Political Roundtable - Part VII

[I_Like_Dirt]

OMG such BS!!! Two thirds of the teenage deaths are by suicide. Did you even bother to read the article or did you just reflexively spew your NRA talking points?

Not that I necessarily agree or disagree with anyone in particular, but you might want to re-read that same article you linked to:

Teenagers between the ages of 15 and 19 made up over two-thirds of all youth gun deaths in America.

Most of those killed by firearms, 62 percent, were murdered and the majority of victims were black children and teens. Suicides resulted in 25 percent of the firearm deaths of young people: The majority of them were white. More than 1,100 children and teens were killed by a gun that accidentally discharged.

Suicides by gunfire, on the other hand, made up the majority of gun deaths among white youth, accounting for an average of 644 every year.

I'm not sure what part of the article convinced you that Two thirds of the teenage deaths are by suicide, but my best guess is that it's one of the above passages that got misinterpreted somehow.

[popper]

The new SCOTUS decision on gay marriage may provide another avenue for the wealthy to avoid estate taxes, and thereby deprive the federal treasury of significant tax revenue.

.........How about advising a terminally ill widowed grandma to marry her much-beloved granddaughter at the deathbed? Won't the estate pass to the surviving spouse intact? I'm not a lawyer, but I think it will -- without IRS getting the bite out of it as would happen now.

And it would be very hard to have a sound legal argument against such marriage. Isn't it born out of love? Absolutely. But doesn't it go against the prohibition of marriage with a blood relative? But this prohibition is rooted merely in the very same authority that also prohibits the same-sex union, and hence could survive judicial review if litigation results.

The law of unintended consequences may work to surprising effect. The very people who are today repelled by the court's decision may come to embrace it as a tool of keeping their wealth in the family; the government that is now elated with the court's decision, may yet come to rue it when US Treasury's estate tax revenue dwindles.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/06/has_scotus_created_a_way_to_get_around_the_estate_tax.html#ixzz3eOBNROqR
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

[hands11]

Gotta love this country.

Things might not happen when people want, but they do eventually happen.

If people had pushed to hard for the Confederate Flag to come down to soon, it wouldn't have happened and it would have only build more opposition.

Some things just take time. The old need to die off with their old ways. Change is like dripping water. Eventually it finds a way to slowly chip away at the old ridge establishment.

Then the timing becomes right and change happens.

The Confederate Flag is not Southern heritage. Southern heritage is hospitality, a friendly hey yall, fried chicken, BBQ, greens, corn bread, yams, stopping to help a stranger, sweet tea and loving God, they neighbor and country.

I am proud of this country and Proud to be an American. I didn't feel that way during the Bush years but I do again.

That flag really does belong in museum.

And ... great to see we are finally taking care of our veterans better their the VA.

[popper]

Gotta love this country.

Things might not happen when people want, but they do eventually happen.

If people had pushed to hard for the Confederate Flag to come down to soon, it wouldn't have happened and it would have only build more opposition.

Some things just take time. The old need to die off with their old ways. Change is like dripping water. Eventually it finds a way to slowly chip away at the old ridge establishment.

Then the timing becomes right and change happens.

The Confederate Flag is not Southern heritage. Southern heritage is hospitality, a friendly hey yall, fried chicken, BBQ, greens, corn bread, yams, stopping to help a stranger, sweet tea and loving God, they neighbor and country.

I am proud of this country and Proud to be an American. I didn't feel that way during the Bush years but I do again.

That flag really does belong in museum.

And ... great to see we are finally taking care of our veterans better their the VA.

Hello Hands. The old ways are certainly dying. Just as the old Roman ways died and were replaced with "Bread and Circus" , thus condemning that civilization to defeat, humiliation and poverty. We are, for all intents and purposes, a bankrupt nation, that won't enforce our borders, spends well beyond our means, and is no longer a nation of laws. It's not difficult to understand why the sale of firearms continues at a record pace. We can deceive ourselves, brainwash our kids into thinking this will work (when history and mathematics prove it can't) but the piper will eventually be paid and reality will intervene to humble a once great nation.

"Bread and circuses" (or bread and games; from Latin: panem et circenses) is metonymic for a superficial means of appeasement. In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the generation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion; distraction; or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace,[1] as an offered "palliative." Its originator, Juvenal, used the phrase to decry the selfishness of common people and their neglect of wider concerns.[2][3][4] The phrase also implies the erosion or ignorance of civic duty amongst the concerns of the commoner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses

[montestewart]

The new SCOTUS decision on gay marriage may provide another avenue for the wealthy to avoid estate taxes, and thereby deprive the federal treasury of significant tax revenue.

