Got a crazy forwarded political email from your family? Post them here.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Got a crazy forwarded political email from your family? Post them here.

«‹›2814 »

Amused to Death: Aug 10, 2009; google "The Night Witches", and prepare for

HaitianDivorce posted:

(do we have a bigger psyduck?)

Don't worry, the forums has you covered :psypop:

And it all very much deserves that

# ? Jan 30, 2013 05:14

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 6, 2024 10:25

XyloJW: Jul 23, 2007

I haven't tried this, but I think a good response to "Statistics suck, let me tell you another anecdote" is to respond with your own completely contradictory anecdote. "I have a friend who lives in UK and UHS saved his life." Seems like doing that would show someone how frustrating stupid anecdotes are.

I actually had my insane grandma pull that "statistics mean nothing! now my friend martha..." poo poo. I only thought later of saying "My friend tony disagrees entirely."

# ? Jan 30, 2013 05:14

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

HaitianDivorce posted:

So we can vent about crazy relatives here even if we don't have text to post, right? Sorry if this isn't the right place to put it but it's just kinda bugging me right now.

While with my cousin and a friend today we spotted a "NOBAMA" bumper sticker on a car in front of us, and that got us into a... discussion regarding how "Obama is an un-American communist." When asked for evidence they told me that Obamacare is communism () and that regardless of how private companies act public healthcare systems are lovely and routinely euthanize old people against their will (do we have a bigger psyduck?) When I pointed out that people are much happier with their healthcare in places like the UK I was told that statistics don't mean anything so I guess we should all just rely on anecdotes and hearsay now!

Ai. I don't get it. They're not dumb people. All three of us basically live hand to mouth. One is kinda religious I guess? But where on earth do you get that sort of horseshit? Does Long Island just have loudspeakers subliminally blaring out Rush Limbaugh at frequencies too high for the human ear to consciously hear? I'm worried after a year here I'll be like that.

If all they care about is anecdotes, show them this website:

http://www.pluralofanecdote.com/

It's an incredible tool that's completely useless for statistical purposes but which will lineup a 'private plan/uninsured' anecdote next to a 'public option' anecdote and let you read them both.

# ? Jan 30, 2013 05:23

HaitianDivorce: Jul 29, 2012

Amused to Death posted:

Don't worry, the forums has you covered And it all very much deserves that

Oh hell yes it does. :hfive:

XyloJW posted:

I haven't tried this, but I think a good response to "Statistics suck, let me tell you another anecdote" is to respond with your own completely contradictory anecdote. "I have a friend who lives in UK and UHS saved his life." Seems like doing that would show someone how frustrating stupid anecdotes are.

I actually had my insane grandma pull that "statistics mean nothing! now my friend martha..." poo poo. I only thought later of saying "My friend tony disagrees entirely."

I guess. It just bugs me a lot more than it should. They're my housemates, they're both decent people and I'm glad to know them... I just don't understand how they can think like that. How you get to believe the head of the Democratic party, the most milquetoast 'leftist' party in the developed world and one of the most heavily scrutinized jobs on the planet, literally wants and is working towards putting every man, woman and child in America in a Communist dictatorship is simply beyond me.

vyelkin posted:

If all they care about is anecdotes, show them this website:

http://www.pluralofanecdote.com/

It's an incredible tool that's completely useless for statistical purposes but which will lineup a 'private plan/uninsured' anecdote next to a 'public option' anecdote and let you read them both.

Aaaand that's now bookmarked. Thanks folks!

HaitianDivorce fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Jan 30, 2013

# ? Jan 30, 2013 05:31

Kro-Bar: Jul 24, 2004; USPOL May

DarkHorse posted:

It's not charts or sources, but this is a very accessible primer into why it's not a huge problem while still validating their opinion that it is at least a problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ugDU2qNcyg

E: China is not and will never "come knocking." That's not how it works. They buy U.S. bonds that say "in X years you can redeem this for Y dollars" and in any case, it's in China's best interests that the US has a strong economy so we continue to import their crap. International finance is tricky that way.

