap in the first place?

I treat ya how you treat me... :D

I did leave one of my snarky comments on the other thread...

I saw that.. I simply responded with a single question.. :D

My problem isn't with people owning guns... but it is more with people who should not have guns... having them, which is a position you have wholly advocated. as if we were to be able to take them away...

Agreed.. But the problem you and your fellow Liberals have is that you are concentrating on the TOOL and not on the people who shouldn't have them..

You want to restrict the TOOL and not the person...

And, due to the 2nd Amendment, your efforts are doomed to fail...

Answer in a serious fashion how requiring a person to demonstrate proficiency in the class of weapon they want to own infringes on the second...

I don't HAVE to answer because it's already done... Most, if not all states that have SHALL ISSUE status require 8 hour classroom course and a 4-8 hour range training..

But I will answer anyways..

If demonstrating proficiency is the ONLY "restriction" that was being pushed (even though it's already the law) then there wouldn't be a single issue..

But ya'all are advocating (either by commission or omission) MUCH MUCH more..

Ya'all want a gun registration, whose SOLE purpose is to facilitate a gun confiscation..

Ya'all want to bankrupt gun owners with fees and insurance to make gun ownership too expensive, thereby creating a de-facto gun ban..

THOSE are the restrictions I am arguing against.. You say you don't support those?? Yet, you remain silent when they are brought up...

And as ya'all have certainly established, SILENCE GIVES ASSENT....

With a touch of snark, that is my serious reply to you.. :D

I breathlessly await yer response to my response to your response to my response. :D

And yet, you cannot point to a SINGLE fact that proves this..

Why is that??

Within 48hrs of the Watergate break-in, the American people *KNEW* that there was a crime committed, the American people *KNEW* what that crime was and the American people *KNEW* who committed the crime..

Here you are almost TWO YEARS later and you have NOTHING...

NO CRIME COMMITTED

NO GUILTY PARTY

How utterly pathetic is that??

Great points! I recently was debating gun control on a different site and the conversation turned to gun deaths. My opposing commenter listed all the other objects that are responsible for more or as many deaths as guns and asked why we don’t seek to regulate those items like we want to do with guns. I said the biggest difference was that those other deaths occurred when the items responsible for the deaths were not used properly. The purpose of a gun is to give its owner the ability to kill. That’s what it is designed to do. You can’t drive on a gun to work, you can’t swim in a gun, you can’t cook with a gun.... you do kill with a gun.

He responded that guns are not just for killing; plenty of people enjoy competitive sport shooting where no death occurs. I asked him if the Founding Fathers had written the Second to guarantee the right to having a hobby? The intent was that gun owners were expected to serve their communities as needed in return for granting them the right.

You are spot on that people need to show that they know how to properly use the guns they own. We should also require owners to have some way to properly store their guns safely. I remember being at friends homes growing up where they’d have rifles leaning up against the walls where anyone could grab one. If you are home, your gun is either in your hand or it is in the safe/case.

I do wonder if gun control advocates need to start making unreasonable demands. When one side is extreme and the other is reasonable, finding “middle ground” always winds up located on the extremist’s side. If both sides are extreme in their demands, maybe we could actually come to some reasonable middle ground solutions!

This is where the fungibility of money makes sovereign claims of benefit far less compelling than in the past.

For example, Apple is a U.S. stock on NASDAQ. It holds its patents in an offshore company that it pays royalties to for tax purposes. If somebody buys Apple stock and Apple invest that in an Indian engineer working in Singapore whose work is patented by a subsidiary based in Ireland that collects royalties from a sale of a new device in an Apple Store in San Francisco on a product that was built in China, where exactly is the gain for the U.S. economy?

And remember, that is only if the stock is a new issue by Apple so it at least gets incremental investment. If the foreign buyer buys from a U.S. buyer who then reinvests their money in BMW, then Apple sees no part of the transaction.

Why cap in the first place?

I did leave one of my snarky comments on the other thread...