.........How about advising a terminally ill widowed grandma to marry her much-beloved granddaughter at the deathbed? Won't the estate pass to the surviving spouse intact? I'm not a lawyer, but I think it will -- without IRS getting the bite out of it as would happen now.

And it would be very hard to have a sound legal argument against such marriage. Isn't it born out of love? Absolutely. But doesn't it go against the prohibition of marriage with a blood relative? But this prohibition is rooted merely in the very same authority that also prohibits the same-sex union, and hence could survive judicial review if litigation results.

The law of unintended consequences may work to surprising effect. The very people who are today repelled by the court's decision may come to embrace it as a tool of keeping their wealth in the family; the government that is now elated with the court's decision, may yet come to rue it when US Treasury's estate tax revenue dwindles.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/06/has_scotus_created_a_way_to_get_around_the_estate_tax.html#ixzz3eOBNROqR
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

That's practically the same article s/he wrote after the Loving v. Virginia decision, but sure, at the bottom of this long, long, slippery slope, there's probably legalized marriage to a hamster, and a lot of tax savings. And time travel. Plan accordingly.

In Fiddler on the Roof, that one daughter married outside of the tribe against her traditionalist parents' wishes, and the next thing you know, the family has to split and there's some dude playing the fiddle. The symbolism is obvious: if you fiddle with tradition…sunrise, sunset!

[JWizmentality]

Gotta love this country.

Things might not happen when people want, but they do eventually happen.

If people had pushed to hard for the Confederate Flag to come down to soon, it wouldn't have happened and it would have only build more opposition.

Some things just take time. The old need to die off with their old ways. Change is like dripping water. Eventually it finds a way to slowly chip away at the old ridge establishment.

Then the timing becomes right and change happens.

The Confederate Flag is not Southern heritage. Southern heritage is hospitality, a friendly hey yall, fried chicken, BBQ, greens, corn bread, yams, stopping to help a stranger, sweet tea and loving God, they neighbor and country.

I am proud of this country and Proud to be an American. I didn't feel that way during the Bush years but I do again.

That flag really does belong in museum.

And ... great to see we are finally taking care of our veterans better their the VA.

Hello Hands. The old ways are certainly dying. Just as the old Roman ways died and were replaced with "Bread and Circus" , thus condemning that civilization to defeat, humiliation and poverty. We are, for all intents and purposes, a bankrupt nation, that won't enforce our borders, spends well beyond our means, and is no longer a nation of laws. It's not difficult to understand why the sale of firearms continues at a record pace. We can deceive ourselves, brainwash our kids into thinking this will work (when history and mathematics prove it can't) but the piper will eventually be paid and reality will intervene to humble a once great nation.

"Bread and circuses" (or bread and games; from Latin: panem et circenses) is metonymic for a superficial means of appeasement. In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the generation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion; distraction; or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace,[1] as an offered "palliative." Its originator, Juvenal, used the phrase to decry the selfishness of common people and their neglect of wider concerns.[2][3][4] The phrase also implies the erosion or ignorance of civic duty amongst the concerns of the commoner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses

I've been hearing tales of fire and brimstone for some time now. When is that due chief? With all these homosexuals running around marrying, gosh darnnit we are in for some trouble. Don't stay in the bomb shelter too long, you need some serotonin.

[TGW]

You have to excuse Popper...he watches Fox News, and their sole purpose is to scare the living **** out of their viewers every night.

The blacks, mexicans, and gays are destroying this country according to Fox News. In reality, expensive wars and military expenses, unregulated industries, and foreign affairs are what's killing this country.

If the United States didn't meddle in foreign countries, start dumb wars, and actually bothered to regulate our financial institutions properly, this country would be in much better shape. Not a surprise that Fox News tries to deflect and put the spotlight on other issues that don't freakin' matter in the grand scheme. They are paid to peddle their bull by the big corporations and the defense contractors.

[dobrojim]

+1 TGW

[dckingsfan]

You have to excuse Popper...he watches Fox News, and their sole purpose is to scare the living **** out of their viewers every night.

The blacks, mexicans, and gays are destroying this country according to Fox News. In reality, expensive wars and military expenses, unregulated industries, and foreign affairs are what's killing this country.

If the United States didn't meddle in foreign countries, start dumb wars, and actually bothered to regulate our financial institutions properly, this country would be in much better shape. Not a surprise that Fox News tries to deflect and put the spotlight on other issues that don't freakin' matter in the grand scheme. They are paid to peddle their bull by the big corporations and the defense contractors.

