text:
The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...
Careful Clay,you're challenging a deeply held belief system. These guys don't want to be reminded that gun ownership increases their risk of a mishap.
Plus,owning a hand gun makes one feel more powerful and in control. Real men don't want to have to tell their lady friends that they don't have protection (a gun that is).
If everone has a gun, then there would be no more crime.
For the facts, read the book MORE GUNS LESS CRIME, or at least read its title. (I've read reviews, but not the book.)
For comparison, car "ownership increases" the "risk of a mishap," eh? For disasters, didn't our gun-banning British cousins have the latest two-figure massacre? When I was a teenager, I thought "well regulated" the key words in the 2nd Amendment; but when I became a man, I put away childish things and realized that "free" is the key word.
Let us never forget that four of the nine SC justices STILL do not accept "Heller" as a precedent, nor will they ever accept THIS ruling as precedent. Nor will they accept ANY ruling that decides the 2nd Amendment is for the people, not the government.
Those four are holding their breath waiting for their fifth judge so they can overturn the whole works and determine that it applies ONLY to the government...all others need not apply.
So don't pack away your guns and ammo yet...we still aren't in the clear. [This is one reason why Maobama, aka Dear Leader, wants to control the Internet.]
Guns don't cause accidental, homicidal or suicidal deaths in the home, they just make it more convenient. Parents and grandparents have to put kids first when it comes to keeping firearms for personal protection, which may mean lock and key or separating ammo and firearms.
Statistically you're more likely to cause/have an accidental death if you own a pool, compared to owning a gun.
Of course, it's a little harder to carry a pool into a bar or keep one in your car. And pools are not good for home defense, getting revenge, or for running amuck.
Rolando, bit off topic, but you brought it up: "[This is one reason why Maobama, aka Dear Leader, wants to control the Internet.]"
I'm deeply disturbed about a law that gives the government power to shut down the internet in case of emergency, but do you concede that the internet could be the next arena for national security concerns? Remember the Chinese got caught messing around in our power grid. There needs to be plans and legal structure for a potential problem in the interwebs. Obama's administration is a complete disaster, but I don't think the bill is about Obama wanting to keep you from reading Glenn Beck's blog. . .
Doesn't D.C. have the highest crime rate in the nation? (they did the last time I saw the figures, but I admit it's been a while) And they aren't allowed to own handguns... but there just CAN'T be a connection there. Can there?
Dewey60, YOU are a sad state of affairs for America. You disgust me.
Dewey - you disgust me too! I hate it when your right.
Nice cartoon Clay but a waste of time none the less. Between your previous efforts and the editorial opinions, is there really anything new to say?
How about getting current with something that really affects the day to day lives of the citizens. like the city budget.
If Clay knew any of the actual statistics regarding firearms, especially when it comes to self-defense, violent crime rates, etc, then maybe he would reconsider this ignorant cartoon. The SCOTUS ruling yesterday should not have even been necessary; the Constitution should be sufficient.
Clay Bennett isn't scared of you or any of your cronies. He is a professional cartoonist with a Pulitzer Prize. Often syndicated in newspapers all over the country.
He didn't get rid of the Elena Kagan cartoon! It is still on the website. You just don't know where to look because your surface only, black and white, conservative eyes are blind.
How self-important can you be to believe you could scare him off?
Get a grip.
Aces, I support the ownership of guns. But, when you write, "The SCOTUS ruling yesterday should not have even been necessary; the Constitution should be sufficient", I'm afraid it isn't that cut and dried. That literal reading of the constitution says that any and all weapons that a militia would use should be able to be owned by citizens. In modern warfare, that would include machine guns, RPG's, land mines, etc. etc. I think the Chicago law and the discussion in the courts was over how much restriction local governments can apply. I think most everyone would agree that it should be illegal for citizens to own certain military grade weapons, but it starts to get a little a gray when you argue that banning handguns still allows citizens to own long guns, which is good enough to meet the constitution's requirement that the citizens can form an armed militia. Again, I support citizens owning handguns and long guns, but I can see where the details need to be hashed out in the court. For instance, is it reasonable for the government to keep guns out of bars?
As many of you know,Canada does not allow hand guns.There is no legal way to buy,but some do get smuggled past the border. Many Canadians own rifles and love to hunt,but the public very much supports the hand gun ban. I suspect that support is reinforced daily by the hand gun violence news from the US.
The Victoria BC metro area population is about the same as Chattanooga and yet hand gun shootings almost don't occur. In 2009 we had two gun deaths.
The gun culture is so entrenched in the US,however,that,even if public opinion were to move against hand guns,it would take decades to reverse the current hand gun preference and proliferation.
It is what it is.
Ah. THIS is more like it! Twenty-two comments and going strong!
EaTN, thanks for the great laugh re: yr 0759 post. A great one...even if you meant it.
Shock, study the uses of the Internet re: the medium we are currently using. It has effectively destroyed the very long control the Left-Progs have had over the spreading of information through newspapers. It has been so effective at keeping people informed of what is REALLY happening without government/Left-Prog censorship that our PRESIDENT wants to turn it off. We already lose our voice communications -- cell phone, landlines, etc -- in the event of a major catastrophe in the name of national security.
I say to H*ll with closing down our ability to talk to each other in the name of national security. Staying informed IS national security. Maobama simply wants to use the authority to stop us from opposing his ill thought-out plans...that's the Chicago way. Make no mistake, he will manufacture a reason for the shutdown.
Shock, the problem with the gray area is it always ever-expanding to meet the agenda of the political powers at work. The intention of the of 2nd Amendment was to ensure that every citizen has the right (and in my opinion, the responsibility) to defend themselves with the same force that can be brought against them. You do bring up a good point with "military" grade weapons, but if you think about it, any person who wants to do harm using such items could attempt to create these regardless if it is legal or not, as they are obviously not concerned about the law. For example, a land mine is nothing more than a triggered explosive. Anyone who really wants to create a crude version of one of these probably could.
I do agree that some questions are still left unanswered. But I would like to see more emphasis on answering these questions within the context of the Constitution rather than a focus on case law. A close 5-4 decision on a right granted by the Constitution is cause for great concern.
To answer your question of guns in bars, I believe an individual has every right to carry in a bar. However, with this comes the great responsibility to the individual to have the proper conduct. Very few would argue that a gun should not be in the hands of the intoxicated. An easy comparison would be to automobiles.
Once upon a time, Shock, citizens WERE allowed to have everything the military had...if they could afford it. Then it was decided that only the police could have certain guns...today it is impossible to see the difference between a local police officer and a military member when each is equipped for battle.
We, the people, are SUPPOSED to protect ourselves from our oppressors, foreign and domestic -- read our founding documents...it is, in fact, our duty.
The reason for the 2nd Amendment wasn't only so we could repel a foreign army; it was equally -- perhaps primarily -- meant to ensure our OWN government did not turn into dictators, socialists, etc and seize unconstitutional powers [like it is doing today in the name of interstate commerce].
Why do you think the uber-control freak Left-Progs want to outlaw them? To reduce crime? Now that's a joke. Look at England, look at Canada [G20 riots, anyone??], look at Australia, look anywhere guns for the people are outlawed and you will see how violent crimes do NOT drop when the people are disarmed.
Time after time, state after state, personal ownership of handguns reduces crime. Every time.
There are two vastly different ways to view the issue of gun ownership.
If there were NO guns, NOBODY would ever get shot to death. It's a fundamental truth, but we're beyond that because there are too many guns out there and collecting them all would be all but impossible.
To coin a widely repeated phrase, "When guns are outlawed in America, only American outlaws will have guns."
Owning a firearm for protection of our property and person is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. Contrary to popular belief by at least one curmudgeon who haunts these hallowed halls, our President has no interest in taking away firearms from private citizens lawfully allowed to own them. He's gone on record many times on that issue.
Criminals will always seek to perpetrate their crimes when and where their chances of not only getting away with the crime is likely, but also when and where they are also least likely to be harmed themselves for their trouble.
Thus, there is not reason to deny anyone who qualifies to own a firearm for self-protection, from doing so, up to and including them being allowed to have it on their person. But there are limits to everything. There is no justifiable reason for a private citizen to have possession of any military grade firearm that is in working condition.
"Why?" Because most people who own such weaponry rarely keep the fact that they own them a secret and because far too many of them wind up in the hands of criminals.
Gun ownership comes with a tremendous amount of responsibility, and anyone who owns a gun should be extremely careful to protect everyone in the immediate vicinity of that firearm from having access to it, for all the WRONG reasons.
A gun should never be accessible to anyone who is angry, despondent, or to someone who is too young to know how to use it.
Remember forever that at no time in the history of this world, has a gun has ever magically picked itself up off a table, pointed itself at a human being, and pulled the trigger all by itself.
A gun can indeed be a means by which life is destroyed, but it has also many times been a means by which lives have been saved.
Has anyone considered the issue of borders when it comes to handguns and Canada, England,etc? It's not like Canada has thousands of illegal drug smugglers from Maine or Minnesota crashing across the border daily, and the channel has always been a good land barrier for England.
"But there are limits to everything. There is no justifiable reason for a private citizen to have possession of any military grade firearm that is in working condition.
"Why?" Because most people who own such weaponry rarely keep the fact that they own them a secret and because far too many of them wind up in the hands of criminals."
If you have some info or facts on this, please share. And define "military grade" firearm in your words, please. One could argue that the M9 Service Pistol (civilian: Beretta 92FS) is "military grade". Also, the 7.62 and 5.56 rifle rounds are standard NATO "military grade" ammunition calibers that are commonly available in the US.
With concerns of such weapons getting into the wrong hands, bad guys can always find a way to acquire such weapons on their own. As a comparison, cocaine and other such drugs are clearly illegal, yet people still have the ability to find and purchase them.
Okay, I'll pin that one down for you, aces25, although you are arguing for argument's sake.
No private citizen has a legitimate need to own a working firearm capable of discharging more than 16 rounds of ammunition in rapid fire succession.
If after you have discharged 16 rounds of ammunition and you have not alleviated the reason that it became necessary to defend your property or person, one of two things is evident;
You are either totally unqualified to discharge a gun, or;
You may have become totally too self-confident because you are armed, but placed yourself in a situation that you simply cannot shoot your way out of, which makes anyone in such a situation...pretty much a fool.
Nucanuck said: As many of you know,Canada does not allow hand guns. That's false. Canada does have strict laws restritcing all gun ownership, especially handgun ownership. But they do prohibit SOME handguns. But not all. I believe the law is if the barrel is under 4 inches and/or certain calibers are restricted completely. But other handguns are legal, with proper paperwork. Yeah, the murder rate by guns is lower in Canada than in US. But the murder rate without guns is also lower in Canada than in US. That means that guns aren't the only factor in murders... right? So what else does Canada do better than us to keep the murder rate down? Can you say Canadians are happier than us? Is that why? Well the suicide rate is higher in Canada than US... so that probably isn't it. Maybe it's that there is less of an influx of illegal immigrants to Canada (cause, really, who wants to go there)? How many murders or homicides in US each year are commited by illegal aliens? Are those particular statistics even available? I haven't been able to find them. What other causes could there be besides "America has more guns!" for violence in the US?
Yes, yes, Rolando. I know about the Bill of Rights and absolutely agree the second amendment, like the others, is in place to make sure that citizens are not trampled under the heel of a tyrannical government. The point of my comment is that in modern times with modern weapons, things need to be clarified, and some people could make the argument that banning handguns still allows for a militia (not my opinion, by the way) as outlined in the constitution. You're not advocating that those who can afford it should be allowed to own nuclear bombs or cruise missile systems are you?
We have the right to bear arms.. Criminals have guns..So Every american has the right to carry gun to protect themselves and and his family..This is common sense...If you have a gun permit and pass all test and background check then you should be able to carry a gun anywhere ya want that includes parks.
Having lived approx. half my life in Canada and the other half here (born in the USA and proud to be an American), I will weigh in on guns, terrorists and violence in Canada vs. the US, and to counterbalance the pap and untruths from one cuck, living on the exclusive, secluded Fairyland, Vancouver Island.
(I lived and worked on farms, ranches, in most large Canadian cities, provinces and a few small towns. I have family and friends spread across the country from Vancouver and suburbs to Nova Scotia and everywhere in between, north and South. One of my cousins was a Judge in the Northwest Territories-the wild, wild northwest. The following facts begin in the 1960's and continue to this day).
1) Pretty well all native Indians, farmers and ranchers own multiple guns and other weapons in order to protect their land, their families and their animals. And they use them frequently. The Canadian Gov't tried on numerous occasions to take away their guns, and finally relented because of the outcry. The Gov't succeeded in taking away the guns of the non-farming/ranching citizens (along with many other rights over the years).
