DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Just stirring the pot (gun related)
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 72, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/28/2005 10:53:20 AM · #1
Canada blames US

Canadians smuggling guns

Above are 2 articles from CNN (arguably liberal left) citing Canadian officials as blaming the US for the increased violence. Yet in the article it clearly states that the root cause is poverty and increased gang activity. Then the second article illustrates that Canadians are the ones smuggling in the guns.

Yet Canada has very restrictive guns laws and the gun used in the crime was illegal.

Just more evidence that when guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns. And now the PM is claiming that if re-elected he will ban all handguns. That is one way to deal with the poverty, prejudice and gang problem.


12/28/2005 11:03:11 AM · #2
Originally posted by Flash:

CNN (arguably liberal left)


Your kidding right? Calling CNN liberal is like calling the president intelligent. Of course they aren’t nearly as right biased as FOX, but they lean towards big business. CNN is owned by Time Warner for heaven’s sake.
12/28/2005 11:09:52 AM · #3
It was CNN, at a time when I was a liberal, that drove me toward the right. I watched during the 2000 election as CNN rolled eyes, grunted and were very clearly rooting for Gore. CNN liberal? Definitely.
12/28/2005 11:27:42 AM · #4
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

It was CNN, at a time when I was a liberal, that drove me toward the right. I watched during the 2000 election as CNN rolled eyes, grunted and were very clearly rooting for Gore. CNN liberal? Definitely.


You obviously haven't been watching since the attacks on Sept 11, 2001. If it has anything to do with the whitehouse, the environment, or heaven forbid big business all you get is sugar coated crap. And that's the stories they actually bother to cover. Turn the dial to BBC, and you'll see many stories that CNN won''t touch. In the past the media was considered a fourth branch of the government in that it kept the other branches honest. In the post attack world we live in the media is definately looking the other way, and not providing the nessasary checks and balances that the US government needs.
12/28/2005 12:19:21 PM · #5
Originally posted by hyperfocal:

Calling CNN liberal is like calling the president intelligent.


You mean both are absolutely correct?
12/28/2005 01:07:05 PM · #6
Originally posted by hyperfocal:

You obviously haven't been watching since the attacks on Sept 11, 2001.

Incorrect assumption. I mostly watch Fox (as do most cable news watchers by a huge margin), but I also watch CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and a few others. What cracks me up is that "open-minded" liberals keep saying Fox is SO biased, yet everyone who has told me this has admitted they never watched it. Ever.

I try to watch as many sources as possible with an open mind. I can make a few criticisms of Fox on occasion, but nothing like CNN. Their idea of a balanced story is to find two Democrats who both hate George Bush, but argue about the reasons to hate him. LOL Great debate for the kool-aid drinkers.

Ever wonder why Fox News' rating are slaughtering all the others put together? Or - GET THIS - Why does CNN have to advertise its News programs on the Fox News channel? THAT seriously cracks me up.
12/28/2005 01:48:17 PM · #7
If it wasn't for big business, what kind of job do you think you would have? Well, I'll tell you. You would wish you had it as good as a third world country. You would also be trying to get you a gun for your own and your family's protection.

Message edited by author 2005-12-28 13:49:50.
12/28/2005 01:50:43 PM · #8
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:


Ever wonder why Fox News' rating are slaughtering all the others put together?


While driving on highways, people in general tend to stare at traffic accidents much more than at the sunsets or pretty landscapes.

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:


Or - GET THIS - Why does CNN have to advertise its News programs on the Fox News channel? THAT seriously cracks me up.


For answer see above: Fox News' rating are slaughtering all the others put together?
I would advertise on the most watched network, too.

btw what does all this has to do with guns:-)
12/28/2005 02:00:20 PM · #9
Originally posted by David Ey:

If it wasn't for big business, what kind of job do you think you would have? Well, I'll tell you. You would wish you had it as good as a third world country. You would also be trying to get you a gun for your own and your family's protection.


