Number 8 for school shootings in 2018, over 200 school shootings since Sandy Hook, but we don't have any issues; move along. Our kids are disconnected, desensitized with violent video games and they come home to two working parents too tired to turn off the TV and social media to listen and hear.

Put that together with easy access to weapons of mass destruction and it's no wonder we are on this pace. I won't start the AR debate, since a semi auto pistol probably could do the same damage, but this troubled teen posted he was going to be a professional school shooter and nobody questions him or his parents?

Mental health is a big issue, tied to these shootings, the opioid epidemic, but let's fund the wall first; got to take care of campaign promises.

Fund Mental and Physical health and infrastructure and you can reduce the number of people dying far more than spending Billions on terrorism.
But it's not as sexy
The Fatal Numbers:

The odds of being the victim of a shark attack are 1 in 11.5 million worldwide. Although there are 65 annual shark attacks each year, only a handful are fatal. Compared to this, a person is 3 times more likely to drown and 30 times more likely to be hit by lightning.
Compared to being killed by a dog, the likelihood of which is 1 in 18 million, a person is twice as likely to win the lottery and 5 times as likely to be struck by lightning.
One in 8 men and 1 in 24 women over the age of 40 will die from a sudden heart attack, while 1 in 4 men and 1 in 5 women will die from cancer.
Worldwide, 1 in about 2,050 people will die each year from unclean water, which carries numerous, life-threatening diseases. Each year, more people die from a lack of clean water than from wars.
The chances of being killed in a terrorist attack are about 1 in 20 million. A person is as likely to be killed by his or her own furniture, and more likely to die in a car accident, drown in a bathtub, or in a building fire than from a terrorist attack.
The chances a person will be killed by an asteroid are 1 in 200,000, which is much higher than the odds of being killed by hail, which is 1 in 734,400,000.
Each year, 1 out of 100,000 people die in a skydiving accident, which is 17 times lower than the risk of dying in a car accident.
11 out of every 100,000 women in the United States will die after giving birth, which is ranked ahead of 40 other countries in maternal mortality. Obesity and the prevalence of C-sections have contributed to the increase in maternal mortality rates.
The odds of dying in a severe storm are 1 in 68,388. A person is more likely to die slipping in his or her bathtub, which occurs at a rate of 1 in 11,469.
A person’s chances of dying in an elevator are 1 in 10,440,000. Due to successful elevator brake systems, an elevator has plunged only once—in the Empire State Building in 1945.
The lifetime probability of dying in a car accident is 1 in 100, which is 200 times higher than the probability of dying in a plane crash.
While 1 out of 5 people fear the possibility of being murdered, the odds that a person will be murdered in any given year are about 1 in 18,690. According to the FBI, violent crime is now at a near-historic low.
According to the CDC, the infant mortality rate is about 6 for every 1,000 live births, which is more than 10 times higher than the mortality rate of the county with the highest vehicle mortality rate—San Bernardino, California—in the country.
The chance of being killed by a bear while visiting Yellowstone National Park is 1 in 2.1 million. As a park visitor, a person is more likely to die from drowning or burns sustained from falling into a thermal pool.

More often than not the parents effectively give up their roles as parents and "expect" the school system to raise their kids.

When their "little angel" gets punished for breaking any of the school rules, these same parents will blame the school but never their "angel".

When their "angel" goes on a killing spree, these same parents will claim that it was "everyone else's" fault but never their own negligence that created this satan spawn.


This latest POS was expelled from said school, and when the police came he had an exit plan...join the rest of the students and walk out.
Mental issue? sure, but more diabolical because he had planned his "get away".

Does Florida have the death penalty???

The problem you have is one side doesn't want to think there's a mental Health problem, and the other side doesn't want to think there's a gun problem.

When the answer is probably in the middle....and nobody wants to look there.

Number 8 for school shootings in 2018, over 200 school shootings since Sandy Hook, but we don't have any issues; move along. Our kids are disconnected, desensitized with violent video games and they come home to two working parents too tired to turn off the TV and social media to listen and hear.

Put that together with easy access to weapons of mass destruction and it's no wonder we are on this pace. I won't start the AR debate, since a semi auto pistol probably could do the same damage, but this troubled teen posted he was going to be a professional school shooter and nobody questions him or his parents?

Mental health is a big issue, tied to these shootings, the opioid epidemic, but let's fund the wall first; got to take care of campaign promises.

"Our kids are disconnected, desensitized with violent video games and they come home to two working parents too tired to turn off the TV and social media to listen and hear. "

Exactly, exactly. Our culture is sick, our moral compass is in need of repair. Parents aren't spending enough time with their kids.

" won't start the AR debate, since a semi auto pistol probably could do the same damage"

True, but these types of weapons have a sexy look, which fuels the fantasies of a small number of very sick folks.

"nobody questions him or his parents? "

This was a deeply disturbed kid who lost both of his adopted parents by the time he was 18.

This kid was so broken, that his high school determined he could not bring a backpack to school. He could not be trusted with a backpack, but he passes a background test to get an AR15? How the hell does that happen? We aren't even TRYING to protect our kids. This kid did everything but wear a sign saying "I am a mass murderer", and no one did anything.

We need a conversation about guns, about lousy parents, about the senseless violence we bombard our kids with (TV, video games, music) about endless access to the internet, and about being proactive about locking up the mentally ill, rather than waiting until after they snap.

Fortunately my senator Chris Murphy is out there on his soap box, saying that the gun caused this all by itself. Someone should ask Mr Murphy why gun crime is so low in the Dakotas, despite the fact that everyone owns guns. Instead of mocking those people by calling them bitter clingers and deplorable, maybe there is a valuable lesson to learn about they way they live and treat each other.

Good post GS.

Maybe we should also stop electing politicians based on how pretty or popular they are, and instead elect people who can solve problems.

The problem you have is one side doesn't want to think there's a mental Health problem, and the other side doesn't want to think there's a gun problem.

When the answer is probably in the middle....and nobody wants to look there.

Bingo.

The problem you have is one side doesn't want to think there's a mental Health problem, and the other side doesn't want to think there's a gun problem.

When the answer is probably in the middle....and nobody wants to look there.
This sounds catchy but doesn't make much sense. Have democrats been ignoring the mental health aspects? Didn't Trump revoke an Obama era bill to make it harder for people to get guns?

Another tragedy and another round of there's nothing we can do.

This sounds catchy but doesn't make much sense. Have democrats been ignoring the mental health aspects? Didn't Trump revoke an Obama era bill to make it harder for people to get guns?

Another tragedy and another round of there's nothing we can do.

"This sounds catchy but doesn't make much sense"

Correction, it doesn't make sense to you. Nothing makes sense to you unless it attacks conservatives and exonerates liberals.

"Have democrats been ignoring the mental health aspects?"

Liberals tend to support the idea of people being allowed to enjoy freedom unless they are a clear and imminent threat. Obviously, if we err on that side, that means we are going to make some mistakes we must live with. Always a balance between liberty and security. Also, liberals (at least liberal politicians) take a ton of money from the entertainment industry, and are thus reluctant to call on them to reduce violence.

And the conservative politicians obviously pander to the NRA, and thus are generally resistant to additional gun control.

There's all kinds of things we "can" do. But we don't, because each side is too beholden to their patrons, and too rigid in their ideology..

This sounds catchy but doesn't make much sense. Have democrats been ignoring the mental health aspects? Didn't Trump revoke an Obama era bill to make it harder for people to get guns?

Another tragedy and another round of there's nothing we can do.

This will make perfect sense once the Kool-Aid buzz wears off. Its a combination that may be the answer or at least a step in the right direction. The Obama Era bill was more about who was collecting SS benefits than who is actually suffering from Mental Illnesses.

While Florida has a three-day waiting period for handgun purchases, anyone without a felony record, domestic abuse conviction or a handful of other stuff can walk into a gun store, wait a few minutes to clear a background check, and walk out with an AR-15-style rifle, magazines and ammunition.

Under federal law, you also must be 21 to buy a handgun from a firearms dealer. But 18-year-olds can buy semiautomatic rifles

This will make perfect sense once the Kool-Aid buzz wears off. Its a combination that may be the answer or at least a step in the right direction. The Obama Era bill was more about who was collecting SS benefits than who is actually suffering from Mental Illnesses.
I see, so where are all these Democrats trying help the mentally ill purchase firearms?

Fortunately my senator Chris Murphy is out there on his soap box, saying that the gun caused this all by itself.

I take it the "Fortunately" part is sarcasm.
Sounds like a deranged individual to make a statement like that, even worse that he is a Senator.

Guns are no more responsible for school shootings than penises are responsible for rape.

We could go on all day with statistics, being angry about innocent people losing their lives and the evil that exists while blaming an inanimate object is counterproductive. Those murders are horrible, nothing can bring those people back, maybe vigilance can help prevent further shootings but impossible to prevent all.


The thing that bothers me most when this happens is the instant it happens , those with an agenda fall over themselves to be the first to spout off about further restricting law abiding people's rights that have been infringed upon over and over again with the same results, that is insane. These people we elect to government only want control and are willing to bankrupt the country to achieve it.

I see, so where are all these Democrats trying help the mentally ill purchase firearms?

So, Is this an example of the "serious discussions" that the gun control folks want to have?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, Is this an example of the "serious discussions" that the gun control folks want to have?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Maybe you should refer to them as the anti senseless mass killing folks.

Number 8 for school shootings in 2018, over 200 school shootings since Sandy Hook, but we don't have any issues; move along. Our kids are disconnected, desensitized with violent video games and they come home to two working parents too tired to turn off the TV and social media to listen and hear.

Put that together with easy access to weapons of mass destruction and it's no wonder we are on this pace. I won't start the AR debate, since a semi auto pistol probably could do the same damage, but this troubled teen posted he was going to be a professional school shooter and nobody questions him or his parents?

Mental health is a big issue, tied to these shootings, the opioid epidemic, but let's fund the wall first; got to take care of campaign promises.

We need a wall (border security actually) because people that should not be here come here illegally. But we can't have that conversation because one side doesn't want to solve it - but instead wants to use it as a wedge issue.

Item two, reports are this kid was mentioned to the FBI and other LE and they did nothing or could not so anything.


The problem you have is one side doesn't want to think there's a mental Health problem, and the other side doesn't want to think there's a gun problem.

When the answer is probably in the middle....and nobody wants to look there.

^^^^ Nobody is willing to dance in the middle of the floor. 50 years ago the (very) mentally ill were locked up and now today, they and the less so are pilled up instead. Everyone sits to protect their sacred cows. You never hear the people wanting to take the guns discuss the problem with black teens being by far the highest murder rate - fix this and you fix the equivalent of a hundred schools - nor suicide, being the highest overall rate of firearms death. But people are perfectly capable of using at as wedge.

Every one of of these mass shootings have been a lost boy with problems, someone doing in the name of religion, or a lost boy doing in the name of religion. But some people want to decide what kind of weapons people, LEGALLY purchase. The significant majority of lawful gun owners do not do bad #^&#^&#^&#^& that would jeopardize their ability to exercise their constitutional rights.

This sounds catchy but doesn't make much sense. Have democrats been ignoring the mental health aspects? Didn't Trump revoke an Obama era bill to make it harder for people to get guns?

Another tragedy and another round of there's nothing we can do.

No, Trump repealed an Obama exorder that made people collecting with disabilities difficult to get a gun. That rule broad brushed many people that would not be a threat from purchasing firearms.

This will make perfect sense once the Kool-Aid buzz wears off. Its a combination that may be the answer or at least a step in the right direction. The Obama Era bill was more about who was collecting SS benefits than who is actually suffering from Mental Illnesses.

^^^ This. But it sounded good and fits nicley in a sound bite.

Maybe you should refer to them as the anti senseless mass killing folks.

And this is why we can't have debate.

I take it the "Fortunately" part is sarcasm.
Sounds like a deranged individual to make a statement like that, even worse that he is a Senator.

Guns are no more responsible for school shootings than penises are responsible for rape.

We could go on all day with statistics, being angry about innocent people losing their lives and the evil that exists while blaming an inanimate object is counterproductive. Those murders are horrible, nothing can bring those people back, maybe vigilance can help prevent further shootings but impossible to prevent all.


The thing that bothers me most when this happens is the instant it happens , those with an agenda fall over themselves to be the first to spout off about further restricting law abiding people's rights that have been infringed upon over and over again with the same results, that is insane. These people we elect to government only want control and are willing to bankrupt the country to achieve it.

Yes the fortunately was sarcastic.

The gun is an inanimate object. But certain guns like the AR-15, unfortunately, do fuel the fantasies of a small number of deranged folks. We can’t pretend that’s not true. I’m not saying the gun is the sole cause, but in some cases, it is a contributing factor. Some people are turned on by these guns.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Only if you have shot one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes the fortunately was sarcastic.

The gun is an inanimate object. But certain guns like the AR-15, unfortunately, do fuel the fantasies of a small number of deranged folks. We can’t pretend that’s not true. I’m not saying the gun is the sole cause, but in some cases, it is a contributing factor. Some people are turned on by these guns.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If there was no such thing as an AR-15 type, would slick looking hand guns (which are semi-automatic and can shoot at the same rate of speed as an AR15) fuel the fantasies of the deranged folks you speak of? If those folks kill because their fantasies are fueled by AR-15s, are we to assume they would not go on killing sprees if there were no AR-15s?

If there was no such thing as an AR-15 type, would slick looking hand guns (which are semi-automatic and can shoot at the same rate of speed as an AR15) fuel the fantasies of the deranged folks you speak of? If those folks kill because their fantasies are fueled by AR-15s, are we to assume they would not go on killing sprees if there were no AR-15s?
I'd think that to fire at that rate and hit anything at much distance would take a lot more skill with a handgun than an AR-15. But a big issue here is simply muzzle velocity, capacity and the ability for victims to survive. The AR-15 was designed for war, not hunting or home protection. This is the opinion of so many military leaders and veteran doctors. A high velocity wound is very deadly.

Handguns certainly have their own cool factor, but it doesn't seem to be much of an influence for the worst mass shootings.

As I've said before, shooting for sport is fun, hunting (most of it) is good and home defense is a real thing. Doesn't mean we need nearly instant access to near military grade weapons.

The problem you have is one side doesn't want to think there's a mental Health problem, and the other side doesn't want to think there's a gun problem.

When the answer is probably in the middle....and nobody wants to look there.

You should probably research the number of bills proposed by democrats to address mental health as it relates to guns. I have to assume that you don't know given your statement.

If there was no such thing as an AR-15 type, would slick looking hand guns (which are semi-automatic and can shoot at the same rate of speed as an AR15) fuel the fantasies of the deranged folks you speak of? If those folks kill because their fantasies are fueled by AR-15s, are we to assume they would not go on killing sprees if there were no AR-15s?

I don’t know what would happen if things were different. I only know that mass killings not related to terrorism, seem to be frequently carried out by these things. He didn’t pick a handgun. I wouldn’t say the gun caused this. But I’d bet every cent I have, that in some cases, it fuels the fantasy. And I’d be right. I never took a psychology class but I know I’m right. I don’t know that this truth suggests any public policy that addresses it. Im just stating something that I don’t think can be refuted. If there were no such thing as rifles, I’d bet that this guy and Adam Lanza would have done what they did.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'd think that to fire at that rate and hit anything at much distance would take a lot more skill with a handgun than an AR-15. But a big issue here is simply muzzle velocity, capacity and the ability for victims to survive. The AR-15 was designed for war, not hunting or home protection. This is the opinion of so many military leaders and veteran doctors. A high velocity wound is very deadly.

Handguns certainly have their own cool factor, but it doesn't seem to be much of an influence for the worst mass shootings.

As I've said before, shooting for sport is fun, hunting (most of it) is good and home defense is a real thing. Doesn't mean we need nearly instant access to near military grade weapons.

This doesn't answer my question to Jim. Now, if you're saying that if there were no AR-15s there would be no mass killings, that would be closer to an answer to my question.

I don’t know what would happen if things were different. I only know that mass killings not related to terrorism, seem to be frequently carried out by these things. He didn’t pick a handgun. I wouldn’t say the gun caused this. But I’d bet every cent I have, that in some cases, it fuels the fantasy. And I’d be right. I never took a psychology class but I know I’m right. I don’t know that this truth suggests any public policy that addresses it. Im just stating something that I don’t think can be refuted. If there were no such thing as rifles, I’d bet that this guy and Adam Lanza would have done what they did.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Before AR-15's, the guns that existed, hand or rifle, held the fascination of deranged, as well as normal, men, especially young ones. You, personally, may be sure of yourself in your opinion. I'm not sure of your opinion. I remember a fascination with six shooter pistols being almost universal among young boys who, most of them, had fancy looking cap guns they got for Christmas or birthdays. Almost all of us had them, and we played shoot-em-up games with them. Cowboy movies and comic books and heroes from Tom Mix, to Roy Rogers, Gene Autry, and several others were models which we emulated. A lot of the guys had BB guns. Some acted dangerously, malevolently with them. Later, post-cowboy era, there were some neat hand-guns wielded by movie types like Dirty Harry. Clint Eastwood had a really cool long barrel six gun in his Spaghetti Western movies. There was a kind of reverence for the .44 Magnum among young guys because it was supposedly so powerful, almost God-like among guns. Even now there are a lot of really cool looking and highly effective as well as a great variety of hand guns that owners like to proudly show off and talk about how easily they handle and how accurate they are.

I agree with you that Lanza and this guy (and others) would have done what they did if there were no AR-15s. And this guy, apparently had bombs as well as other guns. Times are different in our society from what they were when I was a kid. And I don't think AR-15s are the reason for that difference.

I'd think that to fire at that rate and hit anything at much distance would take a lot more skill with a handgun than an AR-15. But a big issue here is simply muzzle velocity, capacity and the ability for victims to survive. The AR-15 was designed for war, not hunting or home protection. This is the opinion of so many military leaders and veteran doctors. A high velocity wound is very deadly.