2) First Nations Land and Reservations are sacrosanct. The Gov't is NOT allowed to enter, remove or in any way disturb the rights and the possessions of any of the Clans. They are the only peoples in Canada allowed to make and sell liquor and tobacco off or on the reservations. Ditto for fishing and hunting rights.
3) In the 60's and 70's, the French Canadian Terrorists/activists (the FLQ) rose up and armed themselves with guns, homemade bombs and any other weapons they could find and took to the streets to protest having to be a part of English Canada and being told what to do by the Canuck Gov't (they liked getting supported monetarily by the rest of Canada though). The last straw was when they kidnapped a politician, killed him and stuffed his body in a car trunk. My stepsister and her boyfriend were living in Montreal at the time (I was in Vanc., disclosure: I am part French, but not a terrorist, for those on the Left who will probably ASSUME). She and her mate were ripped out of their beds in the wee hours, naked, by RCMP and CSIS Agents, with bright lights on them and copters hovering around the building. They were taken to the MPD station and interrogated and then released. Police thought they were the FLQ. My S-sister packed her bags after that and moved back to Britain and never looked back.
She was 4'5" and 80 lbs soaking wet, so being man-handled by huge men in masks, toting machine guns slightly unnerved her. I thought it was an adventure and urged her to stay. She went home anyway, married a smart attorney and lived happily ever after-I think.
4) In Montreal, Vancouver, Toronto and Calgary Chinatowns, the Chinese 'Mafia' extort funds from shopkeepers (and have for decades now), at the point of a gun; threaten, rob and intimidate the residents. One of my old, old friends from Canton Province in China was the first woman with her husband to open a Chinese restaurant in Toronto. She has since passed on, but I recall asking her about coping with the guns and violence in Chinatown and she said, "you know, it's not the ones from my generation, it's these snakes from Hong Kong. Now they run everything and we have to give them hush money. They kill for little or no reason." Toronto and Montreal have long had a large, Sicilian Mafia as well as the violence (and guns and knives) that go along with it.
5) Since those days, we've had in Canada: Muslim and Sikh terrorists building bombs on Vancouver Island, Calgary, Montreal and Toronto. Blowing them up, attempting to or crossing the Bellingham/US border on their way down to LA to blow IT up. We've had mucho gun violence across the country from Montreal/Toronto to Vancouver and all the way up and across the Northwest. The Canadian Gov't allowed all sorts of wonderful folks to 'emigrate' there like the Somalian Warlords who brought their multiple wives, children, cousins et al, parked them in various cities where the Can Gov't rented houses for them and gave them welfare checks. The checks were BIG because the families were huge. Then one day, the story broke. These families were sending taxpayer-funded welfare money back to Rwanda and Somalia to pay for weapons for the warlords.
6) Sikhs were busy as bees building bombs-like the one built on the cuck's Island that blew up 300 people on the flight over Lockerbie, Scotland. Muslims blew up synagogues in Calgary and Montreal. Sikhs stuffed their daughters-in-law in trunks of cars in Vancouver (and still do) and set them on fire. Because the "brides dowry" is not enough. Gangs of anti-war/anti-establishment/anti-US/anti-everything, Canadian youth blow up and shoot vehicles, property, people, police and anything that moves. Why? Because they can and they have nothing else to do.
When your society gives you 'free' welfare, 'free' school, 'free' pot cafes and methadone clinics, and there are no jobs for you-what else is there to do? Media in Canada was (and still is largely) tightly controlled (I know because I came out of that system), except for the Internet. That is their latest challenge and is in their best interests to control it, as the US Gov't is attempting to through the FCC and its agencies. Obama has his key Marxists in place now. And they're already placing certain people in radio stations out west to control that media. Canada does the same and more. Ditto Britain.
My British family and friends also saw the same and worse happen over the last 30-40 years when the citizenry was disarmed IN CONJUNCTION with a complete Social Restructuring of the Free Enterprise system, implementing principles from socialistic/marxist societies whereby all Gov't/media/financial complexes were Nationalized and/or Centralized.
Worldwide Gov'ts know wherefore they act: one action does not exclude the other, they go hand in hand.
Does anyone else see any connections as I have over the years?
The citizens in Canada, Britain and Europe have been disarmed. The increase of immigrants with violent intentions AND the ability to get weapons has also increased. BTW, on our southern borders, Agents have seen an increase in captures of foreign (muslim) terrorists with Russian and Chinese weapons and bomb materials on their persons.
There is also, sadly, an increase over the decades of children obtaining deadly weapons and using them on their families, friends, teachers and other students.
I've also noticed, when I've lived near or on farms, ranches, etc., there is almost no gun violence and life is far more peaceful. When I've lived in inner city ghettos or suburbs, there has been an abundance of violence, gun fuelled or otherwise. There are more 'controls', more police and more criminals with weapons, AND more violence.
A farmer or rancher brings up his children to know and respect guns and other weapons. His children work hard alongside him and their mother. They are obedient and respect others. They rarely get into trouble and it's never the drug/sex/rock n' roll kind (unless they move to the big city). That might sound like a generalization, but that's pretty well been my experience and that of many folks around the world that I've had the pleasure of knowing over the years.
Walden | On: June 30, 2010 at 9:17 a.m.
"..But for those of us who know how to handle them, we will keep our constitutionally provided right to own them, thank you."
I agree, but with one minor change.
The Constitution does not provide "rights" for anything except the right of the Fed government to exist. It also tells them what they are obligated to do, and enumerates the real obvious things the feds may NOT do.
The 2nd Amendment is not about the people, it is an admonishment to the feds about what they may NOT do. They are not allowed to infringe upon our pre-existing right keep and bear arms.
Our rights are not provided by the Constitution.
This is an important detail that gets left out of the discussion in our modern mis-education system.
I'm very pleased that the 2nd Amendment has now been applied to states and local governments, just like most of the rest of the enumerated civil rights.
As for the art. I've been seeing similar graphic ideas for a long time. "suicide gun" Oh well.
I just noticed something about this toon that reminded me of the back covers of the old Highlights magazines. Has anyone else found the part of the picture that's out of place?
SCOTTY, if "our rights are not provided by the Constitution" then where do they come from?
I thought in the past you've made many legal positivism arguments regarding the constitution, specifically regarding Gay Marriage. Perhaps that wasn't you.
Are you saying individuals who are against Gay Marriage can't use legal positivism to combat it? It seems to be the primary argument I've heard here.
Sorry for stepping in here, Scotty, but I believe our rights are spelled out for us in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
The cylinder release would be hard to use.
I may have stated something to the effect that the right to "gay marriage" does not exist. I have stated that I believe that creating the right to "gay marriage" would require an amendment to the the Constitution as there is no historical evidence to support the idea of "gay marriage" as being an innate right possessed by all American citizens. It would need to be created out of thin air. Keep discussing it and someday there will be historical evidence that a small portion of the population does believe it to be an innate right.
I'm fairly certain the framers did not consider that the federal entity should be restricted from stopping the exercise of rights which never existed.
I do believe that the right to consensually consort with whomever one wishes is real.
I do believe that the right to co-habitat, co-mingle financial interests(insurance), and generally be a legally bound couple in concert with whomever one wishes is real.
I also believe that the term "gay marriage" is an oxymoron.
U.S. History is full of affirmations of the innate rights of man. The rights to free speech, open protest, free practice of religion(or not), personal possession of firearms, freedom from coercion, and the freedom to be secure in our homes and with our private property, among others, play a large role. "Gay marriage", not so much.
Fair enough scotty. I can appreciate your point of view. But for the record, you just made a legal positivist argument. Magna Carta defied this concept. I'm not saying that to try to make these types of arguments totally illigitimate. It's just that they can severely limit freedom and progress and equal protection under the law.
And musicman375, I've read the Declaration of Indpendence. It talks mainly about how the King failed to act fairly or consistently toward the colonies. Perhaps you can show me where the right to bear arms is defined in that document.
I'm not going to debate whether the people should have the right to bear arms.
I just asked where our rights come from. I mean, really, where do they come from?
I think scotty is onto something when he implies that a lot of our rights and beliefs are born out of tradition and the way things have always been. While tradition is frequently something to be revered and frequently possesses wisdom of the ages for all the ages, history proves that tradition is not always the best precedent. We must constantly reevaluate.
We must always assimilate new knowledge. Discovery changes and challenges us all the time. We bring new rights into being to suit the greater good, often based on new realizations or changes in situations.
I guess what I'm saying is that many of our rights are simply a product of who we were... not always of who we are or what we now know.
I realize none of what I said, is an actual argument for Gay Marriage. I'm not actually trying to make the argument here.
However, I do think it's important that we constantly reassess ourselves, and our constitution, as we grow, learn and progress. And I think all of us should appreciate that some of the rights were appreciate today are here because some of our anscestors were brave enough to defy legal positivism arguments.
Good one, rolando.
Moonpie, I agree for the most part, although not that we always have to change for the sake of change. There are way too many new laws being written which just make the crazy jumble of a legal system even more difficult to understand and enforce.
"I think scotty is onto something when he implies that a lot of our rights and beliefs are born out of tradition and the way things have always been. While tradition is frequently something to be revered and frequently possesses wisdom of the ages for all the ages, history proves that tradition is not always the best precedent. We must constantly reevaluate."
That's why I believe those are the rights they speak of in the Declaration of Independence. It's vague, but makes sense.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
That goes hand in hand with what you said about rights being born out of tradition. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are about the most specific ones listed, but within those rights lie the implied rights received through tradition.
About the art...
I was noticing that the sight is mounted on the bottom of the barrel, but Scotty makes a good point about the cylinder release.
"However, I do think it's important that we constantly reassess ourselves, and our constitution, as we grow, learn and progress." That's the ideology of Progressivism and does not fit with the intent and spirit of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. We are not progressing in this country, we are regressing.
"I think scotty is onto something when he implies that a lot of our rights and beliefs are born out of tradition and the way things have always been." Our "rights" and freedoms were not born of 'Tradition' but came clearly and directly from our Judeo-Christian forefathers and foremothers. The Magna Carta and the US Constitution were formed and reasoned by men and women who knew the ancient writings and believed in and followed the laws, principles and ethics laid down from the beginning by their Creator. Our history books and classes have been whitewashed of much of these "inalienable truths" and the original documents need to be reexamined. Why? because these precepts and truths have worked for thousands of years and will continue to work, if kept in place for thousands more.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Therein exists the Law, but it is an empty vessel without the Spirit imbuing its essence and substance. When we have, as we do today, nefarious men and women of all stripes and none, coming from a place that has no regard for the above Documents and their Creator, then we have chaos and corruption. In our Courts, in our schools, homes, institutions and in our government.
The Founders and signers of the Constitution (or most of them) knew this. That is why the preamble to the Declaration says: "When in the course of human events, it becomes necesssary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's GOD ENTITLE THEM, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they declare the causes which impel them to the separation...."
A little further and it states all the conditions of tyranny the King of England unlawfully imposed upon his subjects, much of what we can see has happened here over the last hundred years or so, perverting the Constitution, not "progressing" it.
"He (the Tyrant) has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiquing them into compliance with his measures.." How many Bills and legislation have been passed over the decades that fit this description, especially all those in the last 18 months, behind closed doors, out of the public purview, written in illegible legalese and couched in thousands of words and amendments that no one has read before it's passed.
"He has erected a multitude of New Offices and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.." Present administration hired 16,000 new IRS officers to enforce the new healthcare legislation upon Americans and created new, onerous regulations for all businesses, especially a burden to small-medium businesses.
"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our Laws, giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended legislation..." The present president has done exactly this and more in concert with the UN and the EU, signing into law Dec/2009, a new pact of law enforcement upon US citizens, allowing Interpol all rights and privileges to search and seizure, up to and including imprisonment of US citizens without due notice or permission of the US Gov't. In Obama's speeches, he has mentioned often the "need to adhere and cooperate with International Law".
Andrew and like kind are correct when assessing man's interpretation and enforcement of the Law, contrasting that with our Creator's intent which is as He stated "I have a hope and a plan for your future. That is to bless you, not to bring you harm but prosper you.." His ways are not burdensome and corrupt. His ways do not enslave us, but free us and He intended that for ALL nations.
Obama is not God, nor a messiah, not even close. He is idolized and worshipped as such but he is false, changes his stories often, and shirks his duties as a strong and real leader. He is not prepared nor capable of strong Leadership and seeks to usurp power and wield it mightily, believing bigger Gov't and more Gov't is the answer. This is completely antithetical and against the intent and desires of the Creator and the Laws he created. So Obama and like kind will eventually fail, in fact already have been failing. Europe and the rest of the world rise and fall, kings come and go. Wars rage and peace is here one day, elusive the next. Great intellects pontificate and revered philosophers live and die.