My problem isn't with people owning guns... but it is more with people who should not have guns... having them, which is a position you have wholly advocated. as if we were to be able to take them away...

A friend of mine, who just happens to be a leading doc for DWB, just happens to be of the same opinion that the second doesn't allow for unmitigated gun ownership. We both recognize that the Second is there to prevent pricks from taking over, but at the same token it also does not allow for Johnny Butthead to run amok with some gun he has no idea how to use...

Answer in a serious fashion how requiring a person to demonstrate proficiency in the class of weapon they want to own infringes on the second... After-all it is not as if little Jefferson Jr was allowed to figure out how to load and use a musket on his own. Answer seriously what is so wrong about expecting fellow citizens to be able to back me up in a (as you like to acronym it) CBMS in a fashion I can count on?

Tell me, what is so wrong about advocating for responsibility?

I assume I don't have to explain why this is key to the dialog around the tax bill.

Dem Senator Cornyn and Dem economist Paul Krugman were invited by Stephanopolis to appear on his Sunday morning show to badmouth the Rep tax bill. Both men made the identical point that it MUST be bad policy to cut corporate taxes because some corporate profits go to overseas stockholders!!

Neither guy mentioned the fact that we literally BEG foreigners to invest in the U.S economy, either by investing in U.S stocks or by buying U.S. Treasury bonds, because it stimulates the U.S. economy and creates U.S. JOBSs. So how does that work out when those two economic illiterates go on TV and say, we do not want those same foreigners to profit from their investments in the U.S. economy??

Dem/Lib rampant flagrant economic ignorance on parade again!

You're right. I got nothing.

But Mueller? He obviously has 45 and the minions running scared.

No.. YOU keep saying that...

"Give 45 time."

The simple fact is, you got NOTHING on Trump when it comes to Russian Collusion...

You got NO CRIME.. You got NO PERP....

ALL you have is an intense and hysterical desire to nullify a free, fair and legal election **SOLELY** because you don't like that YOUR luser of a candidate lost...

That's it...

483

For most Democrats..

There.. Fixed it for you.. :D

it was frak'd up when they got there. that began with 8 years of reagan, a brief interlude of sanity with HW and a democratic congress, 8 years of clinton and a mostly republican congress, then 8 more of dubya. obama deserves fair criticism for failing to turn the titanic around, but most of the damage was done in the 28 years prior. as yet there's no sign of donald doing anything better - if anything, his policies so far are even worse for most americans.

JL

No, you keep saying that ...

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/12/15/ftp465/#comment-112387

Of course, due to Party loyalty, you never point them out.. You just stick to attacking Trump and the Right..

Why, because you are a fanboy and can't admit that anything 45 does might be even slightly wrong, and Making America Silly!

Says the guy who never calls the Left into question for anything..

Yea, you keep saying that..

We keep giving him time..

And you STILL don't have any facts..

It's like the Russian collision crap..

"give it time" ya'all say...

We have.. And you STILL got nuttin..

With Watergate, we knew within 48 hours that a crime was committed and that the Committee To Re-Elect The President was guilty of it..

Ya'all have had almost TWO YEARS and ya'all can't even PROVE a crime was even committed!!!! Let alone WHO did anything..

It's all a frakin' JOKE!!

http://www.cracked.com/podcast/why-conservative-comedy-almost-impossible-in-trump-times/

TLDL: Comedy audiences for budding comedians tend to be in large cities and younger, thus right wing comedians aren't seen as funny so they don't make it through the standard channels.

Also, as a society comedy that "punches down" is seen as cruel, not funny, any longer. Look at Eddie Murphy's jokes about gays in "Raw" or more recently Chappelle's transgender jokes - perfectly acceptable when they were released, but not aging well. This is the source of a lot of the "Archie Bunker"-like anger at political correctness you hear from Michale.

There are right wing comedians, but they struggle to find an audience. They places where they are found amusing are places like 4chan. And this is where one of the more interesting arguments in the podcast developed.