Handguns certainly have their own cool factor, but it doesn't seem to be much of an influence for the worst mass shootings.

As I've said before, shooting for sport is fun, hunting (most of it) is good and home defense is a real thing. Doesn't mean we need nearly instant access to near military grade weapons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14#/media/File:Mini14GB.jpgThe Ruger Mini 14 (pic attached below) is more accurate than most AR15s and has been around a helluva lot longer.

The AR15 is like when we used to tune out Abu 6500 series reels - we'd would simply customize them how we woulds want.




I don’t know what would happen if things were different. I only know that mass killings not related to terrorism, seem to be frequently carried out by these things. He didn’t pick a handgun. I wouldn’t say the gun caused this. But I’d bet every cent I have, that in some cases, it fuels the fantasy. And I’d be right. I never took a psychology class but I know I’m right. I don’t know that this truth suggests any public policy that addresses it. Im just stating something that I don’t think can be refuted. If there were no such thing as rifles, I’d bet that this guy and Adam Lanza would have done what they did.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For some perhaps, but for most, the AR15 is a fine shooting, comfortable, customization rifle. Just a Swiss Army knife of a rifle for sport, fun, or even hunting

What we need to do is find a way to get the Adam Lanzas away from firearms.

Yes the fortunately was sarcastic.

The gun is an inanimate object. But certain guns like the AR-15, unfortunately, do fuel the fantasies of a small number of deranged folks. We can’t pretend that’s not true. I’m not saying the gun is the sole cause, but in some cases, it is a contributing factor. Some people are turned on by these guns.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device



I'm sorry but guns do not fuel these fantasies.

We need to stop coddling our kids, teaching them that everyone wins and that everyone is good

Too many people in this country with good intentions parent with a hands off attitude. If you let the kid dress the part, they will act the part

Too many single parent households or households where both parents are working when the kids come home from school

Too many kids are taught to accept everyone, no matter what there style, what they like how the act, how they dress

Instead we should be teaching our kids things that could be a red flag. Its called street smarts. Tell a teacher or an adult if you think someone is acting threatening,or they are making you uncomfortable.

They interviewed kids after this shooting and they all said they knew he would do this

I am sure some of his friends knew he had a gun, knew he was unstable, knew it was him that made the YouTube video, but no one of them spoke out

How does the FBI who can get FISA warrants on false information not get a warrant to find out who the kid in the YouTube video was

Why didn't the school alert the authorities as to his dangerousness

Why was he let back on school grounds especially after being expelled from 3 different schools on three different occasions

It might be time in this country for public schools to go to a dress code so everyone looks the same,ban outlandish hair styles, make everyone on the same 0laying field so know one persons feelings get hurt.

Its time to have a serious conversation a out public schools and the security they use. Why are there no shootings in private or parochial schools?


I am sick of the lefts response to every shooting get serious because guns aren't going away. There are other amendments to the constitution that prohibit the taking of legally purchased goods that are later outlawed You can ban Assault Weapons but there are enough in circulation that you will never rid the country of them, nor should you want to because they aren't the problem

This doesn't answer my question to Jim. Now, if you're saying that if there were no AR-15s there would be no mass killings, that would be closer to an answer to my question.
That's just another rhetorical deke you're leaning towards. The "if you stop all of them you can't stop any of them" defense. It's a complex issue but to be paralyzed to any action because of political interests is really stupid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14#/media/File:Mini14GB.jpgThe Ruger Mini 14 (pic attached below) is more accurate than most AR15s and has been around a helluva lot longer.
Any so why aren't they used in mass shootings? Is it because they don't have the killing power afforded all those "cosmetic" options or perhaps as Jim says just don't have the sex appeal a killer is looking for?

Easy access to assault weapons is but part of the problem but it is part of the problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14#/media/File:Mini14GB.jpgThe Ruger Mini 14 (pic attached below) is more accurate than most AR15s and has been around a helluva lot longer.

The AR15 is like when we used to tune out Abu 6500 series reels - we'd would simply customize them how we woulds want.






For some perhaps, but for most, the AR15 is a fine shooting, comfortable, customization rifle. Just a Swiss Army knife of a rifle for sport, fun, or even hunting

What we need to do is find a way to get the Adam Lanzas away from firearms.

"For some perhaps, but for most, the AR15 is a fine shooting, comfortable, customization rifle. Just a Swiss Army knife of a rifle for sport, fun, or even hunting"

Agreed 100%. I am talking about a very small (not small enough) number of very sick people with dark and violent fantasies. When they snap, they don't usually show up with my granddad's Marlin .22.

I'm not saying we should ban them. I guess I'm just pointing out, that since many here deny that there is any connection between these "sexy" guns and the rare mass killings, it shows how impossible it is to have a productive dialogue. Both sides are too rigid in their ideology.

It's not the guns causing this. You solve a problem, ultimately, by addressing the underlying cause. and the underlying cause, is that we don't care about each other the way we used to. We can put armed guards in schools, we can ban bump stocks and high capacity magazines, and those things might reduce the body count, but they are addressing the symptom, not the underlying problem.

The underlying problem, is that our moral compass is broken. We mock traditional family values, when we should be doing everything we can to encourage them, because they work better than anything else that we know of. Secular progressivism and the internet, are exacerbating the underlying problem. Probably not causing it, but obviously making it worse. 75% of black babies are now born without a dad. Hooray! If that represents some great cultural leap forward, the benefit is sure lost on me.

I'm sorry but guns do not fuel these fantasies.

We need to stop coddling our kids, teaching them that everyone wins and that everyone is good

Too many people in this country with good intentions parent with a hands off attitude. If you let the kid dress the part, they will act the part

Too many single parent households or households where both parents are working when the kids come home from school

Too many kids are taught to accept everyone, no matter what there style, what they like how the act, how they dress

Instead we should be teaching our kids things that could be a red flag. Its called street smarts. Tell a teacher or an adult if you think someone is acting threatening,or they are making you uncomfortable.

They interviewed kids after this shooting and they all said they knew he would do this

I am sure some of his friends knew he had a gun, knew he was unstable, knew it was him that made the YouTube video, but no one of them spoke out

How does the FBI who can get FISA warrants on false information not get a warrant to find out who the kid in the YouTube video was

Why didn't the school alert the authorities as to his dangerousness

Why was he let back on school grounds especially after being expelled from 3 different schools on three different occasions

It might be time in this country for public schools to go to a dress code so everyone looks the same,ban outlandish hair styles, make everyone on the same 0laying field so know one persons feelings get hurt.

Its time to have a serious conversation a out public schools and the security they use. Why are there no shootings in private or parochial schools?


I am sick of the lefts response to every shooting get serious because guns aren't going away. There are other amendments to the constitution that prohibit the taking of legally purchased goods that are later outlawed You can ban Assault Weapons but there are enough in circulation that you will never rid the country of them, nor should you want to because they aren't the problem

"I'm sorry but guns do not fuel these fantasies. "

And you'd know this how?

These guns don't perform much differently from other, more boring-looking guns. But the AR-15 is extremely popular. It's partly because of the look.

"Too many single parent households or households where both parents are working when the kids come home from school"

Agreed 100%. A hundred percent. My wife hasn't worked in 7 years, it has been a disaster for our net worth (most of our vacations are camping and we drive old cars), but I wouldn't do it differently. I was at a cub scour trip to a local fire station last night, and you could se these out-of-control 8 year-olds, whose parents could not stop them from behaving terribly.

"Why didn't the school alert the authorities as to his dangerousness"

Bingo. The school would not let this kid have a backpack, yet he was able to get an AR-15. That is insane. If we couldn't spot the red flags this kid was putting up, we aren't doing anything to stop anybody.

Easy access to assault weapons is but part of the problem but it is part of the problem.

Agreed 100%.

Unfortunately, every different part of the problem, has people who make a lot of money from the thing in question. The entertainment industry gets rich by glorifying violence. The NRA gets rich off the gun culture. So we are incapable of doing anything.

Someone really needs to get Chris Murphy to shut the hell up. He'll be a US senator until my kids are older than I am now. That's just great.

Any so why aren't they used in mass shootings? Is it because they don't have the killing power afforded all those "cosmetic" options or perhaps as Jim says just don't have the sex appeal a killer is looking for?

Easy access to assault weapons is but part of the problem but it is part of the problem.

Honestly you have just gone full blown stupid

That's just another rhetorical deke you're leaning towards.

I actually burst out laughing when I read this notion of leaning toward a deke. Every time I repeat that locution, I chuckle. I actually was blunt and straightforward. You did not answer the question I posed to Jim. You just bloviated some pseudo expert talking points.

The "if you stop all of them you can't stop any of them" defense. It's a complex issue but to be paralyzed to any action because of political interests is really stupid.

And then you leaned toward the deke of the straw man. I didn't apply nor even imply the "if you can't stop all you can't stop any" notion. It was stupid of you to put words or intentions in my statement that were not remotely in it. That is not an argument. That is not a reasonable discussion. And I was wrong, that is not even a leaning toward a deke. It is a deke.

Jim, you seem to lean on the 75% statistic a lot but when is the last time a black person was involved in a mass shooting? If anything is common in these instances it is they are all white for the most part. I love guns,especially the type used in these shootings but something is wrong. And it seems to be getting worse. We have lost our respect for life when these crimes are committed without relevant targets.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My condolences to the families that lost loved ones...I hate politics and stay as far away from it as I can...everyone need to meet and "dance in the middle of the floor" if anything is to be done.. great line guy's!... but I cant help but notice one thing..

Most of these extremely sick individuals don't walk into the police station or an army barracks ( fort hood the exception) and pull this crap.. I wonder why.

Any so why aren't they used in mass shootings? Is it because they don't have the killing power afforded all those "cosmetic" options or perhaps as Jim says just don't have the sex appeal a killer is looking for?

Nadal Hasan killed, in a few minutes, 13 and wounded more than 30 with a handgun. That's a lot of killing power. Don't know if getting a hard on creates more killing power. In close quarters such as schoolrooms a handgun has plenty of killing power.

The notion that the supposed sexiness of a weapon is the motivation for mass killing is weak and superficial thinking. A killer may think a particular weapon has deadlier "optics," may think that his slaughter will look more powerful with weapon A than with weapon B, but there is no evidence nor argument that the motivation for the slaughter is the appearance of the weapon that is used.

Easy access to assault weapons is but part of the problem but it is part of the problem.

Eliminating something that is considered by some to be a contributing "part" of a larger complex problem because it is easy to access is not a solution if eliminating that something imposes on the rights of everyone else.

And if the problem exists due to specific causes that don't depend on all of the reputed "parts" of the problem, not only would it be unjust to eliminate all those peripheral parts, it would not solve the specific problem.

Since the 1960's our American society and culture has become less certain and more fragmented. There has been a huge loss of confidence in the values that predominated before the mid 20th century. That confidence had been degraded by smaller degrees before that, but the slow onslaught of academic relativism slipped into hyperdrive in the 1960's. It was modeled by Post Modern Cultural Marxism which denies any certainty and sees only power as the end and aim of existence, and which fuels the romance of class warfare and the disintegration of the founding American structure.

New heroes were made of younger identity splinter groups such as the Black Panthers, Weather Underground, Symbionese Liberation Army, etc.. Anti-war pacifists railed against American military might and exposed us as imperialists and rapists of the third world. America was painted as a racist, sexual and religious oppressive force in the world. College campuses became the high court of social justice and the battlefield against American oppression. And that has progressed since then into the right to censor any thought or speech that is counter to their intellectual rules of global order. Even to the point of justifying physical attacks on those who don't agree with them.

Notions of gender, freedom of speech or religion, rights to property, individualism in general, must all to be destroyed. Individual identity is subservient to group identity, or is irrelevant altogether. We are reduced to the struggle to gain power. That struggle is armed through force and violence. Notions of "reasonable discussions" are actually occasions to eliminate opposing ideas. Language has been inverted to Orwellian opposites. Justice is force. Government is power. Equality is mandated sameness. Freedom is granted and prescribed limitation. Reason is consensus or state edict. Life is meaningless and qualified only by social construct.

What once was considered a power and source of good, America, is now an antiquated notion of white supremacy and a retrograde imposition on the progress of world justice. It is the center of capitalist domination of the world's masses, a barrier to the equality of the world's people. And it must be made to feel guilty of its past and present transgressions. And so must Europe and all white societies. Justice cries for all the oppressed non-whites to have their equal share of "white privilege." And if the means to that end requires violence--so be it.

The present Progressive model of there being no power greater than the state, facilitated by state force and coercion, is a godless model that inspires renegades to take all power to themselves. If a renegade seeks notoriety, he must do so within the norms that will recognize his power as something to be admired. In a world that sees power as the ultimate end to existence, what greater admiration can there be than gaining power over the lives of others.

A couple of things to think about and they are just statistics
School shootings are a small portion of the shootings in the US
The US has by far the highest level of gun violence in the developed world
Most shootings are of the same race, you shoot who you know
6 americans have died per year from islamic terrorists
Over 13,000 have died per year from gun violence

1967 – Jayne Mansfield is killed when her car runs under the rear end of a tractor trailer. Since then, all trailers have a DOT bar at the rear to keep cars from going under them.
1982 – Seven people die when Tylenol packaging was tampered with. Since then, it takes a PhD, channel locks, and a sharp object to get into a bottle of pills.
2001 – One person attempts to blow up a plane with a shoe bomb. Since then, all air travelers have to take off their shoes for scanning before being allowed to board.
Since 1968 – 1,516, 863 people die from guns on American soil. Since then, the problem apparently can’t be solved except with thoughts and prayers. AND JU$T WHY DO YOU THINK THI$ I$???

Since 1968 – 1,516, 863 people die from guns on American soil. Since then, the problem apparently can’t be solved except with thoughts and prayers. AND JU$T WHY DO YOU THINK THI$ I$???

That comment and reading others after every shooting like this remind of the Onion headline a few months ago which was something like

"Mass shootings can't be stopped says the only nation to have mass shootings"

1967 – Jayne Mansfield is killed when her car runs under the rear end of a tractor trailer. Since then, all trailers have a DOT bar at the rear to keep cars from going under them.
1982 – Seven people die when Tylenol packaging was tampered with. Since then, it takes a PhD, channel locks, and a sharp object to get into a bottle of pills.
2001 – One person attempts to blow up a plane with a shoe bomb. Since then, all air travelers have to take off their shoes for scanning before being allowed to board.
Since 1968 – 1,516, 863 people die from guns on American soil. Since then, the problem apparently can’t be solved except with thoughts and prayers. AND JU$T WHY DO YOU THINK THI$ I$???

C'mon man . . . you keep trotting out small selective lists of statistics out of the millions of stats as if that was supposed to give us a hint on the easy solution to something that doesn't even meaningfully relate to other things which are not difficult to fix. making cars safer, commercial flying, making pill bottles tamper proof don't necessarily correlate to murder. What's the easy solution to stop some crazy person from driving his truck into a crowd of people? How do you stop an airplane pilot from deliberately crashing his plane? How do you stop someone from overdosing on pills?

1967 – Jayne Mansfield is killed when her car runs under the rear end of a tractor trailer. Since then, all trailers have a DOT bar at the rear to keep cars from going under them.
1982 – Seven people die when Tylenol packaging was tampered with. Since then, it takes a PhD, channel locks, and a sharp object to get into a bottle of pills.
2001 – One person attempts to blow up a plane with a shoe bomb. Since then, all air travelers have to take off their shoes for scanning before being allowed to board.
Since 1968 – 1,516, 863 people die from guns on American soil. Since then, the problem apparently can’t be solved except with thoughts and prayers. AND JU$T WHY DO YOU THINK THI$ I$???

"AND JU$T WHY DO YOU THINK THI$ I$???[/"

Because like it or not, nowhere in the constitution does it say pill bottles must be easy to open, nor does it say you cannot be asked to take your shoes off at the airport. But it does say something about the right to keep and bear arms not being infringed. We don't get to ignore the parts of the constitution we don't happen to like at the moment. If we want to change the constitution, there is a mechanism to do that. But we can't pretend that it doesn't say what it says.

The other challenge, is that regardless of what we do with gun control, there are tens of millions of guns out there, and we cannot confiscate the ones that are out there.

Politically, we are paralyzed because neither side seems willing to budge from a rigid ideological stance.

A couple of things to think about and they are just statistics
School shootings are a small portion of the shootings in the US
The US has by far the highest level of gun violence in the developed world
Most shootings are of the same race, you shoot who you know
6 americans have died per year from islamic terrorists
Over 13,000 have died per year from gun violence

Easy solutions to your stats:

Be nice to those you know, and keep Islamic terrorists out of the country.

Historically when a small group insists on a right and gun owners are increasingly becoming a smaller and smaller group they end up losing it.
Don't think that a constitutional amendment is impossible.
I would rather give up some of my guns than all and when only 30% of the households own guns and only 10% of those give a s--t you can easy end up in a situation like the UK. Not having semi-automatics would punish my shoulder in duck season but not that bad. Lots of people go hunting in Canada.

No wonder we're doomed.The amount of misinformation and plain ignorance here is incredible.

The right is misinformed and the left is just plain ignorant.

Any so why aren't they used in mass shootings? Is it because they don't have the killing power afforded all those "cosmetic" options or perhaps as Jim says just don't have the sex appeal a killer is looking for?

Easy access to assault weapons is but part of the problem but it is part of the problem.

I don't know why they are or are not used in mass shootings but it is mechanically and functionally just about the same gun. Shoots the same round at the same speed with the same single shot per trigger.

It is not an assault weapon, BTW. The AR destination stands for "Armalite"



My condolences to the families that lost loved ones...I hate politics and stay as far away from it as I can...everyone need to meet and "dance in the middle of the floor" if anything is to be done.. great line guy's!... but I cant help but notice one thing..

