Wabash82
-
Posts
254 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Articles
Events
Posts posted by Wabash82
-
-
On 3/12/2019 at 4:51 PM, swordfish said:
Wouldn't it be racist for someone to consider me (a white male) supreme, or privileged just because of the color of my skin and not how I treat other human beings??
Are you equating the words supreme and privileged (which wouldn't make muchh sense), or asking two different questions? Assuming you are trying to make sense, the answers to your two questions are: 1) yes, it would be racist for someone to consider you supreme -- i.e., a better person, of a higher quality in some inherent way -- compared to other people only because you are a white person, and (b) no, it would not be racist for someone to acknowledge the fact that simply being (perceived as) a white person provides a person with certain advantages (privileges) in our society that are not granted to most people of color.
-
1
-
-
I think you told someone you'd stick with Forbes, so I'll just leave this here:
Caveat Emptor is a great plan of protection so long as you are lucky enough to always be the guy standing second in line to get a drink from the arsenic polluted water fountain....
-
On 3/17/2019 at 3:06 PM, Irishman said:
Irishman, you give me a pain in the heart, lad. A shamrock has three leaves, not four! Finding a four leaf clover may be a sign of luck, but it is not a symbol of Ireland.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Muda69 said:
https://mises.org/wire/forget-guaranteed-income-—-governments-need-stop-prohibiting-income
Agreed. The regulatory state need to be abolished.
Did this study provide an estimate of the likely cost associated with not having all the regulations they imagined away in order to come up with their $38 trillion of "prohibited" GDP? Because a "benefit" number is kind of meaningless without knowing what it will cost to achieve it.
Setting aside the dollar costs: If you did away with all the auto/airplane/transportation safety regs, all food and drug safety regs, workplace safety laws, environmental protection laws, etc., etc. enacted since 1949, how many lives would have been lost as a result by 2011?
-
1 hour ago, Muda69 said:
But once all driving is handled by computers does that mean I will no longer have to carry as much car insurance, since any accident now has to be the fault of the manufacturer, aka a defect? Although I suppose one may decide to carry car insurance for non-vehicle accident damage, like from a hail storm or a tree limb.
As you noted, if you own the vehicle you'd presumably want to have comprehensive insurance coverage for physical damage, like you do with your car now. How liability for damage resulting from vehicle collisions/accidents will depend quite a bit on how this level 5 technology and related driving laws actually works in practice (e.g., will the srlf-driving systems be overridable? Will the law require that there be a human "driver" responsible on each trip to monitor the vehicle's self-driving and to take control if necessary? Etc., etc.)
From what I have read, many "futurists" believe that the widespread adoption of these self-driving cars will largely eliminate private ownership of autos, anyway -- they see a world with ubiquitous Uber-like or taxi-like companies blanketing areas with fleets of self-driving vehicles. In that future, you won't need personal auto insurance, anymore than you need it now for an Uber or taxi ride.
-
1 hour ago, swordfish said:
indicates to SF that New Zealand is pretty surprised by the backlash stemming from the immigration policies of the past decade and is looking to place blame anywhere else but themselves......And the US media in all it's anti-Trump rage is very eager to oblige......
UH - Again - SF believes there is nobody to blame but the shooter himself. (Period)
The optics in the world's view, where the shooter's manifesto (which obviously nobody but SF read before it was removed) specifically points at the issue(s) of immigration of mainly Muslim population puts the spotlight squarely on the NZ government and it's policies, so (IMHO) I feel the movement by the government to immediately impose stricter gun laws (which are pretty darn strict) as well as (by proxy) point the finger in any other direction is pretty reactionary. Put the blame on the shooter and his ilk, and don't accept any responsibility, and certainly don't buy into the rhetoric of it being fault of a US President or the daughter of a former US President......
I think you are trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth. It sounds like you are trying to say that the shooter (per his manifesto) put the spotlight on New Zealand's immigration policies that let in so many Muslims as the reason for attack, and so "pointing the finger in any other direction" is wrong. That sure likes you are saying, again, that New Zealand is responsible (to blame) -- if it hadn't let so many Muslims in, the guy wouldn't have had to go kill so many of them.
-
2 hours ago, swordfish said:
No - and nowhere did I say that. You should know SF well enough after the past years on the GID to know, I blame this solely on the shooter, and his accomplices......