The guy responded with this:

"Did you catch that, at 3:30? He touched on it, but in the end dismissed it...interest rates. We have artificially low interest rates right now, which is driving huge borrowing.

Interest rates WILL rise. And we are at severe risk of not being able to finance our own debt. Not only will interest payments skyrocket, but they will skyrocket at the same time that Medicare/Medicaid and SS costs are skyrocketing.

Those three things will consume our entire national budget, and we will have nothing left to spend on the actual, legitimate operations of government. What is government going to do? Print more money? Massive inflation, and massive destruction of the wealth of the private sector.

The end is not good, no matter how you look at it."

Ugh

# ? Jan 30, 2013 05:39

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

Kro-Bar posted:

Apologies if this isn't the best thread to post this in, but I figured people in this thread have the most ammo in their chambers for stupid arguments.

I'm arguing with some idiots on a local university fan forum who keep claiming that ARE DEBT is the most important issue ever. They've used DEBT/DEFICIT OMG OMG OUR FUTURE as a way to bulldoze over the horrific record of our state's politicians. One guy even said that he doesn't have a problem with gay marriage, but that our anti-gay senator is a great leader because he's working hard to force DC to pay down our national debt.

Can anyone give me graphs or reputable sources I can use to hold my own in this argument? I know I've read lots of things about how unnecessary it is to worry about public debt, but my Google powers are weak. I really just want to have the sourcing to make a decent, supported point about how civil and human rights are more important than an arbitrary dollar amount we'll have to pay to China when they come knocking.

If you want to get him on your side about something you could go into how he doesn't like one major thing about his senator (and I presume candidate), but does like another. If the Libertarian party were viable, he could probably vote for a candidate that he actually fully supports. You could go into wedge-issue politics, using one thing to get another in (like being anti-gay to get a plutocratic agenda through); and the fact that our electoral system virtually guarantees a two-party system. But that's changing the subject, going into a problem with the framing of the debate. He may not be able to comprehend the importance of that, but if he is that would be a good first step to conversion.

China comes knocking every day.

As for arguments against his stupid, could you be more specific?

# ? Jan 30, 2013 05:40

Kro-Bar: Jul 24, 2004; USPOL May

VideoTapir posted:

If you want to get him on your side about something you could go into how he doesn't like one major thing about his senator (and I presume candidate), but does like another. If the Libertarian party were viable, he could probably vote for a candidate that he actually fully supports. You could go into wedge-issue politics, using one thing to get another in (like being anti-gay to get a plutocratic agenda through); and the fact that our electoral system virtually guarantees a two-party system. But that's changing the subject, going into a problem with the framing of the debate. He may not be able to comprehend the importance of that, but if he is that would be a good first step to conversion.

China comes knocking every day.

As for arguments against his stupid, could you be more specific?

To clarify, the original reference was to Tom Coburn (I live in Oklahoma), but the thread has since devolved into me trying to explain why worrying about the national debt isn't as important as caring about social services.

# ? Jan 30, 2013 05:45

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

Kro-Bar posted:

The guy responded with this:

"Did you catch that, at 3:30? He touched on it, but in the end dismissed it...interest rates. We have artificially low interest rates right now, which is driving huge borrowing.

Interest rates WILL rise. And we are at severe risk of not being able to finance our own debt. Not only will interest payments skyrocket, but they will skyrocket at the same time that Medicare/Medicaid and SS costs are skyrocketing.

Those three things will consume our entire national budget, and we will have nothing left to spend on the actual, legitimate operations of government. What is government going to do? Print more money? Massive inflation, and massive destruction of the wealth of the private sector.

The end is not good, no matter how you look at it."