For just under six thousands years we've had the Law, the Spirit and the Truth. Ancient writings and prophets to testify to these inalienable truths, 'rights' and freedoms. Some things change always and some things remain static, true and real in our lives. Why the obsession to change what has always been Good, True and Right? Ask those who are obsessed with 'change'. I doubt even they know that answer.
It's interesting to note, in light of the various 'interpretations' of the above noble documents over the years and of the slow seeping away of our inalienable rights and freedoms, that for twenty to thirty years after the signing of these documents, Americans, black and white, slave and free were more united than what we see today.
Women voted in 1796 (in Virginia I believe). We had Black Legislators, Officers and Veterans in the US Army, who received pensions and notable mention in various newspaper obituaries lauding their esteemed service. They were respected by our Leaders and buried side by side with their White comrades ( 1770's-early 1830's). That all changed and became divisive when Lincoln stepped in and emancipated slaves. After the Civil War, many southern Legislatures removed the portraits of the Black Founders, men and women, and the Black Officers who served in the Army and hid them under stairwells and in backrooms. They are never mentioned in modern history books.
What has also been whitewashed from today's history's books, is the fact that many of the Leaders of this country (White men) also denounced slavery and pointed to the Constitution and to our Creator as evidence as to why it should be abolished. If not for the war between the North and the South, slavery would have been no more, long before emancipation occurred.
Blacks have been taught that Woodrow Wilson was the "father of the Democratic Party and 'freed' blacks from their servitude and inequality. In fact, he was an avid racist, Progressive and population control freak-especially for the minority population, which he considered 'dispensable'.
History has been rewritten, which hearkens to the point of not only securing our rights to bear arms, but more importantly, to secure our full and complete rights as citizens of this country, beholden to no King or Tyrant and that we, the people hire our Officials, not the other way around.
Source of above History of our Black Founding Fathers and Mothers, and of numerous townhall meetings with Black Americans of all political/religious and non-religious beliefs: Glenn Beck, the one Leftists love to hate and the only one so far, brave enough to tackle these difficult subjects in the true spirit of unity in America; and numerous books available online and at bookstores, written by a plethora of writers and investigative journalists, interested in finding out the truth of our history. Because in knowing who we were, that can help define who and what we are today. And where we are going. We are not a 'global' goo. We are Americans, guns or no guns.
Oh my...Canary's at it again.
Canary wrote: "How many Bills and legislation have been passed over the decades that fit this description, especially all those in the last 18 months, behind closed doors, out of the public purview, written in illegible legalese and couched in thousands of words and amendments that no one has read before it's passed."
Uh...Canary, I'm so sorry to do this, but I must point out your errors in the above paragraph: Every single bill ever written and passed was done so behind closed doors, out of the public purview, and they are all written in legalese.
If you think I am the one in error, then please cite ONE bill that was written entirely on a House floor, ANY bill that was observed with cameras recording every word as it was written, and so much as one bill that was not written in legalese.
If any lawmaker fails to read a bill before they voted, it is a voluntary act on their part not to do so. It is never because a copy of a bill they are voting on was not provided to them.
Again, if you think I am in error, please cite on bill that was voted on at any time in this nation's history, where lawmakers were not provided a copy well in advance of the vote being called for on either House floor.
It has not happened.
"Present administration hired 16,000 new IRS officers to enforce the new healthcare legislation upon Americans and created new, onerous regulations for all businesses, especially a burden to small-medium businesses."
My apologies in advance, but the above is a pathetic and disprovable lie, from start to finish. You actually took it a step farther than all the other liars out there. You're claim is that they have ALREADY been hired.
Hey, why don't I just save everybody a little time and handle the battery of posts that are sure to come between alprova and Canary:
Canary: Hypocrite blah blah slime gollum blah blah blah nest of vipers blah blah traitor blah blah blah get thee behind me Satan blah blah swamp gollum.
alprova: your facts are wrong blah blah blah here's a link blah blah blah your stereotypes are offensive blah blah
Canary: your days are numbered blah blah you'll meet your judgment in due course blah blah swamp blah blah slime blah blah evil blah blah and those are the facts, Bub.
BTW, my June 30, 2010 @ 1:06 a.m. on this subject was in jest. No one in their right mind would think that to be true.
"You're claim is that they have ALREADY been hired."
Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Whether they've already been hired or will be hired in the near future is irrelevant; it's going to happen.
alprova, you are kind of proving my point. I believe there is too much emphasis on the type of firearms or weapons that are either are or are not available and not enough emphasis on how these weapons are used. Too much focus is on the gray area of the types of firearms while bad guys can essentially acquire almost any type of small arms. I wasn't arguing for argument sake, but trying to show the distinction of how there appears to be focus more on the weapon itself and not the person handling it, most notably in the media. I apologize for attempting to imply rather than explain in my previous post.
Truth be told, I'd love to own an M16 or something similar for nothing more than sporting use and for spite of gun control groups.
uuuh alpie, I did not lie and YOU, as usual are wrong. The Repubs were PROMISED by snow-bama and cronies everything about his Gov't would be transparent and bipartisan. So far, his thugs in both Houses and Obama himself have kept the Repubs out of the loop and out of all important meetings, etc. having to do with crafting legislation. Check Your leftwing sources, as usual, they omit many facts and truth.
Moreover, the thug AG Holder and his attorneys have prevented numerous requests for PUBLIC disclosure and info on the Black Panther case. He and cronies shut down a Judge's court order and refused to disclose memos regarding the case, after requests from Senators conducting hearings on the matter fell on deaf ears.
In case, you try to lie again on the above, in the last few days, investigations have again been opened because a whistleblower (attorney) in Holders office, quit and released the facts about what actually happened. We were right. Holder and cronies lied (big surprise).
There are orders to hire 16,000 IRS agents. The fact that you and those on the Left have chosen (as usual) to ignore and deny the obvious, like the huge taxes coming in January 2011, because of all the legislation forced upon America, says everything about you, your mental state and your lack of honesty. Anyone here who believes a word you print is also questionable.
There IS NO transparency, only devious manipulations. The majority of Americans now know what's going on in the Corrupt House, so I guess you'll be proven wrong again and again. Your imaginations and lies have been exposed only too often. Typical Leftist. You were a Repub once? Does the word RINO mean anything to ya?
You lied again, I never said the bills weren't provided. The recent monstrosities of thousands of pages were never produced in time for anyone to read or interpret them properly. Even the Dems were complaining 24 to 36 hours wasn't enough to peruse and understand the fog and legalese within these bills passed in the last year.
Now the real facts and truth are coming out on just what the bills mean and what the implications are. I'd say check your left-wing 'sources' again but they're always short on facts and truth. Media matters? please spare us. Moveon.trolls, the White House, ABC, and googling Left-wing sites is not research. Oh, but you already admitted you don't read better, conservative sources. Your head explodes upon impact.
Funny how you attract the attack dogs from the slime pit here to follow up on your insults when they themselves have no facts or truth to counter. Kinda like Obama when he gives speeches now and flies are all over his face and mouth, rats run in front of his podium (not to mention the ones running around in Congress). Very apropos for you guys.
Canary - Do you consider 'Lefties' to be Americans? Simply yes or no? No follow-up, I just want to know.
do you read my posts smokie? Of course you do, you've been one of the Insulters.
what a dumb, baited question. What do you think?
My score:
Canary 2 Alprova 1
Canary defending her (I flipped a coin) assertion that the bills were 1.) done behind closed doors and 2.) not read. The Obama admin, despite promises to the contrary, has not been transparent or especially bipartisan and that bill was not delivered to congress in time to be properly digested. both those points defend the paragraph alprova had a problem with. That's 2 points for Canary.
Alprova 1 point for calling out the incorrect IRS agent statement.
Musicman375 wrote: "Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Whether they've already been hired or will be hired in the near future is irrelevant; it's going to happen."
If that is your position, then forgive me, but you are just as ignorant as Canary is on the matter. Clearly, you have not read the facts and it may well be that you are not interested in educating yourself to the facts.
This is not the thread to get into all the details, but the fact is that this, like all the other health care related rumors instituted by the Republican Party, are pure and adulterated BUNK.
I posted links to sources of information that outline who began those rumors, how off the mark that the accusations are, and why those rumors are shameful lies and typical of the recent behavior by many Republicans to plant fear and ignorance into the minds of people unwilling to do their own research to discover the truth.
Your choice is to either take the time to read the facts, weigh them, check them, and to arrive at a logical conclusion, or to continue to be ignorant.
From FactCheck dot org:
"...IRS Commissioner Shulman said that the bulk of the IRS' efforts would go to informing individuals and businesses of the various TAX INCENTIVES available under the new law.
"What we're going to do is try to make sure people are educated, there's information, that we PROCESS PAYMENTS quickly."
He said the IRS hadn't yet figured out what staffing levels would be required, and he didn't deny that some new agents might be hired. "We also will make sure there's no FRAUD and ABUSE in the system as we always do," he said. "We will need resources to implement the tax provisions." But that scary claim of 16,500 new agents SIMPLY LACKS ANY FOUNDATION IN FACT..."
Canary wrote: "uuuh alpie, I did not lie and YOU, as usual are wrong. The Repubs were PROMISED by snow-bama and cronies everything about his Gov't would be transparent and bipartisan. So far, his thugs in both Houses and Obama himself have kept the Repubs out of the loop and out of all important meetings, etc. having to do with crafting legislation. Check Your leftwing sources, as usual, they omit many facts and truth."
No need to repeat your position. It is well established.
No bill hits the floor for a vote until it has been distributed to EVERY lawmaker well in advance of a floor debate and/or call for a vote. Deny it all you want. It is the legal process as outlined in our Constitution and no one is allowed to deviate from it...ever.
No Republican has been omitted from the process of doing what is right for this nation. Their choice has been to stand off in a corner and POUT like children because they do not control the process at the moment.
"Moreover, the thug AG Holder and his attorneys have prevented numerous requests for PUBLIC disclosure and info on the Black Panther case. He and cronies shut down a Judge's court order and refused to disclose memos regarding the case, after requests from Senators conducting hearings on the matter fell on deaf ears."
One disgruntled, FORMER Attorney's charges doth not a case maketh, no matter what he claims on Fox News. And for the record, not even a President could deny, prevent, or halt a Congressional or Senatorial hearing, if indeed enough of them had enough votes to call for one.
"There are orders to hire 16,000 IRS agents. The fact that you and those on the Left have chosen (as usual) to ignore and deny the obvious, like the huge taxes coming in January 2011, because of all the legislation forced upon America, says everything about you, your mental state and your lack of honesty. Anyone here who believes a word you print is also questionable."
I've offered my sources that more than debunks your assertive and repetitive lies.
I'm wide open to ANY credible source that would substantiate your assertion that "there are orders to hire 16,000 IRS agents," and that there are "huge taxes coming in January 2011."
Posting sentences without any evidence to back them up is absolutely worthless. Prove them. You're claiming them as fact. If indeed that is so, pointing to such proof of those facts should be easy.
"...so I guess you'll be proven wrong again and again. Your imaginations and lies have been exposed only too often...."
Canary, you have to date NEVER proven me to be incorrect or to have lied ONCE in this forum. There is one issue, which I will not raise, where the only evidence supplied was your solemn word that I had it wrong.
Given your level of credibility on this site, your word wasn't even circumstantial evidence.
Canary wrote: "You lied again, I never said the bills weren't provided. The recent monstrosities of thousands of pages were never produced in time for anyone to read or interpret them properly. Even the Dems were complaining 24 to 36 hours wasn't enough to peruse and understand the fog and legalese within these bills passed in the last year."
I downloaded copies of all the health care bills, as a simple American citizen, MONTHS in advance of the vote that took place early this year. I understood them clearly.
Any Republican or Blue Dog Democrat who raised every objection under the Sun for those many months, including the stupendous claim that they were unable to read the final final legislation that was voted on, only exposed themselves to be potentially incompetent to carry out the duties of their elected positions.
Every lawmaker is afforded a full staff of folks who are there to read, digest, report, and to clarify anything contained in any bill that may not be readily understood by our lawmakers. It's an empty claim.
"Media matters? please spare us. Moveon.trolls, the White House, ABC, and googling Left-wing sites is not research. Oh, but you already admitted you don't read better, conservative sources. Your head explodes upon impact."
I educate myself constantly and never limit myself to only reading one-sided sources of information.
I do remind you that despite any rejection you may offer to my sources of information, and despite the credible research contained on those pages, where THEIR sources of proof are cited, I await with baited breath, ANY evidence that you have in regard to the the claims you have offered in this thread, and currently under challenge.
Just a reminder as to what those challenges consist of;
Prove please that there are "orders to hire 16,000 IRS AGENTS," and that there are massive tax increases SCHEDULED to go into effect FOR ANY CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES in January of 2011.
No such order exists and no such tax legislation has so much as hit the floor of either House.