The premise is that Fox News was started as a center-right counterbalance to the center-left bias of the rest of the networks. But it not only attracted a center-right audience, but also the whole spectrum of the right, all the way out to the nut cases who saw it as the only outlet that was "Fair and Balanced". Thus it started catering to this audience and brought in right wing demagogues that got larger audiences and a viscous spiral to the right developed as more nut case audiences delivered bigger viewing numbers to more nut case blowhards, who got into a blowhard war. As Fox News was spinning out of control to the right, the rest of the media pretty much stayed where it was and the contrast grew more and more obvious.

This same effect works on platforms for right wing comedians - because there are so few channels for them, they find themselves with audiences that are wide spectrum right and the more right wing they get the more starved the audience is, and thus the more enthusiastic when they get a comedian that is willing to tell jokes about the people they want to laugh at. Most of society see this as punching down on gays, transgender, women, etc. but that is where yet another interesting thread develops on the podcast.

Many on the right feel like Michale that they are victims to a radical agenda from women, gays, etc. who are oppressing them, so they see anti-women or anti-gay jokes as "punching up".

As I said, and interesting podcast.

Give 45 time. You insisted we give him time to "Make America Great Again" so you can't begrudge us time for his dictatorship tendencies to play out. You never know, just like Madura did today, you might see 45 telling his medical agency that they are banned from saying certain things ...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/17/world/americas/venezuela-children-starving.html

Yes, you do, frequently, but there are two problems with this:

1. When the 45 minions chastised against "politically correct terminology" it usually meant that they didn't like it when they weren't allowed to be racist in polite society like in the good old 1950's when they were even allowed to put on blackface and sing minstrel songs on stage and the all white audience laughed.

2. It was meant as an excuse when 45 used bigoted terms

There is no doubt that there are extremes on the left who want to impose their morality on everybody, and I find them as hypocritical and pathetic as you do.

Why can't you admit that there are extremes on the right that are as hypocritical and pathetic in their own way - for example banning the phrase "science-based" from the CDC (a medical science organization)?

Why, because you are a fanboy and can't admit that anything 45 does might be even slightly wrong, and Making America Silly!

Nope.. Just that let's have some FACTS before we claim it's real..

Yunno, like ya'all insisted with Odumbo...

As usual, no attempt to address the question.

Well, except when I point out that ya'all LOVE politically correct terminology... Except when President Trump does it..

Here is some "whataboutism" for you - the disaster from 45-look-alike Maduro in Venezuela has got to the point where people are dying through malnutrition and the Government are suppressing the medical agencies from using words and figures to tell the truth.

Except that Trump =! Maduro...

But.. Maduro DOES = Democrat

So......

Venezuela -> Maduro -> Can't run Government -> Suppress medical agency
U.S.A. -> 45 -> Can't run Government -> Suppress medical agency

MAGA = Let's be like Venezuela!

No. If you can afford it, there is nothing to stop you. What do you want, socialism?

Also, if the insurance companies set your rates high, then you can always post a bond and self-insure.

The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about the government supplying you with free guns.

Michale [51] - Oops - even Fox News says it is true ... whatabout liberals!!!

As usual, no attempt to address the question.

The hysterical Left has been shoving politically correct verbiage down our throats for the last 40 years in an effort to control how people talk..

President Trump tells ONE agency to avoid 5 words and 2 phrases and, all of the sudden, the sky is falling...

466

“vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”

Can you tell me why you never have ANY facts to support any claim you make???

NBC Made Payment To Staffer After Sexual Harassment Claim Against Chris Matthews
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/16/nbc-made-payment-to-staffer-after-sexual-harassment-claim-against-chris-matthews/

What *IS* it with you Left Wingers???

464

All capping aside, here is an excellent GIF that shows the progression of Right To Carry amongs the 50 states..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif

It start in 1986 and goes thru to the present..

It shows how SHALL issue came to practically engulf the country, although recently, many states have gone from SHALL ISSUE to UNRESTRICTED (Open Carry) in the past few years...

Face the reality people. The 2nd Amendment is here to stay and it's flourishing... :D

462

It's Star Trek..

