All Posts (brobison)


(1) 2 3 4 ... 188 »


 
Re: Yet another school massacre post-mortem analysis
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 11:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3773
Quote:
Again, putting words in my mouth. Where did I say that this deterrence was effective?



uhhhhhh.....Here?

Quote:
Passing the law there is AT LEAST somewhat of a deterrent.



You said it was at least somewhat of a deterrence. It either is or it isn't. The statistics CLEARLY show that it isn't...AT ALL....It fails miserably.

In fact....you can see from the chart for DC the only time it was reduced below the implementation of the ban was when the ban was rescinded. Great stuff that ban was.

Posted on: Today 1:54 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Yet another school massacre post-mortem analysis
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 11:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3773
Quote:
I may have to draw you a diagram, because I've made it pretty clear. Passing the law there is AT LEAST somewhat of a deterrent. It's ALL they can do, since they can't control the jurisdictions around them. AT LEAST, they have to go outside of Chicago. They are doing all they can, despite it's limitations - you know, what any reasonable person would do.


Try by drawing a graph of gun crimes before and after gun control in Chicago. That is how you prove deterrence.

I don't have one for Chicago but here is one for DC.

Open in new window



I see no decrease due to deterrence. I see no change and then a spike.

If you want to say it is a deterrent then that deterrence has a result. The result is in a lower number of gun crimes/deaths. This has NOT been the case before and after.

The same goofy statement is made about capital punishment being a deterrent. IT IS NOT! It has been shown over and over that there is NO REDUCTION in capital crimes.

Posted on: Today 1:32 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Yet another school massacre post-mortem analysis
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 11:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3773
Quote:
Point to where I am lobbying for more gun laws, Brobison. Just sayin' you guys could use stronger arguments than that one. And I've CLEARLY said there are other factors besides guns.


Never said that you were lobbying for more laws.

You have stated that his argument is not correct so let's use a little logic.

Why were the gun control laws in Chicago made? Is it safe to say that the laws were made to reduce gun violence? I think so. If you say not then why enact the laws? Just get rid of them. If you were to make laws with no real expectation of making a difference don't waste everyone's time.

If this law is in place AND it HELPS then we should be able to point to SOME metric that shows it has helped. Have you seen ANY results which would lead you to believe that they have helped? I see none.

Did these places "within driving distance" exist before the bans? They exist now? If this law makes no difference it is a useless exercise which wastes tax payer's money. You would have been better off to fund a corporation to locate its manufacturing facility in Chicago and give these disenfranchised youth a good paying job.

You would think there would be a handful of people that would have no means of getting to a place that sells guns but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Here is an interesting debate on the subject.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/are-chicagos-gun-laws-working

It appears that most people do not believe these laws are worth the paper they are written on.

EDIT: My point is that when you decide to reduce the rights of an individual you should show some information that you are making a positive impact. If you are saying that you can't do it without limiting everyone's rights you should be viewed with a certain sense of suspicion.

Posted on: Today 12:39 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Yet another school massacre post-mortem analysis
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 11:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3773
Quote:
Uh, the Bahamas has over 2000 miles of shoreline being a string of islands and if you think that shoreline is as protected and as easily defended (for obvious reasons) as ours, then ... well, I'm not going to insult you and be an ass for no reason as you are. Forgive me for using logic and reason.


You seriously believe that people just show up on the coastline of the Bahamas with guns? They row around in the Atlantic Ocean with guns so they can shoot people in the Bahamas?

This is logic?!

WOW!

I think it is far more likely that guns are brought in through normal channels and are sold on the black market. This is being done IN SPITE of strict laws regarding this.

It is nice to believe in the smuggling of arms but the facts are the poeple in the Bahamas and in Chicago are not driving anywhere, the guns are supplied to them in place and laws are not being enforced. That is also a problem.

This is logic. Your ramblings above are questionable.

Posted on: Today 12:16 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Yet another school massacre post-mortem analysis
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 11:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3773
Quote:
Our worst locations always have and always will be in large cities like Chicago. Those cities do what they can to minimize it, but gun control can't be that effective. It assumes nobody goes outside of or nobody comes into that jurisdiction. That couldn't be more false.


Our largest cities (excluding Chicago) are NOT the problem. Take a look at the worst cities and they are not our largest. New York is not on the list. Los Angeles is not on that list.