Ugh

Most government bonds are issued with fixed interest rates. It's not like credit card debt where you have interest to pay back each month. Instead, a one year $1M government bond purchased at 1.5% interest will simply be redeemed for $1.015M one year later. The US is not in danger of having interest rates skyrocket like Greece (which is what people are afraid of) because borrowers trust the US to pay back its debts, even if the credit rating was downgraded. Not to mention the fact that interest rates right now are lower than inflation, which means if the government spends that $1M on stimulating the economy and then one year later has to pay back $1.015M, if inflation was, say, 3% during that same period then that $1.015M has generated $1.03M's worth of economic activity. Investors are actually losing money relative to inflation by buying US bonds, but they're willing to do this because that bet is a sure thing--the reason why Greece's rates are so high is because there's a real risk your bond won't be repaid, so they charge high rates to balance out that risk. The US is in no way comparable to that situation.

That's before you even get into the problem of the deficit. The reason why America's deficit is so high is because of the recession. In a recession two big effects happen on government budgets: revenues decline because people lose their jobs or have hours/wages cut, and therefore those people pay less taxes; when the economy is bad, corporations may also make less profit, which means less corporate tax as well. Second, government spending necessarily has to rise because those people who lose their jobs or hours or wages are suddenly put in a position where they have to take advantage of programs like welfare, food stamps, unemployment, and so on. So revenues decline and spending increases, naturally, in a recession, before you even get to stimulus spending. The right answer as to how to fix this is to get out of the recession, so those people go back to work and pay their taxes again, and so that the people who hit hard times no longer need government assistance, and the budget returns to where it was pre-recession. Austerity does not do this. What austerity does is take the recessed state of the economy and prolong it by cutting spending which is necessary to both help people and stimulate the economy. It's also grossly unfair. Picture this situation: you work for twenty years at a job, then get laid off when the economy tanks. You go on unemployment and food stamps to get by until you can find another job in your field. Then suddenly the government slashes unemployment and food stamp spending because the recession pushed the budget into deficit, and suddenly you have no way to survive. As well, you are no longer stimulating the economy by spending your welfare and food stamp money, and the businesses that might have hired you aren't able to because the economy isn't picking up the way it might with stimulus. You end up starving to death in the streets, but it's okay because the deficit shrank a little.

If you want evidence that austerity doesn't help in a recession, just look at the UK: their economy tanked just like everyone else's, and in response they elected a Conservative government which imposed austerity, made severe budget cuts and... put the economy back into a 'double dip' recession, completely squandering all of the recovery that Britain had made by spending government funds.

# ? Jan 30, 2013 05:52

Amused to Death: Aug 10, 2009; google "The Night Witches", and prepare for

Kro-Bar posted:

The guy responded with this:

"Did you catch that, at 3:30? He touched on it, but in the end dismissed it...interest rates. We have artificially low interest rates right now, which is driving huge borrowing.

What is an artificial interest rate? Where is this field where I can go pick natural interest rates from the trees?

e:
And it's also private borrowing. Interest rates on treasury bonds are determined by demand, so I guess that is somewhat more natural.(but again, there is no such thing as a free and natural market because a market is an artificial construction with artificial rules.)

# ? Jan 30, 2013 05:57

Kro-Bar: Jul 24, 2004; USPOL May

I don't even know how to respond at this point:

I'm so sorry I'm asking you guys for so much help, but I just feel stuck in a quagmire trying to deal with people like this, especially when they're the norm in my state. I'm probably being dumb in this situation, but I can't find any good links that point out that gov't debt isn't really a good reason to retard federal spending in a time of high unemployment.

Kro-Bar fucked around with this message at 06:25 on Jan 30, 2013

# ? Jan 30, 2013 06:21

Anubis: Oct 9, 2003; It's hard to keep sand out of ears this big.; Fun Shoe

vyelkin posted:

If you want evidence that austerity doesn't help in a recession, just look at the UK: their economy tanked just like everyone else's, and in response they elected a Conservative government which imposed austerity, made severe budget cuts and... put the economy back into a 'double dip' recession, completely squandering all of the recovery that Britain had made by spending government funds.

Actually they are entering a triple dip recession now! Idiot wanna-be economists are everywhere. I'm doing an IT contract for the federal reserve and somehow got into a conversation with a fellow contractor who wouldn't stop espousing the tenants of Austrian economic theory. Thankfully all the actual economists are sane.