Whaddya expect?? :D

Which episodes??

Somehow, the SciFi felt more reality-based.

While 'vulnerable' can be easily avoided with the clunky 'at-risk', it seems a strangely inappropriate one to tell the CDC not to use.

Democrats will have a lot to fix when we regain control. The CDC should be made an independent agency free from all political interference.

Presidents should at the time of filing to run, have to present, along with their intent to run for the office, a tax return, all medical and mental health records, arrest records, and financial disclosures, including a plan for separating themselves from any financial ties for the duration of their presidency, which would take effect on the day of their election to the office.

That too. That's a starter kit.

But the subject of the comment that you responded to WAS the lies and BS of the Leftist media..

So, in other words, you ignored the subject of the comment just to rail against the GOP on a totally unrelated subject..

Textbook 'whataboutism' with a heaping helping of ideological slavery thrown in...

458

So, the ultimate goal is to insure that people can't buy guns..

A clear cut violation of the 2nd Amendment..

Nothing will ever stop a determined madman, but we can put a large dent in their ability to access firearms.

A gun ban will do the same thing.. Which is what you are going for..

457

Not if they have their way, you can’t! I think this all stems from the fact that public restrooms are where male conservative closet cases go for anonymous sex. Can you imagine how frustrating it must be for them to discover that the guy in the stall next to you has a vagina when they are trying to steal a look at his hog?!? What good is being on the “down low” if the guy you are cruising has nothing down low??? It’s just wrong!

Yes, by all means.. Your answer to all the Leftist Media lies and bullshit is that the GOP lies..

Got it...

I wasn’t commenting on the media when I posted that. I was stating that the lies being told by the GOP regarding their tax plan may be their downfall with their voting base. But way to try to twist it so that it looked like I was pulling one of your “what-about”isms! Swing and a miss, I’m afraid.

LOL

Can anybody use the bathroom in NC without showing a Republican their genitals?

“vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”

I can tell you why “fetus” is being banned — so that “baby” or “unborn child” would have to be used in its place. The pro-birthers want you to believe that a fully-formed-but-extremely-tiny-baby is what is formed immediately following conception. Fetus is a scientific term that doesn’t play on people’s emotions, and conservatives prefer that you base your judgement on emotions instead of facts.

Since they cannot use “fetus”, they should use “baby that Republicans won’t give a damn about once it clears the womb!”

Since they cannot use “evidence-based”, they should use “reality-based” or “ignorance-rejected”.

Since they cannot use “transgender”, they should use “people who cannot use the restroom in NC until they show Republicans their genitals!”

Anyone else have suggestions?

Simple. The insurance companies will have access to a lot of information about patterns that lead up to expensive (for them) events and will either dramatically raise the premiums, or refuse to insure, high risk individuals.

Nothing will ever stop a determined madman, but we can put a large dent in their ability to access firearms.

That's just like when you found that I admired Sandy Hook, even though it's you who carries a picture of Adam Lanza in yer wallet...

456

Your advice is basically what my advisors tell me.

The biggest hedging problem I see is satisfactorily estimating the correlation matrix between all individual instruments that make up your portfolio. The perfect hedge portfolio has zero overall correlation, no matter what happens, you tend to stay even. As your pitchfork and torches comment implies, there are probably no solutions that keep you whole, or even close to whole, during an economic apocalypse - you just hope to retain enough assets to stay afloat or or grimly holed up in your bunker.

Simply estimating the multivariate investment correlation of a real portfolio is a challenge: the bigger the matrix, the less likely you can compute unique solutions. (This same problem crops up in presidential election models that incorporate all the individual states).

455

Where in that do you find ANY defense of the GOP???

You're defending the GOP rather adamantly for an Independent Michale - anybody would think you were a Republican or something.

Also, given that your stated worship of 45 was that he wasn't a GOP liar, why have you changed your mind?