David,

did you ever live in a 3rd world country? Do you really think that you need a gun to protect yourself? And from what? This is a generic statement that serves no real useful purpose. Yes, there are countries where you are not safe yet there are others where you are much safer than in the US. And all that has nothing to do with big business.

But, if your post is just for the sake of "stirring the pot", so be it.

By the way, the president is advertising tax cuts for the sake of small business. He is convinced that it is the small businesses that will improve the life in America, and that the future of all of us lies in small businesses. Are you saying that the president is wrong? That it is all about the big business?
12/28/2005 02:46:43 PM · #10
srdanz, You didn't read my post with the attitude of understanding.
One doesn't have to live in a third world country to know what it is like.
Did you learn nothing from New Orleans?
Do you think you have no personal responsibility to protect yourself.
Can you name the countries where you are safer? Better do some research before you name them.
When I used the term Big business I included all business just like the liberals do when they want Business to pay more than what I think is their share. Tax cuts for business has historically proven to improve life in America as well as the world, including the not so free world.
12/28/2005 07:36:43 PM · #11
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Great debate for the kool-aid drinkers.


Art,

I've seen you use the phrase "kool-aid drinkers" to describe those on left before. While I've gathered that it's a disparaging description, I'm personally not familiar with the origins or why it's considered a clever insult. Could you (or someone) familiarize me with the origins of the phrase? Thank you.
12/28/2005 08:06:51 PM · #12
Originally posted by David Ey:

If it wasn't for big business, what kind of job do you think you would have? Well, I'll tell you. You would wish you had it as good as a third world country. You would also be trying to get you a gun for your own and your family's protection.


Just for the record I’m not for gun control per say. I have a Sig Sauer P239, and if I catch anyone in my house or threatening my family I’d drop em without blinking. That being said I do feel that manufacturers need laws/guidelines against making $100 pawn shop specials, and I don’t think that a 2-week wait before getting a gun is unreasonable.

Yes, there is a place for big business, but western culture’s greed is out of control and we are operating under a theory of profit at any cost. 25 years ago top management’s salary ratio to their hourly workers was 40:1, now the ratio is 400:1. Trickle down economics might have worked for Reagan but it’s not working now. It’s been eight years since minimum wage was raised and the average man has not received the “benefits” of big business. All the profits these huge corporations are earning are going to line the pockets of fewer and fewer people in ever increasing amounts. This coupled with the ever-rising cost of living (especially healthcare) is squeezing the little guy more each day. Big business looks at the short-term profit for their shareholders not considering the ramifications of their actions for profit at any cost.

For example – if the Walton family members cut their profits by five percent all Wal-Mart employees could afford adequate healthcare. As it stands now the Waltons keep their five percent and the workers are largely on the state welfare rolls costing tax payers (that’s you and me) millions. Does this make any sense to anyone other than a Wal-Mart shareholder? Also we are often subsidizing Wal-Mart building costs without any real benefit to the communities offering the subsidies.

12/28/2005 08:32:03 PM · #13
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:


Incorrect assumption. I mostly watch Fox (as do most cable news watchers by a huge margin), but I also watch CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and a few others. What cracks me up is that "open-minded" liberals keep saying Fox is SO biased, yet everyone who has told me this has admitted they never watched it. Ever.

I try to watch as many sources as possible with an open mind. I can make a few criticisms of Fox on occasion, but nothing like CNN. Their idea of a balanced story is to find two Democrats who both hate George Bush, but argue about the reasons to hate him. LOL Great debate for the kool-aid drinkers.

Ever wonder why Fox News' rating are slaughtering all the others put together? Or - GET THIS - Why does CNN have to advertise its News programs on the Fox News channel? THAT seriously cracks me up.


I actually watch Fox news quite often, and I’m a liberal (although I prefer the term progressive). O’ Riley’s obnoxiousness aside, I find Fox’s (and CNN’s, IMO) bias is not so much on how they cover the news, but the lack of coverage of relevant stories.

