>> ^csnel3:

>> ^Jinx:
I'm trying to imagine the tone of the news story if this happened in Europe.
I think my problem with guns is they escalate the confrontation. "Fortunately" it seems she didn't give him a chance, because a chance is a risk when there is a gun involved and it doesn't matter who's hands it happens to be in. She hesitates and he overpowers her, or he pulls his own gun and is a better aim and what started out as burglary is now a murder and that kid grows up without any parents.
I can't really condemn her actions though. Just that a guy is dead, even if it was some crook.

I'm trying to imagine WTF you're talking about. The gun didnt "escalate" the situation, it difused it. Are you ignoring the fact the guy was armed with a knife? Why is your scenario based on total fantasy instead of reality? What if she didnt have a gun, and the VERY REAL, ARMED INTRUDER murdered her. How do you come to the conclusion it started out as a burglary? He was breaking down the door armed with a 12" knife! This is a very simple story of a person protecting themselves, no need to add bunch of hypothetical BS to it. I realize that you are trying to justify your "problen with guns", but, this is the WRONG story to use as an anti-gun argument.

It escalated the situation because it was difused with a gun...you know, as in somebody is dead. How is that hard to understand 0.o. I'd hate to have the Cold War difused in the same manner.


I didn't conclude that it started out as a burglary. It was hypothetical. As is the assumption he was out to kill her.

Is this a good story to support my argument? No, not really, but then stories aren't good evidence anyway. Consider that stories where a guy breaks in, steals a TV and leaves without incident don't tend to get much media coverage.

And yes, I was justifying my position. Sorry if I ruined the mood on this success story for guns.

>> ^Jinx:
I'm trying to imagine the tone of the news story if this happened in Europe.
I think my problem with guns is they escalate the confrontation. "Fortunately" it seems she didn't give him a chance, because a chance is a risk when there is a gun involved and it doesn't matter who's hands it happens to be in. She hesitates and he overpowers her, or he pulls his own gun and is a better aim and what started out as burglary is now a murder and that kid grows up without any parents.
I can't really condemn her actions though. Just that a guy is dead, even if it was some crook.

I'm trying to imagine WTF you're talking about. The gun didnt "escalate" the situation, it difused it. Are you ignoring the fact the guy was armed with a knife? Why is your scenario based on total fantasy instead of reality? What if she didnt have a gun, and the VERY REAL, ARMED INTRUDER murdered her. How do you come to the conclusion it started out as a burglary? He was breaking down the door armed with a 12" knife! This is a very simple story of a person protecting themselves, no need to add bunch of hypothetical BS to it. I realize that you are trying to justify your "problem with guns", but, this is the WRONG story to use as an anti-gun argument.

>> ^Diogenes:

@criticalthud
let's be really clear... i agree with your position on corporate personhood
but... we can use "citizens united" to abbreviate the scotus decision: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission... and how that decision has overturned several previous legal precedents and aspects of bcra -- and we can also use "citizens united" to refer directly to the non-profit group of the same name...
i'm just pointing out the latter (the npo) filed suit against the fec because they felt that a media corporation (moore, et al) was violating bcra - the fec dismissed their complaint -- then the group made a similar 'documentary' about hillary clinton and promoted it with the same style and timing of moore's anti-bush film - a lower court barred it, stating that it violated the bcra -- this background led us to the troubling scotus decision
what i was pointing out was that bcra, etc, was already allowing corporate political advocacy through the media, i.e. movie producers, book publishers, newspaper conglomerates, and television networks, etc
this, imho, is what really muddies the waters


thanks i really appreciate the clarification. muddy waters for sure. You raise some good points. Especially in distinguishing an over-reach of political influence from entertainment and documentary media. But are we getting to the point where campaign finance legislation will necessarily intrude on free press and the works of film-makers? what is your take? I would prefer to think that legislation could and should be narrowly tailored in this instance.
and (edit)
@bmacs24 I think it makes sense to start with the fundamental underlying legal ambiguity by which the power grab occurs. The war on "terror" is another ambiguous area of laws that also leads to incredible abuse.
Otherwise you find yourself caught in the minutiae, trying to re-arrange the top bricks on the shit-stack

Actually the failures in "socialist Europe" are down to capitalists fucking things up. OTOH places like Norway which has essentially nationalised it's oil industry are actually doing well.

Of course you're going to blame "capitalists" for socialism's downfall, what choice do you have? Norway? Great example! The were smart enough to stay OUT of the EU. However, in 30 years, when the oil runs low...

As for your Obama quote, I don't actually think you have read it correctly because it doesn't even remotely support your position, not that you've ever let reality intrude on your juvenile little rants.