The GOP didn’t get the message, obviously, as the lies just continue to pour out of Republicans mouths at a furious pace. The voters in Alabama sent a message to the party that their loyalty is to be valued or it will disappear. This tax plan may wind up being the final straw that breaks the GOP’s back!

Yes, by all means.. Your answer to all the Leftist Media lies and bullshit is that the GOP lies..

Got it...

Funny how ya'all accuse me of whataboutism but yet, it ONLY comes from ya'all...

453

That is basically the target I'm aiming for - it isn't exact (who knows what a 1-in-200-year crisis looks like - pitchforks, torches, and no more electricity?).

However there are several variables that you can work with. One is to keep at most five years of spending in bonds - any more and you risk seeing your capital erode too much if we get a bout of high inflation. The rest of your money should be in more inflation proof instruments (e.g. housing, stocks).

Another risk is the US$, so it is important to diversify into international stock, etc.

Lastly is your fixed and discretionary spending - much of my fixed spending is property taxes and medical insurance. I can downsize the property but with house inflation that probably won't change my property tax bill.

My simple plan is to roll five years of spending thru 5 year bond-like instruments and if the stock market is going gangbusters increase that to 7 or 8 years, and if the market is in the toilet run the bonds down to zero before selling stocks at a low point. This gives me a 5-7 year buffer from large moves in the stock market with only inflation risk to cope with by decreasing spending.

The GOP didn’t get the message, obviously, as the lies just continue to pour out of Republicans mouths at a furious pace. The voters in Alabama sent a message to the party that their loyalty is to be valued or it will disappear. This tax plan may wind up being the final straw that breaks the GOP’s back!

"significant amount of money (>$20M) over a working career."

I'm curious about the rational behind that benchmark.

If I were defining it,it would be something like "the amount of capital required to effectively hedge against a 1 in 200 year economic collapse."

Small investors like myself can't really hope to do anything that grand. It also greatly matters who is covered in the hedge: yourself and spouse living out your "golden years" in comfort vs your heirs living out their golden years in comfort.

I know a lot of MDs. I don't think any of the ones I do know, with the possible exception of one, have made the $20M threshold. Most are well short, even though many are considered very successful doctors. It's even worse when I look at my lawyer friends.

What ultimately determines the quality of your life is the state of your health. Gathering money piles can seriously work against the health factor. Trump being a cautionary tale in that regard. Accumulating Scrooge McDuck money piles typically seems to work against exercise, eating right and stress management. Bill Gates has an uber home gym...but looking at him, I don't think he uses it....I could be wrong, but that's what it seems.

I agree completely with your Real Wealth assessment.

Economics has engineered a perverse little rat race.

The question of why everyone got the same big scoop on the same day—only to find that the story was totally wrong—is a thread that leads to some very interesting places. So let’s follow it.
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/251387/why-glenn-greenwald-deserves-a-pulitzer-prize

Yep.. Yep.. Yep...

But no one on the Left wants to peer TOO closely at the Emperor that is the Leftist media...

452

Yea.. That's what you said in Jun 2015 thru Nov 2016...

But oooooooOOpppppp What happened next?? :D

You were wrong then..

But yer RIGHT now, eh? :D

451

This article explains why: http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manager.html

Basically, even a very well paid doctor (say $400K/year at 35 rising to $1M/year at 65) will struggle to amass any significant amount of money (>$20M) over a working career. (Run the numbers yourself if you want.)

Real wealth comes from working in the markets where the sums are astronomical (for example there is about $2T/day exchanged in the forex markets alone) and taking a small slice is almost invisible, even when it mounts to billions of dollars. The other way to make large amounts is via stock options and other bonuses that the very top management/owners get to give themselves beyond their salaries.

I strongly recommend it.

The top earners I've worked with (people who expect a seven figure bonus) find it very difficult to explain their value to the economy themselves - many agree privately that they are a cost of doing business in the financial markets and charge unconscionable rents. Many are very jaded and just want to "make their number", get out, then do some thing good and productive for society afterwards.

Any interest in raising Capital Gains Tax to give Income Tax payers a break?