tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post911108173358595876..comments2023-10-17T02:52:22.037-07:00Comments on David's blog: Political update for January, 2013Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17038118012770250140noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-51541812231300906482013-02-01T10:12:23.216-08:002013-02-01T10:12:23.216-08:00I thought we were done here, but good questions. F...I thought we were done here, but good questions. First question, no, I don't agree about a first amendment issue if there is a an otherwise lawful law/regulation (we don't know what they may be, so I have to be general). It would be a different story if the design was outlawed without some rational connection to preventing something the government has an interest in and no other avenue existed to meaningfully express the same viewpoint. That would be hard to show in most cases where they can argue public safety (whether anyone disagrees in their wisdom or not). E.g., you could not successfully say I do not want a guard on my lathe b/c it violates my freedom of expression or burning my draft card is my expression or I want to express my faith in Agni by lighting tires on fire in the park. You could certainly argue that there are grey areas where protection is afforded but that is usually because the gov't interest is not deemed strong enough. This is only a comment and there is only so much I can say.<br /><br />As to what I think are high powered weapons doesn't matter that much. I'm the last person who is a gun expert. I only know the difference between a semi-automatic and automatic b/c you taught me. What I mean is that I believe that Heller/McDonald deliberately leave plenty of room for regulation of the place guns are brought, the power of the weapon (number of bullets; automatic v. semi-auto v, etc.; caliber,and so on, for example), the visibility of the weapon in public and who may be restricted. Obviously there is a level I and I think most Americans would say - that's just preposterous, like if they wanted to ban handguns that fired more than 6 bullets. You, I and Bear and everyone else may differ on when the regs go too far, but, that is true of almost every issue. The law must be constitutional (including rational), not necessarily wise in anyone's view. Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17038118012770250140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-90103044689952728652013-02-01T08:23:35.688-08:002013-02-01T08:23:35.688-08:00Well Bear's Tombstone quote put me in an unten...Well Bear's Tombstone quote put me in an untenable position. He was quoting Doc Holiday. I would have been forced to quote a drunk Johnny Ringo screaming that they should "play for blood" before being unceremoniously whisked away by Curly Bill. Bear aleady had the high ground on that one.<br /><br />David...you didn't comment on my theory that there may be a speech component to adorning firearms with non fuctional items. Any thoughts.<br />And, what did you mean by limiting "high powered" weaponry? What are being called assault weapons are anything but high powered. They generally shoot either 5.65 ammo or .223 ammo. Both are low to intermediate power. ( A .223 is basically an elongated .22 rifle cartridge)In fact, they are so low powered that some states do not allow those rounds to be used to hunt deer. Even the military- who does define an assault rifle- states that it is a select fire (meaning FULLY AUTOMATIC) with an intermediate power cartdridge. Traditionally high powered rifles (30-06 .308) are traditional hunting rifles in use since the 19th century. So are tose the high powered firearms you are open to lomiting???<br />-DonDonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-90234792042946410912013-02-01T07:49:43.662-08:002013-02-01T07:49:43.662-08:00As Don clarified his thoughts, we agree more than ...As Don clarified his thoughts, we agree more than we disagree. David- one mistake in your summary - I do not agree that the climate change is "warming", the same misinterpretation of my position that Don makes, nor do I agree that it is entirely man made. Other than that, we are in sync. Overall, the scorecard is: economics - we completely disagree climate change - we agree that many groups seize it as a political issue, we disagree as to whether it is a real scientific event - guns - we actually all pretty much agree. For the three of us, 33% agreement is pretty good.Bearnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-42414924216358739772013-02-01T01:58:32.036-08:002013-02-01T01:58:32.036-08:00Odd, no comment by Don on Bear's provocative u...Odd, no comment by Don on Bear's provocative use of a Tombstone quote from one of Don's favorite film characters. But, let me summarize as best I can based on what I read above, understanding that everyone may have nuances that haven't expressed:<br /><br />Global warming: Bear believes in global warming and it is man-made. Don believes not only not man-made, but there is no global warming. Both of them believe the other side is driven by politics but that science of it is understandable to them and clearly supports their position. David is agnostic on global warming, and if it exists, whether man contributes to it. The science of it is not clear to him, and he believes both sides driven by politics, there being evidence insufficient to form an opinion, but burden on those asserting one.