lokisnow Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 About as seriously as you'd treat a monkey with an AK-47.The comparison to Hitler was completely asinine, but to be fair the Nazi High Command was pretty much the loser's club. Hitler contributed little more than signing the papers and giving the speeches, Eichmann was a sniveling bureaucrat with 20 failed businesses to his name, Himmler was a bankrupt chicken farmer, etc. The Legion of Doom they were not. Really I consider the Holocaust to be the natural result of the longstanding mentality that came out of Social Darwinism and the Eugenics movement, going as far back as the earliest justifications for slavery and African colonialism; rather than some mater plan by a group of hyper-manipulative schemers. They were more facilitators than anything else.The Holocaust was a result of deliberate application of cutting edge progressive led science research initiatives. They considered the needs of the many (avoiding race suicide) to outweigh the needs of the few (their victims).Never underestimate the flexibility and power of science to justify and "validate" any belief man is capable of wanting to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 It seems to me that the lead Trump holds in the Republican race is indicative of the total and complete collapse of the Republican elite. It doesn't matter how much Republican leaders call him out, he just keeps rolling on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightysnake88 Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 To be fair a Democrat mayor in one of the confederacy states proposed the same thing with the same fdr rationale a few weeks ago. He didn't get base traction, but democrats did it first, not trump. Oh, yes, a mayor. So comparable to the front-runner for the nomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 This is a disturbing convergence between Trump and Hillary: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/donald-trump-wants-to-close-up-the-internet/ar-AAg8uu5 Hours after Donald Trump suggested the U.S. ban Muslims from entering the United States, the leading Republican presidential candidate said America should also consider “closing the Internet up in some way” to fight Islamic State terrorists in cyberspace.[/quote] Trump mocked anyone who would object that his plan might violate the freedom of speech, saying “these are foolish people, we have a lot of foolish people.”“We have to go see Bill Gates,” Trump said, to better understand the Internet and then possibly “close it up.”Trump characterized the problem of Internet extremism by saying, “We’re losing a lot of people because of the Internet.”The Internet has taken center stage in both the 2016 presidential race and the Obama administration’s current fight against the Islamic State. Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton urged tech companies to “deny online space” to terrorists. Clinton then anticipated and waved away presumed First Amendment criticisms.“We’re going to hear all the usual complaints,” she said on Monday, “you know, freedom of speech, et cetera. But if we truly are in a war against terrorism and we are truly looking for ways to shut off their funding, shut off the flow of foreign fighters, then we’ve got to shut off their means of communicating. It’s more complicated with some of what they do on encrypted apps, and I’m well aware of that, and that requires even more thinking about how to do it.” China style internet restrictions coming in a few years regardless of who wins the Oval Office? At least most of the comments are negative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biglose Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 Oh, yes, a mayor. So comparable to the front-runner for the nomination.Not in terms of power, but to show that those ideas are not so much fringe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin et al. Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 Can we all at least agree that the Dickey Amendment needs to be repealed so the CDC can actually study gun violence in AMerica in a meaningful way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 Can we all at least agree that the Dickey Amendment needs to be repealed so the CDC can actually study gun violence in AMerica in a meaningful way?Serious question... Why the CDC? I'm not against studying this, but I don't get why the CDC is the right agency for it. I get that you can sort of spin it as a public heath concern, but that connection seems sort of dubious to me. Isn't the CDC mostly made up of medical scientists? Admittedly, i don't really know fuck all about the CDC, so there may be some kind of obvious reason that I'm just missing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonSnow4President Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 Serious question... Why the CDC? I'm not against studying this, but I don't get why the CDC is the right agency for it. I get that you can sort of spin it as a public heath concern, but that connection seems sort of dubious to me. Isn't the CDC mostly made up of medical scientists? Admittedly, i don't really know fuck all about the CDC, so there may be some kind of obvious reason that I'm just missing.Isn't the Dickey Amendment about mental health study, and specifically banning it as it relates to guns? If I'm recalling that correctly, I would say it fits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 Well, why should the medical implications of wide spread gun ownership not be allowed to be scrutinized? You may think that it's unnecessary, but that shouldn't make that research illegal. And perhaps it even produces findings that are favorable to the gun lobby (unlikely, I think, but still possible). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 Well, why should the medical implications of wide spread gun ownership not be allowed to be scrutinized? You may think that it's unnecessary, but that shouldn't make that research illegal. And perhaps it even produces findings that are favorable to the gun lobby (unlikely, I think, but still possible).I don't know what you mean by 'medical implications of widespread gun ownership,'Isn't the Dickey Amendment about mental health study, and specifically banning it as it relates to guns? If I'm recalling that correctly, I would say it fits.I'm not sure. I'll do some googling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin et al. Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 Serious question... Why the CDC? I'm not against studying this, but I don't get why the CDC is the right agency for it. I get that you can sort of spin it as a public heath concern, but that connection seems sort of dubious to me. Isn't the CDC mostly made up of medical scientists? Admittedly, i don't really know fuck all about the CDC, so there may be some kind of obvious reason that I'm just missing.It just seems odd to have a flat out ban. Nothing may come from lifting it, but it should have never been put in place. And the guy who submitted the amendment wants it repealed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 The CDC covers public health broadly, not just medical illnesses. As such, all leading causes of death are within its purview. For instance the CDC receives funding for research on traffic safety, since car accidents are a sizable cause of death. Gun deaths are close to and perhaps even exceed traffic deaths, but the CDC cannot receive funding to research the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Agrippa Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 I'll vote for Sanders in the primary and Hillary in the main if she wins but Maryland doesn't matter. I have a feeling trump is going to win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 I'll vote for Sanders in the primary and Hillary in the main if she wins but Maryland doesn't matter. I have a feeling trump is going to winI would pay 199 bucks to watch trump and clinton debate on PPV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 Preventing the study of firearms impact on public health is pretty silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonSnow4President Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 The CDC covers public health broadly, not just medical illnesses. As such, all leading causes of death are within its purview. For instance the CDC receives funding for research on traffic safety, since car accidents are a sizable cause of death. Gun deaths are close to and perhaps even exceed traffic deaths, but the CDC cannot receive funding to research the problem.Than yeah, it needs to happen. Ideally, just eliminate any redundancy by making sure ATF/DoJ isn't already doing the (exact) same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 Time Magazine did an interview with Trump. It's interesting how he likes to repeat sentences (I guess for emphasis?) and sometimes speaks in almost a stream-of-consciousness way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pro Augustis Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 To be fair a Democrat mayor in one of the confederacy states proposed the same thing with the same fdr rationale a few weeks ago. He didn't get base traction, but democrats did it first, not trump. That is something worth remembering. I'm usually glad that the democrats do not obsessively primary one another, but perhaps I was mistaken to be. I surely don't want this fellow as a representative of my party in any fashion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biglose Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 @AltherionIf you do not cheat and just read the whole text and afterwards try to remember what was written. The first thing comming to your mind (with the one exception of maybe the thing in the first paragraph because it is written twice) will be his phrases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elarte Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 Preventing the study of firearms impact on public health is pretty silly.Not if you're Smith & Wesson or other firearm companies that see your profits tripled after a few months of tragedies and the president saying, "hey, we should maybe do something about this." Then you have a very serious incentive to make sure no one can produce a concrete study to show how harmful this county's obsession with fetishizing guns has become. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.