As far as being on top of the ratings, I wouldn’t consider that a badge of honor. Most of the top rated shows such as the Apprentice, American Idol, CSI, etc. is just brainless dribble, IMO. Most TV executives have been dumming down TV for decades, replacing thoughtful programming for sensationalist sound bites.
12/28/2005 08:56:03 PM · #14
Originally posted by hyperfocal:



For example – if the Walton family members cut their profits by five percent all Wal-Mart employees could afford adequate healthcare. As it stands now the Waltons keep their five percent and the workers are largely on the state welfare rolls costing tax payers (that’s you and me) millions. Does this make any sense to anyone other than a Wal-Mart shareholder? Also we are often subsidizing Wal-Mart building costs without any real benefit to the communities offering the subsidies.


And of that 5%, how much of that is a stockpile of cash in bank? very little...most of it is probably in investments, stocks, bonds, and capital investment. In otherwords, they take much of it and invest it in even more jobs and more businesses. Do you think Walmart is the only business the Waltons own?

And that on top of their charity foundation.
12/28/2005 09:32:01 PM · #15
Originally posted by theSaj:



And of that 5%, how much of that is a stockpile of cash in bank? very little...most of it is probably in investments, stocks, bonds, and capital investment. In otherwords, they take much of it and invest it in even more jobs and more businesses. Do you think Walmart is the only business the Waltons own?

And that on top of their charity foundation.


Who cares if their funds are not liquid, the point is they could easily afford to treat their employees better without changing their lifestyle. No one with that kind of money has it in cash.

In 2003, sales associates, the most common job in Wal-Mart, earned on average $8.23 an hour for annual wages of $13,861.The 2003 poverty line for a family of three was $15,260. [“Is Wal-Mart Too Powerful?”, Business Week, 10/6/03]

The national median family budget in the United States for a two-person family (one parent and one child) in 1999 was $23,705, well above the average associate's annual wages of $13,861. [“Poverty and Family Budgets” online at www.epinet.org]

Wal-Mart can cover the cost of a dollar an hour wage increase by raising prices a half penny per dollar. For instance, a $2.00 pair of socks would then cost $2.01. This minimal increase would annually add up to $1,800 for each employee. [Analysis of Wal-Mart Annual Report 2005]

Wal-Mart reports that its health insurance only covers 48% of their employees. Wal-Mart has approximately 1.3 million US employees.

On average, large firms (200 or more workers) cover approximately 68% of their employees. If Wal-Mart was to reach the average coverage rate, Wal-Mart should be covering an additional 260,000 employees (Kaiser Family Foundation & Health Research and Educational Trust, 2004).

Part-timers—anybody below 34 hours a week – must wait 2 years before they can enroll. Moreover, part-time employees are ineligible for family health care coverage. Full-time hourly employees must wait 180 days (approximately 6 months) before being able to enroll in Wal-Mart’s health insurance plan. Managers have no waiting period. (Wal-Mart 2005 Associate Guide)

Nationally, the average wait time for new employees to become eligible is 1.6 months. For the retail industry it is 2.8 months. (Kaiser Family Foundation & Health Research and Educational Trust, 2004)

One 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,750 per year. This cost comes from the following, on average:

* $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.
* $42,000 a year for low-income housing assistance.
* $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families.
* $100,000 a year for the additional expenses for programs for students.
* $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP)
* $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance.

[THE HIDDEN PRICE WE ALL PAY FOR WAL-MART, A REPORT BY THE DEMOCRATIC STAFF OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, 2/16/04]

The first ever national report on Wal-Mart subsidies documented at least $1 billion in subsidies from state and local governments.