<br /><br />Guns: Don believes in no gun control (position not stated on sensitive places) and strong on 2d amt. right to bear/keep arms. Bear believes in some gun control on high powered weaponry but most gun control helps bad guys (position not stated on sensitive places, but my guess is it's okay with him to ban non-security personnel guns in places like banks) and appears, best I can tell, to think 2d amt. does not contain individual right to bear/keep guns. David believes 2d amt. unclear as to meaning, believes in some gun control on high powered weaponry and some sensitive places but also agrees most gun control helps bad guys. <br /><br />Spending: Bear believes Paul Krugman correct and more debt would be beneficial. David believes Krugman wrong and more debt would be disastrous. Don believes Krugman is Coo Coo for Coco Puffs and more gov't debt would be disastrous.<br /> <br />I will make only one more comment to bait the Bear, by quoting one of his favorite political philosphers, Thomas Jefferson, from a letter to James Monroe: "We are ruined, Sir, if we do not over-rule the principles that 'the more we owe, the more prosperous we shall be,' 'that a public debt furnishes the means of enterprise.'"<br /><br />After all my bashing of TJ's character, you might be surprised by the quote, but like me, he was a believer in enlightenment values. More on him coming one day in the foreseeable future.<br />Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17038118012770250140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-8654692773538216062013-01-31T21:11:32.122-08:002013-01-31T21:11:32.122-08:00I knew I'd get a response from Bear!! Just tod...I knew I'd get a response from Bear!! Just today a Japanese syudy came out that has analyzed the data on global temperatures and came to the conclusion that the trend in warming has stopped. And it stopped some time ago. I would not argue with a thermometer, However, those pushing global warming (climate change..whatever) have made strong and calamitous predictions...and thus far they are wrong. It should just be a scientific observation but it is not; there is definitely a political component. But from what I see ( and I'm open to having examples of the other side doing this)those tubthumping the warming issue want to respond to it by limiting the freedom of individuals and confiscating money to give to the government. It isn't about global warming; it is about expanding the state and limiting the individual. That seems to be a recurring theme from the left. And also, may of those promoting CAGW don't really ACT like its a catastrophe in the making. They only want you and I to act (and be treated like) it's a catastrophe. It's really similar to the gun control debate; ( and I thought you and I basically agreed on that one from previous comments- thanks for clarifying)there are thos ewho want to decide for you and I that there are guns that are too dangerous for us to have. I think I'm the oerson best suited to make that decision. If you decide having an AR-15 is good for you and I decide a FN PS90 is good for me and David is happy with a 7mm pistol- we should all be left to out choices. Of course, assuming we are not using said firearms to rob banks. And I think you'd have to admit that the anti gun types (and they do seem to be mostly left leaning)have really lived up to every stereotype of gun ignorance that gun enthusiasts have imagined. Supposedly knowledgable commentators speaking of "high capacity ammunition" and "fully automatic semi-automatics". If I hear one more commentator stating "Why does someone need a SEMI-AUTOMATIC AR-15?" (usually in a tone or moral disapproval). They are just ignorant. To me it sounds as silly as someone speaking of pick up trucks and saying, "Why would someone need a GASOLINE POWERED F150??" In fact, you never hear it mentioned when someone is hit by a car that it was "gasoline powered"...but whern someone is shot it was by a "semi-automatic" gun.<br />As to government versus individual financing I only see a difference in one regard (and it's the one I assume you are referring)and that is that the government can print money. But the printing of money debases its value on a continual basis. And at an unkown tipping point it will crash into bankruptcy (Zimbabwe anyone?)Otherwise why isn't my idea of the government giving everyone several billion dollars sound economic policy? The government gives itself billions of dollars..why is there a difference??