Our biggest problems are the poorest locations. So instead of enacting more laws to limit guns, just spend more time actually developing an economic growth plan.New Orleans, Memphis, Baltimore, Washington DC, etc.

Posted on: Today 11:53 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Yet another school massacre post-mortem analysis
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 11:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3773
Quote:
That's flawed too. Do you think just because the Bahamas are islands, you can't bring guns in from elsewhere? It also assumes there are NO other factors involved in gun crime. The Bahamas is impoverished, has nowhere near the police presence we do and is radically different from us culturally.


I think that just about ALL of us who are pro gun ownership don't JUST believe that there are other factors we, I think, to a person have admitted that THE OTHER FACTORS ARE THE PROBLEM!!!!!!!!

OK. So I am willing to admit gun control will work in your fairy tale world where gum drops grow along syrup streams if you are willing to admit it won't work pretty much anywhere else. This debate can be over and we can just decide that it is better to not infringe upon everyones right to own and carry a gun because the people who use it for violent crimes are going to get it anyway or would use another method like exploding a pressure cooker in a crowded area.

If you think that the Bahamas being isolated in the Atlantic Ocean/Carribean Sea isn't a WHOLE lot harder to sneak guns into than a country with 95,471 miles of shoreline and 7,514 miles of border with another country you are smoking better stuff than Stanley.

Posted on: Today 11:40 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Yet another school massacre post-mortem analysis
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 11:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3773
Quote:
How many times can this flawed argument get repeated? If Chicago had a bubble around it and nobody could leave or enter, you'd be onto something.

If gun control ever has any change of working, it would have to be nationwide and I'm not sure that would work at this point. Right now, you just go to wherever you can get what you want and you typically don't have to go far.


Obviously, you didn't read Proud's link above.

The Bahamas have this gun violence problem. They have a full nationwide/island ban on guns.

You can't get a BETTER chance of it EVER working. They have strict laws, limited land mass and defined/limited points of entry. If you can't make it happen here you are going to fail in any larger area.

The fact is that gun control proponents will always tout the fact that you can't tout their assertions without a total ban. This shouldn't be true. The fact is that IF control worked at the very LEAST gun control areas should have LESS gun violence than places where gun laws are lax. In fact, this can be shown to be the opposite. Our worst gun violence locations have the strictest laws. Are they not enforcing the laws?

Don't get me wrong, I understand your frustration and you do make a valid point but you have to at least give the gun ownership proponents the fact that our worst locations have the tightest laws. This SHOULD NOT be if this is EVER to work.

Posted on: Today 11:00 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Conference Armageddon: The Official Conference Speculation Thread
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 11:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3773
Quote:
Did I miss an entire season?


Apparently.

Don't feel bad. I did too. I suspect that there are quite a few more too.

Posted on: 6/30 12:11 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: What's your take on the current state of the economy?
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 11:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3773
Quote:
Where are all the lefties defending Greece? This is your socialist dream come true. Hardly work, plenty of drugs, pensions and big government jobs galore.....


I don't understand why people would be defending Greece. Unfortunately, Greece has made some very bad choices in terms of governance. Coupled with the decision to join the EU and you have a prescription for problems. Don't really know what this has to do with liberal or conservative.

I don't really know that Greece's economic policies in regard to working is really all that different from the other EU countries. The ultimate problem is the EU itself. It WILL NOT WORK!!! You can't have fiscal policy being made by people who don't control fiscal supply at some level. I said in 1997 that the Euro would not last 10 years. It has lasted more than 10 years but this is not a system that will last. In the end either the EU will disolve or the EU parlaiment will have more control over the Eurozone. Simple as that. It can't really be any other way.

This gives you a little primer on the problem and the myth that social programs are at the root of the Greek crisis.

www.theatlantic.com/business/a ... in-1-little-graph/259056/

Posted on: 6/29 11:05 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: What's your take on the current state of the economy?
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 11:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3773
Quote:
Okay, let's use this article from 4 years ago. It doesn't highlight jack. This ONE GUY'S only beef is the figure used for inflation. And all he offer's up for that number being too low is his personal trips to the grocery store and gas station. He offers no real numbers and just throws a higher number out there.

That article is about as unconvincing as it gets. In fact, it's a joke.


Well......the fact is that I have to GENERALLY agree with the guy about inflation. Our measure of inflation is manipulated in a way that messes up the value of the number.

