Photogdog Loc: New Kensington, PA

[quote=PNagy
If for political purposes, the corporate media labels a party as "far left," you buy into it hook line and sinker. In fact, there are only minor differences between the platforms of the two major parties. Both are bought and sold by essentially the same corporations. Thus, it is plutocratic interests that are represented by both. If you think that controlling gun ownership is a far left initiative, to you, left is only a vague term in electioneering.[/quote]

I think we have to agree to disagree.

Most republicans (at least the ones in my voting area) are still in favor of capitalism. Gun control means a reduction in revenue due to lost sales and increased unemployment (Not to mention the fact that it's been proven time and again not to work. Look at Chicago, New York and Los Angeles. They have some of the most Draconian gun laws in existence and they're free-fire zones).

Most of the democrats in this same area are more in favor of social programs which of course are funded by tax dollars coming from where, people out of work?

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

If you think there are only minor differences between platforms then you have been far left in a vacuum.

PNagy Loc: Missouri City, Texas

..................................................................

You cannot wiggle out of your irresponsible contention that the Democrats are a far left party. As I stated, they are bankrolled by virtually the same corporate interests as the Republicans. On the data that relate to it there is nothing on which to disagree or agree on; look it up. Obama's number one corporate sponsor in both elections he won was Goldman Sachs, a far right banking firm that has benefitted greatly from the TARP law that Obama as junior senator from Illinois helped write (via the proxy of Roger Altman), and for which he voted.

Your complaining about welfare as a threat to everyone in that it makes a majority depend on free handouts from those who still work is nonsense. No one would choose the paltry living that welfare offers over a real opportunity to make good money. Moreover, the welfare reforms that made it much harder to receive "free stuff" were promulgated through the efforts of "far left" Bill Clinton.

The current inflation of the welfare rolls is due to the depression. More people out of work means more relying on Unemployment Compensation. Moreover, because of the widespread Walmartization of the American worker, many on the welfare rolls actually work more than full-time, having multiple jobs, none of them separately nor all of them together being enough to make ends meet.

The worst free handouts are not to individual welfare recipients, whether they work or not, but to the recipients of corporate welfare. Trillions have been handed to criminal bankers, tens of billions annually via oil depletion allowances and other huge tax breaks and subsidies to wealthy corporations. That does not even touch the costs of militarization, purportedly $700 billion a year, but actually about twice that amount, all for defense against whom? The US has greater lead in military power over the next closest rival or combination of rivals than any nation ever had in the entirety of human history.

The result of all this is that unemployment hovers around 7.7%, and most of the nation is in a depression, but corporate profits are at an all time high. In other words, the plutocracy has managed to shift an unprecedented percentage of the national wealth to themselves, but you prefer to worry about the relatively small amounts that go to individual relief.

PhotoTex Loc: Texas

In ther same way that airport security is security theater, baning clips etc. is gun violence eradication theater.

Photogdog Loc: New Kensington, PA

[quote=PNagyYour complaining about welfare as a threat to everyone in that it makes a majority depend on free handouts from those who still work is nonsense. No one would choose the paltry living that welfare offers over a real opportunity to make good money. Moreover, the welfare reforms that made it much harder to receive "free stuff" were promulgated through the efforts of "far left" Bill Clinton.

The current inflation of the welfare rolls is due to the depression. More people out of work means more relying on Unemployment Compensation. Moreover, because of the widespread Walmartization of the American worker, many on the welfare rolls actually work more than full-time, having multiple jobs, none of them separately nor all of them together being enough to make ends meet.

The worst free handouts are not to individual welfare recipients, whether they work or not, but to the recipients of corporate welfare. Trillions have been handed to criminal bankers, tens of billions annually via oil depletion allowances and other huge tax breaks and subsidies to wealthy corporations. That does not even touch the costs of militarization, purportedly $700 billion a year, but actually about twice that amount, all for defense against whom? The US has greater lead in military power over the next closest rival or combination of rivals than any nation ever had in the entirety of human history.

The result of all this is that unemployment hovers around 7.7%, and most of the nation is in a depression, but corporate profits are at an all time high. In other words, the plutocracy has managed to shift an unprecedented percentage of the national wealth to themselves, but you prefer to worry about the relatively small amounts that go to individual relief.[/quote]

PNagy,

Again, I have to agree to disagree.

I put in almost 30 years at a large, international coatings firm that was hugely invested with the United Way. They had an annual kick-off called the Day of Caring where the company would encourage employees to volunteer to work on projects throughout the area in order to increase donations.

A friend of mine jumped in and ended up in the projects of a REALLY bad part of town (coincidentally, her fiance had a news stand not far away so she was familiar with the neighborhood and knew what to expect).