You keep tossing out that BS but things aren't really so rosy in lala land are they:
Gun crime in Metro Vancouver highest per capita in Canada
I don't live in Vancouver,but my understanding is that south Vancouver has some mean streets,drugs and gangs. I doubt that Vancouver's urban ills rival those of any comparably sized US city.
Vancouver wins,or places high,in many of the most liveable city awards. Personally I prefer,and sought out,a mid-sized city with big city cultural aspects.
Victoria is a very diverse,very middle class,very pleasant place to live. The education level and job skills level are quite high,and my observation would be that the contentment level is quite high as well. I don't know whether Victoria qualifies for la-la land designation,but there are many things being done well here and Victoria might serve as a learning lab for other mid-sized cities.
I don't read alprova - too long winded for me.
Al, the fact remains that thousands of new "employees" or "agents" or whatever you want to call them (they're all paid out of the same account, right?) will most likely need to be hired to fulfill all the requirements of them, which were created by the health care law. Result=more gov't due to socialized health care. That's my point, not whether they have a specific title.
Why can't liberals understand the fact that gun laws are like door locks? They are designed to keep honest people out. The people who really cause mayhem and want to cause the community harm (Criminals) don't let those pesky laws get in their way.
I'd like to ask another question. Why in the world do you call the police when someone is being held at gunpoint or someone is breaking into your house? Because the police have guns. Why do the criminals run when the police come? These aren't hard things to understand. Guns make society, even criminals, polite. One more question you should ask yourself. Why don't criminals rob military bases like they do houses, convenience stores and banks? Guns. Guns (and safety training) are the answer not the problem. Anyone can handle a firearm responsibly if trained.
How about focusing on things that kill more people than accidental gun incidents. Tobacco, alchohol, cars, gangs, illegal aliens, stupidity etc..
For a group that lauds their intelligence and superiority, they sure can be dense.
dewey60, employers offer health care coverage as a part of employment. Many companies do offer the employee to opt out, in which they can receive a stipend as compensation. It's not free, it part of the compensation for the work they are for which they are hired.
"I am self-employed because I have skills that are needed."?
Do you not see the stupidity of that statement?
Are you trying to imply that all of us millions of people who aren't self-employed are using skills that aren't needed?
And me working for an employer who voluntarily contributes a portion of my premiums because of the work I do for them is not socialism.
Man, you are all kinds of twisted in your thought logic.
"Anyone can handle a firearm responsibly if trained."
So what do we do with vast numbers of UNtrained? Does anyone believe that even 30% of firearm owners will be trained? And what about the crazies,the hot heads,the irrational? With a fully armed populous,the criminals will only be a part of the potential danger in unsuspected places.
Rising gun ownership is a sociological indicator. Any thoughts,gun owner or not,on the implications for a society that arms itself for protection from the rest of society?
Dewey60 is right about trying to pay for your own healthcare. Even though I think he used the word "healthcare" but really meant "health insurance".
Really? Try paying for insurance yourself? How about we get rid of any and all health insurance.. Not even a socialist government option.. Now, try paying that doctor/hospital/pharmacy yourself. What? Too expensive? More expensive than the insurance you were paying for?
I guess you found the real problem. Insurance costs aren't really the problem. Doctors, medical equipment manufacturers and drug companies charge too much for the services they provide. Insurance costs are high because of over-utilization and the fact that medical costs are passed down to the consumer.
How can you expect insurance companies to stay in business paying out more than they take in? Do you have any idea what the average profit margin is in the health insurance business? Around 5.3% Hospitals 6% Medical equipment companies 13% and pharmaceutical companies 24%. Last year the TN BlueCross plan reported a profit margin of just .4%.
"And what about the crazies,the hot heads,the irrational? With a fully armed populous,the criminals will only be a part of the potential danger in unsuspected places."
Leave the house much? Danger is everywhere. Someone motivated to kill you could use a knife, lead pipe, rope, candlestick or any number of other things to get the job done. You are far more likely to get killed by that soccer mom with her phone on her ear than the one with the gun in her glovebox or purse. There will always be crazies and hotheads. Most of the populous doesn't fall into those categories. You can't replace your mom with the goverment. I personally don't need a nanny state to protect me. Let me keep my gun and I can protect myself.
Canadian, FPSE answered your question in his/her post that you replied to. I'm sorry for those of you who read English well, but I'm going to put this in all caps so you can get it, Nuke:
No one who advocates gun rights wants everyone to be armed. Arm up if you want, but it should never be required. Just like it should never be required for us to relinquish the guns we have.
You do remember that the word cop is truly an acronym for citizens on patrol, right? Cops are citizens who are being paid for keeping the peace, but you have every right to place a criminal under arrest as a paid LEO.
Criminals don't like CPH because we can defend ourselves from them, just like the cops can.
No one is trying to arm the entire country.
You just can't let a good baiting go undone, can you? Surely you're not really that dense.
dewey60, maybe I need to explain this a little better. If I am offered a job a company XYZ, they may or may not offer benefits as a part of employment. These benefits are a form of compensation in addition to the hourly rate of pay or salary that I would receive. Thus the entire compensation offered for working for company XYZ is the pay plus benefits. I can weigh the good and bad of working for company XYZ before accepting or declining the position.
Choosing to work for a company that offers health care benefits as a part of employment is a far cry from socialism - rather it is the complete opposite. In the end, there is choice.
I understand not all employers offer such benefits, I understand people that are self-employed would have to pay out of pocket for health care coverage, and I understand some people take jobs simply for the health care benefits. Many bad scenarios lead to high premiums or large bills that end up in the hands of the individual. That's why I was, and still am, for health care reform. Unfortunately, the way it was handled and signed into law is, in my opinion, a huge, expensive mistake. The government in control of such a large industry will not solve it's problems. I think it will only make things worse.
The health care debate has been discussed on these threads before, and because it is off-topic to the cartoon, I will try not to get into much more detail or debate.
"Rising gun ownership is a sociological indicator. Any thoughts,gun owner or not,on the implications for a society that arms itself for protection from the rest of society?"
So you don't want me to be able to protect myself from elements of society that seek to do me harm? Are you saying all of society is out to harm me? Is this a projection of your own paranoia onto the rest of society? Do you want to harm me? Think of it this way. When the country was founded, I would say 100% of the populous was armed. Every family had a gun. Were they arming themselves against society? No. They were arming themselves against anyone who might want to infringe their freedoms or do them harm. I just want the same protection.
I would say the implication is that society will have to think twice until they succeed in taking away my protection.
You may want to reconsider firearm ownership:
Victoria: A hotbed of crime?
However, Victoria's crime rate has a much dirtier little secret than rampant drug use, Fischer said. Victoria's growing income gap between rich and poor is another huge problem.
"Even though Victoria might seem nice and quaint," Fischer said, research shows discrepancies in income produce high levels of crime.
"Even though Victoria has a lot of people who are well off and established, and not your typical criminal population, there is a marginalized and disenfranchised population -- a substantial one proportionally -- and that together with a quite sizable drug user and mental health problem population ... obviously generates a lot of property crime," Fischer said.
Which side of the income graph do you fall on? (rhetorical)
Dewey60 "Making a profit off of sick is sick in itself."
You are right! Down with doctors! They should work for free! I want my witch doctor back!
Grow up. You should have grown out of the fantasy world you live in when you moved out of your mom's house into the real world. You did move out didn't you?
People have to offer something in trade for the services provided by others. Doctors are not androids and thus must eat just like the rest of us. They just don't have to be millionares. A little price cut would help us all out.
"No one is trying to arm the whole country."
Of course not,but that is a logical extension of current gun trends. When guns are ubiquitous,will there be regrets about the current rapid proliferation? I see gun proliferation as a de-civilizing event that does not make America better.
Your thought process is all backwards. Guns can't be civil or un-civil, they are just objects. They are tools without thoughts, emotions or lives of their own just like a hammer. That is like saying hammer proliferation is a de-civilizing event.
The breakdown of the family unit and the loss of the civilizing elements of life, peaceful beliefs, good neighbors, polite discourse, is the real problem. People's attitudes are the problem. Pride and sloth, complacency, greed, and so many other attitudes being pushed as normal are the real problem.
We need to get back to being good people who are self motivated, take responsibility for our own actions and love freedom.
Yes,the gun is a mere inanimate object,but I refered to the proliferation of guns as,in my view,symtomatic of our society heading toward a less civil state. I know all the arguements for gun ownership and respect that viewpoint,but that doesn't change my personal view that hand guns are anti-personel weapons created to be used against humans and society is not advanced by,or even protected by,their proliferation.
Maybe that is backward thinking,but then again,maybe it's the advanced thinking of a dreamer and an idealist.
traitor-cuck: "And today's Excessive Over-the-top Loquatiousness Prize repeat winner..."
I'll take the loquatious prize and you can take the "most dense and has no facts or truth, but dribbles on anyway Prize". Oops, that one belongs to alpie, the Know-it-all Troll here. You two can share. I'll take my 50 years plus, real life experience all over Canada and the US against the cuck's 5 or 6 years in a sequestered Fairy tale in Canada. And then he spent another 50 plus years (?) in Chattanooga, another Liberal Bubble. That is REAL living, surely enough to trash those who know up from down, isn't it?
Sailor thought cuck lives in Vancouver because he keeps forgetting to explain to others he lives on Vancouver Island. Cuck likes to say "Victoria" (BC's capitol) because it sounds so quaint and so..oo nice. 'The Island' just denotes a secluded, "far-from-the maddening-crowd" kind of LaLa land, which it is. And that is why he knows not much of reality, if anything at all. If one doesn't live in reality, one can never be anything but a rabid, immature Leftist, forever spouting their ideology of the insane and their policies that never work either.
Well, we'll just wait and see who's right. Shouldn't be too long. Alpie seems to think his Left-Prog sources are the whole truth and nothing but, so how dare we Conservatives disagree. Wait, just wait, truth always comes out. Cartoons and Leftists will lie, but the Truth never does, that's why I love it and know it well.
Victoria is a mecca for the homeless and drug cultures,after all,there is no place better in Canada for mild weather and with good support services. One area of the city is more petty crime prone,but violent crime is rare. American cities would kill (pun intended)for the low crime enjoyed here.
There are many waterfront and view multi-million dollar homes combined with generally high-priced real estate throughout the city. Unaffordability of homes is a problem,even for the middle class. The obvious reason is that the city attracts people from all across Canada and the world,keeping demand strong.
The above notwithstanding,the middle class is broad and deep,with very little poverty in evidence. I may have a bit of a skewed perspective because the US Southeast is my natural frame of reference.
Personally,the cost of housing caused us to assume a mortgage after years debt-free. Even though we have cut back on consumption,we feel that our quality of life is better than we ever dreamed.
And no,we won't be considering gun ownership.
You're bashing nucanuck for living in "liberal bubble" Chattanooga and then Vancouver Island, saying he has no real world life experiences to comment intelligently on issues? Reading your posts, you've lived California, Canada, and Chattanooga. You've bashed all of those states/countries/cities for as liberal bastions of sinful evil. I'm confused by your logic - clear it up for me. . . .
By the way - the traitor comments are old, tired and sound very jealous.
Musicman wrote, "LAW ABIDDING CITIZENS WITH CARRY PERMITS HELP KEEP CRIMINALS AT BAY."
Whenever there's a gun 'toon (thanks a lot, Clay) at least one person pipes up with something about how permit-carrying gun-owning citizens stop crime, or save lives, or whatever.
(To preface, I do support the rights of gun owners and I'm not picking on Musicman specifically, I just want to know if this argument can be reasonably defended.)
Aside from home invasion stories where the gun-owning homeowner has injured or killed a robber I haven't really heard many stories about armed citizens stopping crimes. Is this really happening in any way that is statistically significant? And if so, could someone clue me in on what news articles (no random blog posts or theoretical mojo, please) report this or what agency has complied statistics? I'm not having much luck finding anything.
It happens all the time. The mainstream media just do not want you to know about anything but the occasional crazies with firearms. The truth would mess up the statist fiction they've fostered along.
Try here... http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/
Many are in the home of the non-victim. Many are not. Note these are most all linked back to the original source.
sd, there aren't a whole lot of statistical reports of concealed permit holders out there, but if you dig, you can find some interesting info. Here is a site with some stats to go along with the page Scotty posted:
There are a lot of blogs out there with good info and sources too, (granted there are a lot with no sources, but most of those are people quoting the more notable blogs) but you're really going to have a hard time finding charts of numbers from any official agency, simply because they rarely report info regarding concealed carry permits. I did find one such blog which shows the stats in TX in 07:
"These are the convictions in the state for 2007, the last year for which such statistics are available. (The numbers reflect convictions only for those over 21.)"