Most of these extremely sick individuals don't walk into the police station or an army barracks ( fort hood the exception) and pull this crap.. I wonder why.

Yes - they are sick kid "lost boys" with mental health issues, sometimes but not always from troubled homes.

Even several of the terrorist incidents (Hood, Pulse) had people that exhibited some question to mental stability.

In the end, we need to do something. Too many kids die every day on the streets, too many people commit suicide, and schools should be safe. The problem is most often and intersection between mental illness and access to something to kill people with, either bomb, firearm, or a vehicle. Maybe we should focus on the underlying problems: Mental Illness, and political and religious motivations.

To treat law abiding people as the enemy is not the solution. But it is great for votes.

Historically when a small group insists on a right and gun owners are increasingly becoming a smaller and smaller group they end up losing it.
Don't think that a constitutional amendment is impossible.
I would rather give up some of my guns than all and when only 30% of the households own guns and only 10% of those give a s--t you can easy end up in a situation like the UK. Not having semi-automatics would punish my shoulder in duck season but not that bad. Lots of people go hunting in Canada.

You would give up some? There is your problem right there, Once they take those some, now there are fewer they will have to come for later. They are picking away bit by bit right under your noses under the guise of safety. Check out how things are in Australia, criminals get guns mailed to them in the mail and law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves because they gave up their guns. Are you going to bring a knife to a gunfight? or become a victim? or a slave to your tyrannical government?

Freedom comes at a cost

the choice of freedom was made in this country 250 years ago

What is the murder rate in Australia compared to the US?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Some people are turned on by these guns.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you mean to say some people are turned on by the POWER the gun has. I doubt it is actually the gun itself.

You would give up some? There is your problem right there, Once they take those some, now there are fewer they will have to come for later. They are picking away bit by bit right under your noses under the guise of safety. Check out how things are in Australia, criminals get guns mailed to them in the mail and law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves because they gave up their guns. Are you going to bring a knife to a gunfight? or become a victim? or a slave to your tyrannical government?

Freedom comes at a cost

the choice of freedom was made in this country 250 years ago
You didn’t read what I wrote you need to pick your battles, or the 90% of Americans who don’t agree with you can take the right from you and I by amendment as it was given to us 227 years ago
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, you seem to lean on the 75% statistic a lot but when is the last time a black person was involved in a mass shooting? If anything is common in these instances it is they are all white for the most part. I love guns,especially the type used in these shootings but something is wrong. And it seems to be getting worse. We have lost our respect for life when these crimes are committed without relevant targets.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Blacks don’t generally launch these mass killings. But I’d like to take on all gun violence, and more people are killed in garden variety gun violence than mass shootings. Street crime and mass shootings are two very different things. The rate of fatherlessness is a catastrophe for the black community.

I agree with you about lost respect. The guns play a role, but the root cause is a lack of character among our population. Lots of reasons, fatherlessness, violence on tv, the internet, secularism, liberalism.

And I agree it’s getting worse. I agree with everything you said. I don’t like it, but every word was accurate. But it’s depressing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is sad Jim,just terrible. I would hesitate to refer to any murder as garden variety though. And certainly what goes on in Chicago is more palatable than the mass murder epidemic we are experiencing as of late. But it is still an atmosphere of disrespect. I love guns but refuse to hang this on the constitution like others and dismiss these instances of bloodshed as legal or acceptable because of our outdated measures of good intention. There has to be a middle ground where we can still maintain civility and respect, but protect the innocent victims whose numbers keep growing but are squelched out by our patriotic defenders of freedom. Freedom to get weapons regardless of mental state. Freedom to get weapons just to go kill innocent bystanders. Trust me, if their children were victims they would sing a different tune. This is a terrible scene that plays out with more regularity and it is heartbreaking for our society. I would caution you to hang the cause of these incidents on liberalism,it seems too shallow and insecure in a climate like we are experiencing as a nation. Rise above this type of accusation and digg deep for solutions.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is sad Jim,just terrible. I would hesitate to refer to any murder as garden variety though. And certainly what goes on in Chicago is more palatable than the mass murder epidemic we are experiencing as of late. But t is still an atmosphere of disrespect. I love guns but refuse to hang this on the constitution like others and dismi
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"It is sad"

That's exactly what it is.

"I would hesitate to refer to any murder as garden variety though.'

I hear you, but you know what I meant...regular street crime, which while it doesn't make the headlines of mass shootings, claims way more lives.

"I love guns but refuse to hang this on the constitution like others"

There are no easy solutions. Just a good time to hug my kids and take them to see the Harlem Globetrotters tomorrow. Have a good long weekend.

You didn’t read what I wrote you need to pick your battles, or the 90% of Americans who don’t agree with you can take the right from you and I by amendment as it was given to us 227 years ago
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I get what you are saying but I am not handing over anything period

To treat law abiding people as the enemy is not the solution. But it is great for votes.

To equate any attempt to alter gun laws with the intent to save lives as an attempt at taking away all gun rights is not the solution. But it is great for votes.

Also, in almost every recent mass murderer, the person was a law abiding person up until the guy gunned down kids, teachers, concert goes, club dancers, etc. There are certainly ridiculous components of gun laws, but gun laws are not inherently ridiculous.

I like guns. I tagged along on hunting trips from as young as 5 or 6 and love to shoot. I am now convinced the founders "messed' up.

Supreme Court decision in US v. Miller 1939 2nd amendment intent and implication was for weapons related to a "well regulated militia" only. Based on everything I have read about the lead up to the second I am convinced that is what the founders intendedband as such is antiquated. The concern of the founders was the shift of security from State militias to federal forces. Leads to the question, in modern times, do well regulated state militias that provide protection against the federal army exist and should the intent to protect them dictate modern gun policy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The answer is to make it more difficult to get firearms. Stop making stupid rules that do nothing,10 rounds,bumpstock....Just make the process to acquire the firearm more selective. Right now in MA it takes about 20 minutes to buy a firearm,this is in a state considered to have strict gun laws. It must be time to pay more attention. If I had to wait a day,week,or month in order to make an impulse or nutjob think twice about his urge to kill it would be worth it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

To equate any attempt to alter gun laws with the intent to save lives as an attempt at taking away all gun rights is not the solution. But it is great for votes.

Also, in almost every recent mass murderer, the person was a law abiding person up until the guy gunned down kids, teachers, concert goes, club dancers, etc. There are certainly ridiculous components of gun laws, but gun laws are not inherently ridiculous.

I like guns. I tagged along on hunting trips from as young as 5 or 6 and love to shoot. I am now convinced the founders "messed' up.

Supreme Court decision in US v. Miller 1939 2nd amendment intent and implication was for weapons related to a "well regulated militia" only. Based on everything I have read about the lead up to the second I am convinced that is what the founders intendedband as such is antiquated. The concern of the founders was the shift of security from State militias to federal forces. Leads to the question, in modern times, do well regulated state militias that provide protection against the federal army exist and should the intent to protect them dictate modern gun policy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


I disagree. The founding fathers knew what they were doing. But they did put in a mechanism to repeal the 2A. Get 34 states to repeal it in a Constitutional Convention. But then you will see the breakup of the USA.

What we need? Better background checks. And a system of restraining order for those suffering from mental health issues.


The answer is to make it more difficult to get firearms. Stop making stupid rules that do nothing,10 rounds,bumpstock....Just make the process to acquire the firearm more selective. Right now in MA it takes about 20 minutes to buy a firearm,this is in a state considered to have strict gun laws. It must be time to pay more attention. If I had to wait a day,week,or month in order to make an impulse or nutjob think twice about his urge to kill it would be worth it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You have to have a FID car in Mass first, THEN you get to some of the most restrictive gun rules in the nation.

You are correct John in what we need, though I don't think it is limited to those two things. The NRA funded politicians fight those two things tooth and nail and propagandize that they are the first step to the government taking all guns. I also suggest reading as much as you can about the lead up to the second amendment. No doubt in my mind that 200 years and pervasive political propaganda has distorted the intent of the founders.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

John, that is not exactly jumping through hoops, guns can be dangerous you know. Believe it or not, the state of Mass actually makes you take drivers education classes and then you have to pass a written exam and then a road test to get a license. And that is just to drive a car! Imagine if there were similar requirements to get a little firearm. I know, crazy talk. It should be as easy as getting milk and eggs. Certainly not as difficult as buying cigarettes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

John, that is not exactly jumping through hoops, guns can be dangerous you know. Believe it or not, the state of Mass actually makes you take drivers education classes and then you have to pass a written exam and then a road test to get a license. And that is just to drive a car! Imagine if there were similar requirements to get a little firearm. I know, crazy talk. It should be as easy as getting milk and eggs. Certainly not as difficult as buying cigarettes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Great post.

Want to reduce mass killings?

Have our schools do a better job of identifying the small number of children who are lonely, isolated, or bullied. Get these kids some love and some help. I am convinced that in many cases, being alone/bullied in school, is the breeding ground for the mass shooters.

Let's encourage a return to traditional family values, encourage more families to have a parent at home to keep an eye on things. Instead of running around 24 hours a day for kids activities, take time to have supper together and talk to your kids, and listen. Turn the devices off.

Curb the violence we bombard our kids with on TV and in video games

get to church once in awhile, and listen to what's being said.

Encourage more families to have 2 parents.

Be more proactive about locking up the violent mentally ill.

Have a rational conversation about bump stocks and high capacity magazines.

If we do all these things, mass killings will decrease. If we don't do these things, they won't decrease.

Nadal Hasan killed, in a few minutes, 13 and wounded more than 30 with a handgun. That's a lot of killing power. Don't know if getting a hard on creates more killing power. In close quarters such as schoolrooms a handgun has plenty of killing power.
A single incident doesn't make a very good case. And someone who's trained to use a weapon?

The notion that the supposed sexiness of a weapon is the motivation for mass killing is weak and superficial thinking. A killer may think a particular weapon has deadlier "optics," may think that his slaughter will look more powerful with weapon A than with weapon B, but there is no evidence nor argument that the motivation for the slaughter is the appearance of the weapon that is used.
Nobody has said people kill simply because of looks. But to argue there isn't a cult like following around deadly weapons that has an influence is crazy.

Eliminating something that is considered by some to be a contributing "part" of a larger complex problem because it is easy to access is not a solution if eliminating that something imposes on the rights of everyone else.

And if the problem exists due to specific causes that don't depend on all of the reputed "parts" of the problem, not only would it be unjust to eliminate all those peripheral parts, it would not solve the specific problem.
This is just a bunch of circling nonsense. It's a systems problem, you can't cherry pick single elements in an effort to discredit the entire thing.


Since the 1960's...
Yea, let's go back to a time when women knew their place, gays stayed in the closet, the poor starved and minorities knew better than to mingle with the white folk.

Fess up. Is detbuch really Jeff Sessions?

The present Progressive model of there being no power greater than the state, facilitated by state force and coercion, is a godless model that inspires renegades to take all power to themselves. If a renegade seeks notoriety, he must do so within the norms that will recognize his power as something to be admired. In a world that sees power as the ultimate end to existence, what greater admiration can there be than gaining power over the lives of others.
Funny, most real progressives I know, and I don't know a lot of them believe in a democracy and liberty.

The answer is to make it more difficult to get firearms. Stop making stupid rules that do nothing,10 rounds,bumpstock....Just make the process to acquire the firearm more selective. Right now in MA it takes about 20 minutes to buy a firearm,this is in a state considered to have strict gun laws. It must be time to pay more attention. If I had to wait a day,week,or month in order to make an impulse or nutjob think twice about his urge to kill it would be worth it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
That certainly is part of the solution. Unfortunately *any* measures to restrict *any* part of the process is viewed as an instant ride down the slippery slope to a dystopian militarized state devoid of liberty.

We're better than that.

Why would we have a federal registry for automatic weapons and not for some semi-auto which have proven in Vegas to be able to hit over 500 people in the span of a few minutes? Why can someone with the extreme track record of illness and violence be able to just walk in and purchase an assault weapon in a few minutes?

Why don't other Western countries have the same issues we do?

A single incident doesn't make a very good case. And someone who's trained to use a weapon?

It makes the case that semi-automatic weapons (and virtually all guns in civilian use are semi-automatic) no matter the size or appearance, have rapid fire capability. And have what you called similar "killing power" in close quarters such as a school room.

Nobody has said people kill simply because of looks. But to argue there isn't a cult like following around deadly weapons that has an influence is crazy.

You're trying to make your "case" by throwing in an unproven supposition, and one which is not the reason for mass killings. A sort of pile on technique used to strengthen a weak argument.

This is just a bunch of circling nonsense. It's a systems problem, you can't cherry pick single elements in an effort to discredit the entire thing.

You throw in a single element (which if taken out of the "system" would not alter the result) and then accuse me of cherry picking. Actually, you are cherry growing, throwing in as many elements that might color your argument as more full, but in actuality it clutters your thesis with irrelevant odds and ends.

Yea, let's go back to a time when women knew their place, gays stayed in the closet, the poor starved and minorities knew better than to mingle with the white folk.

Fess up. Is detbuch really Jeff Sessions?

Every time and place has its good and bad, even the wonderful world of here and now. The subject is mass killings. It is the now, the today, not the pre-1960's that causes us to fear mass school shootings. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater doesn't make for a better world. Your oversimplified and slanted view of another time overlooks what was once good and what is now bad. And worse, it overlooks similarities. What fundamentally motivated people then, and what basically motivates us now. Why did people kill then, why now. What glue held society together then, what does so now. Are we a more cohesive people now than then? Has our "diversity" fragmented us or made us more united? And what is it that will unify us more as a society, or "village."? And will that unification be one of consent or coercion?

There are basic, fundamental problems involving human nature that will go a lot farther if solved than bickering about what a gun looks like. Changing or eliminating guns does not change human nature.

Funny, most real progressives I know, and I don't know a lot of them believe in a democracy and liberty.

Apparently, the whole world, today, believes in democracy. Whoopee!! But Progressives view of liberty . . . well . . . let's put it this way . . . Progressives have a new view or definition of the old language. Liberty is, like all other words, what Progressivism says it is. The historical record and current practice of Progressive ideology says that "liberty" is whatever government and its experts allows it to be.

That certainly is part of the solution. Unfortunately *any* measures to restrict *any* part of the process is viewed as an instant ride down the slippery slope to a dystopian militarized state devoid of liberty.

We're better than that.

Why would we have a federal registry for automatic weapons and not for some semi-auto which have proven in Vegas to be able to hit over 500 people in the span of a few minutes? Why can someone with the extreme track record of illness and violence be able to just walk in and purchase an assault weapon in a few minutes?

Why don't other Western countries have the same issues we do?

"Unfortunately *any* measures to restrict *any* part of the process is viewed as an instant ride down the slippery slope to a dystopian militarized state devoid of liberty"

It's the inly issue I know of, on which it's almost impossible to have a rational conversation with staunch conservatives.

"Why don't other Western countries have the same issues we do?"

In terms of the mass killings? Great question. We have a very small number of very sick folks who are way more violent than the sickest folks in other countries, I guess. It's not an indictment of most Americans, just the sickest.

I have said it before the NRA is going to cost its membership dearly . with their NO as a stance on everything gun related ... be part of the solution or the solution will be nothing your going to like ....

some one posted the constitution is for limited Government and seems unlimited fire arms as well ... they want it both ways

That really makes no sense at all Jim. There is a culture here in the US that is inciting this crap somehow. If you don't consider this epidemic an indictment of our country then you may as well just say you are part of the problem too. I am past the point of denial,something is wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Unfortunately *any* measures to restrict *any* part of the process is viewed as an instant ride down the slippery slope to a dystopian militarized state devoid of liberty"

It's the inly issue I know of, on which it's almost impossible to have a rational conversation with staunch conservatives.

"Why don't other Western countries have the same issues we do?"

In terms of the mass killings? Great question. We have a very small number of very sick folks who are way more violent than the sickest folks in other countries, I guess. It's not an indictment of most Americans, just the sickest.


Jim .. Fear sells guns and ammo the NRA is a Fear broker ..(look at the sales under Obama..) The NRA and Fox news promotes the Mutually Assured Destruction theory (only a good guy with a gun mantra) ,there will be a rush to buy and ammo if there is any gun control talk... its sad of all the things that go into mass shooting that the right loves to throw into the conversation( and manny are correct ) the one thing always absent in their analysis is mention of the gun and and the ease to get one and the availability of guns in America

That really makes no sense at all Jim. There is a culture here in the US that is inciting this crap somehow. If you don't consider this epidemic an indictment of our country then you may as well just say you are part of the problem too. I am past the point of denial,something is wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think I did a rotten job of trying to articulate my point, sorry.

"There is a culture here in the US that is inciting this crap somehow"

I agree, but I don't know what it is. Why is our culture different from, say Germany or England? They watch the same movies, listen to the same music, right? Or look at the Dakotas. Everyone has guns, but except for what you watch on "Fargo", there is zero gun crime. Why is that?

"If you don't consider this epidemic an indictment of our country"

I don't think we have an epidemic of mass shootings. I mean one is way too many, but it's not common.

Street crime, on the other hand (like what happens in Chicago every weekend), is an epidemic and it's very easy to point to the causes.

"I am past the point of denial, something is wrong"

Oh I agree something is seriously wrong. I think our culture and moral compass need a major tune up, a return to 1950s family values, minus the racism.

Jim .. Fear sells guns and ammo the NRA is a Fear broker ..(look at the sales under Obama..) The NRA and Fox news promotes the Mutually Assured Destruction theory (only a good guy with a gun mantra) ,there will be a rush to buy and ammo if there is any gun control talk... its sad of all the things that go into mass shooting that the right loves to throw into the conversation( and manny are correct ) the one thing always absent in their analysis is mention of the gun and and the ease to get one and the availability of guns in America

"Fear sells guns"

You can say that again.