<br /><br />And david you are right that the whole "assault weapon" thing drives me batty. First of all any gun NOT capable of assault is broken or a toy gun. Further it does seem that the term has been applied for purely artificial reasons to guns that liberaal women think look "scary". the worst part is that those who are trying to ban them are doing so for purely cosmetic reasons. They see a rifle with a pistol grip or barrel shroud and say its "military style" Yeah...and if I throw a couple decals on my car its NASCAR style". And now that I think about it wouldn't prely cosmetic acoutrements on a gun be speec and therfore covered not only by the 2nd amendment but the first as well?????<br />-DonDonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-53682364347427652492013-01-31T14:44:35.827-08:002013-01-31T14:44:35.827-08:00Oh, wait, one more thing. Bear, you really have to...Oh, wait, one more thing. Bear, you really have to watch the way you spell fallacious. Think about it.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17038118012770250140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-32627692845718335232013-01-31T14:33:12.832-08:002013-01-31T14:33:12.832-08:00"I'm your daisy." Now how is he supp..."I'm your daisy." Now how is he supposed to come back when you quoted from one of his favorite movies (mine and yours too - we do have some things in common)?<br /><br />But, go ahead, Don. I'd like to read it. <br /><br />As for Bear, would you accept a statement from Don such as "It is also my belief that partisans like 'spending scolds' and 'climate change is a fact because that belief suits my politics' cannot be convinced of anything." It seems you almost agree with me -- you agree that belief in climate change is political - only you feel it is only people who don't agree with you who are like that. I'm sure you know, they feel the same about you. I feel that way about all of you. As to your claim about there being no issue among scientists, you just have to google to find that there are those who don't. Besides, it can be answered with two words - the ether.<br /><br />I don't know precisely what Don's position on guns is, but it sounds like you and I mostly agree. Don will probably point out that the debate is about so-called assault weapons, the definition of which can vary, not automatics, a weapon that sprays multiple bullets with one pull of the trigger, in particular.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17038118012770250140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-77050365940727347942013-01-31T11:41:30.960-08:002013-01-31T11:41:30.960-08:00I know I have no hope of getting either of you to ...I know I have no hope of getting either of you to agree with my economic viewpoint. All I can do is laugh when it works. One thing though Don, comparing personal money management to government economic policy is fellatious from the outset. You can't do apples to oranges when it's convenient, and apples to apples when it's not. As for climate change, I'm only arguing that while many have seized it as a political issue it is not. It is a scientific development and while there is much debate about cause there is almost no more argument about the reality. Amongst scientists, that is. And I can go toe to toe with anyone on the science, though I don't have an advanced degree so I can't argue the calculus. It is also my belief that partisans like "anti-spending scolds" and "climate change is a myth because that belief suits my politics" cannot be convinced of anything. While our polar caps melt, sea level rises, and species go extinct at never before seen rates, you wlll remain in denial. It's okay. And Don, I'm on your side in regard to the gun issue, it's the bizarre way some folks read the 2nd amendment that amuses me. I agree with you that gun bans and gun control are generally ridiculous and mostly work in criminal's favor. I do think that access to high powered fully automatic weaponry ought to be limited more than it currently is though. Now, have your fun with me. I'm your daisy.Bearnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-989976084319120802013-01-31T03:16:54.214-08:002013-01-31T03:16:54.214-08:00That's more like it. Wait, a pox on my house t...That's more like it. Wait, a pox on my house too? Which part? <br /><br />If it's on global warming, I wrote one paragraph and I don't see how the three points I made are debatable. There is no doubt that opinions on global warming (and man's contribution) are linked to political viewpoints even if you are sure yours aren't. There is no doubt that most people cannot read or understand the scientific data (and whereas there is value to reading lay material, it is not the same thing). And, last, there is no doubt that modeling and speculation are rampant in the field. I have not stated all my opinions on it in one paragraph, but what do you disagree with on what I wrote, if anything?