From left to right you see the crime, the total number of convictions for the crime-the total number of those convicted who were CPH-the percentage of the total convicted the CPH represented:
Robbery 1,791-0-0.0%
Deadly conduct 1,432-15-1.04%
Sexual contact with a child 1,161-4-0.34%
Murder 371-2-0.54%
Murder of police or firefighter 58-0-0.0%
Source: Texas Department of Public Safety
I'm not in the military, but I value and treasure every single service man and woman out there with every ounce of my being because of what they are doing for you and me. On top of that, my father is a Navy Vet, my grandfather is a war-time Army Vet who served in Korea, my great-uncle was a Higgins boat driver who drove General McArther around in the Pacific before becoming one of the first Frog Men, which turned into the SEALs, my best friend is currently a sniper for the SEALs who one 2nd place in his class in sniper school, and the list goes on. But you go ahead and keep making an ass out of yourself by posting blanket statments, which are half-truths based on absolutely no context btw... very poorly executed. Have a nice life.
So Thursday night or Friday mourning a Chattanooga man was shot and is in Erlanger did anyone heard about this? Why is it not one of the stories for today?
dewey's "this is my board now" and Indians exchanges are classic. Thanks guys, you win Indian in my opinion.
dewey, I feel your pain but you need to up the research mode to oh, say about a hundred years ago, man. Your problem(s) is a beast called the Prog, not the wee repubs.
shock: if you had read the cuck's posts the last year as I have, and not on this toon, btw, you might understand where the word, 'traitor' came from and what it means. He has multiple postings supporting/defending/touting the nefarious Progressive policies of Venezuela, Cuba, China and the Middle Eastern, Muslim countries, to name a few.
He also pontificates on gun control and Canada from his 'position' on a very secluded, western Canadian island, nowhere near the Reality of the rest of that vast, huge country and her people. He has no facts or reality in living there except for the last 6 years. I lived in the west and right across the country, for decades. I still have people in Canada and love North America. I speak from that place, loving the North American peoples. "Jealousy" doesn't equate with me, what kind of idiotic statement was that?
He speaks from a place of hating America and her values, ideals and history/traditions. Because a person couches their words and ideologies in a nice tone, does not mean those same ideologies are not evil. I've seen many a Dictator or tyrant's videos and speeches, butter wouldn't melt in their mouths, they're so smooth. That's why they're so charismatic and fool so many.
Those who walk like a Prog, talk like a Prog and think like a Prog are surely that and more. I, unlike those on the Left am interested in the Truth, I could care less how many Repub hides you've skinned, what car you drive, how 'educated' you are or how much money you make.
Chattanooga is a pretty town, yet IMHO, has far too many on the Left here who ruin it and far too many snobs. We love the TN country and her people who still have hearts and character-the music and culture flow from that. On the other side, there is nowhere that is perfect, and the South still, obviously has problems. Guns, not really being the heart of those problems either.
We can all cite stats til the cows come home, yet if we can't talk truth and plain, simple sense, then we're lost. Stats don't get to the heart of a matter or the heart of a person. Cuck and other renegades on the Left like to paint rosy pictures. I'm not interested in rosy pictures-from Canada or anywhere else. Give me truth, or give me nothing.
Canada, Europe and now America is on the same path. They are (or in the process of becoming) empty shells in comparison to what they have been. They have no heart left. No character. Although, those on the Left behave as if they have no heart, as the ice-cold cuck does, it's not the people who are the problem. It's the ones in power, running our Gov'ts that are. Plain truth, plain and simple.
Bennett's cartoon gun is EXACTLY the kind Kagan would have us own -- if that -- should she be confirmed. She does NOT accept the "inalienable rights" phrase in the Declaration of Independence nor the very concept of "pre-existing rights" or any "natural rights". Indeed, she denies even knowing what "natural rights" are.
The day is fast approaching when Americans must again do their "duty" and defend their rights. and ours..this time from DOMESTIC tyrants, as stated in our Founding Documents.
That clever canary has found me out. I'm an evil left/prog traitor with no heart and an enemy of the truth. On top of that I may be charasmatic and smooth talking,but don't be fooled,I'm an America hater.
Now that I have been exposed,my wife says she knew it all along and may not want to hang around until death do us part. My grandkids are kind of keeping their distance and asking if what canary says is true.
For sixty eight years I thought I was a jobs producing,hard working,creative,insightful American patriot. Well apparently I was wrong,I am evil and must come to terms with that.
It's true that I have defended unloved countries right to govern themselves,for better or for worse,without US intervention. I have consistently called for the US to repatriate US troops and bases back to the US. I have criticized the tax changes and deregulation that have created an uber-wealthy class while the middle class was sliding off the table. I have been down right angry about the transfer of power from the people to the corporate world.
But I won't repent and I am going to keep on advocating for my view of a just society as long as I am able.
nucanuck, I am glad you are now willing to embrace your evil. Me too, as a tax-paying, patriotic educator trying to make sure that sound science is taught in schools, I have found out that I am a Christian-bashing, misguided, doomed-to-the-hot-place, over-educated demon. Is there a 12-step program for us?
Cuck: "But I won't repent and I am going to keep on advocating for my view of a just society as long as I am able".
Of course you will, and you, like a few others up there will continue to lie about your past words. You know full well you said a lot more on the subject(s) I just mentioned, and none of it was patriotic, 'American' or good. Or "just".
It's obvious that you old ones haven't learned a thing about the most important values in life. At least the young ones have stupidity and naive souls as an excuse. Smugness, boasting and arrogance will see you on your deathbeds and show you guys as the Losers. Oh, and 'exaggerating', better known as lying ikey baby, will catch up with ya too.
Canary wrote: "Smugness, boasting and arrogance will see you on your deathbeds and show you guys as the Losers. Oh, and 'exaggerating', better known as lying ikey baby, will catch up with ya too."
"Pathological Liar"
1 : One who changes their story all the time. 2 : One who believes what you do, they do it better. 3 : One who tends to embellish their life experiences. 3 : One who does not value the truth, who lives in their own reality. 4 : One who is defensive when questioned or challenged. 5 : One who lies to seem better than others. 6 : One who usually never owns up to their lies. 7 : One who loses track of the many lies told. 8 : One who lies because they are insecure.
Case Study : See canaryinthecoalmine.
"Sanctimonious Jerk"
1 : obsolete : holiness 2 : affected or hypocritical holiness 3 : see canaryinthecoalmine
Off topic but, My respect for Obama was just upped a little notch. Check out this video:
If Bush or any other republican had made this same statement, he/they would have been crucified. But since Obama said it, it's the most sensible and best thing!
Here's a little item from "Retired Geek" on another forum; describes atheists to a "T":
I came from a family of Atheists that went back at least three generations before me. I met many other Atheists and all Atheists fall into general categories or a combination of these categories:
1) Angry Atheists - those who either consciously or sub-consciously blame God for personal tragedies or human tragedy in general (death, wars, suffering, hunger etc.) which is proof positive to them that there is NO God.
2) Amused Atheists - those who consider themselves 'Enlightened' and transcend other humans who exhibit 'Faith' and consider them simpletons, while considering themselves intellectually and morally superior.
3) Behavioral Atheists - a prime example are homosexuals, who find themselves in contradiction to natural law and blame their deviancy on God or anything other than chosen behavior. These Atheists are against any concept that does not endorse their behavior - if God endorsed Homosexuality, Homosexual would be the most strident believers in God.
4) 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' Atheists - those that hold something is false only because it hasn't been proved true (God), or that something is true only because it has not been proved false (Big Bang).
5) Atheistic Contrarians - those humans who are always against anything that is commonly held, if 99% of humans were Atheists - they would believe in God.
6) Marxist Atheists et al - those who believe that Government by humans and for humans, must have the highest allegiance and anything else (God) must be secondary and therefore inferior or non-existent by definition.
7) Amoralistic Egoism or 'Individualist Atheist' - those who believe their freedom to do anything 'freely chosen', supersedes any guideline, creed, commandments or moral restrictions, placed on them by God.
8) Narcissistic Atheists - those who believe that anything they do not know or are capable of knowing is therefore false and patently intellectually dishonest.
lkeith, I draw your attention to numbers 2 and 4.
Atheists, Part 2
Atheists generally use ridicule, or 'ad hominem attacks' (religious behavior) to refute any ideas posited against them, which actually gives credence to those ideas, because the attackers have NO real answers or refutations.
Arrogance simply defined, is the obnoxious display of real or imagined superiority.
Many Humans have great 'Faith' or firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
Atheists claim that this definition only applies to those who believe in God.
In actuality, 'Faith or Firm Belief' in something for which there is no proof applies to Atheists and Believers in God equally.
There is NO PROOF in the origin of Energy, which had to exist for the 'Big Bang' to occur.
I personally believe in the 'Big Bang' theory, because it is NOT a Hypothesis but a Scientific theory with many extant proofs.
This begs the question, what, when and where is the origin of Energy?
I believe (ONE) God created Energy and the other things necessary for the 'Big Bang' to occur - space, motion and materials.
Atheists believe that those four things came from NOTHING into something (Faith) and then the Atheists state that their logic and reasoning is 'Superior' to Believers in God.
I once believed the same way that Atheists believe, in fact Humanism/Atheism was central in the lives of my family going back at least three generations.
What convinced me that my Humanism/Atheism was wrong, were facts, logic and reason.
Atheists can have great 'Faith in Ignorance' if they wish, I do not have any 'Faith or Trust' in ignorance.
This is posted in response to an earlier post citing "Science" and implying it is the be-all, end-all. Not so.
rolando, my religious beliefs or "unbeliefs" are not at issue here. I never ask anyone else to explain or prove their beliefs-that is their own business. What's at issue is sound science, a topic that from other threads you still refuse to commit to a position. I am interested only in positions based on evidence. I repeat: how old is the earth? It's still a pertinent question that you have dodged (and it isn't a "belief" issue). Canary, too, has failed to answer my questions regarding his "alternative" scientific theory for the diversity of life on earth. Care to give it a shot, or are you gonna dodge it for the upteenth time?
We answered your atheistic "answers" and beliefs, it just wasn't to your satisfaction. Retired Geek's description of the inanity and immaturity of the Atheistic Left or just the Left period is apt. It is a fitting description in Dr. Rossiter's thesis and book "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness".
It's also the exact description of alpie's and cuck's Madness: they believe their sources are never wrong and therefore they are never wrong. They believe we're just stupid, ignorant rednecks with bad resumes and they are so, so Elite and Intellectually pure. When I reprinted all the posts showing alpies web of lies, the bragging, the superiority that just drips from his thin lips, he freaked and denied it all. It was in black and white-his own words.
The problem with Liars when they're caught is they've lied so much, they cannot remember which is a lie and which isn't. They project their behaviors on the rest of us. How else can one like alpie or Cuck assume my life story or any part of it is exaggeration and a lie? I might suspect they lie without compunction about their lives, but will I say that as surely as alpie has about me on many occasions? Hardly. So, it's mere projection in their little, mad world of 'Progressive' thought.
At least with cuck, he is so blatantly out of it, it's easy to tell, if one knows their country and people better than he does. Especially when he exists in a vacuum and the other has had to face Reality and is not afraid to embrace it.
All this becomes is: I do not lie, yet will admit if I have printed an erroneous source. So far alpie, nor anyone above has proved that to my satisfaction. When they do, I will apologize for the error of my source. Like whoknows said, it's all politics. Who really knows how much we're told is all truth or just partial truth? I know my life and the truth of that, that's about it. I can discern pretty well after being alive in reality for decades, who smells like they're being truthful and who smells rotten. But I, like all of the above, am not perfect and never said nor implicated I am. I have been wrong about alot, and learned from it.
Well, life goes on in the slime pit of the Toon world.
Have fun on Gun, er Independence Day Indian et al. While it lasts, independence, that is.
"Atheists generally use ridicule, or 'ad hominem attacks' (religious behavior) to refute any ideas posited against them, which actually gives credence to those ideas, because the attackers have NO real answers or refutations."
This DOES seem like a familiar tactic, doesn't it?
The writer is practicing the fallacy of Argument by Selective Reasoning. He presents the worst/most illogical arguments as the best and builds a little straw man on the side. Right? I mean, anyone who seriously says, "I'm an atheist because bad things happen in the world," is either 12 or isn't paying attention.
It would be more interesting if he took a stab at legitimate atheological arguments.
lkeith astonishingly said, "I never ask anyone else to explain or prove their beliefs-that is their own business."
Wow! What was all that "How old is the earth?" BS all about then? Not just once and dropping it but over and over again and then getting your old buddy alpo to jump in, the two of you literally demanding an answer?? That was NOT asking someone to explain or prove their beliefs?
You are a hoot, ma'am. You even again asked that stupidest question since "Am I my brother's keeper?"! I'll answer it again...my belief is my belief. Prove me wrong. And don't give me your "Science says" BS because my belief system takes that into account as I explained to you umpteen times and won't again.