"Its sad of all the things that go into mass shooting that the right loves to throw into the conversation( and manny are correct ) the one thing always absent in their analysis is mention of the gun and and the ease to get one and the availability of guns in America"

Agreed.

And the left intentionally leaves out the violence that the entertainment industry bombards our kids with, and the horrific effect that the breakdown of the nuclear family has.

Everyone in the Dakotas has guns, but there is no crime. Because they care about each other. THERE'S THE ANSWER, to care about each other like they do. But Obama calls them bitter clingers, and Hilary calls them deplorable. And no one on the left (including the media except Foxnews) questions Obama and Hilary when they say these things.

That impedes progress, just as much as when the right says we need more guns. Both sides are thoughtlessly rigid in their ideology, both sides are close minded as can be. Both sides prevent solutions. Because we elect people based on how pretty and popular they are, or how much money they promise us, instead of electing people who care.


"

You two are meant for each other. This has nothing to do with Obama or Trump. Nothing to with R or D.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree, but I don't know what it is. Why is our culture different from, say Germany or England? They watch the same movies, listen to the same music, right? Or look at the Dakotas. Everyone has guns, but except for what you watch on "Fargo", there is zero gun crime. Why is that?

Because it's not true. Death by firearms in the Dakota's is in the lower third of all states but it's double NY, NJ, RI, MA, HI etc...

Worst offenders were all heavy Trump states. Go figure.

You two are meant for each other. This has nothing to do with Obama or Trump. Nothing to with R or D.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
There's a deeper breakdown that's creating anger in men that doesn't know how to vent and I agree it has nothing to do with politics. I read the other day that only 5% of mass shooters had a diagnoseable mental illness. While Cruz certainly had issues going after mental illness like Trump has been is just a way to excuse the violence as nothing we can address.

I don't think it has anything to do with the breakdown of the family either Jim. You love to cite stats around the breakdown of black families but mass shootings by non black killers are 5 times higher and most of that is likely gang crime.

There's a deeper breakdown that's creating anger in men that doesn't know how to vent and I agree it has nothing to do with politics. I read the other day that only 5% of mass shooters had a diagnoseable mental illness. While Cruz certainly had issues going after mental illness like Trump has been is just a way to excuse the violence as nothing we can address.

In a free society, violence is addressed by punishing the perpetrator. In an authoritarian society, it is diminished by punishing everybody.


I don't think it has anything to do with the breakdown of the family either Jim. You love to cite stats around the breakdown of black families but mass shootings by non black killers are 5 times higher and most of that is likely gang crime.

We have evolved into a society where the influence of family units is progressively undermined by the power and influence of the larger "family," the state. It is more of an appropriation of some of the control and influence that family units had rather than a breakdown of that control and influence. Though it is resisted by many who still believe in what Jim refers to as family values, it is gladly consented to by many of the post-1960-government-educated who want to be released from total or near total responsibility.

The different "systems" produce different societal results.

You two are meant for each other. This has nothing to do with Obama or Trump. Nothing to with R or D.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

R's won't budge on guns. D's won't budge on culture, morality, family values, whatever you want to call it.

Because it's not true. Death by firearms in the Dakota's is in the lower third of all states but it's double NY, NJ, RI, MA, HI etc...

Worst offenders were all heavy Trump states. Go figure.

When you cherry pick the way you look at the data, sometimes you can make it say what you want.

When you normalize gun deaths by state, with gun ownership by state (which is the correct way to look at it if you want to know if guns are the cause of gun deaths), deaths are very low in the Dakotas.

"I don't think it has anything to do with the breakdown of the family either Jim."

Of course you don't. That would mean conservatives have a point, and you'll never, ever concede that.

Parents who are engaged with their kids and who give a sh*t about their kids, are aware of whether or not their kids, however they got there, are at the point of snapping.

There's a deeper breakdown that's creating anger in men that doesn't know how to vent and I agree it has nothing to do with politics. I read the other day that only 5% of mass shooters had a diagnoseable mental illness. While Cruz certainly had issues going after mental illness like Trump has been is just a way to excuse the violence as nothing we can address.

I don't think it has anything to do with the breakdown of the family either Jim. You love to cite stats around the breakdown of black families but mass shootings by non black killers are 5 times higher and most of that is likely gang crime.

The fatherlessness in black culture has very little to do with these rare mass shootings. It has a lot to do with everyday street crime, like the 500 homicides a year in Chicago. True or false?

And I hate citing those stats. But they are worth citing when talking about things that are driven by those stats.

We have evolved into a society where the influence of family units is progressively undermined by the power and influence of the larger "family," the state. It is more of an appropriation of some of the control and influence that family units had rather than a breakdown of that control and influence. Though it is resisted by many who still believe in what Jim refers to as family values, it is gladly consented to by many of the post-1960-government-educated who want to be released from total or near total responsibility.

The different "systems" produce different societal results.

"it is gladly consented to by many of the post-1960-government-educated who want to be released from total or near total responsibility"

Bingo. And the results speak for themselves.

And it's gladly consented to by the idiotic masses, because abdicating responsibility for raising your kids to the schools, is a lot easier than taking on that responsibility. My life would be a lot easier if I could spend all day indulging myself instead of spending today making breakfast for 5, playing on the swings, taking one kid to basketball practice, taking another to a hitting lesson, then taking them all to see the Harlem Globetrotters. I could be drinking beer at the Springfield Camping Show instead, and letting my kids fend for themselves on the Internet. But I believe I forfeited that right when I decided to have kids (not a permanent forfeit, I can indulge myself again when my second grader is out of college, 14 more years of my being enslaved).

Because it's not true. Death by firearms in the Dakota's is in the lower third of all states but it's double NY, NJ, RI, MA, HI etc...

Worst offenders were all heavy Trump states. Go figure.

Spence, thanks for proving that you are just as guilty. This spree has no party affiliation. Don't associate it in such a way. Very shallow agenda Jeff
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, thanks for proving that you are just as guilty. This spree has no party affiliation. Don't associate it in such a way. Very shallow agenda Jeff
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Pffffttt...the causes might not be partisan but the desire to work on the problem most certainly is.

Pffffttt...the causes might not be partisan but the desire to work on the problem most certainly is.

Jim just showed two posts above this how hard folks with old fashioned family values, many of whom are Republicans, work on the problem. What are the odds that Jim's kids will fall in love with the sexiness of an AR-15, or any other gun, and then shooting up a school full of children.

But if we insist that Trump, or federal politicians (who do such a great job in every thing else) make it better, then the problem will get "fixed." But never mind that when those politicians fix something, their solutions usually create more problems. And let's not get hung up on that their solutions tend to go astray of the Constitution and wind up in their getting more power at the expense of ours. After all, they have these wonderful, reasonable discussions with each other. And somehow get richer, more powerful, and more entrenched.

Something interesting to read
https://brenebrown.com/blog/2017/11/08/gun-reform-speaking-truth-bull#^&#^&#^&#^&-practicing-civility-affecting-change/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pffffttt...the causes might not be partisan but the desire to work on the problem most certainly is.

But that is not the statement that I responded to Jeff,is it? If you think hard you may even recognize that you changed topics.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqMBJTX7DsE

Pffffttt...the causes might not be partisan but the desire to work on the problem most certainly is.

It is?

So your party encouraging black teenage girls to have babies, is solving the problem?

Your party being in bed with Hollywood poisoning our kids with violence that makes them desensitized to it, is solving the problem?

Put down the Kool Aid for a split second and be honest would it kill you?

The agency was "spending too much time trying to prove Russian collusion with the Trump campaign", Mr Trump tweeted.
The White House has refused to release a photo of President Donald Trump signing a law making it easier for some people with mental illness to buy guns.

the president's own annual budget proposed this week would cuts hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for mental health programmes.


Look at what they do not what the say Trump is regurgitating what Fox news or should I say the Trump news network . Was saying after the shooting

So your party encouraging black teenage girls to have babies, is solving the problem?
Really Jim?

The agency was "spending too much time trying to prove Russian collusion with the Trump campaign", Mr Trump tweeted.
How vile this is is beyond words.

It's not so much what they did as what they didn't do. Terrible stain on this agency.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

R's won't budge on guns. D's won't budge on culture, morality, family values, whatever you want to call it.

Culture, morality, family values? Look at who the dems elected in 08 and 12 compared to who the republicans elected in 16.

It is?

So your party encouraging black teenage girls to have babies, is solving the problem?

Your party being in bed with Hollywood poisoning our kids with violence that makes them desensitized to it, is solving the problem?

Put down the Kool Aid for a split second and be honest would it kill you?

You may think you are honest with yourself, but that doesn't mean what you say is factually correct. The same jack in the boxes that spew this crap to get elected are the ones cheating on their wives. The majority of the country sees through the bs of the 1950's culture you seem to think is utopia. By the way, birth rates among black and hispanic teens today are about 25% what they were in 1990 after 12 years of Republican leadership. The lowest rates by the way are all the NE states, NJ, NY, PA, VA, WI,MN, WA, UT, IA. See a trend?

Really Jim?

God damn right, really. Read the report written by the late great liberal senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who (when he was Secretary of Labor, I think??) predicted decades ago that liberal welfare would mean the end of the black nuclear family, which would be a catastrophe for poor blacks.

When he wrote that report, people like you said "really, Mr Moynihan?"

He was exactly, 100 percent correct. To this day, liberals refuse to concede that he was right. Despite everything happening right under your noses, you deny it. That's productive.

That's liberalism. You implement a liberal idea. if it works, you say "see, liberalism works". When it fails, you stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la la".

How vile this is is beyond words.

It's truly a vile thing to say.

It's vile to use that event as a club against those with whom you disagree. It's vile when Trump does it, and it's vile when Senator Chris Murphy does it.

Culture, morality, family values? Look at who the dems elected in 08 and 12 compared to who the republicans elected in 16.

Who was the democratic candidate in 2016? June Cleaver? Because I thought it was Hilary Clinton, one of the very few people in the country who cannot claim the moral high ground in a debate with Trump.

Trump is POTUS, the most powerful politician in the country, no question. He isn't the Republican party, all republicans are the republican party, and plenty of us despise Trump as a person.

You may think you are honest with yourself, but that doesn't mean what you say is factually correct. The same jack in the boxes that spew this crap to get elected are the ones cheating on their wives. The majority of the country sees through the bs of the 1950's culture you seem to think is utopia. By the way, birth rates among black and hispanic teens today are about 25% what they were in 1990 after 12 years of Republican leadership. The lowest rates by the way are all the NE states, NJ, NY, PA, VA, WI,MN, WA, UT, IA. See a trend?

"You may think you are honest with yourself"

Yes I do.

"The same jack in the boxes that spew this crap to get elected are the ones cheating on their wives"

I'm not responsible or accountable for anything a politician does. I never said Republican politicians are always role models of virtue. I am talking about what the parties stand for (not how their respective politicians behave). In terms of what each party stands for, there is big distinction in terms of healthy family values. Voting for a politician, is not an endorsement of everything that politician does. I would think Democrats learned lesson very well, when Bill Clinton was POTUS.

I believe infidelity is wrong. I also voted for Bill Clinton, and I also voted for Donald Trump. That doesn't mean I think infidelity is good, and it doesn't mean I lose the moral authority to say "infidelity is bad".

"The majority of the country sees through the bs of the 1950's culture you seem to think is utopia"

Tell me what mass shooting statistics were back then, or homicide rates in Chicago, or divorce rates, or drug use rates, or abortion rates, or rates of infidelity, or rates of fatherlessness, or rates of sexually transmitted disease, or how many latch key kids there were, or how many kids not cared for by a parent? Hmmm?

There were awful parts of the 1950s, particularly Democrat racism. But in terms of family values? I'd take that, over what I see around me today, every day and twice on Sunday. You are free to disagree and even to call it "B.S" But I see you provided zero evidence that it's BS.

"birth rates among black and hispanic teens today are about 25% what they were in 1990 "

If that's true, it's because liberalism is convincing blacks to abort themselves almost out of existence. Maybe democrats are trying to finish what they started in the 1950s?

"See a trend"

I do. The trend I see is that the GOP has the white house, both chambers of congress, and a huge majority of governorships and state legislatures. So I'm not sure the majority of the country thinks I am full of BS.

[QUOTE=zimmy;1137589]The majority of the country sees through the bs of the 1950's culture you seem to think is utopia.

Socialism and Communism (sort of the same thing) Are the only Utopian systems I'm aware of. 1950's culture in the U.S. then was family oriented. Blacks were mostly born into family structures which mostly stayed together. Most blacks are now born out of wedlock and don't have examples of family life to model themselves. That is also happening on a lesser scale to whites.

[QUOTE=zimmy]By the way, birth rates among black and hispanic teens today are about 25% what they were in 1990 after 12 years of Republican leadership.[QUOTE]

Abortion.

Who was the democratic candidate in 2016? June Cleaver? Because I thought it was Hilary Clinton, one of the very few people in the country who cannot claim the moral high ground in a debate with Trump.

Trump is POTUS, the most powerful politician in the country, no question. He isn't the Republican party, all republicans are the republican party, and plenty of us despise Trump as a person.

I am not going to take the time to respond to everything you said as I would rather watch the olympics, but the Republican high ground on morality is one of the greatest perpetual falsehoods of the last 50 years. I didn't claim Hilary had moral high ground, just as you shouldn't claim Republicans have moral high ground. It is 100% bogus.
By the way, democrat racism? That is your party now. I'm sure you are aware they changed parties, which is why the democrats don't win the south. They are in the red states, the same states that take more in taxes than they pay in taxes, the states with the rates of highest teen pregnancy, the highest rates of welfare and food stamp participation, the state with the lowest education levels, the lowest per capita income.

Murder rate per capita 1950- 4.6 per 100000.
Murder rate 2013 2014- 4.5. Bumped to 5.2 in 2016.
It is way more 1950's now than during the reign of Ronnie when it was 7.9-10.2.

Divorce rates changed when laws changed (1967). Thank God. An aunt of a high school friend was disowned by her father, a devout Catholic, for getting a divorce, even though her husband beat her repeatedly. Dad was a man of the 50's when America was "great. Thankful the law supporter her choice.

STD rates? I took a quick look: gonorrhea and syphilis lower now than 1950's. Chlamydia and HIV don't show up in the statistics until the 1980's so who knows. You literally make up things off the top of your head based on your perceptions rather than real data.

GOP in the white house- doesn't represent the will of the majority of voters. GOP in state legislatures- many places it gets 40% of the votes and ends up with 70% of the seats. The real voter fraud.

[QUOTE=zimmy;1137589]The majority of the country sees through the bs of the 1950's culture you seem to think is utopia.

Socialism and Communism (sort of the same thing) Are the only Utopian systems I'm aware of (you should tell Jim the 50's weren't Utopia. He thinks it was.) 1950's culture in the U.S. then was family oriented.
Meaning women knew their place?

[QUOTE=zimmy]By the way, birth rates among black and hispanic teens today are about 25% what they were in 1990 after 12 years of Republican leadership.[QUOTE]

Abortion.
Abortion rate is half now what it was in 1980 and about 60% of what it was in 1990. You, like Jim, should try facts rather than what you "feel" is true.

[QUOTE=detbuch;1137597][QUOTE=zimmy;1137589]The majority of the country sees through the bs of the 1950's culture you seem to think is utopia.

Socialism and Communism (sort of the same thing) Are the only Utopian systems I'm aware of (you should tell Jim the 50's weren't Utopia. He thinks it was.) 1950's culture in the U.S. then was family oriented.
Meaning women knew their place?

[QUOTE=zimmy]By the way, birth rates among black and hispanic teens today are about 25% what they were in 1990 after 12 years of Republican leadership.
Abortion rate is half now what it was in 1980 and about 60% of what it was in 1990. You, like Jim, should try facts rather than what you "feel" is true.

I have not heard Jim refer to the 1950's as utopia. You're putting that word in his mouth. That is not an honest way to have a discussion.

Your remark that 1950's family oriented culture meant that women knew their place was more snotty than useful as a point of comparison between then and now. Especially as relating to black women. The point being that black women of child bearing age don't have, now, in contrast to the 1950's, an intact family with a father in the home. So then neither do their children. Ergo the culture, for them, is not family oriented in a traditional sense, but a fatherless culture, and for many, a government dependent culture as a model for their children.

The time in question was the 1950's. You jumped it to 1990 and to today. Again, not an honest comparison of values of the 1950's to today.

You originally brought up birth rates of blacks and Hispanics. Was the abortion rate you later spoke of as dramatically dropping also pertaining to blacks and Hispanics, or overall including all races? There's this excerpt from an article on the subject:

"In 2014, a total of 303,844 blacks died in the U.S. That same year, an estimated 954,000 abortions took place in the United States. If 36% were performed on black women, that means 343,440 black babies were aborted. In other words, more blacks are killed by abortion each year in the United States than by all other causes combined.

"In 2010, the black population in the U.S. stood just shy of at 39 million. The CDC reports that during the 1970's, roughly 24% of all U.S. abortions were performed on black women. That percentage rose to 30% in the 1980's, 34% in the 1990's and 36% in the 2000's. That means that about 31% of all U.S. abortions since 1973 have been performed on African American women. Based on the January 2013 estimate that there have been 55.7 million abortions in the United States since 1973, we can deduce that approximately 17 million of the aborted babies were black.

"Despite an overall black population growth of 12% between 2000 and 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that the black population "grew at a slower rate than most other major race and ethnic groups in the country." CBS News reported in 2009 that "Hispanics have surpassed blacks as the nation's largest minority group." Can there be any question about the role abortion has played in this demographic shift? Despite similar population numbers, Hispanic women account for approximately 19% of U.S. abortions whereas African-American women account for up to 36%. From 1973 to 2012, abortion reduced the black population by 30%, and that doesn't even factor in all the children that would have been born to those aborted a generation ago. To put it bluntly, abortion has thinned the black community in ways the Ku Klux Klan could have only dreamed of."