# ? Jan 30, 2013 06:27

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

Kro-Bar posted:

I don't even know how to respond at this point:

I'm so sorry I'm asking you guys for so much help, but I just feel stuck in a quagmire trying to deal with people like this, especially when they're the norm in my state. I'm probably being dumb in this situation, but I can't find any good links that point out that gov't debt isn't really a good reason to retard federal spending in a time of high unemployment.

There are about a million different definitions of money and debt, some of which refer to one another (which is okay as long as the conversation remains strictly about the relation between the two). Some of them are not compatible with one another without some serious explanation.

I get the feeling that no matter how you define debt to this guy he will just say "nope."

Either he gives you his definition of debt, under which his ideas make sense, get him to accept, for the sake of argument (a phrase most people don't really understand) your definition, or end the conversation.

# ? Jan 30, 2013 06:47

pillsburysoldier: Feb 11, 2008; Yo, peep that shit

Well, this is circulating

quote:

The following letter was disseminated and signed by over 1,000 current and former Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets) in support of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, specifically as a defensive measure against tyranny. The letter was compiled through the joint efforts of current and former Special Forces personnel over at https://www.professionalsoldiers.com and quietly disseminated for signatures among secure, vetted circles.

Protecting the Second Amendment � Why all Americans Should Be Concerned
We are current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets). We have all taken an oath to ��support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.�� The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single greatest document in the history of mankind, codifying the fundamental principle of governmental power and authority being derived from and granted through the consent of the governed. Our Constitution established a system of governance that preserves, protects, and holds sacrosanct the individual rights and primacy of the governed as well as providing for the explicit protection of the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression. We have witnessed the insidious and iniquitous effects of tyranny and oppression on people all over the world. We and our forebears have embodied and personified our organizational motto, De Oppresso Liber [To Free the Oppressed], for more than a half century as we have fought, shed blood, and died in the pursuit of freedom for the oppressed.
Like you, we are also loving and caring fathers and grandfathers. Like you, we have been stunned, horrified, and angered by the tragedies of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Fort Hood, and Sandy Hook; and like you, we are searching for solutions to the problem of gun-related crimes in our society. Many of us are educators in our second careers and have a special interest to find a solution to this problem. However, unlike much of the current vox populi reactions to this tragedy, we offer a different perspective.

First, we need to set the record straight on a few things. The current debate is over so-called �assault weapons� and high capacity magazines. The terms �assault weapon� and �assault rifle� are often confused. According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, �Prior to 1989, the term �assault weapon� did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term [underline added for emphasis], developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of assault rifles.�

The M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle � it is an assault rifle. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The �AR� in its name does not stand for �Assault Rifle� � it is the designation from the first two letters of the manufacturer�s name � ArmaLite Corporation. The AR-15 is designed so that it cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute. In 1986, the federal government banned the import or manufacture of new fully automatic firearms for sale to civilians. Therefore, the sale of assault rifles are already banned or heavily restricted!

The second part of the current debate is over �high capacity magazines� capable of holding more than 10 rounds in the magazine. As experts in military weapons of all types, it is our considered opinion that reducing magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6 -8 seconds to change two empty 10 round magazines with full magazines. Would an increase of 6 �8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not. Outlawing such �high capacity magazines� would, however, outlaw a class of firearms that are �in common use�. As such this would be in contravention to the opinion expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court recent decisions.
Moreover, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban became law in 1994, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre�s aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.

Now that we have those facts straight, in our opinion, it is too easy to conclude that the problem is guns and that the solution to the problem is more and stricter gun control laws. For politicians, it is politically expedient to take that position and pass more gun control laws and then claim to constituents that they have done the right thing in the interest of protecting our children. Who can argue with that? Of course we all want to find a solution. But, is the problem really guns? Would increasing gun regulation solve the problem? Did we outlaw cars to combat drunk driving?