Okay, that sounds like a diatribe from the left. Get out of foreign affairs, ignore that we can't afford spending on our social welfare and don't worry that the Ds are owned by the unions and are bankrupting our municipalities - all the problems are coming from the Rs.

Both the Ds and the Rs have it wrong - and yes, we do have serious problems in this country (and abroad) - I may be wrong - but it seems like you are saying everything is rosy - and I sure don't it that way - regardless of Fox and the other for profit media outlets.

[keynote]

I rarely post in this thread, but I'll pass this along:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/

Hard figures for police shootings in the US in 2015 (so far), courtesy of WaPo:
Total people shot: 226 White people; 121 Black people; 78 Hispanic/Latino people.
Total unarmed people shot: 14 White people; 19 Black people; 14 Latino people.

So, 1 out of every 16 White people shot by police in 2015 were unarmed. For Black people, it's 1 out of 6. For Latino people, it's 1 out of 5.6.

[nate33]

I rarely post in this thread, but I'll pass this along:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/

Hard figures for police shootings in the US in 2015 (so far), courtesy of WaPo:
Total people shot: 226 White people; 121 Black people; 78 Hispanic/Latino people.
Total unarmed people shot: 14 White people; 19 Black people; 14 Latino people.

So, 1 out of every 16 White people shot by police in 2015 were unarmed. For Black people, it's 1 out of 6. For Latino people, it's 1 out of 5.6.

Another way to look it is twice as many white people get shot by police even though a larger percentage of violent crimes are committed by blacks than whites.

[keynote]

I rarely post in this thread, but I'll pass this along:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/

Hard figures for police shootings in the US in 2015 (so far), courtesy of WaPo:
Total people shot: 226 White people; 121 Black people; 78 Hispanic/Latino people.
Total unarmed people shot: 14 White people; 19 Black people; 14 Latino people.

So, 1 out of every 16 White people shot by police in 2015 were unarmed. For Black people, it's 1 out of 6. For Latino people, it's 1 out of 5.6.

Another way to look it is twice as many white people get shot by police even though a larger percentage of violent crimes are committed by blacks than whites.

Yes, that is another way to look at it. But, as someone who is reguarly (read: always) unarmed, I'm more interested in how police interact with unarmed people than how they interact with armed people.

Besides: I don't know how "violent crimes" is defined in the data you're citing, nor how it maps to "armed with a deadly weapon". It's clearly possible to commit a violent crime while only armed with one's bare hands. So, while the data you reference might be interesting, I'm not sure how to integrate it into an analysis of the WaPo's data presented above.

[nate33]

I rarely post in this thread, but I'll pass this along:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/

Hard figures for police shootings in the US in 2015 (so far), courtesy of WaPo:
Total people shot: 226 White people; 121 Black people; 78 Hispanic/Latino people.
Total unarmed people shot: 14 White people; 19 Black people; 14 Latino people.

So, 1 out of every 16 White people shot by police in 2015 were unarmed. For Black people, it's 1 out of 6. For Latino people, it's 1 out of 5.6.

Another way to look it is twice as many white people get shot by police even though a larger percentage of violent crimes are committed by blacks than whites.

Yes, that is another way to look at it. But, as someone who is reguarly (read: always) unarmed, I'm more interested in how police interact with unarmed people than how they interact with armed people.

Besides: I don't know how "violent crimes" is defined in the data you're citing, nor how it maps to "armed with a deadly weapon". It's clearly possible to commit a violent crime while only armed with one's bare hands. So, while the data you reference might be interesting, I'm not sure how to integrate it into an analysis of the WaPo's data presented above.

I think it's relevant because, as we've seen with Mike Brown, a policeman can be confronted with a dangerous, life-threatening situation even though the suspect isn't technically armed.

Some may say that the proper metric to use when evaluating these situations is police shootings per armed suspect. I say that the proper metric is police shootings per violent/dangerous suspect.

[TGW]

You have to excuse Popper...he watches Fox News, and their sole purpose is to scare the living **** out of their viewers every night.

The blacks, mexicans, and gays are destroying this country according to Fox News. In reality, expensive wars and military expenses, unregulated industries, and foreign affairs are what's killing this country.

If the United States didn't meddle in foreign countries, start dumb wars, and actually bothered to regulate our financial institutions properly, this country would be in much better shape. Not a surprise that Fox News tries to deflect and put the spotlight on other issues that don't freakin' matter in the grand scheme. They are paid to peddle their bull by the big corporations and the defense contractors.