In 1950 the Black population in the U.S. was about 15 million. Since 1973 about 17 million Blacks (more than the entire Black population at the time we were discussing) were aborted. On average almost 1900 Blacks are aborted every day in the U.S. In N.Y. City more Blacks are aborted than are born. Blacks in the U.S. are aborted at 3 times the rate as whites.

By the way, democrat racism? That is your party now. I'm sure you are aware they changed parties, which is why the democrats don't win the south. They are in the red states, the same states that take more in taxes than they pay in taxes, the states with the rates of highest teen pregnancy, the highest rates of welfare and food stamp participation, the state with the lowest education levels, the lowest per capita income.



That is total BS. The racist Democrat politicians did not switch parties. With the exception of a very few, they all remained in the Democrat party. The racist culture of the South changed and voters began voting Republican. Since the South became Republican, it has become far less racist than it was when the South was solid racist Democrat.

I am not going to take the time to respond to everything you said as I would rather watch the olympics, but the Republican high ground on morality is one of the greatest perpetual falsehoods of the last 50 years. I didn't claim Hilary had moral high ground, just as you shouldn't claim Republicans have moral high ground. It is 100% bogus.
By the way, democrat racism? That is your party now. I'm sure you are aware they changed parties, which is why the democrats don't win the south. They are in the red states, the same states that take more in taxes than they pay in taxes, the states with the rates of highest teen pregnancy, the highest rates of welfare and food stamp participation, the state with the lowest education levels, the lowest per capita income.

Murder rate per capita 1950- 4.6 per 100000.
Murder rate 2013 2014- 4.5. Bumped to 5.2 in 2016.
It is way more 1950's now than during the reign of Ronnie when it was 7.9-10.2.

Divorce rates changed when laws changed (1967). Thank God. An aunt of a high school friend was disowned by her father, a devout Catholic, for getting a divorce, even though her husband beat her repeatedly. Dad was a man of the 50's when America was "great. Thankful the law supporter her choice.

STD rates? I took a quick look: gonorrhea and syphilis lower now than 1950's. Chlamydia and HIV don't show up in the statistics until the 1980's so who knows. You literally make up things off the top of your head based on your perceptions rather than real data.

GOP in the white house- doesn't represent the will of the majority of voters. GOP in state legislatures- many places it gets 40% of the votes and ends up with 70% of the seats. The real voter fraud.

You are saying that std rates are lower now than they were in the 1980s. You somehow thinknthatvrejects my premise that stdbrates were lower in the 1950s. I have shocking news for you. The 1980s were not part of the 1950s.

I have more news for you. You cannot judge the morality of a large party’s agenda, by looking at the moral lapses in the personal life of that party’s president. I agree with democrats on gay marriage and the death penalty. The fact that the clintons are scumbags, doesn’t mean that democrats cannot have the right idea in some important issues.

You’re being so simpleminded thatbyoy cant concwdenthenother side has a point. You’ll point to anything to make conservatism look bad.

You can’t orive conservatism wrong, by pointing to personal lapses of conservatives.

And you were correct that trump lost the popular vote. What about the other 1,000 state and federal elections that the incumbent democrats list to republicans since obama was potus? That tells us nothing about the pulse of the country? Al that matters is that Hilary won, therefore the country is more liberal than conservative.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's not so much what they did as what they didn't do. Terrible stain on this agency.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is a puzzle of missing pieces from how the FBI didnt follow up, local agency Failure to report and why Federal law allows people 18 and over to legally purchase long guns. but cant drink until 21

but some how Trump has made this Tragedy about him :btu:

some of the current 3000 young adults who were at school that day are seeing the world thru different eyes

Better look back in History
When the United States first became independent, most states applied English common law to abortion. This meant it was not permitted after quickening, or the start of fetal movements, usually felt 15–20 weeks after conception.[6]

Abortions became illegal by statute in Britain in 1803, and various anti-abortion statutes began to appear in the United States in the 1820s that codified or expanded common law. In 1821, a Connecticut law targeted apothecaries who sold "poisons" to women for purposes of inducing an abortion, and New York made post-quickening abortions a felony and pre-quickening abortions a misdemeanor in 1829. Some argue that the early American abortion laws were motivated not by ethical concerns about abortion but by concern about the procedure's safety. However, some legal theorists point out that this theory is inconsistent with the fact that abortion was punishable regardless of whether any harm befell the pregnant woman and the fact that many of the early laws punished not only the doctor or abortionist, but also the woman who hired them.[7]

A number of other factors likely played a role in the rise of anti-abortion laws in the United States. Physicians, who were the leading advocates of abortion criminalization laws, appear to have been motivated at least in part by advances in medical knowledge. Science had discovered that conception inaugurated a more or less continuous process of development, which would produce a new human being if uninterrupted. Moreover, quickening was found to be neither more nor less crucial in the process of gestation than any other step. On a logical basis, many physicians concluded that if society considered it unjustifiable to terminate pregnancy after the fetus had quickened, and if quickening was a relatively unimportant step in the gestation process, then it was just as wrong to terminate a pregnancy before quickening as after quickening.[8] Ideologically, the Hippocratic Oath and the medical mentality of that age to defend the value of human life as an absolute also played a significant role in molding opinions about abortion.[8] Doctors were also influenced by practical reasons to impose anti-abortion laws. For one, abortion providers tended to be untrained and not members of medical societies. In an age where the leading doctors in the nation were attempting to standardize the medical profession, these "irregulars" were considered a nuisance to public health.[9] The more formalized medical profession disliked the "irregulars" because they were competition, often at a cheaper cost.

Despite campaigns to end the practice of abortion, abortifacient advertising was highly effective in the United States, though less so across the Atlantic. Contemporary estimates of mid-19th century abortion rates in the United States suggest between 20-25% of all pregnancies in the United States during that era ended in abortion.[10] This era saw a marked shift in those who were obtaining abortions. Before the start of the 19th century, most abortions were sought by unmarried women who had become pregnant out of wedlock. Out of 54 abortion cases published in American medical journals between 1839 and 1880, over half were sought by married women, and well over 60% of the married women already had at least one child.[11] The sense that married women were now frequently obtaining abortions worried many conservative physicians, who were almost exclusively men. In the post-Civil War era, much of the blame was placed on the burgeoning women's rights movement.

Though the medical profession expressed hostility toward feminism, many feminists of the era were opposed to abortion.[12][13] In The Revolution, operated by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, an anonymous contributor signing "A" wrote in 1869 about the subject, arguing that instead of merely attempting to pass a law against abortion, the root cause must also be addressed. Simply passing an anti-abortion law would, the writer stated, "be only mowing off the top of the noxious weed, while the root remains. [...] No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh! thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime."[13][14][15][16] To many feminists of this era, abortion was regarded as an undesirable necessity forced upon women by thoughtless men.[17] Even the "free love" wing of the feminist movement refused to advocate for abortion and treated the practice as an example of the hideous extremes to which modern marriage was driving women.[18] Marital rape and the seduction of unmarried women were societal ills which feminists believed caused the need to abort, as men did not respect women's right to abstinence.[18]

However, physicians remained the loudest voice in the anti-abortion debate, and they carried their anti-feminist agenda to state legislatures around the country, advocating not only anti-abortion laws, but also laws against birth control. This movement presaged the modern debate over women's body rights.[19] A campaign was launched against the movement and the use and availability of contraceptives.

Criminalization of abortion accelerated from the late 1860s, through the efforts of concerned legislators, doctors, and the American Medical Association.[20] In 1873, Anthony Comstock created the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, an institution dedicated to supervising the morality of the public. Later that year, Comstock successfully influenced the United States Congress to pass the Comstock Law, which made it illegal to deliver through the U.S. mail any "obscene, lewd, or lascivious" material. It also prohibited producing or publishing information pertaining to the procurement of abortion or the prevention of conception or venereal disease, even to medical students.[21] The production, publication, importation, and distribution of such materials was suppressed under the Comstock Law as being obscene, and similar prohibitions were passed by 24 of the 37 states.[22]

In 1900, abortion was a felony in every state. Some states included provisions allowing for abortion in limited circumstances, generally to protect the woman's life or to terminate pregnancies arising from rape or incest.[23] Abortions continued to occur, however, and became increasingly available. The American Birth Control League was founded by Margaret Sanger in 1921 to promote the founding of birth control clinics and enable women to control their own fertility.[24]

By the 1930s, licensed physicians performed an estimated 800,000 abortions a year.[25]

2014 President Barack Obama took heavy criticism when he went golfing last month during his vacation just minutes after denouncing the militants who had beheaded an American journalist.

So would the president want a second chance and do things differently?

Obama tells NBC's "Meet the Press" that there always will be tough news somewhere, but that he "should've anticipated the optics" of immediately going to play golf.

Trump Joins Mar-a-Lago Disco Party After Visiting Survivors Of School Shooting

crickets

God damn right, really. Read the report written by the late great liberal senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who (when he was Secretary of Labor, I think??) predicted decades ago that liberal welfare would mean the end of the black nuclear family, which would be a catastrophe for poor blacks.

When he wrote that report, people like you said "really, Mr Moynihan?"
Actually he was advocating for stronger welfare to support the lack of employment for black men. You do realize he was a liberal in a liberal administration writing to support a liberal policy don't you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is total BS. The racist Democrat politicians did not switch parties. With the exception of a very few, they all remained in the Democrat party. The racist culture of the South changed and voters began voting Republican. Since the South became Republican, it has become far less racist than it was when the South was solid racist Democrat.
Democrats and Republicans flipping parties (exactly as zimmy asserted) had less to do with racism and more to do with the expansion of Federal power. Republicans in the northern states wanted to invest and expand into the west. Democrats in the southern states opposed it just as they feared the erosion of states rights over slavery.

The flip happened a few decades later as some Democrats started pushing for Government expansion to attract voters as the western states became more populated. Naturally this created opposition up until the New Deal when the reverse in polarity was complete.

You’re being so simpleminded thatbyoy cant concwdenthenother side has a point. You’ll point to anything to make conservatism look bad.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Most ironic statement I have seen from you. Especially the simple minded part. You put out a bunch of points that are factually incorrect. Then when I give you actual available data,you say I will point out anything to make conservatism look bad. So are you saying conservatism is based on misinformation and inaccuracies? We could agree on that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Democrats and Republicans flipping parties (exactly as zimmy asserted) had less to do with racism

zimmy EXACTLY asserted that it was a racist switch: he said "By the way, democrat racism? That is your party now. I'm sure you are aware they changed parties, which is why the democrats don't win the south."

And the racist Democrat officeholders on the federal, state, and local levels, except for a very few, did not switch parties.

Nixon's Southern Strategy was not a racist strategy. He ran as an anti-racist. He basically helped to desegregate the South's schools.

and more to do with the expansion of Federal power. Republicans in the northern states wanted to invest and expand into the west. Democrats in the southern states opposed it just as they feared the erosion of states rights over slavery.

The flip happened a few decades later as some Democrats started pushing for Government expansion to attract voters as the western states became more populated. Naturally this created opposition up until the New Deal when the reverse in polarity was complete.

I'm not following your timeline, but yes, there was a flip by the VOTERS, not by the parties. Many of the younger voters in the South by then had already begun to join the rest of the country in disavowing racism and they joined the existing older voters who were not racist to bring about the flip. So race did have an affect on the switch, but the opposite effect than we are led to believe by Democrat spinners. And the South, as it became more Republican, became less racist.

And yes, there was a strong states rights sentiment in the South. And that was not just about race, and less about it by the time of the "switch." As long as the South remained majority racist, that was enough reason to continue to vote for the racist Democrat politicians who also claimed to be states rights advocates (even though they mostly voted with Progressive big government Democrat policies at the national level). The Republicans in the South were always the anti-slavery, anti-racist, and less government party. As sentiments changed, due mostly to Republican efforts nationally, the Southern population, especially the younger segment, the overwhelming racist character of the South changed, but the desire not to be ruled by the federal government remained. So the natural party left for the majority of Southern voters would be the one which was not racist and which espoused less federal power and the maintenance of state and local power.

Most ironic statement I have seen from you. Especially the simple minded part. You put out a bunch of points that are factually incorrect. Then when I give you actual available data,you say I will point out anything to make conservatism look bad. So are you saying conservatism is based on misinformation and inaccuracies? We could agree on that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your data was selective and misleading.

I'm not following your timeline, but yes, there was a flip by the VOTERS, not by the parties.
As I noted above, this simply isn't supported by history.

this argument is a little absurd, the Republicans were the party of Lincoln and hated by the south until after the 60s when the Democrats under Kennedy and LBJ moved for voting rights and welfare. At that point the White Democrats of the South went Republican, but not in a day.
LBJ was the one who said this:“I’ll tell you what’s at the bottom of it,” he said. “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”

I had no idea that the republicans were the party of Lincoln...:)...making a note of that...

I think Spence need to be sent to concussion protocol...starting to think he hit his head....

this argument is a little absurd, the Republicans were the party of Lincoln and hated by the south until after the 60s when the Democrats under Kennedy and LBJ moved for voting rights and welfare. At that point the White Democrats of the South went Republican, but not in a day.

The Republicans voted for all the civil rights acts. They integrated the southern schools, all before the "switch." I don't see how that was supposed to be attractive to racist southerners. After the so called switch, the South, unarguably, became less racist.

LBJ was the one who said this:“I’ll tell you what’s at the bottom of it,” he said. “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”

LBJ was an ego-centric racist. That "quote" you post, if he actually said it, is racist. He supposedly also said that if he could get the civil rights act passed, the Dems would have the n***ers for two hundred years.

As I noted above, this simply isn't supported by history.

Your timeline was unclear and your post here is not connected to mine.

Actually he was advocating for stronger welfare to support the lack of employment for black men. You do realize he was a liberal in a liberal administration writing to support a liberal policy don't you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You literally just make stuff up? Complete fabrication?

He was calling for programs that did what he thought was vital - restore the black nuclear family. He predicted, correctly, that welfare as we know it, would cause continued deterioration of the black nuclear family, and that would be a catastrophe.

He was right. 100% right. You disagree?

Yes he was a liberal, a heroic liberal who, unlike you, was able to speak the truth, even when said truth didn't necessarily support liberalism.

Most ironic statement I have seen from you. Especially the simple minded part. You put out a bunch of points that are factually incorrect. Then when I give you actual available data,you say I will point out anything to make conservatism look bad. So are you saying conservatism is based on misinformation and inaccuracies? We could agree on that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Posting data comparing the 1980s to today, has nothing to do with my beliefs about the 1950s. The 1980s happened a long time after the 1950s. Look it up if you don't believe me.

I also never said the 1950s were utopia. You put stupid words in my mouth, which is what simpletons do when the other guy has a point, but you won't admit it.

In the 1950s, American culture had a view of what a "family" was, and how it was supposed to function, that I believe is far superior to the current view of what a family is. Two parents committed to the family and the kids, one parent staying home during the early years, not leaving 3 year-olds in daycare for 10 hours a day being raised by God knows who. Parents sticking together even when it's brutally hard. Eating dinner together and talking and listening, instead of everyone watching TV or on their phones.

Kooky ideas, I know. Those zany olden times!! Hell, I'm so old I remember when it wasn't considered controversial to suggest that if you have a wee wee, you go to the mens room. I know, I'm a dinosaur.

I think you are all set Jim, here you go. From an op-ed by Bret Stephens and it does go on and on making many of your points quite well.
"In the matter of immigration, mark this conservative columnist down as strongly pro-deportation. The United States has too many people who don’t work hard, don’t believe in God, don’t contribute much to society and don’t appreciate the greatness of the American system.

They need to return whence they came.

I speak of Americans whose families have been in this country for a few generations. Complacent, entitled and often shockingly ignorant on basic points of American law and history, they are the stagnant pool in which our national prospects risk drowning.

On point after point, America’s nonimmigrants are failing our country. Crime? A study by the Cato Institute notes that nonimmigrants are incarcerated at nearly twice the rate of illegal immigrants, and at more than three times the rate of legal ones.

Educational achievement? Just 17 percent of the finalists in the 2016 Intel Science Talent Search — often called the “Junior Nobel Prize” — were the children of United States-born parents. At the Rochester Institute of Technology, just 9.5 percent of graduate students in electrical engineering were nonimmigrants.

He was calling for programs that did what he thought was vital - restore the black nuclear family. He predicted, correctly, that welfare as we know it, would cause continued deterioration of the black nuclear family, and that would be a catastrophe.
Jim, family structure was seen as critical, but his thesis said that Civil Rights legislation alone wouldn't be enough to lift African Americans from poverty and that welfare was needed especially to support unemployed black men. Not that welfare would erode the family structure.

Not that welfare would erode the family structure.




Moynihan concluded, "The steady expansion of welfare programs can be taken as a measure of the steady disintegration of the Negro family structure over the past generation in the United States."

Moynihan concluded, "The steady expansion of welfare programs can be taken as a measure of the steady disintegration of the Negro family structure over the past generation in the United States."

Stop taking things out of context like that.

I think you are all set Jim, here you go. From an op-ed by Bret Stephens and it does go on and on making many of your points quite well.
"In the matter of immigration, mark this conservative columnist down as strongly pro-deportation. The United States has too many people who don’t work hard, don’t believe in God, don’t contribute much to society and don’t appreciate the greatness of the American system.

They need to return whence they came.

I speak of Americans whose families have been in this country for a few generations. Complacent, entitled and often shockingly ignorant on basic points of American law and history, they are the stagnant pool in which our national prospects risk drowning.

