|
Cowslips Warren posted:I like how Obama is a tyrant out to make your children gay Muslim communists. But if people really believed that, REALLY believed that, surely some fuckwad would be trying to assassinate the guy now. Even better is when Republicans insist that abortion is America's Holocaust. In fact, the number of babies killed by abortion since Roe v Wade puts the murderers of other mass-murdering tryants to shame! But what's really important right now is preventing tax increases on my wealthy donors! Hell, Herman Cain said that Planned Parenthood wanted to decrease the number of black people, but then he went on to talk about 999 and Pokemon.
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 13:31 |
|
|
~80% of fertilized eggs fail to implant or eventually miscarry due to natural causes. 300 million people in America. 4/5 failure rate. God killed 1,200,000,000 (1.2 BILLION) babies just to create the current population of Americans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
Yesterday I shared the Alex Jones, "Nerds are the enemy!!!" video with my B-I-L. He's a self proclaimed nerd, and got a kick out of it. Today he posted this from Alex Jones' site, InfoWars. With the comment, "The UN is coming to take our guns." He was the last voice of reason in my immediate family. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyfkQkchlu4&feature=youtu.be&noredirect=1
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 01:32
|
|
|
Sarion posted:Actually a quick google search strongly suggests that Chicago does in fact have some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. By which I mean, you're allowed to own guns in Chicago. Summit posted:Tonight my dad claimed that the government, as part of Obamacare, can seize, tax or somehow extract money from people's 401k's. I didn't really know if that was true and couldn't Google so I tried to extract exactly by what mechanism he thought that would happen and of course he really didn't know, ultimately settling on that they might take out a loan against your private investment account... which makes no sense at all. Anyway, after our call I tried to verify the basis of this 401k change in Obamacare and I haven't found a drat thing. Anyone know anything about this? Sorry about the lack of details, this is all I could get out of him. quote:What has been discussed is changing 401(k) and Individual Retirement Accounts in the future by limiting the deductibility of donations, and offering as an alternative a $600 tax credit and a new type of account with an annual return guaranteed by the government. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 10:33
|
|
|
.
vyelkin fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Sep 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 15:20
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:I just got this lovely image on my facebook wall: They think that this petition is a good idea 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 15:40
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:They think that this petition is a good idea That's a joke. It's Judge Dredd.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 15:42
|
|
|
I think that's his point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 15:43
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:I think that's his point. Yep. That if these insane people had their model goverment it was be a facist state.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 15:44
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
Cold water? Pseudo-scientific assessment of the digestive process? Fat causing cancer? Then a bit on heart attacks? This isn't political. I'm not sure what the hell this is or what hovel of crazy on the internet it crawled out of.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
Poizen Jam posted:This isn't political. I'm not sure what the hell this is or what hovel of crazy on the internet it crawled out of.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
Jota posted:Does anyone have a good source about the Jane Akre Fox lawsuit where they argued that the first amendment allowed them to lie and distort facts on air? I told a friend about it and he asked for an article on it but all I can't really find any great sources. I'd rather not link him to DailyKos but it really does seem like no one in the main stream media actually reported on it. Shocking. http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/a-law-against-lying-on-the-news
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
modig posted:Sorry forgot about the political part of the title... True, it's not political, but its still kind of interesting. I mean, where does someone get the idea that by combining non-carcinogenic fat with cold water will suddenly make cancer. If only my body had processed it slower, or had some mechanism for heating the things I consume, that fat wouldn't have become cancerous!