Okay, that sounds like a diatribe from the left. Get out of foreign affairs, ignore that we can't afford spending on our social welfare and don't worry that the Ds are owned by the unions and are bankrupting our municipalities - all the problems are coming from the Rs.

Both the Ds and the Rs have it wrong - and yes, we do have serious problems in this country (and abroad) - I may be wrong - but it seems like you are saying everything is rosy - and I sure don't it that way - regardless of Fox and the other for profit media outlets.

Don't get me started on the Democrats...they're a bunch of spineless, ineffective weasels. I despise both sides of the isle equally. My point was that Fox News deflects on the real issues, and their inability to effectively address military spending and regulation bothers the hell out of me. At least the left addresses them (although all they do is talk, never do). People like O'Reilly do address the issues, but because he panders so much, he talks about everything but.

Unions, IMO, are a necessary evil. I'd rather have the unions keeping these large corporations in check as opposed to those same companies screwing over the hourly workers and the people who are basically the engine of this country. Of course, what started out as a noble idea ended up being a bunch backdoor handshakes and cash grabs.

[TGW]

I rarely post in this thread, but I'll pass this along:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/

Hard figures for police shootings in the US in 2015 (so far), courtesy of WaPo:
Total people shot: 226 White people; 121 Black people; 78 Hispanic/Latino people.
Total unarmed people shot: 14 White people; 19 Black people; 14 Latino people.

So, 1 out of every 16 White people shot by police in 2015 were unarmed. For Black people, it's 1 out of 6. For Latino people, it's 1 out of 5.6.

Another way to look it is twice as many white people get shot by police even though a larger percentage of violent crimes are committed by blacks than whites.

Yes, that is another way to look at it. But, as someone who is reguarly (read: always) unarmed, I'm more interested in how police interact with unarmed people than how they interact with armed people.

Besides: I don't know how "violent crimes" is defined in the data you're citing, nor how it maps to "armed with a deadly weapon". It's clearly possible to commit a violent crime while only armed with one's bare hands. So, while the data you reference might be interesting, I'm not sure how to integrate it into an analysis of the WaPo's data presented above.

I assume Nate is pulling his data from the FBI database--the same FBI database that is WILDLY inaccurate and shouldn't be used in any way, shape, or form to make a policy decision for one side or another.

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/v4l2pe/a-shot-in-the-dark

[nate33]

Another way to look it is twice as many white people get shot by police even though a larger percentage of violent crimes are committed by blacks than whites.

Yes, that is another way to look at it. But, as someone who is reguarly (read: always) unarmed, I'm more interested in how police interact with unarmed people than how they interact with armed people.

Besides: I don't know how "violent crimes" is defined in the data you're citing, nor how it maps to "armed with a deadly weapon". It's clearly possible to commit a violent crime while only armed with one's bare hands. So, while the data you reference might be interesting, I'm not sure how to integrate it into an analysis of the WaPo's data presented above.

I assume Nate is pulling his data from the FBI database--the same FBI database that is WILDLY inaccurate and shouldn't be used in any way, shape, or form to make a policy decision for one side or another.

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/v4l2pe/a-shot-in-the-dark

It's not my data. That was keynote's post quoted from the Washington Post. I agree wholeheartedly that we have extremely poor data on police shootings.

[Dat2U]

I rarely post in this thread, but I'll pass this along:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/

Hard figures for police shootings in the US in 2015 (so far), courtesy of WaPo:
Total people shot: 226 White people; 121 Black people; 78 Hispanic/Latino people.
Total unarmed people shot: 14 White people; 19 Black people; 14 Latino people.

So, 1 out of every 16 White people shot by police in 2015 were unarmed. For Black people, it's 1 out of 6. For Latino people, it's 1 out of 5.6.

Another way to look it is twice as many white people get shot by police even though a larger percentage of violent crimes are committed by blacks than whites.

Nate you better watch out. I'm black and I'm near your neighborhood.

[keynote]

Another way to look it is twice as many white people get shot by police even though a larger percentage of violent crimes are committed by blacks than whites.

Yes, that is another way to look at it. But, as someone who is reguarly (read: always) unarmed, I'm more interested in how police interact with unarmed people than how they interact with armed people.

Besides: I don't know how "violent crimes" is defined in the data you're citing, nor how it maps to "armed with a deadly weapon". It's clearly possible to commit a violent crime while only armed with one's bare hands. So, while the data you reference might be interesting, I'm not sure how to integrate it into an analysis of the WaPo's data presented above.

I think it's relevant because, as we've seen with Mike Brown, a policeman can be confronted with a dangerous, life-threatening situation even though the suspect isn't technically armed.