What can we learn from experiences with this issue elsewhere? We cite the experience in Great Britain. Despite the absence of a �gun culture�, Great Britain, with one-fifth the population of the U.S., has experienced mass shootings that are eerily similar to those we have experienced in recent years. In 1987 a lone gunman killed 18 people in Hungerford. What followed was the Firearms Act of 1988 making registration mandatory and banning semi-automatic guns and pump-action shotguns. Despite this ban, on March 13, 1996 a disturbed 43-year old former scout leader, Thomas Hamilton, murdered 16 school children aged five and six and a teacher at a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland. Within a year and a half the Firearms Act was amended to ban all private ownership of hand guns. After both shootings there were amnesty periods resulting in the surrender of thousands of firearms and ammunition. Despite having the toughest gun control laws in the world, gun related crimes increased in 2003 by 35% over the previous year with firearms used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the preceding 12 months. Gun related homicides were up 32% over the same period. Overall, gun related crime had increased 65% since the Dunblane massacre and implementation of the toughest gun control laws in the developed world.

In contrast, in 2009 (5 years after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired) total firearm related homicides in the U.S. declined by 9% from the 2005 high (Source: �FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Master File, Table 310, Murder Victims � Circumstances and Weapons Used or Cause of Death: 2000-2009�).

Are there unintended consequences to stricter gun control laws and the politically expedient path that we have started down?
In a recent op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, Brett Joshpe stated that �Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.�We agree with Kevin D. Williamson (National Review Online, December 28, 2012): �The problem with this argument is that there is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment right that excludes military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear.�

�The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story�: �The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.�

The Second Amendment has been ruled to specifically extend to firearms �in common use� by the military by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v Miller (1939). In Printz v U.S. (1997) Justice Thomas wrote: �In Miller we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen�s right to possess a sawed-off shot gun because that weapon had not been shown to be �ordinary military equipment� that could �could contribute to the common defense�.

A citizen�s right to keep and bear arms for personal defense unconnected with service in a militia has been reaffirmed in the U.S. Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia, et al. v Heller, 2008). The Court Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion: �The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.�. Justice Scalia went on to define a militia as �� comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense �.� �The Anti-Federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens� militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens� militia would be preserved.� he explained.

On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid about the ban�s real purpose:�[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.�

In a challenge to the authority of the Federal government to require State and Local Law Enforcement to enforce Federal Law (Printz v United States) the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision in 1997. For the majority opinion Justice Scalia wrote: ��. this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations When we were at last confronted squarely with a federal statute that unambiguously required the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, our decision should have come as no surprise�.. It is an essential attribute of the States� retained sovereignty that they remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority.�

So why should non-gun owners, a majority of Americans, care about maintaining the 2nd Amendment right for citizens to bear arms of any kind? The answer is �The Battle of Athens, TN�. The Cantrell family
had controlled the economy and politics of McMinn County, Tennessee since the 1930s. Paul Cantrell had been Sheriff from 1936 -1940 and in 1942 was elected to the State Senate. His chief deputy, Paul Mansfield, was subsequently elected to two terms as Sheriff. In 1946 returning WWII veterans put up a popular candidate for Sheriff. On August 1 Sheriff Mansfield and 200 �deputies� stormed the post office polling place to take control of the ballot boxes wounding an objecting observer in the process. The veterans bearing military style weapons, laid siege to the Sheriff�s office demanding return of the ballot boxes for public counting of the votes as prescribed in Tennessee law. After exchange of gun fire and blowing open the locked doors, the veterans secured the ballot boxes thereby protecting the integrity of the election. And this is precisely why all Americans should be concerned about protecting all of our right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment!

Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants� accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes. At the beginning of our own nation�s revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers ensured that the 2nd Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic.

If there is a staggering legal precedent to protect our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms and if stricter gun control laws are not likely to reduce gun related crime, why are we having this debate? Other than making us and our elected representatives feel better because we think that we are doing something to protect our children, these actions will have no effect and will only provide us with a false sense of security.