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
I am so sick of the talking point that "Prohibition didn't work". Like, yeah, it lead to the foundations of the mob and all sorts of poo poo and was not anywhere a good policy or well-implemented but I can guarantee that there were less people drinking, as well as people generally drinking less during prohibition than before and after it. Just like if the President literally said "ok all guns are illegal now" wouldn't lead to zero guns in the US there would certainly be fewer guns around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
Thelonius Van Funk posted:I am so sick of the talking point that "Prohibition didn't work". Like, yeah, it lead to the foundations of the mob and all sorts of poo poo and was not anywhere a good policy or well-implemented but I can guarantee that there were less people drinking, as well as people generally drinking less during prohibition than before and after it. It didn't work in the sense that the 'costs' outweighed the 'benefits'. The relationship between these two things is often called a 'cost-benefit ratio' and can be used to analyze how well something 'works'. 'Benefits' can be completely separated from whether a law 'works', for example a law outlawing red as a color for car paints under the auspice of safety might put the number of red cars on the road at 0 but will probably give no benefit worth spending all the money and effort on it. Wikipedia posted:Cost–benefit analysis is often used by governments and other organizations, such as private sector businesses, to evaluate the desirability of a given policy. It is an analysis of the expected balance of benefits and costs, including an account of foregone alternatives and the status quo. CBA helps predict whether the benefits of a policy outweigh its costs, and by how much relative to other alternatives (i.e. one can rank alternate policies in terms of the cost-benefit ratio). Generally, accurate cost-benefit analysis identifies choices that increase welfare from a utilitarian perspective. Assuming an accurate CBA, changing the status quo by implementing the alternative with the lowest cost-benefit ratio can improve Pareto efficiency.[3] An analyst using CBA should recognize that perfect evaluation of all present and future costs and benefits is difficult, and while CBA can offer a well-educated estimate of the best alternative, perfection in terms of economic efficiency and social welfare are not guaranteed. Going back to our Prohibition example, you postulate that "I can guarantee that there were less people drinking, as well as people generally drinking less during prohibition than before and after it" (I'd like to see that citation, by the way). So if that were true, we have a 'benefit' of less people drinking, and what does that give us? Lower rates of alcohol abuse, drunken accidents, bar brawls maybe? Then we take those possible, postulated benefits (which I haven't seen quantified) and then measure those up again the 'costs' of Prohibition. Things like lost revenue (now its a black market), massive influxes of criminality, growth of organized crime (which lasted long after Prohibition was over), the enforcement costs of the policy, etc. Back in 1933 it was decided that the policy was not worth it, and I wish we'd come to that same conclusion about the War on Drugs, which attacks the same thing (a high-demand and high value easily produced/smuggled commodity) and has very similar entanglements and costs (scaled up, in the hundreds of billions a year now - just in enforcement alone). Thelonius Van Funk posted:Just like if the President literally said "ok all guns are illegal now" wouldn't lead to zero guns in the US there would certainly be fewer guns around. Again, we have to investigate the validity of 'less guns' as a net positive in light of other factors like: they are protected by the constitution, there are lawful and popular uses for them, there are a ton of them, availability via smuggling/local production exists, etc. I feel that the ROI on such widespread banning is so minimal that alternative solutions are required.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
One difference between guns and the other things people use as examples is the ease with which they are made. People can, did, and still do brew alcohol in their own homes. People can grow pot in large quantities relatively easily. People can make meth in relatively large quantities in their own homes. Mass producing good quality guns isn't so easy. The costs of enforcing a gun ban mostly boils down to outlawing manufacturing and dealing with smuggling. Of course it wouldn't be 100% effective; but if companies couldn't legally manufacture guns and ammunition, or import them, the supply would shrink dramatically. Whether we need a full 100% ban is another matter; but manufacturing guns can't really be compared directly to making moonshine or growing pot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
Sarion posted:One difference between guns and the other things people use as examples is the ease with which they are made. People can, did, and still do brew alcohol in their own homes. People can grow pot in large quantities relatively easily. People can make meth in relatively large quantities in their own homes. Mass producing good quality guns isn't so easy. The costs of enforcing a gun ban mostly boils down to outlawing manufacturing and dealing with smuggling. Of course it wouldn't be 100% effective; but if companies couldn't legally manufacture guns and ammunition, or import them, the supply would shrink dramatically. Ugh, that reminds me of a dumb as hell meme going around in my facebook feed, that guns made out of ABS plastic are totally viable and therefore it's just as easy to manufacture firearms in a 3D printer as whatever else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 21:11