Uh, did you not see the part of your quote that I highlighted? You referenced "backlash" to New Zealand's immigration policies, and then said that New Zealand is looking to place the blame (for that backlash) on anyone but "themselves." That seems pretty darn obvious to me: New Zealand's immigration policies drew this backlash -- the massacre of 50 Muslims-- and New Zealand shouldn't have been surprised by it, and thus deserves some of the blame.
If you are claiming that is not what you meant by that statement, will you please explain what you did mean?
-
On 3/8/2019 at 4:26 PM, swordfish said:
For every example you consider intellectual or scientific, I can certainly match with an example I will consider intellectual or scientific.......However I cannot profit from either side of this argument, and I assume neither can you. But Al Gore (whose predictions so far have been lees than accurate ie - Inconvenient Truth) sure is.......
https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/how-al-gore-built-the-global-warming-fraud
Although his science is often seriously wrong, no one can deny that Al Gore has a flare for the dramatic. Speaking about climate change in an October 12 PBS interview, the former vice-president proclaimed, “We have a global emergency.” Referring to the most recent UN climate report, Gore claimed it showed that current global warming “could actually extend to an existential threat to human civilization on this planet as we know it.”
Al Gore’s overblown rhetoric makes no sense, of course. Yet his hyperbolic claims beg the question: How did this all start?
Back in the 1970s, media articles warning of imminent climate change problems began to appear regularly. TIME and Newsweek ran multiple cover stories asserting that oil companies and America’s capitalist life style were causing catastrophic damage to Earth’s climate. They claimed scientists were almost unanimous in their opinion that manmade climate change would reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.
The April 28, 1975 Newsweek proposed solutions that even included outlawing internal combustion engines.
This sounds very similar to today's climate change debate – except, in the 70s, the fear was manmade global cooling, not warming.
TIME magazine’s January 31, 1977 cover featured a story, “How to Survive The Coming Ice Age.” It included “facts” such as scientists predicting that Earth’s so-called average temperature could drop by 20 degrees Fahrenheit due to manmade global cooling. Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration warned readers that “the drop in temperature between 1945 and 1968 had taken us one sixth of the way to the next Ice Age temperature.”
Global cooling gained considerable traction with the general public. But then, instead of cooling as long predicted by manmade climate change advocates, the planet started warming again. Something had to be done to rescue the climate change agenda from utter disaster. Enter Al Gore.
Al Gore Sr., a powerful Senator from Tennessee, saw to it that his son was elected to the House of Representatives, serving from 1977 to 1985, then going on to the Senate from 1985 to 1993. Gore Junior’s primary issue was his conviction that the Earth would perish if we did not eliminate fossil fuels.
Gore advanced to Vice President under President Bill Clinton, where he was able to enact policies and direct funding to ensure that the climate change agenda became a top priority of the United States Government. Gore’s mission was boosted when Clinton gave him authority over the newly created President’s Council on Sustainable Development.
It will come as no surprise then that, when the Council’s Charter was revised on April 25, 1997, the “Scope of Activities” included the following direction to the Council:
Advise the President on domestic implementation of policy options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Council should not debate the science of global warming [emphasis added], but should instead focus on the implementation of national and local greenhouse gas reduction policies and activities, and adaptations in the U.S. economy and society that maximize environmental and social benefits, minimize economic impacts, and are consistent with U.S. international agreements. The Council should, at a minimum, identify and encourage potentially replicable examples of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions across diverse sectors and levels of society.
Considering that the Council was tasked with advising the President “on matters involving sustainable development,” and alternative points of view on the science of climate change were effectively excluded, it was a foregone conclusion that the Clinton administration would go in the direction Gore wanted. Indeed, in their cover letter to the President accompanying their 1999 report, Advancing Prosperity, Opportunity and a Healthy Environment for the 21st Century, the Council stated: “Our report presents consensus recommendations on how America can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and take other steps to protect the climate.”
A cornerstone of Gore’s strategy was to ensure that all high-ranking government officials who had any involvement with funding policies relating to climate change were in line with his vision. These agencies included the Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, National Science Foundation, Department of Education, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
An example of his power was shown when physicist Dr. William Happer, then Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, testified before Congress in 1993 that scientific data did not support the hypothesis of manmade global warming. Gore saw to it that Happer was immediately fired. Fifteen years later, Happer quipped, “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly.”