The next day, I asked her how it went. She said she would never do it again. I replied that I could understand since it's such a bad part of town. She responded that wasn't the problem. When she & her group arrived, there were broken beer and wine bottles all over the place along with chicken bones and other trash all over the quadrangle.

They start cleaning up and within a couple of hours they heard laughter from up above. They look up and see some of the local "men" sitting on the balconies drinking beer & wine and smoking joints making fun of the "dumb asses" cleaning up after their mess. While Debbie & her friends are working, they keep throwing trash down at them.

She said after a while, a few of the women came out to help them. She told me that if these people don't care how they live, why the HELL should I?

I used to live in a suburban development and when the democrats tried to move the project people into the area, the people who lived there protested like crazy. The government backed off but came back later & pulled it off. Not only did they get these people into nice duplexes, they also set it up so the county would take care of all the maintenance inside & out and the places still looked like dumps inside & out. Property values went in the toilet.

When there is no pride of ownership, there is no value. Local & state republicans fought this program tooth & nail. The ruling county democratic machine pushed it through. What we ended up with was a failed social program being extended from the inner city to the suburbs where, for some strange reason, most people seem to think that working for a living has value. If living off the public dole is so bad, why don't more of the healthy welfare sucklers get jobs?

This was a TOTALLY democratic policy as Allegheny County has been ruled by the democrats for an eternity.

These are the same people that passed an additional 1% sales tax (7% in Alleghent County versus 6% elsewhere which is why city residents go outside the county to buy cars, large appliances, etc) & had no mechanism in place to disperse the extra cash as it came in. Guess what? Slush fund.

GIVE ME A BREAK. I've seen the democrats & the republicans operating in this theater for a LOT of years now. Don't try to tell me they're the same. My wallet and I know better.

Years ago, Jeb Bush, governor of Florida, signed a bill that had passed both state houses that basically stated if a reasonably healthy person was still on state welfare after three years, they were cut off. Either get a job or move out of state. A year or so later, a democratic study found that the new program ONLY had a 50% success rate. I would LOVE to see some of the democratic social programs come close to that rate.

DennisK Loc: Pickle City,Illinois

You wouldn't know facts if they bit you on the ass.

TrainNut Loc: Ridin' the rails

PNagy wrote:
"No one would choose the paltry living that welfare offers over a real opportunity to make good money."

You don't live in the real world.

TrainNut Loc: Ridin' the rails

Found on the internet when I did research.
"CBS News found that support for stricter guns laws dropped from 57 percent to 47 percent, and CNN from 52 percent to 43 percent. An ABC News/Washington Post poll had support slipping only from 54 percent to 52 percent"

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/rich-lowry-opinion-the-great-gun-control-fizzle-896...

OVERWHELMING?

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

And that is from the liberal media. So we know the numbers are actually lower in favor.

TrainNut Loc: Ridin' the rails

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Richard94611 Loc: Oakland, CA

If you watch the news on about five different stations and if you listen to National Public Radio, they all say the same thing about the percentage of Americans who want more stringent gun control. I am quite sure the Pugh (don't know how to spells it, but you known the organization I mean) Research Group discovered this to be true.

If you don't know anyone who wants stringent gun control, then that indicates the sort of people you associate with. You have self selected yourself out of the mainstream.

imntrt1 Loc: St. Louis

I associate with people from all different walks of life, so it is not confined to a small circle of like minded people. I have a law enforcement background so many of my friends are from that venue - however I socialize with Doctors, Lawyers, Aeronautical Engineers, Contractors, pilots, nurses, college professors, teachers, racing professionals, film makers, judges and more. Just as a side note...I know of NO ONE Personally from Law Enforcement (those on the front lines of weapon vilolations) that believe gun control laws work. And pardon me for saying so...But I believe those people in Law Enforcement know a tad bit more than these idiots in Congress about what is really going on out here.

Freeride Loc: Sioux Falls, South Dakota

I was going to address Richard but to what avail? I notice he reigns from Oakland CA. which I believe is becoming one of the most dangerous cities in the U.S. And California has some of the most stringent Gun Laws in the United States. How is that working for you? But they are ruled or at least have politicians most sane people would be ashamed of.I expect a demeaning reply from him which doesn't bother me one bit. I do not nor would I expect him be reply in a manner that would indicate he has courage to defend himself or his family (if he is blessed with one). Let alone his neighborhood or country. Feel free Richard to attack me in any manner you want. I really don't care for or will honor your views. They have proved fatal for so many sheeple......

Photogdog Loc: New Kensington, PA

To tell you the truth, I wouldn't bother. This guy gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "California...Land of fruits and nuts."

I think he's just screwing with us. Nobody can be THIS stupid. I think he just wants to keep the thread going.

D.Clayton Loc: Arizona

I think u nailed it!