On point after point, America’s nonimmigrants are failing our country. Crime? A study by the Cato Institute notes that nonimmigrants are incarcerated at nearly twice the rate of illegal immigrants, and at more than three times the rate of legal ones.

Educational achievement? Just 17 percent of the finalists in the 2016 Intel Science Talent Search — often called the “Junior Nobel Prize” — were the children of United States-born parents. At the Rochester Institute of Technology, just 9.5 percent of graduate students in electrical engineering were nonimmigrants.

I am not sure if Stephens realizes that the "nonimmigrants" to whom he refers, being citizens, have no place to where they can be deported, that they came from here in the U.S., not some other place. I suppose it would be nice if they could be sent somewhere else, if anyone would take them. But there is no legal way to do that, nor should there be.

The nonimmigrant criminals are, I assume, are being dealt with, like, as he says, being prosecuted and imprisoned. Maybe that is not harsh enough for Stephens. Oh well . . . maybe Stephens might want them to have harsher punishments even than that given to illegal immigrants. Maybe torture or cruel and unusual punishment?

The lazy, complacent, ignorant ones, which it seems cannot be avoided no matter what system of government you create, are obviously much more dangerous to our national prospects, whatever his idea of a national prospect is, than illegal immigration. Obviously, since, like all societies, we will have retrograde nonimmigrants, then that surely is a valid reason to also have illegal immigration.

Sorry, but I just don't see why, because we have problematic citizens, we should also have illegal occupants. Maybe, rather than posting a kooky, sarcastic, opinion piece, you could, in your own words, explain why we should welcome illegal immigrants because we have citizens that some might call "deplorables."

Moynihan concluded, "The steady expansion of welfare programs can be taken as a measure of the steady disintegration of the Negro family structure over the past generation in the United States."
Just to let you know, you quoted a hardcore conservative writing an opinion piece in "capitalism magazine."

Just to let you know, you quoted a hardcore conservative writing an opinion piece in "capitalism magazine."

The steady expansion of welfare programs can be taken as a measure of the steady disintegration of the Negro family structure over the past generation in the United States. Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/daniel_patrick_moynihan_182349


https://www.amazon.com/steady-expansion-welfare-pro-Moynihan/dp/B01LWYKN5W

https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Moynihan's%20The%20Negro%20Family.pdf

heh..heh...heh.....didn't know he was a an opinion writing hardcore conservative

Just to let you know, you quoted a hardcore conservative writing an opinion piece in "capitalism magazine."

It's an exact Moynihan quote. Not what someone else wrote. Can't wait to see you explain that away...

I'm worried about him...maybe he needs a little time off...maybe go for a dog sled ride and see the northern lights or something :hihi:

It's an exact Moynihan quote. Not what someone else wrote. Can't wait to see you explain that away...
Jim, read the report, it's taken out of context. The criticism wasn't about welfare in general, it was about a program that biased benefits in situations where the parents were cohabitating but not married creating a disencetive for the mother to marry.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this argument is a little absurd, the Republicans were the party of Lincoln and hated by the south until after the 60s when the Democrats under Kennedy and LBJ moved for voting rights and welfare. At that point the White Democrats of the South went Republican, but not in a day.
LBJ was the one who said this:“I’ll tell you what’s at the bottom of it,” he said. “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”

Here is the relevant section of a Wikipedia article that is fairly neutral on the subject, not as balanced toward Republican influence as it should be, but Wikipedia often slants left on political subjects so this is about as fair as Wikipedia gets:

"After World War II, during the Civil Rights Movement, Democrats in the South initially still voted loyally with their party. After the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the old argument that all whites had to stick together to prevent civil rights legislation lost its force because the legislation had now been passed. More and more whites began to vote Republican, especially in the suburbs and growing cities. Newcomers from the North were mostly Republican; they were now joined by conservatives and wealthy Southern whites, while liberal whites and poor whites, especially in rural areas, remained with the Democratic Party.[1]
The New Deal program of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) generally united the party factions for over three decades, since Southerners, like Northern urban populations, were hit particularly hard and generally benefited from the massive governmental relief program. FDR was adept at holding white Southerners in the coalition[2] while simultaneously beginning the erosion of Black voters away from their then-characteristic Republican preferences. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s catalyzed the end of this Democratic Party coalition of interests by magnetizing Black voters to the Democratic label and simultaneously ending White control of the Democratic Party apparatus.[3] A series of court decisions, rendering primary elections as public instead of private events administered by the parties, essentially freed the Southern region to change more toward the two-party behavior of most of the rest of the nation.
In the presidential elections of 1952 and 1956 Republican nominee Dwight David Eisenhower, a popular World War II general, won several Southern states, thus breaking some white Southerners away from their Democratic Party pattern. The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a significant event in converting the Deep South to the Republican Party; in that year most Senatorial Republicans supported the Act (most of the opposition came from Southern Democrats), but the Republican Party nominated for the Presidency Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, who had opposed it. From the end of the Civil War to 1960 Democrats had solid control over the southern states in presidential elections, hence the term “Solid South” to describe the states’ Democratic preference. After the passage of this Act, however, their willingness to support Republicans on a presidential level increased demonstrably. Goldwater won many of the “Solid South” states over Democratic candidate Lyndon Johnson, himself a Texan, and with many this Republican support continued and seeped down the ballot to congressional, state, and ultimately local levels. A further significant item of legislation was the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which targeted for preclearance by the U.S. Department of Justice any election-law change in areas where African-American voting participation was lower than the norm (most but not all of these areas were in the South); the effect of the Voting Rights Act on southern elections was profound, including the by-product that some White Southerners perceived it as meddling while Black voters universally appreciated it. The trend toward acceptance of Republican identification among Southern White voters was bolstered in the next two elections by Richard Nixon.
Denouncing the forced busing policy that was used to enforce school desegregation,[4] Richard Nixon courted populist conservative Southern whites with what is called the Southern Strategy, though his speechwriter Jeffrey Hart claimed that his campaign rhetoric was actually a “Border State Strategy” and accused the press of being “very lazy” when they called it a "Southern Strategy".[5] In the 1971 Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education ruling, the power of the federal government to enforce forced busing was strengthened when the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts had the discretion to include busing as a desegregation tool to achieve racial balance. Some southern Democrats became Republicans at the national level, while remaining with their old party in state and local politics throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Of the known Dixiecrats, only three switched parties becoming Republicans: Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Mills E. Godwin, Jr. In the 1974 Milliken v. Bradley decision, however, the ability to use forced busing as a political tactic was greatly diminished when the U.S. Supreme Court placed an important limitation on Swann and ruled that students could only be bused across district lines if evidence of de jure segregation across multiple school districts existed.
In 1976, former Georgia governor Jimmy Carter won every Southern state except Oklahoma and Virginia in his successful campaign to win the Presidency as a Democrat, but his support among White voters in the South evaporated amid their disappointment that he was not the yearned-for reincarnation of Democratic conservatism besides ongoing economic problems. In 1980 Republican presidential nominee Ronald Reagan won overwhelmingly in most of the South.[b]
Losing the South[edit]
In 1980, the Southern Strategy would see fruition when Ronald Reagan announced that he supported states rights and that welfare abuse justified the need for it.[6] Lee Atwater, who served Reagan's chief strategist in the Southern states, claimed that by 1968, a vast majority of southern whites had learned to accept that racial slurs like "nigger" were very offensive and that mentioning "states rights" and reasons for its justification had now become the best way to appeal to southern white voters.[7]

With race less important, economic and cultural conservatism (especially regarding abortion) became more important in the South, with its large religious right element, such as Southern Baptists.[8] The South became fertile ground for the GOP, which was becoming more conservative as it shed its liberal "Rockefeller Republican" faction. The large black vote in the South was solid for liberal Democrats. Well-established Democratic incumbents, however, still held sway over voters in many states, especially in Deep South. Although Republicans won most presidential elections in Southern states starting in 1964, Democrats controlled nearly every Southern state legislature until the mid-1990s and had a moderate (although not huge) number of members in state legislatures until 2010. In fact, until 2002, Democrats still had much control over Southern politics. It wasn't until the 1990s that Democratic control began to implode, starting with the elections of 1994, in which Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress, through the rest of the decade. By the mid-1990s, however, the political value of the race card was evaporating and many Republicans began to court African Americans by playing on their vast dedication to Christian conservatism.[9]
Republicans first dominated presidential elections in the South, then controlled Southern gubernatorial and U.S. Congress elections, then took control of elections to several state legislatures and came to be competitive in or even to control local offices in the South. Southern Democrats of today who vote for the Democratic ticket are mostly urban liberals. Rural residents tend to vote for the Republican ticket, although there are sizable numbers of Conservative Democrats who cross party lines and vote Republican in national elections.[10]
Dr. Ralph Northam, a Democrat and the 2017 Democratic nominee for Governor of Virginia has admitted that he voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.[11] Despite this admission, Northam, a former state Senator who has served as Lieutenant Governor of Virginia since 2014 easily defeated the more progressive candidate, former Congressman Tom Perriello, by 55.9 percent to 44.1 percent to win the Democratic nomination.[12]
A huge portion of Representatives, Senators, and voters who were referred to as Reagan Democrats in the 1980s were conservative Southern Democrats. An Interesting exception has been Arkansas, whose state legislature has continued to be majority Democrat (having, however, given its electoral votes to the GOP in the past three Presidential elections, except in 1992 and 1996 when "favorite son" Bill Clinton was the candidate and won each time) until 2012, when Arkansas voters selected a 21–14 Republican majority in the Arkansas Senate.
Another exception is North Carolina. Despite the fact that the state has voted for Republicans in every presidential election from 1980 until 2008 the governorship (until 2012), legislature (until 2010), as well as most statewide offices, it remains in Democratic control. The North Carolina congressional delegation was heavily Democratic until 2012 when the Republicans had occasion, after the 2010 United States census, to adopt a redistricting plan of their choosing. The current Governor is Roy Cooper, a Democrat.
In 1992, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton was elected President. Unlike Carter, however, Clinton was only able to win the southern states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee and Georgia. While running for President, Clinton promised to "end welfare as we have come to know it" while in office.[13] In 1996, Clinton would fulfill his campaign promise and the longtime GOP goal of major welfare reform came into fruition. After two welfare reform bills sponsored by the GOP-controlled Congress were successfully vetoed by the President,[14] a compromise was eventually reached and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act was signed into law on August 22, 1996.[13]
During Clinton's Presidency, the southern strategy shifted towards the so-called cultural war, which saw major political battles between the Religious Right and the secular Left. Southern Democrats still did and do see much support on the local level, however, and many of them are not nearly so liberal as the Democratic party as a whole. Southern general elections in which the Democrat is to the right of the Republican are still not entirely unheard of.[15]
Chapman notes a split vote among many conservative Southern Democrats in the 1970s and 1980s who supported local and statewide conservative Democrats while simultaneously voting for Republican presidential candidates.[16] This tendency of many Southern whites to vote for the Republican presidential candidate but Democrats from other offices lasted until the 2010 midterm elections. In the November 2008 elections, Democrats won 3/4 the U.S. House delegation from Mississippi, 3/4th of the U.S. House delegation from Arkansas, 5/9th of the U.S. House delegation from Tennessee, and achieved near parity in the U.S. House Delegation from Georgia and Alabama. Nearly all white Democrats in the South lost reelection in 2010, however. In the November 2010 elections, Democrats won only one U.S House seat in Alabama, Mississippi and Arkansas and two out of nine House seats in Tennessee. The Democrats later lost its one Arkansas seat in 2012. Following the November 2010 elections, there was only one white Democratic representative in the Deep South (John Barrow of Georgia), and he lost reelection in 2014. Democrats lost control of the North Carolina and Alabama legislatures in 2010, the Louisiana and Mississippi legislatures in 2011 and the Arkansas legislature in 2012. In 2014, the last damage occurred when Democrats lost 4 U.S. senate seats in the South (in West Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Louisiana) that they had previously held. In 2015, Democrat John Bel Edwards, was elected governor of Louisiana. In 2017, Democrat Doug Jones was elected Senator from Alabama, breaking the Democratic losing streak in Alabama"

this argument is a little absurd, the Republicans were the party of Lincoln and hated by the south until after the 60s when the Democrats under Kennedy and LBJ moved for voting rights and welfare. At that point the White Democrats of the South went Republican, but not in a day.
LBJ was the one who said this:“I’ll tell you what’s at the bottom of it,” he said. “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”

Here's a shorter version by a Black political science professor at Vanderbilt University:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiprVX4os2Y

I don’t disagree that’s why I said not in a day. I could spend a semester explaining the politics of the last half century and ten times that discussing. But I think LBJs administration was the turning point
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, read the report, it's taken out of context. The criticism wasn't about welfare in general, it was about a program that biased benefits in situations where the parents were cohabitating but not married creating a disencetive for the mother to marry.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

from the study...."The steady expansion of this program, as of public assistance programs in general, can be taken as a measure of the steady disintegration of the Negro family structure over the past generation in the United States." Daniel Patrick Moynihan


I've lost count of how many times Spence has claimed a "quote" was "taken out of context" and then proceeded to offer a version of what was said or written which had little or no resemblance to what was actually said or written....:rolleyes:

I don’t disagree that’s why I said not in a day. I could spend a semester explaining the politics of the last half century and ten times that discussing. But I think LBJs administration was the turning point
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The turning point for making the Republicans the party of racism??? That doesn't make any sense. If it wasn't for the overwhelming majority of Republicans that were responsible for passing all the civil rights bills before LBJ and responsible for the one that LBJ "passed", he would not have that bill to get credit for. And All the Democrats in the South and many in the North up until then had all been racists. LBJ was a racist, but a pragmatic one. As he is reputed to have said, getting credit for the Civil Rights Bill was a ploy to make the real switch that the racist FDR started--the final turning of blacks from Republican to Democrat. All the Southern Democrats voted against those Civil Rights Bills. The myth is that there was this sudden switch in which the Republican Party became the party of racism because of the Civil Rights Bills. That's pure horsesh*t.

And it's undeniable that as the Republicans gained more power in the South, the South became less racist. And the Democrat politicians in the South, at all government levels, did not switch to becoming Republicans. The Southern White voters switch to Republican was far more about state sovereignty and individual rights than race, and Southern racial attitudes were aided in changing by the breakdown of the racist "solid South" as Republicans gained power.

As far as a "turning point" goes, the more important one is the rise of Progressivism beginning in the late 19th century and really getting a stranglehold on American constitutionalism and choking much of the life out of it during the FDR administration. LBJ was the next step. His Great Society initiatives even more solidly entrenched the Progressive agenda. It wasn't just Blacks who were seduced into desiring the all-powerful model of the Progressive Administrative State. The American character has almost fundamentally been transformed. Obama was the next step that almost finished the process. Hillary would have sealed the deal.

That's the real reason all the Progressives in government, the media, and in academia and the unionized K-12 public school system want to destroy Trump. They were so close to finishing off the founding political order. But If he succeeds, it will set back to some degree, maybe a lot, their desired final solution.

Perhaps, what really may set back and reverse the Progressive direction is an awakening to the destruction it has wrought on American culture and its constitutional foundation. For better or worse, life goes on in either case. As always, we live in interesting times.

The turning point for making the Republicans the party of racism??? That doesn't make any sense. If it wasn't for the overwhelming majority of Republicans that were responsible for passing all the civil rights bills before LBJ and responsible for the one that LBJ "passed", he would not have that bill to get credit for. And All the Democrats in the South and many in the North up until then had all been racists. LBJ was a racist, but a pragmatic one. As he is reputed to have said, getting credit for the Civil Rights Bill was a ploy to make the real switch that the racist FDR started--the final turning of blacks from Republican to Democrat. All the Southern Democrats voted against those Civil Rights Bills. The myth is that there was this sudden switch in which the Republican Party became the party of racism because of the Civil Rights Bills. That's pure horsesh*t.

And it's undeniable that as the Republicans gained more power in the South, the South became less racist. And the Democrat politicians in the South, at all government levels, did not switch to becoming Republicans. The Southern White voters switch to Republican was far more about state sovereignty and individual rights than race, and Southern racial attitudes were aided in changing by the breakdown of the racist "solid South" as Republicans gained power.

As far as a "turning point" goes, the more important one is the rise of Progressivism beginning in the late 19th century and really getting a stranglehold on American constitutionalism and choking much of the life out of it during the FDR administration. LBJ was the next step. His Great Society initiatives even more solidly entrenched the Progressive agenda. It wasn't just Blacks who were seduced into desiring the all-powerful model of the Progressive Administrative State. The American character has almost fundamentally been transformed. Obama was the next step that almost finished the process. Hillary would have sealed the deal.

That's the real reason all the Progressives in government, the media, and in academia and the unionized K-12 public school system want to destroy Trump. They were so close to finishing off the founding political order. But If he succeeds, it will set back to some degree, maybe a lot, their desired final solution.

Perhaps, what really may set back and reverse the Progressive direction is an awakening to the destruction it has wrought on American culture and its constitutional foundation. For better or worse, life goes on in either case. As always, we live in interesting times.

There is a case before the Supreme Court right now, of a public unionized worker saying he cannot be forced to join an organization he doesn’t like, in order to work. If the court rules that he can’t be forced to join a union, that’s it for unions. Because history has taught us that when people are allowed to choose whether or not to belong to a union, most choose to opt out. Must be a hell of an organization when you can only maintain membership by passing laws to make membership mandatory.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's the real reason all the Progressives in government, the media, and in academia and the unionized K-12 public school system want to destroy Trump. They were so close to finishing off the founding political order. But If he succeeds, it will set back to some degree, maybe a lot, their desired final solution.

detbuch post this and some here are worried about what I post .. you guys need to get out more

There is a case before the Supreme Court right now, of a public unionized worker saying he cannot be forced to join an organization he doesn’t like, in order to work. If the court rules that he can’t be forced to join a union, that’s it for unions. Because history has taught us that when people are allowed to choose whether or not to belong to a union, most choose to opt out. Must be a hell of an organization when you can only maintain membership by passing laws to make membership mandatory.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again you have no idea what you are taking about ...