You really are a Prog, aren't you? Up until your last post, I didn't actually believe it, figuring you knew better...but that sentence is the proverbial coffin nail, lkeith. Don't you remember the "Where's the Beef?" thing? You tried your absolute best to get an answer to another faith-based question we chose not to answer...your being a Number 4 atheist showed the futility in answering those idiotic things. But I will answer it again for you now with "Where's the Beef?".
As I said, lkeith, check out items 2 and 4 above. LOL You are a classic 2...and don't even recognize it -- or worse, refuse to.
Canary, I don't think you're a liar, but I do think you perceive the world differently than I (and others here) do.
You said earlier: "We can all cite stats til the cows come home, yet if we can't talk truth and plain, simple sense, then we're lost. Stats don't get to the heart of a matter or the heart of a person."
I think this statement cuts right to the heart of the matter. You value anecdotes and you value the "filter" of your personal experience.
My general assumption is that my perception is incorrect or incomplete. So I distrust my personal experience and anecdotes and seek what I think are impartial measurements--statistics, for example.
Obviously statistics, like any data, can be manipulated. The happy medium must be in between: having the skepticism to seek out factual information, regardless of whether it confirms your personal worldview, while maintaining enough common sense to realize when something is being skewed (sounds like our friend Inspector Bucket, right?).
"Who really knows how much we're told is all truth or just partial truth? I know my life and the truth of that, that's about it. I can discern pretty well after being alive in reality for decades, who smells like they're being truthful and who smells rotten."
If you had a profile quote, this should be it. I wouldn't say I envy your conviction, but I do admire it mightily sometimes.
Canary wrote: "It's also the exact description of alpie's and cuck's Madness: they believe their sources are never wrong and therefore they are never wrong."
Unlike yourself, Canary, I HAVE most certainly admitted, retracted, and apologized several times in this forum when I have been wrong.
"They believe we're just stupid, ignorant rednecks with bad resumes and they are so, so Elite and Intellectually pure."
I've never used the word "redneck" to describe one person in this forum. Stupid? For sure. Ignorant? Absolutely.
As to the issue of "resumes," your claims are simply incredible, literally.
"When I reprinted all the posts showing alpies web of lies, the bragging, the superiority that just drips from his thin lips, he freaked and denied it all. It was in black and white-his own words."
You, Sir or Madam are a shameful and deliberate liar. I didn't give those posts the time of day, despite the time you spent to copy and paste them. I've never denied so much as one word I have ever posted.
"The problem with Liars when they're caught is they've lied so much, they cannot remember which is a lie and which isn't."
You can sit there day in and day out and call me a liar, but you have to date, NEVER proven me to lie, much less having been incorrect on so much as one point of disagreement.
Others have. But you have not.
"All this becomes is: I do not lie, yet will admit if I have printed an erroneous source. So far alpie, nor anyone above has proved that to my satisfaction."
That's okay. I don't correct you to appeal to your warped sense of satisfaction. I do it to disallow you from infecting the minds of others with your misinformation.
If someone chooses to believe your misinformation, that's completely up to them.
In this thread, you posted that 16,000 IRS agents have been hired. Then you changed that to stating that 16,000 IRS agents are ordered to be hired. Both of those statements are lies.
You stated that Obama has instituted a HUGE tax increase on All Americans, slated to begin on January 1, 2011. That is a lie.
"I have been wrong about alot, and learned from it."
Apparently not. You're still spreading outrageous and easily disprovable lies, with no facts in evidence to back them up.
You are therefore...a liar.
Rolando came to the rescue of Canary with: "Here's a little item from "Retired Geek" on another forum; describes atheists to a "T":"
Who are the "Atheists" supposed to be that you are targeting in this forum?
Has anyone declared themselves to be an Atheist? If so, I sure missed those posts.
I hate to disappoint you, but I'm not about to step into that silly trap you just set.
I'm just going to sit back and laugh.
Nice try Bozo.
As I once said, rolando, the age of the earth is not a "belief", and yet you won't answer the question. Why am I not surprised? Your knowledge of science is poor, and yet you do nothing to learn. This is exactly what I have spent my career trying to correct. Pity-so closed minded. Just like canary and evolution. Denying reality doesn't make it go away.
Drink it down yourself, indian. And have YOU moved out of your mother's basement yet? [You wanna sling around the insults and the namecalling, that's another.]
This forum has ALWAYS free-wheeled...that's the beauty in it. We have people from all walks of life here, even yours.
For example, I usually agree with your posts -- with your uber-right ones possible exceptions. I have even agreed with alpo a time or two...even savanti, lkeith, and nucanuck, uber-left and atheistic as THEY may be. And I have disagreed with a like number of Conservatives once, maybe twice.
As I said, even though discourse gets heated on occasion, it usually lasts only as long as the thread -- unless brought up again...
As I said, lkeith, you are an Atheist number two with a bit of Number 8 thrown into the mix.
I have answered your "question" until the cows came home but since it does not fit into your particular [narrow] scheme of things and your BELIEF of how things work, you simply cannot and will not accept it.
That is YOUR problem, not mine. To repeat myself, you have your belief, I have mine.
So where did the original pre-BigBang Energy come from? [Rhetorical question.]
BTW, lkeith, I seem to recall that neither canary nor I ever rejected evolution...it is rather obvious really. We just see it differently than do you.
This is again an area in which you refuse to accept our version of how we see things progress...you seem to be blind to the issue, locked into your very firm mindset; one you would force on others. I pity your students, in a way...you would have them end up with your same very narrow, sterile, mindless approach to life without consideration of alternatives outside your ken. I will lay odds you read little science fiction in your formative years...or other independent, outside-the-box, thought-encouraging literature.
Wrong again, honey. I have spent a lot of time learning the science, (not science fiction) and I find it fascinating all on its own, without magic or superstition. My students think so too, and it is not mindless nor is it indoctrination. My world is never sterile.
And, no, you did not answer my question. Neither did canary on that thread so long ago. Your question about pre-bang energy has not been answered by science, so therefore I don't know. Contribute it to you god if you like, but science will continue to look for answers in the natural world.
As far as accepting your version, if either of you showed any basic understanding of science, it would be interesting to discuss "your" version. But GODDIDIT is a science-stopper: no need to look for anything more. Hardly a worldview based on open-mindedness or curiosity, nor is it based on evidence. The comments you have made here regarding science show little understanding or basic knowledge, and when someone points it out to you, you make it clear that you have no interest in learning anything. (or that all of science is some big leftist-evil-conspiracy).
But I will be here. I don't comment on many threads, but if you or anyone else makes a false statement about science or promotes the teaching of crap in school to children, I will expose it. Our great nation is in danger of losing its edge in science in part because of people like you.
So, as another poster said, back to gun ownership...
sd: thank you for looking at both sides of what I printed up there. I do respect that you come from a more linear, statistically driven world and that I don't. I've studied the historical data and facts on the rise of linear thought and how it has affected humans, their creativity and the use of one side of the brain exclusively, instead of using the whole noggin the Lord gave us.
The rise of industrialization and the computer age have also directly influenced our thought/creative processes. So, be careful, a well-balanced mind and heart are NOT a bad thing. Stats are not the be-all and end-all in Life. Ask a dying, very old person what they've learned and what matters most to them in Life. Their words and lessons are astonishing (BTW, most of my words are my own, not anecdotal nothings, but sincere, honest words from my heart. Despite popular opinion these days, humans DO have a heart and soul).
Just a few reminders. It is classic Progressivism to accuse one who uses personal experience as being more fallible or gullible than one who doesn't. This is used nowadays frequently to either denigrate or deflect our arguments. I would hope that was not your intention but a sincerely held belief instead.
After decades of studying many and varied subjects, much reading and even, believe it or not perusing data and stats, I, like Solomon of old, have come to the conclusion that too much information and studies makes us 1) vain; 2) weary; 3) not happy beings.
I've also learned after much trial and error, that Personal Experience, mine and others throughout History does carry a lot of weight. No one person has cornered the market on experience. But some have obviously more than others. Some stay (or hide) in their little corner, forever fearing to go out and taste what is real.
So does listening to that voice within. I call Him the Lord. Some call it 'intuition', conscience or voices from the Beyond. I listen to my gut and learn from failure/falling down and mistakes. I have had the pleasure and pain of growing up with many people from many cultures and many emigrating to North America from violent, dictatorial regimes. They are truthful when they relate the horrors of their own experiences and those of their friends and families. Stats and on the ground witnesses/verifications/video/photos bear out their testimonies to be valid.
In the end, we use stats (others findings), but there is no 100% surety on any of it. Anyone who claims that is suspect, as some above have proven over and over IMHO. Rememer how many arrogant ones in History, to this day (the climate fudgers, for one) have fallen from their high and mighty places, thinking they know it all.
Yes indeed back to guns.
In response to mayor Daly's new rules in Chicago, that city in which a draconian gun ban has worked so well, here's what a poster on another forum had to say about the new rules Daly put forth. You are encouraged to read his entire post in spite of it being on a -gasp- gun related forum.
"Two years ago, every student in my first-period English class on the West Side of Chicago claimed to have easy access to a handgun -- even the goody-two-shoes Honors student in the front row. When I doubted her, she looked at me as if I were a fool. "I could get you one from my uncle tonight," she informed me with a quizzical look. "He might ask me why I needed it, might not."
Guns were so abundant that there was only, maybe, one big fight a year among the males in our school building because it was understood that the simplest of physical confrontations too quickly could escalate into deadly shootings. "You have to walk away from a lot," observed one former student of mine who has lost several friends and relatives to gun violence. "For instance, dude deserves to be beat and I know I could beat his a--, but then what? No one is just going to take an a$$-beating, they're going to want to do something about it."
"Just a few reminders. It is classic Progressivism to accuse one who uses personal experience as being more fallible or gullible than one who doesn't. This is used nowadays frequently to either denigrate or deflect our arguments. I would hope that was not your intention but a sincerely held belief instead."
Yeah, I see your point. I should backtrack a little, because I worded my comment in a way that insinuates you use purely anecdotal evidence and that's not true. You usually have a mixed argument that is based both on personal experience and information that can be confirmed/disproven externally. So I apologize for that.
I agree that if I said, "Canary thinks x because of y personal experience, that's wrong because it's anecdotal," it would be a very bad argument on my part.
You cite Progressivism, but the disavowal of testimonial evidence is a hallmark of the skeptical movement--they are militantly unified on this front--and perhaps those who employ it should be considered skeptics foremost. But any time "denigration" or "deflection" are used then the argument is inherently faulty.
Probably the only way to counter a purely anecdotal argument is to provide some line of reasoning or evidence that is not anecdotal, so I'm not going to say anyone who counters an anecdote with something like, "Can we prove this on a larger scale?" is unfairly undermining the argument. But if we argue an anecdotal point with another anecdotal point we end up with he-said-she-said, and that is an argument I WOULD be dismissive of.
I'm impressed that Obama said what he said to the illegal aliens this week too. My biggest questions now are, 1. who is going to enforce them to speak English, and how do they plan on doing it with out profiling? 2. What happens to them when they come clean about being here illegally (amnesty or felony?)?
Indian; my apologies for the below comments, I promise this is my last 'off-topic' here. Just one reply to sd and then I will retire, it's been a long, fun day. BTW, I hope you and yours had fun with the guns and no one got hurt-there, I was on-topic for a momentito. Happy Independence/4th of July!
sd wrote: "Probably the only way to counter a purely anecdotal argument is to provide some line of reasoning or evidence that is not anecdotal, so I'm not going to say anyone who counters an anecdote with something like, "Can we prove this on a larger scale?" is unfairly undermining the argument".
I'm not going to argue the above or the other, similiar statements you just made. No one can 'prove' others life stories and experiences unless there's backup such as I mentioned previously. So what? If your father/mother/grandfather served in a far-off land during a long-ago period in time, and related all of their experiences and encounters to you, chances are you would believe they're telling you the truth. Ditto for your friends, neighbors and maybe your acquaintances if their facts were borne out by historical, somewhat objective accounts. That's about the best we can hope for. I place stats in the same category, depending on the subject because numbers are bent and twisted everyday. Polls, as we know can be very subjective. Data can be cherry-picked.
Yet, what we have today, especially in the West and in Communist/Dictatorial countries worldwide, is a washing of Historical and Personal accounts of war, famine, torture and murder of millions of people. So where does fact, stats and data come into this equation when the facts have been omitted or whitewashed? Oftentimes, it's the very survivors of these horrors themselves who are our only link to the truth of history and the horrors of history. A Platonian or Aristotleian thinker would probably coldly and 'rationally' excise that argument without really getting to the heart of the issue-which is truth or lie?