|
|
|
The flipside of that is guns don't typically get consumed. Full-auto machineguns for civilian owndership have been banned from manufacture since 1986, but are still available for legal transfer 25+ years later. They're at admittedly greatly inflated rates, but the ~315 million guns in the US aren't going to go away any time soon. In the specific case of AR-pattern rifles, the part that is legally the "firearm" in terms of registration, the lower receiver, just about never wears out since all it does it hold parts together rather than bear any appreciable stress. This is a moot point, since Heller v. D.C. ensures that a complete weapons ban is not going to be upheld.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 21:15
|
|
|
A friend on Facebook posted this. She's a sweetheart and I love her to death, but she's so misinformed. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 21:15
|
|
|
CB_Tube_Knight posted:A friend on Facebook posted this. She's a sweetheart and I love her to death, but she's so misinformed. WHY WOULD OUR PRESIDENT READ A BOOK THAT DISCUSSES THE USE OF AMERICAN POWER?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
CB_Tube_Knight posted:A friend on Facebook posted this. She's a sweetheart and I love her to death, but she's so misinformed. Next on the reading list: How to Cook For Forty Americans
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
Sarion posted:One difference between guns and the other things people use as examples is the ease with which they are made. People can, did, and still do brew alcohol in their own homes. People can grow pot in large quantities relatively easily. People can make meth in relatively large quantities in their own homes. Mass producing good quality guns isn't so easy. The costs of enforcing a gun ban mostly boils down to outlawing manufacturing and dealing with smuggling. Of course it wouldn't be 100% effective; but if companies couldn't legally manufacture guns and ammunition, or import them, the supply would shrink dramatically. Its about as easy to make a gun as it is to brew up moonshine or grow some pot - as long as Home Depot exists and someone has the will guns will be manufactured. Of course, its more likely that the cartels will just start throwing cheap Chinese, Russian, or South American surplus arms in with the shipments of cocaine, pot, meth, etc. Not to mention the internal supplies of arms and ammunition from the cops leaving them around. Of course, the costs (maybe 15 billion a year, if the War on Drugs is an indicator) will give us about the same effectiveness I guess - lots of people in jail, a loss of liberty, and guns freely available on the black market for a tidy sum.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 21:51
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Next on the reading list: How to Cook Obama is a cannibal, you heard it here first!
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Its about as easy to make a gun as it is to brew up moonshine or grow some pot - as long as Home Depot exists and someone has the will guns will be manufactured. Of course, its more likely that the cartels will just start throwing cheap Chinese, Russian, or South American surplus arms in with the shipments of cocaine, pot, meth, etc. Not to mention the internal supplies of arms and ammunition from the cops leaving them around. Of course, the costs (maybe 15 billion a year, if the War on Drugs is an indicator) will give us about the same effectiveness I guess - lots of people in jail, a loss of liberty, and guns freely available on the black market for a tidy sum. Does the blog go deeper than metal projectiles fired with all the power of a nail gun, because growing decent weed is really really easy and I'm afraid your argument might be really really dumb edit: I don't want to gun fight I don't even support a lot of the things people talk about, I want to post this this really nice aunt that was a witness to my wedding and I wish she'd get out of the fundie/mlm cycle posted:Does there need to be an answer to babies being mercilessly slaughtered? Oh, on so many levels that people don't want to talk about. Here is a statement on gun control to which I wholeheartedly agree. So the question is, do we, or do we not have inalienable rights endowed by our Creator? Gourd of Taste fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Jan 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Its about as easy to make a gun as it is to brew up moonshine or grow some pot - as long as Home Depot exists and someone has the will guns will be manufactured. This is ridiculous. That blog you linked to clearly shows a number of machined and manufactured guns requiring special tools and skills that would be well out of any regular person's ability to make just by going to home depot. Most people don't have access to lathes or sheet metal brakes and sure as poo poo couldn't learn how to use those things without training and experience. Conversely, I could start growing weed, right now, in my closet, by putting some seeds in some potting soil and turning on some full spectrum fluorescents. If you'll notice, the majority of the "homemade" guns on that blog came from Brazil and it's highly likely that they are made by a handful of skilled people, not by every street thug in the favela. I liked that the North Irish Loyalist arms factory was included as "homemade" as well. I'm not for banning guns (and neither is anybody else of any consequence in the US!) but this kind of disingenuous poo poo is loving stupid. And comparing the drug war, a real thing that really destroys communities and shovels hundreds of thousands of human beings into cages for decades, to The War on Guns, a fake thing that doesn't exist outside of the fevered imagination of the NRA/extreme right, is abominable. People don't use/buy drugs in the same way or for the same reason that people use/buy guns. There isn't the same inelastic demand for guns as there is for drugs. Not to say that there wouldn't be a black market for guns if they were somehow all banned (they won't be, ever) but that it wouldn't look anything like the modern day black market for drugs. There wouldn't be 500,000 people in prison for selling some 9mm rounds to support their ammo habit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 22:34