But they do come with the cash when it comes to wining and dining Washington power brokers. Senators such as Rick Santorum often fly Wal-Mart’s corporate jets.
12/28/2005 09:38:52 PM · #16
I'ma Reagan Republican....whenever I need a boost to my being a Republican I tune to FOX....it's like going to a Republican pep rally!
12/28/2005 09:55:23 PM · #17
Originally posted by hyperfocal:

Yes, there is a place for big business, but western culture’s greed is out of control and we are operating under a theory of profit at any cost. 25 years ago top management’s salary ratio to their hourly workers was 40:1, now the ratio is 400:1. Trickle down economics might have worked for Reagan but it’s not working now. It’s been eight years since minimum wage was raised and the average man has not received the “benefits” of big business. All the profits these huge corporations are earning are going to line the pockets of fewer and fewer people in ever increasing amounts. This coupled with the ever-rising cost of living (especially healthcare) is squeezing the little guy more each day. Big business looks at the short-term profit for their shareholders not considering the ramifications of their actions for profit at any cost.

For example – if the Walton family members cut their profits by five percent all Wal-Mart employees could afford adequate healthcare. As it stands now the Waltons keep their five percent and the workers are largely on the state welfare rolls costing tax payers (that’s you and me) millions. Does this make any sense to anyone other than a Wal-Mart shareholder? Also we are often subsidizing Wal-Mart building costs without any real benefit to the communities offering the subsidies.

This is exactly the reason why I don't like capitalism and would much rather have more or less a form of socialism. The high-up guys make much more money while doing much less work than the workers below them. Somehow that just doesn't seem right to me. Communism would be taking it too far, and is impossible in practice, but I see socialism as a happy medium between the two extremes (capitalism and communism).

Sorry for straying so far from the topic of gun control, lol.
12/28/2005 10:23:46 PM · #18
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:

]

This is exactly the reason why I don't like capitalism and would much rather have more or less a form of socialism. The high-up guys make much more money while doing much less work than the workers below them. Somehow that just doesn't seem right to me. Communism would be taking it too far, and is impossible in practice, but I see socialism as a happy medium between the two extremes (capitalism and communism).
[/quote]
And do you think socialism has a completely level structure?
LOLOLOL
12/28/2005 10:59:58 PM · #19
"Who cares if their funds are not liquid, the point is they could easily afford to treat their employees better without changing their lifestyle. No one with that kind of money has it in cash."

Right, so instead they invest that money back into the economic system to create even more jobs.

If you really want to !@#$% about it, they could always raise their prices so you can pay more and they can give them adequate health care.

(Oh, yes, they may make millions a year but as you've agreed, it's not liquid cash...it's investment. Which means it's going toward making more business, and more jobs. If they did not invest their profits and merely sat on liquid cash I might agree.)

"In 2003, sales associates, the most common job in Wal-Mart, earned on average $8.23 an hour for annual wages of $13,861.The 2003 poverty line for a family of three was $15,260. [“Is Wal-Mart Too Powerful?”, Business Week, 10/6/03] "

So let's simply do the math and multiply $13,861x2 = $27,722. So if both parents work at Walmart they earn in excess of $10,000 over the poverty line. Is it a great job...nope. But hey, it's far from below the poverty line for a 3-person family.

"Wal-Mart reports that its health insurance only covers 48% of their employees. Wal-Mart has approximately 1.3 million US employees."

Is this just full time or part time employees. Few jobs cover part time employees.

"Part-timers—anybody below 34 hours a week – must wait 2 years before they can enroll. Moreover, part-time employees are ineligible for family health care coverage. Full-time hourly employees must wait 180 days (approximately 6 months) before being able to enroll in Wal-Mart’s health insurance plan."

I know very few jobs that pay part-timers any benefits. And a 6 month waiting period for benefits is not uncommon.

"
One 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,750 per year. This cost comes from the following, on average:

* $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.
* $42,000 a year for low-income housing assistance.
* $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families.
* $100,000 a year for the additional expenses for programs for students.
* $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP)
* $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance. "

Might I point out that Walmart also saves the U.S. government $2,772,200 per year per store. This is what they pay their common workers as you put it times 200 employees. If they didn't supply those jobs. Many of those workers would not be employed. And would need much much much more government assistance.