I fully expect in 50 or 100 years, if we're still around, that the Sudanese, North Koreans, Chinese and others who have and are suffering unimaginable horrors on this planet, will be largely forgotten and/or told their 'stories' of persecution and murder are flimsy lies. This goes on now with many peoples (the Armenians, Kurds, Hebrew peoples, the Tibetans, Chinese, Russians and more) and has for centuries. Still the Truth will prevail-somehow.
Just about everything started as an anecdote; some guy tries something and gets result ABC. He tells someone about it [an anecdote]; they try it and get the same result. TaDa! Science!
Someone else tries something completely different and gets result XYZ. HE tells someone about it but they call him a fool and laugh at his anecdote and no one else tries it. Result? Nothing but a "little story".
Same effort, completely different end result. All because of the real fools who don't or can't or refuse to learn from other people's efforts and experiences, calling them worthless.
Sure it is, lkeith. Show me something that someone thought up [original thought] that didn't involve a "story" about how he did it or a "tale" of the sources he used. Engineer's notebooks are just the writing down of their thought process...
I am beginning to wonder about YOUR self-described, vaunted "knowledge" of what we call "Science". You are so hide-bound, so close-minded, so narrow-minded, and think-in-the-box as to be essentially incapable of original thought or imagining others may have the ability.
I have spent my working life studying people; I know them quite well and can recognize patterns and groupings. You fit a number of them. But you don't want to hear "anecdotes" so I won't bore you.
I am fairly well-read...that too was part of my work. But I gave up higher physics when it became obvious that it steadily specialized until one was learning more and more about less and less.
At that point I became a generalist; you fool yourself to think all outside your ken or your notice are ignorant or uneducated.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." -- WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE / Hamlet Act 1. Scene V.
Anecdotes are not accepted as evidence in a scientific study. They might be used to suggest where a study might be directed, but they are not evidence. If you have ever done any science, you would know this.
You gave up higher physics probably because you didn't understand it. It requires a level of mathematics most people (including myself) do not have.
Science has strict rules as to how it is conducted. It is self-correcting; eventually bad or fraudulent work becomes obvious and is rejected. If you have done any science you would know this too.
I have never said that others beside me and mine are uneducated. I have said that you (rolando) do not know enough about science to understand even the basics discussed here. Your last post only reinforces that.
So what do YOU call the original report if not an anecdote, lkeith? It reports certain events observed by the reporter.
This includes various initial "discoveries" of elemental gases/elements, natural laws [Gravity] etc AS WELL AS Biblical writings. Only when someone else duplicates the event can it become non-anecdotal or what you would call, "scientific". [Even then "Piltdown Man" comes to mind; it took 40 years to discover that "scientific find" was a hoax.]
Incidentally, "anecdotal evidence" are mutually exclusive terms. Evidence can very, very seldom be "anecdotal"; that constitutes "hearsay". The only things I could exclude are things such as "dying declarations".
Rolando: "I am beginning to wonder about YOUR self-described, vaunted "knowledge" of what we call "Science". You are so hide-bound, so close-minded, so narrow-minded, and think-in-the-box as to be essentially incapable of original thought or imagining others may have the ability."
ikey replied: "Science has strict rules as to how it is conducted. It is self-correcting; eventually bad or fraudulent work becomes obvious and is rejected."
Self-correcting, bad work is rejected? What planet do you live on? I've spoken with many brilliant and non-brilliant scientists who know better than that. As Rolando pointed out, today in the 'scientific' world, there seems to be more activity in protecting their own crowd, not admitting their 'mistakes' or 'errors' should see the light of day. Many times its years before someone (an outsider?) blows the whistle.
Rolando: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." -- WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE / Hamlet Act 1. Scene V."
ikey replied: " Your ignorance is showing rolando. You might want to quit before you dig yourself too deep a hole."
She, and others like her cannot and will not see anything beyond their own linear world. In the last hundred years or so, education has deteriorated to a narrow specialization, peopled by "Professionals" who the rest of us are supposed to bow down to. Gone are the days of Renaissance, of human scientist/artist/physicist/inventor. That type of individual is rare now. Scientific thinkers, in the West especially, are mere linear, bland and boring thinkers. There are few exceptions among them and those are like Einstein was, treated as pariahs. Of course.
This used to be a nation of immense talent and creativity, innovation and honor. Many of the Founders like Ben Franklin and James Madison, as well as the self-taught Black Founders were brilliant multi-taskers, creators, inventors, scientists, authors. THAT History has not only been white-washed by "Progressive" thinkers who did not want ALL Americans to know the truth of who and where we came from, but did not want us to be ALL our Creator meant us to be. They 'boxified' our people.
In the dual above, Rolando comes out as one of the old world-type thinkers, one who can act and think outside a box. Ikey comes out as a product of Western modern education, but one who doesn't want to or care to expand beyond the Box of Modern Science. That is NOT a creative, innovative thinker, that's an Orwellian prophecy come true.
From one you have dubbed "one of the old world-type thinkers" to another, I thank you canaryinthecoalmine.
Great words, once again. Although our life-experiences are different, they have a common thread -- America, how she came about, and what she is made of.
"Self-correcting, bad work is rejected? What planet do you live on? I've spoken with many brilliant and non-brilliant scientists who know better than that. As Rolando pointed out, today in the 'scientific' world, there seems to be more activity in protecting their own crowd, not admitting their 'mistakes' or 'errors' should see the light of day. Many times its years before someone (an outsider?) blows the whistle."
That's a pretty bold statement coming from someone who shows little understanding of science. You have examples and sources?
"There are few exceptions among them and those are like Einstein was, treated as pariahs."
Einstein was hardly treated like a pariah. Where do you get such nonsense?
"This used to be a nation of immense talent and creativity, innovation and honor. Many of the Founders like Ben Franklin and James Madison, as well as the self-taught Black Founders were brilliant multi-taskers, creators, inventors, scientists, authors. THAT History has not only been white-washed by "Progressive" thinkers who did not want ALL Americans to know the truth of who and where we came from, but did not want us to be ALL our Creator meant us to be. They 'boxified' our people."
And what is this "truth" pray tell, that us liberals are trying to hide from everyone?
ikey, the fact you had to ask those dumb questions to obvious answers and truth (if you had studied History or historical facts regarding scientific figures and climbed out of your funky box), tells us all. You have a frenzied need to get in the last word and a need to drag out something long done and gone.
You're welcome Rolando, again, in honor of our Independence, I salute your service to this country and to her communities.
...Nice if the concrete heads would do their homework, know how to do it and do it truthfully eh?...
Funny, why don't you use it to learn a little science? When I mentioned the prevailing theory on the formation of the moon, you just laughed and thought it was silly. Yet it is easily found on the internet.
For canary I have linked good, checked and referenced sites for evolution, and was mocked. Canary, like 40% of our citizens, ignore the vast evidence to the contrary and believe in an earth formed by divine intervention just a few thousand years ago.
Savarti, another "know-it-all" says "Einstein was the ROCK STAR of his time".
Like I say all the time to you cherry-pickers of History, you pick out the statements or one-word sentences that you think back up your argument and dismiss the rest. Did ya know that is a trait and disease of the Left-Prog mindset? Look it up in the PMMD or whatever.
Einstein was NOT a rock star, let's get that straight, what a misnomer if ever there was one. He was loved and honored later in his life, AFTER many years of struggle, denigration from some of his peers and colleagues, teachers and citizens, many thought he was nuts. As is with all great and brilliant people.
It is the mediocre, who sit in their little Bubbles, ones who like to pontificate about nothing but who tend to denigrate and disavow great thinkers in History. Einstein had his day and his place in the sun, but it wasn't always that way, despite those who either downplay his life or raise it to the pedestal of Sainthood. He was a man, He thought, lived, acted. He made mistakes and said good things and bad things. He then died, talking about his Jewish roots and His Creator, more and more as he aged.
Savarti-smarti and ikey need to take a breather from smelling alpie's fumes. You guys are getting as dumb and nasty as he is. Or maybe, that's just the way you really are and I've managed to pull the 'best' outta ya both.
From Einstein's Bio:
"...he produced much of his remarkable work and in 1908 (age 29) he was appointed Privatdozent in Berne. In 1909 (age 30) he became Professor Extraordinary at Zurich, in 1911 (age 32) Professor of Theoretical Physics at Prague, returning to Zurich in the following year to fill a similar post. In 1914 (age 35) he was appointed Director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Physical Institute and Professor in the University of Berlin. In his early days in Berlin, Einstein postulated that the correct interpretation of the special theory of relativity must also furnish a theory of gravitation and in 1916 (age 37) he published his paper on the general theory of relativity. During this time he also contributed to the problems of the theory of radiation and statistical mechanics." (ages added by me-he was born in 1879)
Hardly a physicist that was marginalized. He was exceptional even when quite young, and recognized for it. You are quick with a lie, canary.
Yes, I am aware of the hypothesis, lkeith, just as I am aware of Darwin's hypothesis. I disagree with both.
Your "Moon from Earth" claim has a fatal flaw.... The hypothesis depends on one factor and one factor alone for survival -- the absence of Iron in the Moon's makeup while the Earth has an Iron core. Without that absence, the hypothesis falls apart.
Shall I recap? I suppose I should, else you would fail to see the flaw, living in a wee "scientific" box as you do.
The hypothesis of the Moon's creation -- vis-a-vis a large body impact with the Earth with ejecta -- in a nutshell:
1) Earth is essentially formed and stable with an iron core that has attracted and incorporated all Iron from the crust [mantle] into itself.
2) Along comes another iron-cored planet-sized body and impacts the Earth - the impactor is completely melted by the heat of impact -- gravity attracts its iron-core into the Earth's core leaving only non-iron bearing material in the ejecta along with Earth's non-iron bearing crustal ejecta.
3) Said ejecta forms the moon; voila! A moon without Iron! Hypothesis developed!
4) Problem is, the hypothesis depends on the Earth having NO appreciable amounts of Iron in its crust to be ejected. As even kiddies with magnets know, iron abounds in our crust -- it is the fourth most abundant element.
So, lkeith .......wait for it.......it's coming.....
"Where's the, er-r-r, IRON?" [Could NOT resist it!]
How did the Earth get so much iron in its crust and the Moon has none...yet you claim the Moon came from the Earth's crust? Vulcanism on Earth won't do it, lkeith...the Moon had it too. Maybe all those other meteorites, ya think? Naw, didn't so.
I prefer my "green cheese" story...at least it is funny and no one is trying to pass it off as.....dare I say it?... Gospel!
Hm-m-m. On second thought it just MIGHT be that iron from the Earth's core migrated upward through vulcanism...the moon had no iron core...that needs more thought/research. Problem is, at what point did Earth vulcanism occur; before or after the hypothetical large-body impact. In any case, the "required" lack of iron in the crust is interesting...
First, rolando, it's not MY theory. Second, have you even read it? Try this:
Third: the moon does have iron, but not an iron core. Given the timing, the core of the earth had already formed, leaving the iron-poor mantle as the source of moon material. Either the impact item was not iron (comet) or it had already formed its core.
Okay, rolando the expert: What evidence does this theory NOT explain? Be specific. If you run away again I'll know that you are blowing smoke yet again, and are a coward.
Oh, one more thing: Since you don't "accept" this theory, that means you have another theory. To shift the paradigm, your theory must explain ALL the evidence and do so better than the current one. Not my rules, science's rules. But of course, you already know that, right? So I'm putting this out for the benefit of others who might read it.
I have my coffee and anxiously await your response.
You needn't lecture me, lkeith. I am not one of your "students" nor do I fall into one of your precious boxes.
This hypothesis has been rattling around for years...it has gained notoriety since the moon shots.
You AGAIN err when you call this hypothesis a "theory". You are one of those who semi-violently and vociferously defended the phlogiston hypothesis and even the long accepted idea of the "ether".
Someone of your "scientific" persuasion [or so you claim] should know better, ikeith. Neither this hypothesis nor Darwin's Hope are theories...not quite yet. Get it right, oh "scientific" one.
I don't need a counter hypothesis...there is not enough data to do that. In any case, you would reject it so why bother...certainly not to please you.
Ah, but the hypothesis states that NO iron migrated, lkeith. Can't have it both ways. And yes, YOU championed the hypothesis, thereby accepting it and making it your own. Don't try to weasel out of it.
You haven't even addressed [probably missed it since it wasn't in your little box] what the loss of just over one percent of its mass [just under two percent of its volume] would have on the earth, to say nothing of the physics involved in the orbital changes imposed by such a catastrophic impact.
Finally, the hypothesis states the large body impacting the Earth DID have an iron core...it melted in the heat of impact and was somehow attracted to and was incorporated into the Earth's iron core [no explanation WHY it wasn't ejected along with the rest of its mass.]