The agency fee is different from union dues. Employees who are represented by their union but are not dues-paying members, pay this fee to the union for representing them.

Again you have no idea what you are taking about ...


The agency fee is different from union dues. Employees who are represented by their union but are not dues-paying members, pay this fee to the union for representing them.

Why is the union entitled to a cent of my money, if I don’t want to give it to them? And why, when union membership becomes voluntary, do so many people opt out?

I was a public schoolteacher a million years ago. I know a little bit about public unions. They could teach the mafia a few things about greed and corruption and strong arm tactics.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's the real reason all the Progressives in government, the media, and in academia and the unionized K-12 public school system want to destroy Trump. They were so close to finishing off the founding political order. But If he succeeds, it will set back to some degree, maybe a lot, their desired final solution.

detbuch post this and some here are worried about what I post .. you guys need to get out more
You do realize he's just a paid political troll don't you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

from the study...."The steady expansion of this program, as of public assistance programs in general, can be taken as a measure of the steady disintegration of the Negro family structure over the past generation in the United States." Daniel Patrick Moynihan


I've lost count of how many times Spence has claimed a "quote" was "taken out of context" and then proceeded to offer a version of what was said or written which had little or no resemblance to what was actually said or written....:rolleyes:
I'm going to try and be patient with your reading comprehension challenges.

DPM wasn't saying welfare in general was the reason behind the deterioration of the family structure, but rather that increasing reliance on it was a "measure" of the problem. His entire reasoning for writing the piece was to piggyback on the Civil Rights movement and lobby LBJ to increase Federal assistance programs even to the point of creating government jobs to increase employment.

I know it's easy to cherry pick a single sentence, misinterpret it and then base 50 years of talking points about it. I get it. It's also wrong.

I'm going to try and be patient with your reading comprehension challenges.

DPM wasn't saying welfare in general was the reason behind the deterioration of the family structure, but rather that increasing reliance on it was a "measure" of the problem. His entire reasoning for writing the piece was to piggyback on the Civil Rights movement and lobby LBJ to increase Federal assistance programs even to the point of creating government jobs to increase employment.

I know it's easy to cherry pick a single sentence, misinterpret it and then base 50 years of talking points about it. I get it. It's also wrong.
Moynihan made the case that there’s a strong connection between the nuclear family and economic stability within that family. Decades of liberal policies in heavily poor and heavily black precincts, don’t show me a lot of progress in that regard. It shows me that Moynihan was obviously correct, and that modern liberalism is going in the opposite direction, providing financial incentives for black teenagers to have babies, and further incentives for young mothers to not marry the fathers, and promoting an addiction to welfare. From where I sit, its not working out so great.

And for suggesting a different approach we are labeled racist, and people like Zimmy thoughtlessly buy into it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

DPM wasn't saying welfare in general was the reason behind the deterioration of the family structure



"The steady expansion of of this program, as of public assistance programs in general.. can be taken as a measure of the steady disintegration of the Negro family structure over the past generation in the United States."

Daniel Patrick Moynihan

actually he said "disintegration"....it's tough to misinterpret that quote but you are trying mighty hard...are you a paid troll?

Moynihan made the case that there’s a strong connection between the nuclear family and economic stability within that family. Decades of liberal policies in heavily poor and heavily black precincts, don’t show me a lot of progress in that regard.
He would have argued part of the problem was not enough government assistance for a group so disadvantaged by slavery and discriminatory policy.

actually he said "disintegration"....it's tough to misinterpret that quote but you are trying mighty hard...are you a paid troll?
Disintegration and deterioration are synonyms.

Let's try this another way. Why would someone spend their entire scholarly career promoting the benefit and need of welfare only to point to it as the root cause of societal deterioration?

Right, it doesn't make any sense.

He would have argued part of the problem was not enough government assistance for a group so disadvantaged by slavery and discriminatory policy.

right because he would naturally argue part of the problem was not enough government assistance after stating that the steady expansion of government assistance was the problem...

are you OK?...you are having a tough week and it's only Tuesday

Let's try this another way. Why would someone spend their entire scholarly career promoting the benefit and need of welfare only to point to it as the root cause of societal deterioration?

Right, it doesn't make any sense.

moment of clarity?

he was savaged by many on the left for the report and celebrated by many on the right, including the guy that you wrongly attributed the quote to and described as a "hardcore conservative writing an opinion piece in "capitalism magazine."


I appreciate that many things don't make sense to you in Spenceworld

moment of clarity?
That doesn't make a lot of sense.

It was a controversial piece for sure and many have twisted DPM's intent...doesn't change the fact that it's a single point in a long and pretty consistent thought process.

That's the real reason all the Progressives in government, the media, and in academia and the unionized K-12 public school system want to destroy Trump. They were so close to finishing off the founding political order. But If he succeeds, it will set back to some degree, maybe a lot, their desired final solution.

detbuch post this and some here are worried about what I post .. you guys need to get out more

I don 't know who is worried about what you post, I'm certainly not one who is worried about you post, certainly not worried about this typically uninformative, incoherent, irrelevant, useless, and rather ignorant response to what I said.

But carry on because "some here" are shivering with worry over what hallucination you might sputter out next.

Disintegration and deterioration are synonyms.

Let's try this another way. Why would someone spend their entire scholarly career promoting the benefit and need of welfare only to point to it as the root cause of societal deterioration?

Right, it doesn't make any sense.

He warned of the dangers of the evolving liberal view of what welfare should be - send people checks just for breathing, bigger checks for having babies, even bigger checks for having babies without a father. He was afraid (correctly as it turned out) that this would further erode the black nuclear family, which would be a full-blown catastrophe.

He, like every sane person, believed in the concept of a safety net for those who cannot lift themselves up. I have never heard anyone of any party argue against this, not once, ever.

He was in favor of welfare, as long as it didn't provide financial incentives for creating more fatherlessness.

That doesn't make a lot of sense.

.

well, exact quotes don't make sense to you either...

many have twisted DPM's intent...

.

keep telling yourself that...this is a mental heath thread after all....

He warned of the dangers of the evolving liberal view of what welfare should be - send people checks just for breathing, bigger checks for having babies, even bigger checks for having babies without a father.
Mostly wrong. His piece in 1965 had nothing about an evolving liberal view. In the 60's DPM believed that black men would never overcome the effects of the last century unless the government helped lift them to a point of stability. This would mean financial assistance and even creating jobs for them like they did in the New Deal if necessary.

You love to quote him frequently but I'm curious if you've ever actually read anything he published?

Mostly wrong. His piece in 1965 had nothing about an evolving liberal view. In the 60's DPM believed that black men would never overcome the effects of the last century unless the government helped lift them to a point of stability. This would mean financial assistance and even creating jobs for them like they did in the New Deal if necessary.

You love to quote him frequently but I'm curious if you've ever actually read anything he published?

"unless the government helped lift them to a point of stability."

That's my point, and his. Making huge numbers of people so addicted to welfare that it robs them of initiative and the desire to stand on their own two feet, does more harm than good.

Democrats disagree with that, despite stupefying and tragic volumes of empirical evidence. So which side is racist, and why?

"even creating jobs for them like they did in the New Deal if necessary"

Now you sound like a Tea Party conservative. Conservatives want them to work. Liberals apparently want to rob them of their desire to work, and get them addicted to receiving welfare checks. I mean, I saw the Democrats at the SOTU sitting on their hands with scowls on their faces, when Trump announced historically low black unemployment. Why is that not worth celebrating? I cannot wait for your answer, I'm all a-twitter.

"You love to quote him frequently but I'm curious if you've ever actually read anything he published"

You have read his stuff, and you pretend that he didn't say the things he clearly said, which don't serve your agenda. I know a lot about DPM. I know it was a disaster that HRC took his seat, that was not a trade up.

In the 60's DPM believed that black men would never overcome the effects of the last century unless the government helped lift them to a point of stability. This would mean financial assistance and even creating jobs for them like they did in the New Deal if necessary.


I take it, then, that the government didn't help lift them to a point of stability. Or, if it did, whatever it did has made them more unstable.

Why is the union entitled to a cent of my money, if I don’t want to give it to them? And why, when union membership becomes voluntary, do so many people opt out?

I was a public schoolteacher a million years ago. I know a little bit about public unions. They could teach the mafia a few things about greed and corruption and strong arm tactics.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Don't want union pay don't take a union job ... unless your a scab

Mostly wrong. His piece in 1965 had nothing about an evolving liberal view. In the 60's DPM believed that black men would never overcome the effects of the last century unless the government helped lift them to a point of stability. This would mean financial assistance and even creating jobs for them like they did in the New Deal if necessary.

You love to quote him frequently but I'm curious if you've ever actually read anything he published?

it's pretty clear that you've never read the report....

Don't want union pay don't take a union job ... unless your a scab

Why are some jobs union jobs? I was a public school teacher, and I was phenomenal at it. Why do I have to give money to an organization I disagree with ( a very political organization) in order to work?

I thought liberals like you, liked choice. I’m almost certain I heard that somewhere. So let me choose whether or not I give money to organizations that donate to Elizabeth warren and planned parenthood.

As I said, if an organization can only keep its membership by passing laws making membership mandatory, it must be a really useless organization, except for the people getting rich off it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso

Don't want union pay don't take a union job ... unless your a scab






Why are some jobs union jobs?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device



that was a fascinating statement...apparently the unions are the employers?

To join the local rifle club I had to join the NRA, I wasn't happy about it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought liberals like you, liked choice. I’m almost certain I heard that somewhere.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually Liberals and Conservatives only like choice if you agree with them.
Liberals tend to believe that government should have limted authority over your private life and behavior. Liberals expect more government authority over peoples' wealth and earnings and more regulation of businesses.

Conservatives tend to expect more government authority over morality and more regulation of your behavior. Conservatives prefer limited government authority over peoples' financial matters and prefer less regulation of businesses.

Authoritarians prefer government with a significant control of your personal and economic matters and over businesses.
Though they disagree on specifics: authoritarians, conservatives, and liberals all expect government to "protect" people by forcing consenting adults to avoid risky, dangerous and foolish behavior that does not harm or endanger others.

Libertarians believe that government's role is to preserve personal and economic freedom -- including those of "minorties" -- and that government-provided "protection" should only include defense against foreign enemies, holding people who cause harm accountable, and providing for general order.

Why are some jobs union jobs? I was a public school teacher, and I was phenomenal at it. Why do I have to give money to an organization I disagree with ( a very political organization) in order to work?

I thought liberals like you, liked choice. I’m almost certain I heard that somewhere. So let me choose whether or not I give money to organizations that donate to Elizabeth warren and planned parenthood.

As I said, if an organization can only keep its membership by passing laws making membership mandatory, it must be a really useless organization, except for the people getting rich off it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you had a choice you could pay an agancy fee but it seems you want the pay and benefits of a union member with out paying for the services that negotiated the pay rate with the employer ..

So how are you any better then those on welfare who you claim are destroying the country .. if you are un willing to pay for a service but some how feel your entitled to the pay benefits...

The right fear unions because those who bank roll their campaigns may have to pay a decent wage its as easy as that ... and they wont be as rich as the want to be

you had a choice you could pay an agancy fee but it seems you want the pay and benefits of a union member with out paying for the services that negotiated the pay rate with the employer ..

So how are you any better then those on welfare who you claim are destroying the country .. if you are un willing to pay for a service but some how feel your entitled to the pay benefits...

The right fear unions because those who bank roll their campaigns may have to pay a decent wage its as easy as that ... and they wont be as rich as the want to be

"it seems you want the pay and benefits of a union member with out paying for the services "

Wrong.

In the teachers union, pay is based on tenure. So all teachers with masters degrees who have been there ten years, get the same exact pay. So the guy teaching AP Physics and goes above and beyond for his kids, gets paid exactly the same as the gym teacher who goes home when the bell rings.

The best teacher and the worst teacher get paid the same. That benefits the worst teacher, and penalizes the best teacher. That seems backwards to me, but makes all kinds of sense to the union.

If people choose not to be in the union, they should not benefit from collective bargaining. Let them negotiate their own pay and benefits.

I want to be paid based on my worth, not the average worth of everyone in my job. Don't people who do a better job, deserve more money?

"So how are you any better then those on welfare who you claim are destroying the country"

Ummm...I pay a ton in taxes, rather than draining the system? That doesn't make me a better person, it makes me a more valuable citizen in terms of cash flow.

"if you are un willing to pay for a service but some how feel your entitled to the pay benefits"

As I said, those who don't pay into the union, should have to negotiate on their own. They shouldn't benefit if they don't pay i8nto it. The bets workers, can do better negotiating on their own. "Collective bargaining" treats everyone the same, it does not differentiate within the collective. So top performers can do better, negotiating on their own.

"The right fear unions "

Hating something and fearing it, are not the same thing.

"those who bank roll their campaigns may have to pay a decent wage its as easy as that "

You are assuming that you'll make more in a union. If you are a top performer, you'll do better outside of a union. Most people in the private sector are not in a union, most get a decent wage, IF they acquire marketable skills and work hard.

Jim
I assume you have never been on a school board. I have and given taxpayer pressure teachers would not ever get a raise, if an individual teacher came in to negotiate for more money they would be replaced.
Now I don't think unions are any better than government unless they are monitored closely by the people they work for, but just like government they get confused about who is the employer and who is the employee.

Jim
I assume you have never been on a school board. I have and given taxpayer pressure teachers would not ever get a raise, if an individual teacher came in to negotiate for more money they would be replaced.
Now I don't think unions are any better than government unless they are monitored closely by the people they work for, but just like government they get confused about who is the employer and who is the employee.

"I assume you have never been on a school board"

Nope.

"I have "

Thanks you for your service.

"given taxpayer pressure teachers would not ever get a raise, if an individual teacher came in to negotiate for more money they would be replaced."

Not sure I agree. Tax rates are set, you have a pool of tax revenue to spend. Why does a gym teacher get the same pay as the folks teaching AP Chemistry and Calculus? That is absurd to me. Everyone knows who the best teachers are, everyone knows who the deadbeats are. The board, combined with the principals, could distribute available money so that the best performers get more. It's fair, and it provides the incentive for people to work harder.

That's how the private sector works, I'm not sure teaching has to be handled so differently.

"they (public unions) get confused about who is the employer and who is the employee"

Amen to that.

This year, our town, facing a tough budget, was considering cutting music programs for our middle schools. I went to the Board Of Ed meeting, and I said "teachers in our town pay 17% of the cost of their health insurance. In the private sector, on average, we pay 35% of the cost of our health insurance. Bring that percentage more in line with what's available to the people who pay the taxes, and we will have more than enough money to fund music in the middle schools".

I had teachers leaving me profane, hate-filled voicemails on my voicemail.

I was asked to run for board of ed last fall. I declined, they don't want me on that board, I have the nutty idea that it's bad to bankrupt ourselves to give benefits to public servants which dwarf what's available to the public they claim to serve. For some reason, that's considered an absurd, extremist position. I'm not sure why.

To my original point, I don't see why teachers can't be paid based on merit. I taught for a very short time, I've been in the private sector, it isn't so different that you couldn't putt it off. I have had many teachers say to me "I get paid whether I work very hard or if I coast, so why should I kill myself". They don't like it at all, when I tell them "for the kids?".

I love teachers. Despise the unions.

Your data was selective and misleading.

Ok, find where and give data that contradicts it, specifically your nonsense about lower birthrates due to higher rates of abortion.

Posting data comparing the 1980s to today, has nothing to do with my beliefs about the 1950s. The 1980s happened a long time after the 1950s. Look it up if you don't believe me.

I also never said the 1950s were utopia. You put stupid words in my mouth, which is what simpletons do when the other guy has a point, but you won't admit it.

In the 1950s, American culture had a view of what a "family" was, and how it was supposed to function, that I believe is far superior to the current view of what a family is. Two parents committed to the family and the kids, one parent staying home during the early years, not leaving 3 year-olds in daycare for 10 hours a day being raised by God knows who. Parents sticking together even when it's brutally hard. Eating dinner together and talking and listening, instead of everyone watching TV or on their phones.

Kooky ideas, I know. Those zany olden times!! Hell, I'm so old I remember when it wasn't considered controversial to suggest that if you have a wee wee, you go to the mens room. I know, I'm a dinosaur.
You probably understand that my posts about the 1980's show how crime, abortion rates, childbirth rates, etc. have all declined dramatically- the point of 1950's levels, though many desperately want to make America something it never was again . It shows the changes over a long period of time, which is beneficial for analyzing data. Major ways today really is different from the 1950's: minimum wage adjusted for inflation- much lower today; top marginal top tax rate: 1/3 of what is was in the 1950's; spending power- lower today, attributed by some experts to the fact that 1/3 of workers were unionized in the 1950's.
We can agree then on higher top tax rates, more unions, and higher minimum wages?

You probably understand that my posts about the 1980's show how crime, abortion rates, childbirth rates, etc. have all declined dramatically- the point of 1950's levels, though many desperately want to make America something it never was again . It shows the changes over a long period of time, which is beneficial for analyzing data. Major ways today really is different from the 1950's: minimum wage adjusted for inflation- much lower today; top marginal top tax rate: 1/3 of what is was in the 1950's; spending power- lower today, attributed by some experts to the fact that 1/3 of workers were unionized in the 1950's.
We can agree then on higher top tax rates, more unions, and higher minimum wages?

"You probably understand that my posts about the 1980's show how crime, abortion rates, childbirth rates, etc. have all declined dramatically"

They have declined since the 1980s. I didn't utter s syllable about the 1980s, nor did I utter a syllable suggesting that these things were at all time highs today. If I did, your stats from the 1980s would be relevant.