Al Gore was also able to leverage his high visibility, his movie awards, his Nobel Prize, and his involvement in various carbon trading and other schemes into a personal fortune. When he ended his tenure as Vice President in 2001, his net worth was $2 million. By 2013, it exceeded $300 million.
Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, provided a series of graphic images showing the apocalyptic consequences that some had predicted if fossil fuels were allowed to continue warming the planet. Images included melting glaciers, dying polar bears, spreading diseases, coastal cities inundated by massive floods, cities wiped out by hurricanes and tornadoes, and food supplies exterminated by droughts.
This compelling propaganda played a major role in frightening an entire generation about the future, causing young people and many parents to feel guilty about the role that they and their country were supposedly having in destroying our beautiful planet.
Since then, Americans have been told constantly that they should feel irresponsible if they drive cars or use fossil fuel energy to heat their homes or power their businesses. A rapid, massive conversion away from coal, oil and natural gas to renewable energy sources such and wind and solar, we are told, is the only hope for saving the planet.
Now children are increasingly depressed about their future, thanks to the constant barrage of global warming propaganda that they receive at school. Indeed, they have become so brainwashed and cowed by their peers that they no longer dare to question any statement made about catastrophic climate change.
Yet, essentially everything in Gore's climate change agenda is either wrong or highly misrepresented.
Now that he is President Donald Trump’s Senior Scientist for the National Security Council, Dr. Happer needs to show there is no “scientific consensus” on these issues, rekindle informed debate on climate and energy issues, and help bring hope, common sense and real science back into the discourse – to help end the dangerous mythology of dangerous manmade global warming.
You would acknowledge that there are likeeise lots and lots of folks who have huge financial stakes in denying man made causes for climate change -- like the coal and oil industries? Because Al Gore sensationlizes some aspects of global climate change, all the climate scientist whose research supports its existence therefore can be ignored?
I'd be happy to compare lists of scientists with you. I think mine's bigger.
-
1 hour ago, swordfish said:
Last week and through the weekend most of the media played the "Trump rhetoric fueled the NZ shooter and white nationalists" card as hard as they could, totally ignoring the shooter's own manifesto where he somewhat supported Trump "BUT" https://thehill.com/policy/international/434238-new-zealand-suspect-wrote-in-manifesto-he-supported-trump-as-a-symbol-of “As a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose? Sure. As a policy maker and leader? Dear god no.” .......Now the idea floated that Chelsea Clinton is somehow responsible: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/16/new-zealand-shooting-chelsea-clinton-blamed-attack/3184870002/ indicates to SF that New Zealand is pretty surprised by the backlash stemming from the immigration policies of the past decade and is looking to place blame anywhere else but themselves......And the US media in all it's anti-Trump rage is very eager to oblige......
SF is struck how in the recent past 5 years or so of the Muslim (ISIS or others) terrorist attacks that happen so frequently are largely ignored.....
so the "blame" is on New Zealand for letting Muslims into their country.
Wow.
And ISIS attacks? I thought we "defeated" ISIS and the troops were coming home for a victory parade....
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 3/7/2019 at 6:11 AM, Bobref said:
This, in a nutshell, is the “global warming” issue for me. The Al Gore disciples, and their ilk, primarily use a “misdirection” argument to support their position. They trot out lots of statistics about temperatures in the Arctic and polar bears swimming in open water. There’s no denying it’s getting warmer. But, in my mind, the link between that and human activity is what is missing. Simply showing that temperatures are on the rise is meaningless, as there have been innumerable such cycles in the earth’s history.
The scientific research indicating that the cause of the current warming is human activity, and that it is not just cyclical warming, is well established.
It is disappointing when people imply that Al Gore or other "celebrities" who talk about this issue came up with the evidence themselves. The concern over human-caused global warming is a concern driven by climate scientist.
Research establishing human "fingerprints" on current climate change.
-
1
-
-
On 3/6/2019 at 10:17 AM, swordfish said:
For this argument, you are assuming man-made global warming exists.......
FTR - If natural occurring global climate change can happen in a way that melted the glaciers that formed the Great Lakes 15,000 years ago, SF isn't too worried that mankind will have much (if any) influence on the crisis being perpetuated as "global warming" today. If you want to discuss mankind's mismanagement of worldwide pollution and better ways to handle that - open the door.