The quote is quite apt. A king decides who may and who may not prosper in his kingdom. A US President daring to decide the same? TYRANNY.

And Marx? You remind me of Zapp Brannigan: we don't know anything about them, so we can only assume they stand for everything we don't stand for!


Everything I've written about marx is accurate. Please point to some real-world examples of free, prosperous marxist nations.


>> ^ChaosEngine:

Actually the failures in "socialist Europe" are down to capitalists fucking things up. OTOH places like Norway which has essentially nationalised it's oil industry are actually doing well.
As for your Obama quote, I don't actually think you have read it correctly because it doesn't even remotely support your position, not that you've ever let reality intrude on your juvenile little rants.
And Marx? You remind me of Zapp Brannigan: we don't know anything about them, so we can only assume they stand for everything we don't stand for!
>> ^quantumushroom:
Not overly interested in whether my comrades here think I sufficiently understand marx, he's the left's savior, not mine. Not only was marx a lousy human being and horrible in his personal handling of money, he thought the profit motive could be stripped from the system and it would work just as well.
Then we get this from His Earness:
“You don’t have some inherent right just to–-you know, get a certain amount of profit."
Words more befitting the late, ungreat kim ill-dong
Is 3.5 years of this idiot's failures not enough for ya? You need 4 more? Hey, Siftberals, take a peek at socialist Europe, broke as a joke and falling apart. THIS is the crap you want for the US?
Anyone-But-His-Earness 2012

Actually the failures in "socialist Europe" are down to capitalists fucking things up. OTOH places like Norway which has essentially nationalised it's oil industry are actually doing well.

As for your Obama quote, I don't actually think you have read it correctly because it doesn't even remotely support your position, not that you've ever let reality intrude on your juvenile little rants.

And Marx? You remind me of Zapp Brannigan: we don't know anything about them, so we can only assume they stand for everything we don't stand for!

>> ^quantumushroom:

Not overly interested in whether my comrades here think I sufficiently understand marx, he's the left's savior, not mine. Not only was marx a lousy human being and horrible in his personal handling of money, he thought the profit motive could be stripped from the system and it would work just as well.
Then we get this from His Earness:
“You don’t have some inherent right just to–-you know, get a certain amount of profit."
Words more befitting the late, ungreat kim ill-dong
Is 3.5 years of this idiot's failures not enough for ya? You need 4 more? Hey, Siftberals, take a peek at socialist Europe, broke as a joke and falling apart. THIS is the crap you want for the US?
Anyone-But-His-Earness 2012

Compared to the State, you and I can vote with our dollars and decide which businesses--including corporations and banks--live or die, but bad law is forever.

Banks didn't cause the housing collapse; do-gooder, vote-buying lefties who decided everyone should have a house whether they can afford it or not did. The State coerced and enticed banks to make stupid decisions with promises any mistakes would be "covered" by taxpayers.

Betwixt capitalism and the State, the necessary evil that is the State causes more injury, threatens more freedoms and is the greater of the two evils.


Modern libertarianism is the disguise adopted by those who wish to exploit without restraint. It pretends that only the state intrudes on our liberties. It ignores the role of banks, corporations and the rich in making us less free. It denies the need for the state to curb them in order to protect the freedoms of weaker people. This bastardized, one-eyed philosophy is a con trick, whose promoters attempt to wrongfoot justice by pitching it against liberty. By this means they have turned “freedom” into an instrument of oppression.

gonna miss him .. funny and smart

intrude and then pretend they didnt, and anyone doing the same thing is evil and against them .. mental illness...

Really cool POV. I hope this catches on, although our society doesn't really need another possible way of intruding on privacy. I gotta get myself a tinfoil hat, and a video-camera-mounted-r.c-helicopter-swat.

the tea party viewed government as being the intruder while OWS views wall street but i submit they are one in the same

I agree. There are some areas of real common ground that exist between these two very different groups. I have always maintained that OWS - as a group - is simply mad at the wrong target. They really should pull up thier camps right now and decend on Washington DC.

But the problem is as I stated above. The Tea Party is comprised of 'average people' that go across the spectrum. OWS is composed mostly of college students who favor leftist causes. Mixing 'average america' with 'angry, left-wing college students' it is like mixing oil and water. They may have a couple points of commonanlity, but they are very different in many other respects and start diverging rapidly. For example - OWS is being supported by the Communist Party as well as National Socialists (yeah Nazis). The average american can't and does NOT want to have anything to do with such radicals, but the OWS crowd seems OK with them.

I hope those who rallied with the tea party will join hands with those in wall street (and italy,greece and ireland) and make such a ruckus that they make politicians pee themselves in fear.