So, what do we believe will be effective? First, it is important that we recognize that this is not a gun control problem; it is a complex sociological problem. No single course of action will solve the problem. Therefore, it is our recommendation that a series of diverse steps be undertaken, the implementation of which will require patience and diligence to realize an effect.

These are as follows:
1. First and foremost we support our Second Amendment right in that �A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed�.

2. We support State and Local School Boards in their efforts to establish security protocols in whatever manner and form that they deem necessary and adequate. One of the great strengths of our Republic is that State and Local governments can be creative in solving problems. Things that work can be shared. Our point is that no one knows what will work and there is no one single solution, so let�s allow the State and Local governments with the input of the citizens to make the decisions. Most recently the Cleburne Independent School District will become the first district in North Texas to consider allowing some teachers to carry concealed guns. We do not opine as to the appropriateness of this decision, but we do support their right to make this decision for themselves.

3. We recommend that Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) laws be passed in every State. AOT is formerly known as Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC) and allows the courts to order certain individuals with mental disorders to comply with treatment while living in the community. In each of the mass shooting incidents the perpetrator was mentally unstable. We also believe that people who have been adjudicated as incompetent should be simultaneously examined to determine whether they should be allowed the right to retain/purchase firearms.

4. We support the return of firearm safety programs to schools along the lines of the successful �Eddie the Eagle� program, which can be taught in schools by Peace Officers or other trained professionals.

5. Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. �The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence� and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said �War is Hell!� Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be �sold� as entertainment to our children.

6. We support repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it obviously isn�t working. It is our opinion that �Gun-Free Zones� anywhere are too tempting of an environment for the mentally disturbed individual to inflict their brand of horror with little fear of interference. While governmental and non-governmental organizations, businesses, and individuals should be free to implement a Gun-Free Zone if they so choose, they should also assume Tort liability for that decision.

7. We believe that border states should take responsibility for implementation of border control laws to prevent illegal shipments of firearms and drugs. Drugs have been illegal in this country for a long, long time yet the Federal Government manages to seize only an estimated 10% of this contraband at our borders. Given this dismal performance record that is misguided and inept (�Fast and Furious�), we believe that border States will be far more competent at this mission.

8. This is our country, these are our rights. We believe that it is time that we take personal responsibility for our choices and actions rather than abdicate that responsibility to someone else under the illusion that we have done something that will make us all safer. We have a responsibility to stand by our principles and act in accordance with them. Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set.

Read more: http://sofrep.com/16644/1000-green-berets-sign-letter-of-support-for-2nd-amendment/#ixzz2JQzJB1u8

# ? Jan 30, 2013 06:51

Muscle Tracer: Feb 23, 2007; Medals only weigh one down.

pillsburysoldier posted:

Well, this is circulating

This makes it sound like states don't actually have governments. There's nothing stopping states from fighting the drug war within their borders right now--in fact, many city police departments are fighting it on the ground level right now! Of course, the whole reason the DEA is involved in drug efforts is because the import, transportation, distribution and use of drugs can cover many different states' jurisdictions, but lets ignore that because STATES' RIGHTS! THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN!

# ? Jan 30, 2013 07:07

V-Men: Aug 15, 2001; Don't it make your dick bust concrete to be in the same room with two noble, selfless public servants.

XyloJW posted:

I got this one from my Buddhist aunt. One of the last people I'd expect to forward this kind of garbage. The Facebook group she got it from is full of Dees photoshops, WND, and infowars links.

#7 It was the Obama administration that came up with the �See Something, Say Something� campaign. Now the federal government has even created an iPhone app that is designed to encourage all of us to take photos of �suspicious activity� and report our neighbors to the authorities.

http://www.mta.info/news/stories/?story=55

quote:

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) launched the now-famous tag line in 2003. It has licensed its use, free of charge, to 54 organizations around the world for use in public awareness campaigns about security.