Inflation is a difficult thing to measure, in fact. One would think it would be easy as you can take what something used to cost and then figure out what it costs today and that would give you inflation. This is not the case. It is actually much harder to do this.

Nixon, tied the increase in Social Security to the CPI and he stated later in his life that this is the worst mistake he ever made was to push this. This is a man who made some mistakes.

The problem is that the CPI takes a basket of products and services and takes a look at the prices for this basket of goods and services year to year and this price determines the rate of inflation. Only, it doesn't handle a number of things very well. The failings of the system are:

1. Does not handle increase in price with a correponding increase in quality of the product. (ie cars costing twice as much bu lasting 2 X longer. This is not inflationary at all even though it shows up as such).
2. Does not take into account increase in features of a product.
3. Does not take into account well when a product becomes obsolete. (ie. Misses the fact that the buggy whip increases in cost because supply has decreased because demand has all but dried up)
4. Generally does not capture the reduction in products due to new inventions being on the market. (ie. it would miss the drop in price of VCR from $1000 to $100 because the VCR isn't on the list until too late.)
5. Food and energy costs can affect prices a lot is very volatile. It can result in high inflation one year and negative inflation the next. This is why food and energy are pulled out.

All of these have contributed to the CPI OVERSTATING inflation for the time period from introduction to the late 1990s. During the Clinton administration they attempted to fix this. Their solution was to try to estimate the overstatement and to subtract a percentage from the CPI. This results in what I contend is possibly an understatement....and there is a reason to have an understatement as SSI payments are made based on this number. No easier way to reduce the payment than to not increase it enough.

All through this is fraught with issues and error.

I would say that I agree that the "real" inflation is larger than the stated inflation over the last 10 years but by a marginal amount because what happens is that in the basket of items the items which are more discretionary have not had a demand for them....like housing....cars....etc. As a result they have gone down in price. The problem is that people DON'T buy these things that often and the products that they do buy, food, fuel etc have gone up a lot.

Posted on: 6/29 3:51 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Push for Buctober
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 11:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3773
I am missing something here it appears.

What do the Pirates have against Tabata? Not saying that he is great or that he is worth what is being paid but the Pirates did agree to his pay.

He gets DFAd and they are pissed that he is hitting .289 in the big leagues and .352 in AAA this year. .289 is better than a lot of our regulars. We pick up Gorkys Hernandez which has been one of MLBs bigger disappointments he has a .278 lifetime average in the major leagues.

WTF?!

I really don't see anything wrong with Tabata. In my opinion he is better than Polanco currently but I realize that Polanco has more potential.

I just don't understand Tabata's place in the doghouse.

EDIT: On a related note.....Vin Mazzaro is available.

Posted on: 6/29 9:22 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Push for Buctober
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 11:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3773
ok....So I have some juicy rumor news about our Buccos:

It turns out the Phillies are actively scouting our Double A affiliate at Altoona.

It further seems that this scouting may be due to the possibility that Aaron Harang will be coming to the Bucs at sometime before the trade deadline.

I don't know how I feel about this. That appears that Locke will be relegated to the bullpen which I like but it also means we will have Harang whom I am not that impressed with.

Posted on: 6/27 10:57 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Conference Armageddon: The Official Conference Speculation Thread
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 11:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3773
The biggest reason Kansas isn't for expansion is because they are 10th in the conference. When they go to the Power 5 soirees they talk to schools like Indiana U and they say:

"You are 14th in the Big 10? We are 10th in the Big 12."

See? They will never be for expansion. There is a lot of pride there. Sucky, no talent pride, but pride none the less.

Posted on: 6/27 10:51 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Ohhell supports same-sex marriage
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 11:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3773
Quote:
Just going to say three things about this:
The heart of the gay marriage issue IMHO is that at some point in US history someone made a decision to allow the government to control marriage and grant entitlements to married couples. At that point, for terms of this discussion the Biblical definition is irrelevant. The logical and ethical limits of the power of a church in this regard is to not allow homosexuals to get married in their church.
As for the polygamy "slippery slope" argument - I would point out that polygamy was common throughout history. From Jacob, to Kings David and Solomon, Biblical men often had anywhere from two to thousands of wives. In a few cultures, one woman married multiple men, and there have even been some rare instances of group marriages. Not saying I advocate it, but there is certainly is both historical and Biblical precedent.
As for the Bible defining marriage argument: The best available evidence suggests that marriage is about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.