"This is exactly the reason why I don't like capitalism and would much rather have more or less a form of socialism."

Why is that....I mean, the U.S. government takes 30%-40% of most of our paychecks. And they have the biggest budget of any company. They also are one of the most inefficient companies. If we ever audited the U.S. government the way we do companies it would make MCI Worldcom & Enron look like the best companies ever. I always think it's funny when people complain about big business and desire support of big government which is merely a bigger business known for a) ripping off the people more than any other and b) being more inefficient and less productive than any publicly owned stock market company ever approaches.
12/28/2005 11:02:37 PM · #20
Originally posted by David Ey:

And do you think socialism has a completely level structure?
LOLOLOL

No, but much more level than capitalism. A comppletely level structure would be nearly impossible IMO. Socialism provides a solution that works in theory AND practice.
12/28/2005 11:09:29 PM · #21
what's keeping you here?
Personally, I'm happy to live in a country where I can be all I can be.
Nothing is holding me back from earning a living in the top 2 percent of all Americans. You not there? Well, thats your fault. Sorry, I see you are 17. Another victom of our public schools. Ask one of the Chineese or Japaneese or other emegrants how they feel about this.

Message edited by author 2005-12-28 23:16:36.
12/29/2005 12:27:55 AM · #22
Originally posted by milo655321:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Great debate for the kool-aid drinkers.


Art,

I've seen you use the phrase "kool-aid drinkers" to describe those on left before. While I've gathered that it's a disparaging description, I'm personally not familiar with the origins or why it's considered a clever insult. Could you (or someone) familiarize me with the origins of the phrase? Thank you.


//www.religioustolerance.org/dc_jones.htm
12/29/2005 12:41:32 AM · #23
Originally posted by louddog:

Originally posted by milo655321:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Great debate for the kool-aid drinkers.


Art,

I've seen you use the phrase "kool-aid drinkers" to describe those on left before. While I've gathered that it's a disparaging description, I'm personally not familiar with the origins or why it's considered a clever insult. Could you (or someone) familiarize me with the origins of the phrase? Thank you.


//www.religioustolerance.org/dc_jones.htm


Yeah, the reference originated from the Jim Jones incident, but it is currently used to describe one who consumes one particular brand of information - mainly because it is already biased toward their existing opinions or beliefs - and is unquestioning as to its authenticity or even believability. This is not exclusive to liberals either, and I don't mean it so much as a put down - my desire would really be for those who constantly gulp down any kool-aid, to stop, think reasonably and seek out the other side of the story, then make an informed opinion.

I also believe you shouldn't throw out information simply because you don't like the one who delivers it - particularly when it is factual.

Since I again broke my rule about getting into political or religious debates in the DPC forums, I am going to bow out here, chalk it up to a weak momentary relapse and wish you all the best. :)
12/29/2005 12:53:15 AM · #24
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Yeah, the reference originated from the Jim Jones incident, but it is currently used to describe one who consumes one particular brand of information - mainly because it is already biased toward their existing opinions or beliefs - and is unquestioning as to its authenticity or even believability.


Ah, thank you for the clarification. Jim Jones was the first thing that popped into my mind, but I was wondering if I was missing some other part that would make the reference more current. Thanks again.
12/29/2005 01:32:18 AM · #25
Originally posted by David Ey:

what's keeping you here?
Personally, I'm happy to live in a country where I can be all I can be.
Nothing is holding me back from earning a living in the top 2 percent of all Americans. You not there? Well, thats your fault. Sorry, I see you are 17. Another victom of our public schools. Ask one of the Chineese or Japaneese or other emegrants how they feel about this.


I have a few questions. I agree, nothing is holding you back from being in the top 2% of earnings. I don't understand your quote about asking the Chinese or Japanese. I'm assuming you mean immigrants? Can you clarify that? Also, how do you know Justin goes to a public school? I'm just wondering
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/27/2021 11:37:18 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 09/27/2021 11:37:18 AM EDT.