"Our customers are the first line of defense and the "If You See Something, Say Something" campaign improves customer awareness and provides the ideal outlet for all New Yorkers to get involved," said William A. Morange, the MTA's Director of Security. "This campaign has been extremely successful and illustrates how the MTA continues to work together with the NYPD and other law enforcement agencies to safeguard our city and our transit system."

Or it wasn't the Obama administration that came up with that campaign.

# ? Jan 30, 2013 07:56

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN: Jun 26, 2009

pillsburysoldier posted:

Well, this is circulating
quote:
WORSHIP US.

Assuming this is real, is this what happens when The Troops start believing email forwards?

# ? Jan 30, 2013 08:18

800peepee51doodoo: Mar 1, 2001; Volute the swarth, trawl betwixt phonotic
Scoff the festune

pillsburysoldier posted:

Well, this is circulating

The M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle � it is an assault rifle. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The �AR� in its name does not stand for �Assault Rifle� � it is the designation from the first two letters of the manufacturer�s name � ArmaLite Corporation. The AR-15 is designed so that it cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute. In 1986, the federal government banned the import or manufacture of new fully automatic firearms for sale to civilians. Therefore, the sale of assault rifles are already banned or heavily restricted!

Super sick of this particular "argument". If it's not literally a machine gun it's not an assault weapon! Here's someone throwing 60 rounds downrange in ~15 seconds with his notassaultrifle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELqaZa9Rt04

Also, here's some footage of two dudes holding off the entire LA police force with their "impossible to configure...to fully automatic" fully automatic AR's:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqfrr26yTSY

# ? Jan 30, 2013 08:47

miscellaneous14: Mar 27, 2010; neat

vyelkin posted:

If all they care about is anecdotes, show them this website:

http://www.pluralofanecdote.com/

It's an incredible tool that's completely useless for statistical purposes but which will lineup a 'private plan/uninsured' anecdote next to a 'public option' anecdote and let you read them both.

This is a really useful site, but holy poo poo it's terrifying. It really reminds you of how screwed you can be in the US just because of something small that probably wasn't even your fault.

And the worst part of it being that my parents would still vote a Republican ticket, even when they know their son could potentially be in debt for the rest of my life if something happened to me in this current system. :smith:

# ? Jan 30, 2013 09:04

Armyman25: Sep 6, 2005

800peepee51doodoo posted:

Super sick of this particular "argument". If it's not literally a machine gun it's not an assault weapon! Here's someone throwing 60 rounds downrange in ~15 seconds with his notassaultrifle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELqaZa9Rt04

Also, here's some footage of two dudes holding off the entire LA police force with their "impossible to configure...to fully automatic" fully automatic AR's:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqfrr26yTSY

Quick, what's the definition of an "assault weapon?"

# ? Jan 30, 2013 09:22

Mornacale: Dec 19, 2007; n=y where
y=hope and n=folly,
prospects=lies, win=lose,

self=Pirates

Guilty Spork posted:

I'm sure someone more knowledgeable than me could pick apart most of the individual points there, and a lot of the ones that seem to have merit are ones where I want to say, "Why the gently caress weren't you complaining about this during the Bush years?"

Please don't do this. I understand that it's tempting, but policies are good or bad regardless of whose team is implementing them. "You weren't complaining about debt during the Bush years" is just as disingenuous as "you're not complaining about war crimes when Obama does them!" If you think that Obama's fiscal policy is sound, make a case for it. If you want to argue that it's a non-issue that's only raised as an attack on a Democratic President, then you'd do better to state that plainly than get at it through implication. (But if you're trying to educate someone on a policy issue, you probably don't want to go after the entire disingenuous edifice of the modern GOP anyway.)

# ? Jan 30, 2013 09:45

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS

Ho Chi Mint posted:

Quick, what's the definition of an "assault weapon?"

A scary-rear end self-loading rifle, usually black, possibly including a bayonet mount, actual bayonet optional. As much as I'm in favor of some sensible, moderate gun control, it'll never happen because the people who write the bills don't know enough to write good bills, and the people who know enough don't support it.