"Major ways today really is different from the 1950's: minimum wage adjusted for inflation- much lower today; top marginal top tax rate: 1/3 of what is was in the 1950's; spending power- lower today, attributed by some experts to the fact that 1/3 of workers were unionized in the 1950's.
We can agree then on higher top tax rates, more unions, and higher minimum wages?"

When you ignore all the things that I say were better in the 1950s, and you focus on the things you think were better in the 1950s, you aren't fooling anybody.

Yes, many things you say were different in the 1950s, were different in the manner you stated.

If I say family values were better in the 1950s than they are today, you cannot refute that by pointing pout that the 1980s were worse than today.

Ok, find where and give data that contradicts it, specifically your nonsense about lower birthrates due to higher rates of abortion.

I did. The rates of abortion for blacks has risen, not only in your selective time range, but consistently from previous to that and after that. And that has happened consistently even under Democrat administrations, not just Republican as you suggest. In N.Y. city alone, more blacks are aborted than are born.

Here is a part of what I posted before:
"In 2010, the black population in the U.S. stood just shy of at 39 million. The CDC reports that during the 1970's, roughly 24% of all U.S. abortions were performed on black women. That percentage rose to 30% in the 1980's, 34% in the 1990's and 36% in the 2000's. That means that about 31% of all U.S. abortions since 1973 have been performed on African American women. Based on the January 2013 estimate that there have been 55.7 million abortions in the United States since 1973, we can deduce that approximately 17 million of the aborted babies were black.

"Despite an overall black population growth of 12% between 2000 and 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that the black population "grew at a slower rate than most other major race and ethnic groups in the country." CBS News reported in 2009 that "Hispanics have surpassed blacks as the nation's largest minority group." Can there be any question about the role abortion has played in this demographic shift? Despite similar population numbers, Hispanic women account for approximately 19% of U.S. abortions whereas African-American women account for up to 36%. From 1973 to 2012, abortion reduced the black population by 30%, and that doesn't even factor in all the children that would have been born to those aborted a generation ago. To put it bluntly, abortion has thinned the black community in ways the Ku Klux Klan could have only dreamed of."

In 1950 the Black population in the U.S. was about 15 million. Since 1973 about 17 million Blacks (more than the entire Black population at the time we were discussing) were aborted. On average almost 1900 Blacks are aborted every day in the U.S. In N.Y. City more Blacks are aborted than are born. Blacks in the U.S. are aborted at 3 times the rate as whites."

The black population today would be exponentially much higher today if the rates of their abortions had not risen, or if it had lowered or approached zero. Without the higher rates of abortion, Blacks would not have been surpassed in population by Latinos.

I did. The rates of abortion for blacks has risen, not only in your selective time range, but consistently from previous to that and after that. And that has happened consistently even under Democrat administrations, not just Republican as you suggest. In N.Y. city alone, more blacks are aborted than are born.

Here is a part of what I posted before:
"In 2010, the black population in the U.S. stood just shy of at 39 million. The CDC reports that during the 1970's, roughly 24% of all U.S. abortions were performed on black women. That percentage rose to 30% in the 1980's, 34% in the 1990's and 36% in the 2000's. That means that about 31% of all U.S. abortions since 1973 have been performed on African American women. Based on the January 2013 estimate that there have been 55.7 million abortions in the United States since 1973, we can deduce that approximately 17 million of the aborted babies were black.

"Despite an overall black population growth of 12% between 2000 and 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that the black population "grew at a slower rate than most other major race and ethnic groups in the country." CBS News reported in 2009 that "Hispanics have surpassed blacks as the nation's largest minority group." Can there be any question about the role abortion has played in this demographic shift? Despite similar population numbers, Hispanic women account for approximately 19% of U.S. abortions whereas African-American women account for up to 36%. From 1973 to 2012, abortion reduced the black population by 30%, and that doesn't even factor in all the children that would have been born to those aborted a generation ago. To put it bluntly, abortion has thinned the black community in ways the Ku Klux Klan could have only dreamed of."

In 1950 the Black population in the U.S. was about 15 million. Since 1973 about 17 million Blacks (more than the entire Black population at the time we were discussing) were aborted. On average almost 1900 Blacks are aborted every day in the U.S. In N.Y. City more Blacks are aborted than are born. Blacks in the U.S. are aborted at 3 times the rate as whites."

The black population today would be exponentially much higher today if the rates of their abortions had not risen, or if it had lowered or approached zero. Without the higher rates of abortion, Blacks would not have been surpassed in population by Latinos.

"In N.Y. city alone, more blacks are aborted than are born."

Which was the goal of Margaret Sanger, the racist/eugenicist, who was the fonder (I think) of Planned Parenthood.

Anybody else notice the irony of the thread title after reading through 6 pages of posts?

"I assume you have never been on a school board"

Nope.

"I have "

Thanks you for your service.

"given taxpayer pressure teachers would not ever get a raise, if an individual teacher came in to negotiate for more money they would be replaced."

Not sure I agree. Tax rates are set, you have a pool of tax revenue to spend. Why does a gym teacher get the same pay as the folks teaching AP Chemistry and Calculus? That is absurd to me. Everyone knows who the best teachers are, everyone knows who the deadbeats are. The board, combined with the principals, could distribute available money so that the best performers get more. It's fair, and it provides the incentive for people to work harder.

That's how the private sector works, I'm not sure teaching has to be handled so differently.

"they (public unions) get confused about who is the employer and who is the employee"

Amen to that.

This year, our town, facing a tough budget, was considering cutting music programs for our middle schools. I went to the Board Of Ed meeting, and I said "teachers in our town pay 17% of the cost of their health insurance. In the private sector, on average, we pay 35% of the cost of our health insurance. Bring that percentage more in line with what's available to the people who pay the taxes, and we will have more than enough money to fund music in the middle schools".

I had teachers leaving me profane, hate-filled voicemails on my voicemail.

I was asked to run for board of ed last fall. I declined, they don't want me on that board, I have the nutty idea that it's bad to bankrupt ourselves to give benefits to public servants which dwarf what's available to the public they claim to serve. For some reason, that's considered an absurd, extremist position. I'm not sure why.

To my original point, I don't see why teachers can't be paid based on merit. I taught for a very short time, I've been in the private sector, it isn't so different that you couldn't putt it off. I have had many teachers say to me "I get paid whether I work very hard or if I coast, so why should I kill myself". They don't like it at all, when I tell them "for the kids?".

I love teachers. Despise the unions.
But you should run, even if i disagree with you. Running will push the view in your direction and if you believe in what you say that should be important to you.

Anybody else notice the irony of the thread title after reading through 6 pages of posts?
I thought Train Wreck might be more appropriate

I did. The rates of abortion for blacks has risen, not only in your selective time range, but consistently from previous to that and after that. And that has happened consistently even under Democrat administrations, not just Republican as you suggest. In N.Y. city alone, more blacks are aborted than are born.


In 1950 the Black population in the U.S. was about 15 million. Since 1973 about 17 million Blacks (more than the entire Black population at the time we were discussing) were aborted. On average almost 1900 Blacks are aborted every day in the U.S. In N.Y. City more Blacks are aborted than are born. Blacks in the U.S. are aborted at 3 times the rate as whites."



Your analysis of the data and your conclusions are fundamentally flawed. Abortion rate is number of abortions per 1000 women. It has fallen dramatically across all groups.
You are comparing abortions among ethnic groups as a percent of total number of abortions. It is correct to say it has fallen less for blacks than other groups. It is correct to say that it is higher in blacks as a percent of population and that the percentage of the total has increased. It is incorrect to say the rate has gone up. Factually incorrect.

If there were only three abortions last year and two were black and one white, you could say 66 percent of abortions were black. That would be a higher percent than ever. It would not mean there were more abortions than ever. It does not support your statement that birth rates have dropped due to abortions.

All else equal, a drop in abortion rates and a drop in birth rates means a drop in pregnancy rates, which refutes your statement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"
When you ignore all the things that I say were better in the 1950s, and you focus on the things you think were better in the 1950s, you aren't fooling anybody.



When you say ignore all the things, you say were better...everything I addressed about the 1980s, I concurrently addressed in reference to the 1950s.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But you should run, even if i disagree with you. Running will push the view in your direction and if you believe in what you say that should be important to you.

Thanks. The other reason why I don't run? As much as I believe my opinions are based on common sense, fiscal sanity, and also a respect for teachers...teachers hate my opinions, and I don't want to piss off the people who teach my kids. I have 3 boys in elementary school. I will share my views with my friends and family who teach in other towns, but I don't let my kids' teachers know what I think, as far as they know, I'm as pro union as Jimmy Hoffa.

Anybody else notice the irony of the thread title after reading through 6 pages of posts?

I think I pointed that out to the McKenzie Brother....

Your analysis of the data and your conclusions are fundamentally flawed. Abortion rate is number of abortions per 1000 women. It has fallen dramatically across all groups.
You are comparing abortions among ethnic groups as a percent of total number of abortions. It is correct to say it has fallen less for blacks than other groups. It is correct to say that it is higher in blacks as a percent of population and that the percentage of the total has increased. It is incorrect to say the rate has gone up. Factually incorrect.

If there were only three abortions last year and two were black and one white, you could say 66 percent of abortions were black. That would be a higher percent than ever. It would not mean there were more abortions than ever. It does not support your statement that birth rates have dropped due to abortions.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
And he's an actuarial :devil2: :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your analysis of the data and your conclusions are fundamentally flawed. Abortion rate is number of abortions per 1000 women. It has fallen dramatically across all groups.
You are comparing abortions among ethnic groups as a percent of total number of abortions. It is correct to say it has fallen less for blacks than other groups. It is correct to say that it is higher in blacks as a percent of population and that the percentage of the total has increased. It is incorrect to say the rate has gone up. Factually incorrect.

If there were only three abortions last year and two were black and one white, you could say 66 percent of abortions were black. That would be a higher percent than ever. It would not mean there were more abortions than ever. It does not support your statement that birth rates have dropped due to abortions.

You specifically referred to Blacks and Hispanics. Which infers a comparison to others. Even if the rates of abortions for all groups has dropped, the rates for blacks compared to whites and Asians and Hispanics, has dramatically risen. So then the number of births per 1000 pregnancies would have become less for blacks, dramatically than for whites, Asians, and Hispanics. That portion of the lower Black birth rate due to abortions would affect the rate of growth in the size of the Black population vis a vis others. Which supports to some degree the idea that the native Black population is diminishing or growing less in comparison to other races which Jim exaggerated with his usual hyperbole when he said : "liberalism is convincing blacks to abort themselves almost out of existence."

All else equal, a drop in abortion rates and a drop in birth rates means a drop in pregnancy rates, which refutes your statement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You talked about birth rates before, but you change to pregnancy rates here. In either case, how does a drop in abortion rates decrease either birth or pregnancy rates. Won't higher abortion rates cause a drop in birth rates? Or vice versa, won't lower abortion rates (lower number of abortions per 1000 pregnancies) increase the number of births per 1000 thus increasing the birth rates (number of births per 1000 pregnancies)?

And what do either birth or abortion rates have to do with pregnancy rates if "Pregnancy rate is the success rate for getting pregnant. It is the percentage of all attempts that leads to pregnancy, with attempts generally referring to menstrual cycles where insemination or any artificial equivalent is used, which may be simple artificial insemination (AI) or AI with additional in vitro fertilization."?

You talked about birth rates before, but you change to pregnancy rates here. In either case, how does a drop in abortion rates decrease either birth or pregnancy rates? I can see how that isn't clear. It isn't that the drop in abortion causes the the decrease in birth rates. If the birth rate dropped and abortion rates dropped, then pregnancy rates had to drop, which is the case. Fewer black and hispanic teens get pregnant each year now than 25 years ago. Also, ~5% fewer have sex before the age of 18 than in the 1990's


And what do either birth or abortion rates have to do with pregnancy rates if "Pregnancy rate is the success rate for getting pregnant. It is the percentage of all attempts that leads to pregnancy, with attempts generally referring to menstrual cycles where insemination or any artificial equivalent is used, which may be simple artificial insemination (AI) or AI with additional in vitro fertilization."?
You are right that if you go to wikipedia, you get the definition of pregnancy rate that you quoted. However, the literature related to pregnancy and birthrates also use the term pregnancy rate differently: the number of women out of 1000 who become pregnant.
i.e.
Kost K and Maddow-Zimet I, U.S. Teenage Pregnancies, Births and Abortions, 2011: National Trends by Age, Race and Ethnicity, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2016, https://www.guttmacher.org/report/us-teen-pregnancy-trends-2011.

Me: By the way, birth rates among black and hispanic teens today are about 25% what they were in 1990 after 12 years of Republican leadership.

You: Abortion

You are wrong about why teen birth rates among blacks and hispanics are 25% of what they were in 1990.

Me: By the way, birth rates among black and hispanic teens today are about 25% what they were in 1990 after 12 years of Republican leadership.

I'm not getting your point about "Republican leadership." Birth rates would have to do with a mixture of various factors including cultural values and state politics. States with larger populations tend to be Democrat run. Large urban areas are also usually run by Democrats. National statistics can be skewed to a great extent by large states and cities. During that 12 years, a great deal of political leadership was by Democrats in the Big states and cities. State governments would have had more influence than the federal government on their own rates. And there was a great deal of Democrat leadership in the federal Congress during that time. And the uptick in birth rates began before that 12 year period. So, the correlation between either Republican or Democrat leadership and the rise and fall of birth rates in that 12 year span is unclear, and possibly less relevant than other factors.

You: Abortion

I didn't say abortion was the only reason. It was a contributing factor, especially in the comparative decrease in population between the races.

You are wrong about why teen birth rates among blacks and hispanics are 25% of what they were in 1990.

I am not wrong that teen birth rates were impacted more among blacks and Hispanics by abortion than among whites. The abortion rates are 300% higher for blacks than for whites. Whatever factors exist in producing birth rate figures, abortion is one. And that factor is significant when comparing races. The birth rate would significantly increase for blacks if their abortion rate was comparable to whites. You brought up blacks and Hispanics. That's what I addressed.

I am not wrong that teen birth rates were impacted more among blacks and Hispanics by abortion than among whites. The abortion rates are 300% higher for blacks than for whites. Whatever factors exist in producing birth rate figures, abortion is one. And that factor is significant when comparing races. The birth rate would significantly increase for blacks if their abortion rate was comparable to whites. You brought up blacks and Hispanics. That's what I addressed.

I quoted you. You said one word when you replied to my post- abortion. You didn't say the rates were impacted more by abortion for blacks than whites. You said abortion as the explanation for the drop in birth rates. You can keep trying. I'm done with it.

I quoted you. You said one word when you replied to my post- abortion. You didn't say the rates were impacted more by abortion for blacks than whites. You said abortion as the explanation for the drop in birth rates. You can keep trying. I'm done with it.

There was a lot of discussion which followed both your baldly stated fact in response to Jim that birth rates were lower after twelve years of Republican leadership and my baldly stated "abortion" as a support to what Jim had said. After that, you, as well as I, proceeded to explain what and why we said what we said.

It seemed to start with your: "The majority of the country sees through the bs of the 1950's culture you seem to think is utopia." From which you immediately jumped to your statement that birth rates had dropped after twelve years of Republican leadership. From there we went back and forth fleshing out my single word and your simple statement.

You didn't refute what I said. You certainly didn't refute that abortion has an effect on birth rate, even more so on black birth rate. Nor did you show how Republican leadership was responsible for higher birth and abortion rates. Your Guttmacher Org. link didn't connect lowered birth rate to Republicans. It posited more use of, and better, contraceptives and the influence of economic conditions as reasons for the lowered birth rates. It mentioned that "Wide differences in birth and abortion rates (as opposed to pregnancy rates) also persist across racial and ethnic groups." Which, since you had specified black and Hispanic teens, is what I addressed and pointed out, indeed, that the black birth rate was suppressed far more in blacks than in whites due to abortion.

If all that exasperates you, then by all means be done with it.

It seemed to start with your: "The majority of the country sees through the bs of the 1950's culture you seem to think is utopia." From which you immediately jumped to your statement that birth rates had dropped after twelve years of Republican leadership.


No, I didn't immediately jump to the birth rate statement. It was part of a response to:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So your party encouraging black teenage girls to have babies, is solving the problem?

Completely in context. You just missed the context. Now I am really done :hf1:

back to MH issues

Florida House Declines Debate On Assault Rifles,
in a matter of three minutes. The bill would have prohibited the sale of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines and required “certificates of possession” for lawfully-possessed firearms, among other measures.



An hour later, Rep. Ross Spano turned the lawmakers’ attention to more pressing matters: pornography. The bill (HR 157) argued that it was “creating a public health risk” and was “contributing to the hypersexualization of children and teens.”

No, I didn't immediately jump to the birth rate statement. It was part of a response to:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So your party encouraging black teenage girls to have babies, is solving the problem?

Completely in context. You just missed the context. Now I am really done :hf1:

I was referring to the start of the back and forth between you and me. But I can see why you responded to Jim the way you did. I just think you made an oversimplified and misleading statement. It's a lot more complex, and telling, when one gets into the weeds of the argument. Abortion impacts black birth rates a lot more than it does white rates.

And abortion has an effect on the subject of this thread--mental health issue in America. I suppose it can be seen as having either a positive or negative effect, depending on circumstances. It may be positive for the mental health of poor single black women. I don't think so. But I can understand the opposite view. Discussing that would be getting farther into the weeds. But that would be more germane to the notion of "family values" and what effect those values have on American culture, even how the deterioration of those values can produce mass killers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso

Don't want union pay don't take a union job ... unless your a scab








that was a fascinating statement...apparently the unions are the employers?

Apparently...