If we are going to use the Bible as the defining authority on marriage where in American law does it say when I rape a young virgin she can either. be my wife, or be killed? Come on man! We need biblical marriage!!!!!!

As for polygamy and freedoms, I am not sure the slippery slope works here. I used to think that polygamy, as long as everyone was up front about it, would be OK....but now, I don't think so. Marriage solves problems. It allows the creation of a family unit to be seen as an entity (husband and wife). The legal system allows for the simple dissolution of that entity through law. I don't see any way that dissolution via polygamy is simple. I also don't see the ability to apply marriage law to polygamy. You would need a full set of laws to handle polygamy. I may be wrong and our lawyers that know divorce law might be far better to address this issue but gay marriage is a simple act that requires nothing else other than the recognition while polygamy would need some law rewriting.

I find it the height of hypocrisy that the conservative right spouts off constantly about the government TAKING our rights and that they should allow us freedoms. In this instance, the SCOTUS, enumerated and broadened our rights and the conservatives are pissed. They should be elated!

It is almost like they are only for the freedoms that THEY ascribed to. Hmmmmmm.

Posted on: 6/27 10:42 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: 2014 Hottest Year on Record
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 11:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3773
Finite resources are an example where I don't think capitalism works very well. It takes into account the time value of money but not the inherent value of the scarce resource in time and it undervalues the resource compared to its value in the future...ie it grossly underestimates the cost of the resource not existing.

When oil was first discovered, not many people needed it but there was a lot of it. As a result it was cheap and most importantly, not well taken care of. It is estimated that only a small percentage of the product that was collected actually made it. I believe I heard that 90+ percent of oil was lost in transportation. What do you think the value of that oil would be today? Now imagine what the value of that oil will be when there isn't anymore?

Just for fun think about what a barrel of oil will be worth when there is only 100 barrels left. Do you think that capitalism will justify the ability of a man in the late 1800s/early 1900s to tell a person in the 2300s that "Oh, I pissed away 90% of the oil because it REALLY wasn't worth finding a better way to ship it. Hell, the crap was practically just laying around causing a nuisance."

I don't know about you but wouldn't that be a grand exchange to watch if it were possible?

Posted on: 6/26 12:33 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: 2014 Hottest Year on Record
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 11:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3773
Quote:
So what caused the Ice Age?


A number of things have caused Ice Ages. I don't believe there is ONE cause. Sun's reduced output. Volcanic activity blocking out sun's rays, cosmic impact...etc.

The point is that it is irrelevant. IF we were to see the onset of an Ice Age AND assume that we could do SOMETHING about it, do you think we would? I do.

If we were seeing the onset of an Ice Age we would do all we can regardless of the magnitude so that we could reduce its effects. An Ice Age would be REALLY, REALLY bad and would result in the deaths of more than a billion people....that is my estimate. I might be wrong. It may only be hundreds of millions.

I have changed my attitude about Global Warming a lot over the past 15-20 years. This, for those who say I never see data and change my mind.

The point of Global Warming is missed, in my opinion, by both sides of the argument. The left wants to save the planet. They don't want to save the planet....the planet will be fine. People? Not so much. Animals? Ok, I give it to you that they want to see the animals have a chance to survive but extinctions happen....from great extinctions come great opportunity. This extinction is natural. Man is a part of nature! We got here by the process of evolution and as such our results are the products of evolution. Sad? No?

The other side wants to act like if it is natural everything will be OK. It won't. Global Warming...ABSENT OF CAUSE...is a bad thing. Not as bad as an Ice Age...but bad. We can't stick our head in the sand and not look at the facts. We need to get past the argument of whether it is happening or not. ANY MORON CAN SEE THAT THE ICE IS MELTING FROM OUR GLACIERS. Seriously, look at any pictures of our mountains over time and you can see that. Look at the pictures of Mount Kilamanjaro from the early 1900s and today. We should be concerned and at least entertain the idea that we may need to do something.