Again, the logical stupidity of this argument is breath-taking. So because there are natural causes for forest fires (lightning strikes), we don't need to be worried that humans might be able to cause forest fires. Brilliant!
-
14 minutes ago, swordfish said:
https://nypost.com/2019/03/08/ilhan-omar-obamas-a-pretty-face-who-got-away-with-murder/
Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar ripped former President Barack Obama in an interview published Friday, belittling his “pretty face” and saying his agenda of hope and change was an illusion.
She cited the “caging of kids” at the Mexican border and the “droning of countries around the world” on Obama’s watch — and argued that he wasn’t much different from President Trump
“We can’t be only upset with Trump,” the freshman firebrand told Politico Magazine.
“His policies are bad, but many of the people who came before him also had really bad policies. They just were more polished than he was,” Omar said.
“And that’s not what we should be looking for anymore. We don’t want anybody to get away with murder because they are polished. We want to recognize the actual policies that are behind the pretty face and the smile.”
The explosive comments about a man lionized by Democrats were only the latest in a series of incendiary statements that have put the national spotlight on Omar, a Somali-American Muslim who spent four years in a refugee camp in Kenya after her family fled the violence in their homeland.
She sure isn't making friends in the Democrat Party.......After this episode, SF wonders if Speaker Pelosi is questioning her decision not to ostracize Ms. Omar more for her "anti-semitic" comments.....
She sounds like a Kucinich or a Steve King, who are representative of a solid bloc of voters in their own specific districts, but their extreme views are not ever going to catch on with any sizeable chunk of the mainstream audience.
The Dems today face a bit of the same issue they faced back in the late '60s and early '70s, when a lot of energized but not very practical younger members of the party sapped support and votes from the mainstream candidates that the "older" party members supported. It gave us Nixon twice, and then Jimmy Carter. Not exactly the country's shiniest moments.
-
12 hours ago, swordfish said:
Thought so.....
So either black racism CAN exist, or someone (who is black) killing me because I am white is not racist just hateful?
As I said before, you and Gonzo are defining the word differently. But again, you are focused on trying to draw some false equivalency that has nothing to do with the real world problems of racism in this country.
-
7 minutes ago, Muda69 said:
I would be, but I'll be out of town with my spouse.
I hope you have a pleasant time.
-
1 hour ago, swordfish said:
Hypothetical question - If racism (the MW definition) is not a 2 way street (as some on this site have opined), if an African American hated me because I was white and murdered me (as some on this website would probably celebrate - LOL) would he then be able to be charged with a hate crime?
Your hypothetical requires us to know the specific language of the possibly-applicable "hate crime" statute. Typically, these statutes say something like, "If in committing the underlying crime [in this case, the murder of dear old SF, may he rest in peace], the perpetrator was motivated by prejudice against the victim based on the victim's race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability, then a sentencing enhancement of "x" years will be added on."
So if your hypothetical perpetrator made it clear in connection with killing you that he was motivated by prejudice against you because you were white, then he could be charged with a hate crime.
But none of that addresses the point Gonzo has made that form a functional definition perspective, "black racism" is a non-issue in this country.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Muda69 said:
That hate crime laws effectively deter hate crimes from being committed.
I don't know. I would imagine that they have been around long enough in some States to allow that question to he studied. Sounds like a good research project for you this weekend.
-
19 minutes ago, swordfish said:
According to my reading - Transfers or sales between family members are exempt from this.
So if "strawman" purchases/sales are already illegal......Wouldn't the rampant abuse of this action already be non-existent? (being that the argument that most of the guns in Chicago are being legally purchased in Indiana or other states at gun shows.....)
Depends on how close in relation the family member is -- I don't think transfers between cousins are exempt, for example.
I don't recall having heard it said that the guns in Chicago are being purchased at "gun shows" per se. That is certainly part of the problem, because Illinois currently requires a background check even for private sales by non-dealers. Indiana does not, so a Chicago gang's affiliates in Indiana who cannot pass a background check can still buy guns for their comrades in Illinois at gun shows here.