Some may say that the proper metric to use when evaluating these situations is police shootings per armed suspect. I say that the proper metric is police shootings per violent/dangerous suspect.

Fair enough. But "armed" is objective (assuming no one's lying or tampering with evidence one way or the other), whereas "dangerous" is subjective, since it relies on the police officer's assessment of the situation. Subjective analysis is certainly relevant when determining the culpability of an individual police offer, but it's less useful when examining society-wide trends, because it doesn't consider *why* a police officer might consider some people dangerous and others not.

And, I'm not even factoring the point that we've seen actual video where a police offer says "don't make me fear for my safety" to an individual in a manner that could be read as a threat.

[keynote]

Yes, that is another way to look at it. But, as someone who is reguarly (read: always) unarmed, I'm more interested in how police interact with unarmed people than how they interact with armed people.

Besides: I don't know how "violent crimes" is defined in the data you're citing, nor how it maps to "armed with a deadly weapon". It's clearly possible to commit a violent crime while only armed with one's bare hands. So, while the data you reference might be interesting, I'm not sure how to integrate it into an analysis of the WaPo's data presented above.

I assume Nate is pulling his data from the FBI database--the same FBI database that is WILDLY inaccurate and shouldn't be used in any way, shape, or form to make a policy decision for one side or another.

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/v4l2pe/a-shot-in-the-dark

It's not my data. That was keynote's post quoted from the Washington Post. I agree wholeheartedly that we have extremely poor data on police shootings.

To clarify: there are two sets of data: the WaPo report I shared above, and the data Nate is citing re: demographics of people who commit violent crimes. The latter didn't come from the WaPo report (which doesn't use the criteria "dangerous").

[popper]

Gotta love this country.

Things might not happen when people want, but they do eventually happen.

If people had pushed to hard for the Confederate Flag to come down to soon, it wouldn't have happened and it would have only build more opposition.

Some things just take time. The old need to die off with their old ways. Change is like dripping water. Eventually it finds a way to slowly chip away at the old ridge establishment.

Then the timing becomes right and change happens.

The Confederate Flag is not Southern heritage. Southern heritage is hospitality, a friendly hey yall, fried chicken, BBQ, greens, corn bread, yams, stopping to help a stranger, sweet tea and loving God, they neighbor and country.

I am proud of this country and Proud to be an American. I didn't feel that way during the Bush years but I do again.

That flag really does belong in museum.

And ... great to see we are finally taking care of our veterans better their the VA.

Hello Hands. The old ways are certainly dying. Just as the old Roman ways died and were replaced with "Bread and Circus" , thus condemning that civilization to defeat, humiliation and poverty. We are, for all intents and purposes, a bankrupt nation, that won't enforce our borders, spends well beyond our means, and is no longer a nation of laws. It's not difficult to understand why the sale of firearms continues at a record pace. We can deceive ourselves, brainwash our kids into thinking this will work (when history and mathematics prove it can't) but the piper will eventually be paid and reality will intervene to humble a once great nation.

"Bread and circuses" (or bread and games; from Latin: panem et circenses) is metonymic for a superficial means of appeasement. In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the generation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion; distraction; or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace,[1] as an offered "palliative." Its originator, Juvenal, used the phrase to decry the selfishness of common people and their neglect of wider concerns.[2][3][4] The phrase also implies the erosion or ignorance of civic duty amongst the concerns of the commoner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses

I've been hearing tales of fire and brimstone for some time now. When is that due chief? With all these homosexuals running around marrying, gosh darnnit we are in for some trouble. Don't stay in the bomb shelter too long, you need some serotonin.

I don't have any idea what homosexuals have to do with my post JWiz. I suppose there were people in CA that warned about their water problem in advance. Same for Greece and Puerto Rico and their unsustainable debt levels. Before our Great Depression there were many that warned about the dangers of highly leveraged trades and margin buying. Maybe those of us who think we see clearly should just keep to ourselves.

Maybe servicing a $20 trillion debt when interest rates return to normal won't be that difficult.
Maybe $100 trillion plus in unfunded obligations for Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare can be swept under the rug.
Maybe the Feds $4 trillion plus in balance sheet purchases can be unloaded without negative effects on the economy.
Maybe Russia is just bluffing and they have no intention of invading our NATO partners in the Baltic's.
Maybe China's aggressive push to control the South China Sea is actually good for world commerce.
Maybe our inability to maintain and invest in infrastructure due to deficit spending of $400 billion a year in perpetuity is actually a good way to attract new business.

Hell, maybe I'm crazy.