<br /><br />If on guns, which of my 3 points do you disagree with? That the amendment is vaguely written? Even Scalia had to do an historical analysis, which he would not have if the text was plain. That the better policy is to allow people to arm themselves? I know you don't disagree with that. Or last, that like Scalia and all who signed on with him (and the president), there are limits to the right. If there aren't, you have difficulty arguing that there can be limits to any of the bill of rights. So, no slander laws, no barring screaming fire in a crowded theatre or drowing out a judge in court. A cop can't tackle a man fleeing from a murder with a smoking gun. That can't be it. I know you like the Privileges and Immunities argument, but only Thomas agrees with you. Doesn't mean you are wrong, but hard to argue it is obvious. <br /><br />Am I missing something? Why put a pox on my house (no problem putting a pox on his, of course)?<br /><br />But, thanks for the passionate comment and especially leaping into the fray against the Bear.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17038118012770250140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-41572668827522257222013-01-30T20:52:18.284-08:002013-01-30T20:52:18.284-08:00OK. A partial pox on both of you. A minor pox on D...OK. A partial pox on both of you. A minor pox on David first. I have spent loads of time reading the raw data on the hoax (yes Bear, hoax) of CAGW. If you'd like to chat about Pacific decadal oscillation, el nino, la nina effect, heaat islands around weather stations and their cumulative effect, as well as feedback loops and their effect on arctic vs antarctic sea ice extent I'd be happy too. But you are right in that it is political. And only leftists...again looking at you Bear....still try to call climate prediction "science". There has never been a more shamanistic religion than CAGW adherents. They are like all the false predictions of the end of the world...it's definitely going to happen on (insert date). And then it doesn't happen so the same acolytes say that there prediction is still correct but they figured the day wrong and the new day is...blah blah blah. It's really just like the Mayan Apocalypse nuts..oh the world didn't end on 12-21-12. Well see the Mayans were really right but we didn't have leap years and the calendar changed so mayby it will happen in April of 2013. The global warmists have been making detailed predictions and they have been wrong wrong wrong. How many times do you want to keep buying into it. <br />And anyone who doesn't realize by now that Krugman is a fool. His basic idea; discredited throughout history (and I think as well in this post)is that debts does not matter and spending should be exponentially increased to improve the economy. Because after all, we ll know so many people who got out of poverty by doubling and tripling their expenditures. Ya right. Of course he will keep saying (ill educated fool that he is) that debt doesn't matter. It's like the fool of a structural engineer who keeps saying the faulty bridge is fine because cars and people keep passing over it. That fool is right too,,,,right up to the point when the bridge collapses. It doesn't give way over months and years...it falls down- BOOM. Just like the debt. It's no problem until it crashes down suddenly. If Kruman's ideas are so great why not deposit 100 billion dollars in everyone's bank account? That will make everyone rich and the economy will go gang busters. And the Krugman school had that great idea about the<br /> trillion dollar coin. If that's such a good idea why dodn't we mint 16 of them and wipe out the debt completely. And actually how about 100 of them and therby cover all the unfunded liabilities totalling 100 trillion. Apparently only Bear and Krugman think that's a good idea.<br /><br />And as to a small portion of the 2nd amendment comments; there has never been a dumber idea (even dumber than CAGW) than the idea that keeping people from taking guns into "sensitive" (WTF does that mean) areas. I have a great application for that theory if its so good. Let's remove the guns from security personnel guarding all politicians (including the President)and just declare the areas around them "Gun Free Zones". They will be much safer that way don't you agree??<br />-DonDonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-48365837158520241842013-01-29T14:41:06.518-08:002013-01-29T14:41:06.518-08:00Where is the guy who told me today he liked the po...Where is the guy who told me today he liked the post enough that he forwarded it to his mom? Can't comment just a little? I'll settle for a sycophant. <br /><br />I'll have to try to battle this beast all on my own?:<br /><br />"So Obama is doing something beyond the scope of the position of the Presidency simply because you disagree with him. . ."