But the problem arises where neighboring States like Indiana have less stringent laws than exist in Illinois/Chicago even when it comes to buying from a licensed dealer. So, for example, to buy a gun in Illinois, a person must have an Illinois gun owner's ID from the State Police, but there is no similar requirement in Indiana.
The fact that straw men purchases go on despite it being illegal does not mean that the laws don't deter the activity to some degree. While there are always going to be people who are willing to engage in illegal activity, it is impossible to know exactly how many people elected NOT to engage in that activity because it was illegal -- you can't tally up things that didn't happen. The standard can't be 100% deterrent effect, because if it was, there literally are no effective laws.
55 minutes ago, swordfish said:Reading about the Utah incident, I don't agree the new law would have prevented the shooting, but it would give the prosecution the footing to charge the person who loaned the weapon with a crime as well as the mother who is suing him. Either way, I am behind that guy getting anything thrown at him for what I and most gun owners would consider is negligence - you don't "loan" a gun to someone to take away from your control.
In order to believe that this proposed law would not have prevented the shooting in Utah, you have to make the assumption that the friend who loaned the killer the gun is not a law abiding person. Because if he was, and if this law had been in effect, he would have said, "Sure, you can borrow my gun this weekend. Let's get in the car and go down to Joe's Gunnery and I'll give it to Joe to run the required background check on you, so you can take it on Saturday." And that would have stopped the killer from getting that gun.
Just like at the gun show, where the non-licensed guy who sells occasionally is a law abiding fellow, and if this law were in force, he'd do something similar.
-
5 minutes ago, Muda69 said:
Have their been objective studies performed which prove or disapprove this benefit of deterrence?
Proof of the benefit of deterring speeding?
Or proof that increasing the cost of doing a certain thing generally results in less of that thing happening (i.e., deters it from happening as frequently)?
-
16 minutes ago, Muda69 said:
Sorry, I get them confused. So you are a believer in the "lesser of two evils" option when it comes to POTUS voting.
Would Ms. Ocasio-Cortez be a good candidate if she were to run for POTUS in say 2024? 2030?
From what little I have seen of her so far, it doesn't look that way. She strikes me as being very similar in her communication style to the current President, which is a style I don't like. (Maybe I'm just biased against New Yorkers?) But 2024 is a ways off, so perhaps she will grow on me.
-
2 minutes ago, Muda69 said:
Because I still don't understand exactly benefit(s) the classification of "hate crime" bestows on American society. Is it the belief that such a classification is an effective deterrent, that somebody from the racial majority whose is about to or is plotting to harm an individual from a racial minority will suddenly stop and think "gee, I'm about to commit a hate crime, I had better not do this thing."?
Yes, that's one likely benefit. It is axiomatic that increasing the negative consequences of some action can be a deterrent to someone taking that action if he was on the fence or slightly leaning toward doing it. $200 fines for speeding don't stop all speeding, but they certainly do deter more potential speeders than $5 fines do.
-
8 minutes ago, Muda69 said:
Did you vote for Mr. Clinton in 2016?
Who of the current crop of declared 2020 Democratic candidates can you classify as "good"?
I voted for Mrs. Clinton. But that was simply because she came in (barely) second in a dramatic race to the bottom of the barrel.
I have not looked at the declared Dem candidates close enough yet to opine intelligently on which of them I'd consider good candidates.
-
15 minutes ago, Muda69 said:
So if somebody of a different racial group from my own deprives me of life, liberty, or property that is a "hate crime"?
You were correct in your earlier post: you don't understand.
You asked for an example of a law that benefited our society by extending protections to a specific "class" of people, so I gave you an example. (14th Amendment specifically singles out the class known as "citizens" in the privileges and immunities clause, as distinguished from broader "persons" entitled to protection under equal protection and due process clause.)
I am not sure how you wound that back to your comment above about hate crimes.
-
9 minutes ago, Muda69 said:
No I didn't. She is uniquely qualified to be POTUS, above and beyond any other Democrat.
If "qualifications" were all that mattered, she'd have been elected in 2016. A "good" candidate means one whose positive qualifications are not overridden by negative traits or "baggage."
-
1 hour ago, Muda69 said:
I don't understand. Can you please give me an example?
Sure:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
New Donald Trump thread
in Out of Bound Forum
Posted
Who'd have thunk that there were only 120 million women in the world who needed birth control?
This level of critical thinking is why the robots can't get here soon enough.