# ? Jan 30, 2013 09:45

Monkey Fracas: Sep 11, 2010; ...but then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you!; Grimey Drawer

Didn't see this one posted in the past few pages:

ChainMail posted:

Most everyone suspected fraud, but these numbers prove it and our government and media refuse to do anything about it.

As each state reported their final election details, the evidence of voter fraud is astounding. Massive voter fraud has been reported in
areas of OH and FL, with PA, WI and VA, all are deploying personnel to investigate election results.

Here are just a few examples of what has surfaced with much more to come

* In 59 voting districts in the Philadelphia region, Obama received 100% of the votes with not even a single vote recorded for
Romney. (A mathematical and statistical impossibility).

* In 21 districts in Wood County Ohio, Obama received 100% of the votes where GOP inspectors were illegally removed from their
polling locations - and not one single vote was recorded for Romney. (Another statistical impossibility).

* In Wood County Ohio, 106,258 voted in a county with only 98,213 eligible voters.

* In St. Lucie County, FL, there were 175,574 registered eligible voters but 247,713 votes were cast

* The National SEAL Museum, a polling location in St. Lucie County, FL had a 158% voter turnout.

* Palm Beach County, FL had a 141% voter turnout.

* In Ohio County, Obama won by 108% of the total number of eligible voters.

NOTE: Obama won in every state that did not require a Photo ID and lost in every state that did require a Photo ID in order to vote.

Seemed like absolute bullshit and it took 20 seconds of Google-Time to find the Snopes page shooting the whole thing down:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/2012fraud.asp

The "Ohio County" claim is especially hilarious since Romney won in every "Ohio County" that exists in the United States. (And by a wide margin each time to boot.)

Some of the bullet points are outright lies, and some of them are willful misrepresentations of the truth. I wish I could find the bullshit valve that stuff like this flows out of and weld that bastard shut.

# ? Jan 30, 2013 18:00

Amused to Death: Aug 10, 2009; google "The Night Witches", and prepare for

quote:

NOTE: Obama won in every state that did not require a Photo ID and lost in every state that did require a Photo ID in order to vote.

Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, all states won by noted GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney.......................................

in Romney's dreams at night :getin:

# ? Jan 30, 2013 18:19

Fart Sandwiches: Apr 4, 2006; i never asked for this

Also Florida has voter ID and Obama won there, too.

Edit: BEAT

# ? Jan 30, 2013 18:20

Merrill Grinch: May 21, 2001; infuriated by investments

This is not exactly an email, but thematically appropriate.

A friend of the family who works as a waitress attended an all-hands meeting at her restaurant last week. She and her co-workers were told that because of Obamacare, they were no longer legally able to accept tips and gratuities from their customers.

I suggested that if the tips were going into the company's pockets, they were just being greedy fucks and lying to try to offset their costs. I haven't found anything on Snopes or anything anywhere about this to help her debunk it, and I'm not sure what I could do to help even if I could.

# ? Jan 30, 2013 18:20

Amused to Death: Aug 10, 2009; google "The Night Witches", and prepare for

That sounds kind of illegal since waitresses are paid below minimum wage because they are tipped.

# ? Jan 30, 2013 18:22

800peepee51doodoo: Mar 1, 2001; Volute the swarth, trawl betwixt phonotic
Scoff the festune

Merrill Grinch posted:

This is not exactly an email, but thematically appropriate.

A friend of the family who works as a waitress attended an all-hands meeting at her restaurant last week. She and her co-workers were told that because of Obamacare, they were no longer legally able to accept tips and gratuities from their customers.

I suggested that if the tips were going into the company's pockets, they were just being greedy fucks and lying to try to offset their costs. I haven't found anything on Snopes or anything anywhere about this to help her debunk it, and I'm not sure what I could do to help even if I could.

Have her contact the labor board of her state and find out if what her employer is doing is legal and, if not, file a complaint. As far as I can tell, that's straight up theft of wages, wages she is taxed on.

# ? Jan 30, 2013 18:29

darthbob88: Oct 13, 2011; YOSPOS