I am not here saying it was or was not hotter/colder/wetter/dryer/more humid/more arid in the past. It doesn't matter!!!! Our food supply system; land, water,...etc compared to our population can not take too much of a shock. We raise just about enough for our populations to eat...and really, alarmingly not a significant amount above anymore. We can't have it hotter/colder/wetter/dryer/more humid/more arid. Our food prep situation can't handle it. We are coming to a point where millions are going to die. Do you think those millions are going to starve/die of thirst quietly? I don't. Within the next decade you are going to see the first results of water scarcity in the southwest US. It won't be pretty and the Libertarians on here will rail against the governments for "grabbing" the water resources but their grab will be the only thing that will thwart another civil war. This time, the people will be fighting for their lives. When people fight for their lives suddenly the rules of property allocation and all other laws will be just words on paper. This is why it is imperative to get over the simple "Is it happening?" argument onto let's minimize it. A few hundred thousand fighting for their lives will make less of a mess than a few million.

We all have to understand that Global Warming will kill millions. The only question is will our attempts to remediate global warming kill more or less than the actual event? I don't know the answer to that, but the left HAS TO acknowledge this reality. You can't keep believing that we will make a significant impact on this problem without killing a lot of people too.

Regardless of the event WE HAVE TO FIND A source of renewable energy. Coal, oil and gas ARE NOT THE ANSWER long term. They aren't!! We have to MAKE nuclear, wind and solar work. There is a FINITE amount of fossil fuels. How much? I have no idea. Are we close to running out? Once again, no clue. It doesn't matter. Let's not wait to run out of a resource that has so many uses until we search for an alternative!

Posted on: 6/26 12:14 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Who Really Won the Civil War?
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 11:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3773
By the way.....

Has anyone else seen, on Facebook, the rantings of this one guy (can't remember his name) about how inaccurate the meaning ascribed to the Confederate battle flag is?

One of his statements was that IF the Civil War hadn't been fought and before it started, the South was actively preparing to end slavery on its own.

Anyone else know anything other than this was just a fabrication? I would be interested to know. I am old enough to realize that my education in history has its issues (George Washington did not cut down the cherry tree as I was told.) and realize that it is remotely possible that this could be true but I have ABSOLUTELY no knowledge of this.

Posted on: 6/26 10:58 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Who Really Won the Civil War?
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 11:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3773
As I see it there are TWO issues here. They are:

1. Should the Confederate States flag fly over state government buildings.
2. Should the display of the Confederate States flag/Confederate battle flag be displayed anywhere else or sold for that matter.

The first one is going to be settled shortly and I think that flag has absolutely NO BUSINESS in a public context over our capitol buildings. I don't think that Judeo Christian symbols should be displayed either. Why can't our public office building be just that? Why can't I expect AT LEAST the same level o professionalism that I expect out of any corporate setting. (I do not on a daily basis see the confederate flag flown at my company's offices in Alpharetta Georgia or here. Nor do I have an overt list of the 10 commandments in the lobby). Why do we as a people go there? Really?! Are people so caught up in this that something that happened 150 years ago is THAT important that it trumps another person's offense?

The second issue is just pure and plain overreaction. I see where retailers are pulling product and I have heard that Gettysburg is thinking about not displaying the confederate flag. This issue will be handled with a little patience and a little time. We as people are, as a whole, pretty reasonable and we will see the over reaction in time and correct it.

Although I felt that about 9/11 too and yet we have still allowed our over reactions to stay in place but I guess that fear over shadows tolerance.

Here is an exception. It is all together fitting and proper that AT CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELDS the confederate flag is flown. This SHOULD NOT be seen as offensive. It's overriding meaning should be the respect to the men that died from the south for that flag, regardless of the offensiveness of that idea.

Posted on: 6/26 10:52 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Conference Armageddon: The Official Conference Speculation Thread
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 11:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3773
Quote:
Same thing here. And if my wife tells me she is going to leave me if I don't take her to Hawaii, then we can pack our bags together and go on the trip or decide to pack our bags and get new separate houses.


Wow! Looks like you are going to need a divorce lawyer. Do you know of a good one?


Posted on: 6/25 2:47 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Obamacare goes to the Supreme Court
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 11:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3773
Eers88,

What do you think about the ruling? Do you think they ruled with the concern of the people who might lose health coverage?

I was listening to NPR and I thought at the crux of the case was the law saying something about states having exchanges that subsidies could come from the federal government and that these states had not set up exchanges and the law left it as maybe the subsidies shouldn't come.

Is this normal for the SCOTUS to do things like this? Should they have required the Congress to change the law?

Posted on: 6/25 2:32 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 



 Top
(1) 2 3 4 ... 188 »




Login
Username:

Password:

remember me





Copyright © 2004-2011 wemustignitethiscouch.com All Rights Reserved