|
|
|
 What? You mean to tell me that violence happens in *cities*? Well I never.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
I really don't understand how to interpret that chart in any other way than "experiencing gun violence causes people to support gun control". Which is dumb, because Obama very obviously doesn't care that much about gun control, but you know the person who made that chart thinks otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
CNN reporter on Twitter trying to get pictures from a girl that was at a college where a shooting took place here. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
Fionnoula posted:
More incidents of pretty much any event are reported in areas with higher populations? I'm shocked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:I really don't understand how to interpret that chart in any other way than "experiencing gun violence causes people to support gun control". vyelkin posted:More incidents of pretty much any event are reported in areas with higher populations? I'm shocked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 22:54
|
|
|
Fionnoula posted:
That's not even a map of gun violence, it's a map of 2004 election results by county. http://politicalmaps.org/2004-presidential-election-maps/
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
BatteredFeltFedora posted:That's not even a map of gun violence, it's a map of 2004 election results by county. Hah, I knew it. Everyone saying "high population" was missing the telltale Northern New Mexico, Mississippi Delta, and New Hampshire parts. Those areas are very sparsely populated, but very poor. That combined with the fact that Austin and Houston and Dallas aren't represented on the "gun violence" chart should've been a big tipoff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:Hah, I knew it. Everyone saying "high population" was missing the telltale Northern New Mexico, Mississippi Delta, and New Hampshire parts. Those areas are very sparsely populated, but very poor. That combined with the fact that Austin and Houston and Dallas aren't represented on the "gun violence" chart should've been a big tipoff. Not only that, I'm fairly certain their election result map is out of date as well. Dallas County has gone for Obama in both 2008 and 2012, so a quick way to tell if they're using a pre-Obama map is to see if you can see a spot of blue in Northeast Texas. I'm not seeing that on their map. It looks like the area goes less red, but not blue. My guess is that those 2 maps are probably both Bush maps, maybe even the same year, just that the one on the right is using multiple shades of red/blue for how strong the win was and the one on the left is just using red and blue. thefncrow fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Jan 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
Apologies if this has already been posted (it probably has) Out of nowhere (nowhere = her getting engaged to what is apparently a crazy man), a really cool girl I know from music school started posting things like this about every day. It's really disappointing. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
RembrandtQEinstein posted:Apologies if this has already been posted (it probably has) Oh hey it's something based on a complete falsehood.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 23:27
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:It's probably a little more complex than that, because you have the inter-related effects of poverty, population demographics, etc. confounding everything. Really though it's because there are that many more people there - after all, those little blue dots in totum are more than 50% of the voters. I still don't understand why XKCD gets hate at all. Can someone explain it to me?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
RembrandtQEinstein posted:Apologies if this has already been posted (it probably has) isn't this one of those things that everyone believes is true but if you thought about it doesn't make sense. There is nothing in the law saying congress doesn't have to follow the law.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:isn't this one of those things that everyone believes is true but if you thought about it doesn't make sense. There is nothing in the law saying congress doesn't have to follow the law. I don't get why they bothered to make up a phony amendment instead of just being vague enough about what aspect of the constitution it violated that it might not immediately reveal itself as bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 13:31 |
|
|
Sword of Chomsky posted:I still don't understand why XKCD gets hate at all. Can someone explain it to me? Try out http://xkcd.com/7/ and see if you gain any insight?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 00:18
|
|