That is simply going to be impossible when the OWS guys keep behaving badly. The Tea Party wants nothing to do with the hedonism, radicalism, and other shenanigans that OWS accepts as par for the course. That's what I mean when I say OWS is never going to go anywhere until they clean up thier act.

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker
well said my friend.you just succinctly put in to perspective americas older generations view on OWS and the disconnect between "the tea party" and 'OWS".
now there really is no disconnect,not really,the disconnect lies in semantics only.
the tea party viewed government as being the intruder while OWS views wall street but i submit they are one in the same.both working to keep the institutions and concentration of power and money in the same hands to the detriment of the populace and they have become so entrenched and corrupted that neither can function without the other and always,ALWAYS it is the most vulnerable who are left to drown.

(i say lets take private monies out of public elections.that would be a great start)

you state the "average american" has a 401k,property etc etc.
this is true if you are retired or near retirement but this is no longer the case and has not been for many years.hence the disconnect between the older and younger generations,yet both generations are angry and upset and are starting to make some noise.i find this to be a very good thing (the noise,not the disconnect).

but i do disagree with you on "finding a specific message".the tea party started out organically and as people related to the shared feeling of frustration and outrage.they found a message, they began to come together and then what happened?
they became corporately sponsored ie:koch brothers.
and their message became a weird amalgam of frustration and palinisms and what was once a movement that was beginning to be heard became co-opted in to a politicians wet-dream of free publicity.

so i say keep the non-distinct yet palpable rage and keep the message broad and inclusive because as history teaches us:if the powerful cant beat ya.
they will co-opt ya.
(before they kill ya).

i hope those who rallied with the tea party will join hands with those in wall street (and italy,greece and ireland) and make such a ruckus that they make politicians pee themselves in fear.
because the only thing a government,crown,caliphate or grand poo-ba is afraid of are people coming to their door-step enmasse.see:end of vietnam war.

It was amazing! There is so much to know about this gentle soul.
He hands out ukeleles , just in case one is needed.
He chants loudly at intruders.
He was a , Dad, a Beatle, a Gardner....

That's right up there with their "Bed Intruder Song"!

http://videosift.com/video/Auto-Tune-the-News-Bed-Intruder-Song

I am oversimplifying things a bit here, but here's how I see it.

========================================================================

I am a merchant with a peach orchard, and I want to sell the best peaches to the market.

You are a farmer who knows how to grow peach trees, and pick all the peaches and throw them in a basket.

I hired you to make best peaches to sell to the market. But lately I've been getting some bad batches. Most are excellent peaches, but some were too tart. I address the issue and tell you that some of the batches were bad.

You, the farmer, tell me that all your batches are of excellent quality, and the batch you have today is all excellent. So I, as a merchant, pay you for your work and sell the peaches at the market. Again, some good peaches, and a few bad ones. Now word is going around that people who eat my peaches get stomach aches. Nobody wants to buy peaches from me anymore.

I goto you and tell you that I want the best quality peaches. Farmer says there's nothing he can do about it because peaches all look the same to him, and he just picks them from a tree and throw it in the basket.

I, as a merchant, want quality control. So I now hire a professional picker who can tell the difference between good peaches from bad ones when he picks them from the trees.

You, as a farmer, is upset because I've now hired this extra person into the farm who takes away from our profit margin. But I, as a merchant, tell you that we have to keep quality control if we want to keep our customers. Otherwise, I will have to stop doing business with you and find another peach farmer.

You are upset because I am intruding your rights into your job and expertise. I am upset because you refuse to control the quality of your peaches. And I am forced to impose quality control because you are not doing your part of the job as the producer.

=============================================

This is how I see the situation. The community must actively differentiate themselves from these bad seeds instead of hiding them and defending them. By doing so, you are protecting the very thing that are out to hurt you. If you fail to differentiate yourself, then we have no choice to take all of those involved with the same assumption. The community may argue that these people are crazy and these radicals have nothing to do with them. And yet, these radicals are still within their community. Nobody within the community is willing to fish them out, because they see it as turning their backs on their own kind.

And there lies the irony. The community may say they are different, and yet they still won't fish out the bad guys within the community, treating them as part of their family. It is the community's responsibility to look after its members, including keeping quality control. By refusing to keep control, you are avoiding responsibility. And someone else, whether you like it or not, will have to take up the duty.


I've made a detailed comment here: http://videosift.com/video/NYPD-is-Morphing-into-the-CIA#comment-1279011

If you disagree with what I've just said, feel free to read the extra comments and then respond.

Worf! Secure these intruders in the holo-deck. Make it so.