<br /><br />Silly argument I did not like the healthcare act or the stimulus act, but I would not call either overstepping his bounds as president to put them forth or to sign them (though I thought the ACA unconstitutional). But, when he makes appointments when congress is in session or starts a war without following the War Powers Act never mind the Constitution, then yes, absolutely, that is overstepping his bounds. What you are suggesting is that presidents have no limits. That way lies tyranny.<br /><br />". . .and despite the lengthy precedent of Presidents imposing themselves in the economic policy of our country for, oh the entire history of Presidents (with the one possible exception of Washington who really tried to stay out of the Jefferson-Hamilton economic warfare)." <br /><br />Not really my argument, but, a number of presidents did not, unless you count signing bills. I know you know better. I've far exceeded 4,096 characters or I'd go into it more.<br /><br />"Paul Krugman wrote a great column recently about the increased virulence of the 'anti-spending scolds' as they have been proved wrong once again."<br /><br />I didn't read the column, though I saw it. But, I've read other of his columns and I know his position - the stimulus didn't work because we didn't spend enough. I disagree. Many economists out there who agree with me (or I with them, if you prefer). <br /><br />"You almost sound like one of those really partisan guys, except you are anti-partisan so how does that work out for ya'?" <br /><br />How many times must I explain to you the difference between ideological differences and partisanship? How do you explain, if that I agree with him on many foreign policy issues including, mostly anyway, Israel and on gay rights? Good try though.<br /><br />"Or have you become one of those guys who thinks climate change is more a political issue rather than a scientific one (one of my tests for partisanship as opposed to a more neutral, reasoned point of view)?"<br /><br />I've said many times, climate change is a political issue. Polls have shown it is precisely so. No one I personally know who has an opinion on it has any real idea about the scientific data. I have had one conversation with a climatologist who told me that (this is pretty much common knowledge if you look) that scientists have little more than models and speculation on man's contribution. So, yes, I remain agnostic on it, though I think those who believe it is manmade have the burden of persuasion and those who feel it is due to sunspots or something else, the burden on that. <br /><br />"How you feelin' about the second amendment these days? I can almost see you on a porch wearing suspenders polishing your shotgun."<br /><br />Feel the same about the 2d amendment as always have. There is simply a dearth of proof as to what was meant by the founders other than there is some kind of right and the Supreme Court showed us how partisan their decision was. Policy wise, I think people should be able to arm themselves, but I certainly agree with Justice Scalia and Pres. Obama that the fact of a right does not mean there are no limits to it, including to ""prohibit...the possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill" and "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." <br /><br />Yes, I can see myself sitting on a porch too, but not in this weather and definitely not in overalls, which I think I last wore as a teenager, or polishing a gun. Thanks for giving me the opportunity today to pontificate even more.<br /><br /><br />Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17038118012770250140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-60090274948426976152013-01-29T12:07:50.350-08:002013-01-29T12:07:50.350-08:00So Obama is doing something beyond the scope of th...So Obama is doing something beyond the scope of the position of the Presidency simply because you disagree with him and despite the lengthy precedent of Presidents imposing themselves in the economic policy of our country for, oh the entire history of Presidents (with the one possible exception of Washington who really tried to stay out of the Jefferson-Hamilton economic warfare). Paul Krugman wrote a great column recently about the increased virulence of the "anti-spending scolds" as they have been proved wrong once again. You almost sound like one of those really partisan guys, except you are anti-partisan so how does that work out for ya'? Or have you become one of those guys who thinks climate change is more a political issue rather than a scientific one (one of my tests for partisanship as opposed to a more neutral, reasoned point of view)? How you feelin' about the second amendment these days? I can almost see you on a porch wearing suspenders polishing your shotgun.Bearnoreply@blogger.com