Didn't you read all that or are you just ignoring it since it doesn't [yet again] fit into the neat little box you have built around the hypothesis.
You have WAY too many gaps in your supposedly "scientific" thought processes, lkeith. You confuse things, omit others, even change the facts/theories/hypotheses to fit your [faulty] perception of reality.
My coffee is gone and others here tire of this, as do I. See on the rebound.
You didn't read the theory, so you are spouting nonsense. You did not offer an alternative theory. In fact, I suspect you have no idea with the word "theory" means. You probably have no idea what the "Phlogiston Theory" was, and why it was abandoned, and what work led to its demise. Evolution is just as well supported as Atomic Theory, Gravity and the "Germ Theory of Disease". There is nothing called "Darwin's Hypothesis". But of course, that conflicts with your narrow views, so you reject it wholesale. I've met plenty of people like that.
You are wrong and you are too afraid/arrogant/stubborn to admit it.
In all seriousness, there is a wonderful, if not dated, film called the Creation of the Universe, a pbs film hosted by Timothy Ferris (about 1986). They have certainly made progress since then, but it helps folks like you and me understand how cosmologists and physicists work on understanding the big bang, including the use of particle accelerators.
It's available through netflix.
BTW, this website has a picture of data collected from the surface of the moon in regards to iron:
leithlu, thanks for the heads up on the pbs film. There is also an excellent show on the Science Channel called Through the Wormhole. It often follows Hawking's Universe. I dvr it regularly. Anyway, the episode on June 30th dealt with how the universe began while the one this past week explores where lifeforms come from. Now, I can't say that this show is for everyone but I believe that you would enjoy it.
indian, do your guns look like the one in the pictures?
Veddy in-ta-res-tink, Savarti. Thanks. Missed that one. So the side toward us has all the iron... Hm-m-m.
According to that Impact HYPOTHESIS, there shouldn't be any at all...
Maybe it bubbled up from the core during the moon's vulcanism period. Essentially ALL of the vulcanism occurred on the near side. But that would invalidate the LargeBody Impact HYPOTHESIS, wouldn't it?
My green cheese THEORY appears better and better, after all. :O)
"Hardly a physicist that was marginalized. He was exceptional even when quite young, and recognized for it. You are quick with a lie, canary".
I do not lie, you project that devious one.
A little excerpt from a long life tells, well little. I did not say he was marginalized. I did not say Einstein never achieved anything. In his own words he spoke of his detractors and the naysayers he's grappled wth since he was a child. What is your problem? Now you HAVE to prove you're right about Einstein and you know Einstein, you know it all. You smartbutts think you know everything about everyone. The assumptions, the twisting of words, the omission of facts, the continual accusations that we see in black and white only, when it's obvious that it's your brains that are made of concrete. Which is evident from all of your posts.
Rolando's analysis of you guys and your petty little minds should be posted on every University Career Bulletin Board. Dr. Rossiter's dissertation on the Leftist Mind should be posted next to it, as a warning. 'Be Aware, thinking like this Could lead to Cranial Stultification-or Worse. And "Pride goes before a Fall", will be your nemesis and your epitaph.
Speaking of Scotty who appeared above, I distinctly recall Scotty blowing ikey out of Left-field on every 'scientific' argument attempted.
Speaking of lies and liars, I distinctly recall many of my posts at that time (months ago) quoting Einstein and his 'theories', analyses and musings. Pointing out his brilliance. There was one ikeith character, like the alpie know-it-all, who came out of the woodwork and proclaimed not once, but a few times that Einstein was a mere Physicist, not even a "real scientist" or scientific thinker. Physicists she claimed, were akin to philosphers and the assumption was, of course that because I brought Einstein and his work up, then I must be wrong and Einstein was a bad example. He, in the ike-creature's mind just wasn't the 'Perfect Scientist' that she and her students KNOW her to be.
Brother, what shape-changers these Progs are. And THAT is the example of 'science' and a scientific thinker.
Sailor: here's one for ya: Guns don't kill. Science and mediocre scientists kill. Their imaginations, arrogance, drugs, false theories, manipulation of facts and figures, not to mention manipulations and perversions in the labs and research units of universities on human cloning, regeneration and transhumanism, experimentation on helpless animals, robbing the taxpayers of their hard-earned money and last, but not least, throwing their puny little arrogances in the Face of the Creator, make them and their Progressive kind, Killers worse than Indian's guns and Dewey's racist amigos.
Never, and please don't donate your brain or your heart (what's left of it), I pity the pathologists and their assistants when they witness what's left of them.
canary wrote: "Pointing out his brilliance. There was one ikeith character, like the alpie know-it-all, who came out of the woodwork and proclaimed not once, but a few times that Einstein was a mere Physicist, not even a "real scientist" or scientific thinker. Physicists she claimed, were akin to philosphers and the assumption was, of course that because I brought Einstein and his work up, then I must be wrong and Einstein was a bad example. He, in the ike-creature's mind just wasn't the 'Perfect Scientist' that she and her students KNOW her to be."
I never said scientists were perfect, not even Einstein. And I wasn't the one who said he was "just a physicist".
Of course, there are scientists today of Einstein's caliber (like Hawking) but the amount of scientific knowledge has expanded so much that you will never have again a Lavoisier or a Priestly, whose knowledge encompassed all areas of science. It is much more of a collaborative process now, where groups share information through peer review.
canary posted: "Scientific thinkers, in the West especially, are mere linear, bland and boring thinkers. There are few exceptions among them and those are like Einstein was, treated as pariahs. Of course."
And then posted: I did not say he was marginalized. I did not say Einstein never achieved anything.
Caught in a lie, which you have spent the last day or so denying. Being appointed to high level University positions in Berlin in the early 20th century at such a young age is not being treated as a pariah. As far as during childhood, he wasn't a scientist then. That's a stupid argument.
canary said:
"Sailor: here's one for ya: Guns don't kill. Science and mediocre scientists kill. Their imaginations, arrogance, drugs, false theories, manipulation of facts and figures, not to mention manipulations and perversions in the labs and research units of universities on human cloning, regeneration and transhumanism, experimentation on helpless animals, robbing the taxpayers of their hard-earned money and last, but not least, throwing their puny little arrogances in the Face of the Creator, make them and their Progressive kind, Killers worse than Indian's guns and Dewey's racist amigos."
So I'm sure you refuse medical treatment, especially drugs and antibiotics, refuse to drive a car, never use plastics, live off the grid but not with solar cells, wear all plant based fabrics, and your house contains no composites, only wood. On principle, given that science made all these possible. Of course, understanding evolution of humans and their relationship to the rest of the animal kingdom makes medicine more comprehensive and effective, but I am sure that you only visit doctors who practice "biblical" medicine.
canary said:
at 3:10 pm on July 6...
"Scientific thinkers, in the West especially, are mere linear, bland and boring thinkers. There are few exceptions among them and those are like Einstein was, treated as pariahs. Of course."
at 11:00 am on July 8...
"Einstein was NOT a rock star, let's get that straight, what a misnomer if ever there was one. He was loved and honored later in his life, AFTER many years of struggle, denigration from some of his peers and colleagues, teachers and citizens, many thought he was nuts. As is with all great and brilliant people."
at 12:04 am on July 10...
"I did not say he was marginalized."
at 12:31 am on July 10...
"Speaking of lies and liars, I distinctly recall many of my posts at that time (months ago) quoting Einstein and his 'theories', analyses and musings. Pointing out his brilliance. There was one ikeith character, like the alpie know-it-all, who came out of the woodwork and proclaimed not once, but a few times that Einstein was a mere Physicist, not even a "real scientist" or scientific thinker. Physicists she claimed, were akin to philosphers and the assumption was, of course that because I brought Einstein and his work up, then I must be wrong and Einstein was a bad example. He, in the ike-creature's mind just wasn't the 'Perfect Scientist' that she and her students KNOW her to be."
lkeith -- Going back a bit but I do so enjoy making you into a living representative of the Democrat's symbol -- an Ass...it is SO-O-O easy. :O)
Although I hesitate to use it because of the semi-worthless source, here is a quote from Wikipedia, one of your favorite "research sites":
"Newton himself often told the story that he was inspired to formulate his theory of gravitation by watching the fall of an apple from a tree."
Amazing a simple anecdote can bring about, isn't it?
Actually, I don't use wiki except for very basic info, though I recommend it to you because you are starting from zero. You still have not learned the difference between empirical evidence and anecdote. Why do you keep coming back before learning something? This is getting kind of boring.
ikes rants on: "canary posted: "Scientific thinkers, in the West especially, are mere linear, bland and boring thinkers. There are few exceptions among them and those are like Einstein was, treated as pariahs. Of course."
And then posted: I did not say he was marginalized. I did not say Einstein never achieved anything".
ikes rant-frothing: "Caught in a lie, which you have spent the last day or so denying. Being appointed to high level University positions in Berlin in the early 20th century at such a young age is not being treated as a pariah. As far as during childhood, he wasn't a scientist then. That's a stupid argument".
I SAID LATER IN HIS LIFE. Meaning after his infancy and throughout. If you want exact years, do YOUR homework and your own research 'teacher'.
Career marginalization and Pariah are two different words/concepts and subjects bub. I clarified above, but of course, to your petty little mind, that ignores main, salient points, you cannot leave it alone. IT IS NOT A LIE, to repeat what Einstein said about certain colleagues during his lifetime. AND IT WOULDN'T BE THE FIRST TIME a scientist, artist, author/writer or whoever, was treated as a "Pariah" by any of their colleagues OR was marginalized. The perfect example (one argument you lost big time BUB), has been the devious, lying climate scientists who fudged the graphs, figures and data on climate change, while treating their THOUSANDS OF OTHER COLLEAGUES LIKE PARIAHS, circumventing their ability to publish their dissenting opinions. Einstein wasn't the first, nor the last to experience those kind of mediocre dunderheads or have certain of his works MARGINALIZED.
and smartbutt-savarti cutely reposts my previous statements above ""Einstein was NOT a rock star, let's get that straight, what a misnomer if ever there was one. He was loved and honored later in his life, AFTER many years of struggle, denigration from some of his peers and colleagues, teachers and citizens, many thought he was nuts. As is with all great and brilliant people"...
...to prove what, pray tell? My points and comments were right on and I know what I said. You supposed mind-readers and Assumers should crack yourselves up. Not only do you not do proper research, you do not read correctly and comprehend what has been said. You instead, DEMAND confirmation of petty details and moot points that should be obvious to even the dumbest 2nd grader. Is September here yet? I hate to wish you back to 'school', indoctrinating the poor souls therein, but you both obviously are having a lazy, very hazy summer. Bubs.
Oh, sure, canary. That REALLY clears things up. (sarcasm obvious?) Einstein was never treated like a pariah (yes, your word) He was respected and honored throughout his life. Scientists don't always treat each other with respect (you should see the world of paleo-anthropology) Scientists debate, promote and defend ideas, critique the ideas of others. It can be pretty fierce, and I'm sure Einstein took part in this as well. But science isn't for the sensitive-Einstein's record that I posted shows that he held important positions early in life, so he had the respect of his peers. But of course, you know nothing about science, so you can't possibly comprehend how science is done.
You have still been caught in a lie, and still deny it, even though your words are right here.
you said: "...to prove what, pray tell? My points and comments were right on and I know what I said. You supposed mind-readers and Assumers should crack yourselves up. Not only do you not do proper research, you do not read correctly and comprehend what has been said. You instead, DEMAND confirmation of petty details and moot points that should be obvious to even the dumbest 2nd grader. Is September here yet? I hate to wish you back to 'school', indoctrinating the poor souls therein, but you both obviously are having a lazy, very hazy summer. Bubs.
You posted the details, and I called you on them. Ever here of the phrase "God is in the details"? Accuracy matters. You say something wrong and I see it, I will call you on it. Shifting the goalposts and handwaving and counter-accusations don't change a thing, sweetie. You are busted and you know it.
Normally I try to tune these arguments out, but this dispute has spilled into multiple threads.
Canary refers to Einstein's letter about Marcel Grossman, in which Einstein writes, "I remember our student days. He the irreproachable student, I myself, unorderly and a dreamer. He, on good terms with the teachers and understanding everything, I a pariah, discontent and little loved..."
This all could have been averted if either A) canary would deign to list a specific, researchable source once in her life or B) Ikeithlu would take two seconds to Google.
I normally like reading both of your posts, but the back-and-forth this past week makes me want to grate my eyeballs. Give it a rest already. (And if you're thinking of unloading some snarky 500-word line-by-line response, save yourself the finger exercise; I'm not interested.)
I'm glad you said this, sd. The quote you gave does not support what canary implied, however, which was my point. I agree that these posts go on and on accomplishing little to nothing. As entertaining as they can be, they are ignored by most readers, which I certainly understand.