Originally Posted by the bouncer

if this is really about "body counts," obama's polcies will probably end up saving more lives than they take.

Whether about body counts or not, one thing for certain is that what matters is the real world, not comparisons of the real world to some unreal imagining.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Whether about body counts or not, one thing for certain is that what matters is the real world, not comparisons of the real world to some unreal imagining.

So far the bouncer's estimate is accurate, since Romney would (really) have been more like GW Bush, and the body count under Bush was much higher than under Obama. Obama is at least winding down the wars that Bush started. That would also be true for domestic violence (if he can get any gun control).

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

So far the bouncer's estimate is accurate, since Romney would (really) have been more like GW Bush, and the body count under Bush was much higher than under Obama. Obama is at least winding down the wars that Bush started. That would also be true for domestic violence (if he can get any gun control).

"Would have" are words signifying imaginary bullshit. If one is interested in the real world, they are a sufficient flag to indicate that nothing of any value will be lost by moving on without paying any mind at all to what follows the flag.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I'd start with waking the hell up and not voting for presidential candidates who bomb more innocent people than all serial killers/mass murderers combined.
"The other guy would have been worse" is no excuse. By that logic, we should have elected the school killer, since his total body count was less than thirty.

I would like to know what you would do. We already know what you won't do.

Guns don't kill people. Financial advisors kill people:

http://fox2now.com/2013/01/15/active...town-st-louis/

Another statistically insignificant moment- for the entire metro police department...

Originally Posted by The Rani

What I already do is extend my circle of compassion beyond a few dozen white folks whose deaths end up in the national news.
Most of us don't do that. At all.
When JFK got shot, Malcolm X said something about "chickens coming home to roost." He was spot on with that one. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

And how does that compassion manifest itself? What action does it translate it to?

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

Guns don't kill people. Financial advisors kill people:

http://fox2now.com/2013/01/15/active...town-st-louis/

Another statistically insignificant moment- for the entire metro police department...

I noticed you didn't post this story. Why not? Perhaps you just prefer those dead kid stories instead...

...Actually the real lesson here is that .38's don't kill people even when you try really, really hard.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

"Would have" are words signifying imaginary bullshit. If one is interested in the real world, they are a sufficient flag to indicate that nothing of any value will be lost by moving on without paying any mind at all to what follows the flag.

Not so. All we have in this world are estimates and guesses. Anyone who thinks otherwise (such as vandal) is fooled.

Originally Posted by The Rani

WTF ... aren't you the one who's always telling us to heed your "predictions" because they are so accurate?

You see Rani, this is the sort of double-standard that "visionaries" use... Or was that con-men? I can never remember.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

OK, I asume you're on board to spend the roughly $100B needed to reestablish a viable mental health system. Can we count on your vote?

You don't need my vote, fiscal conservatism lost the election remember. Charge it, spend it and add it to the debt that we as a society clearly have no intentions of ever paying back.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

And the answer from the gun toters is to allow, nay even encourage, sickos to have semi-automatic weapons.

Gun obsession is the chief symptom of whatever sickness can be diagnosed in our society. I'd say it's a good place to start treating the sickness, even if it's not the only place.

The gun toters think the government should begin to do its job, get serious and crack down on the boys in the hood, the mentally ill, the sicko's who illegally obtain firearms and all the illegal gun owners and gun dealers in the US vs cracking down on us (legal gun owner and law abiding citizens who own assualt rifles), pointing its finger at us and limiting and adding restrictions on our access to firearms.

Originally Posted by The Rani

WTF ... aren't you the one who's always telling us to heed your "predictions" because they are so accurate?

We have a similiar vision...I'm just glad that I own a few firearms that are more powerful and just as deadly, if not more deadly than one of those dinky, small caliber, funky looking assualt rifles with a thirty round clip.

Originally Posted by The Rani

You really need a list? I thought you were supposed to be a liberal/progressive.
Since (apparently) the answer isn't obvious ... besides voting for people who aren't war criminals in presidential elections, there's making socially conscious choices. A good friend of mine runs this awesome organization.

Do socially conscious people flush toilets or do they only crap in the woods or a garden?

Delusional Conservatives like JDFP and classic-xer constantly rant about idiotic culture wars issues and refuse to admit the need for practical reform. Instead they rant about the 2nd admendment, and don't even care about the national interest of the nation. This phenomenon can also be seen in the anti-war left who refused to accept the need for a strong military and assumes that peace is the natural state of humanity despite the historical record massively refuting them. In an ideal solution to the political problems of america both the conservative and libertarian tea partiers AND the anti-war liberals would be purged from the body politic, after which we could get to the business of first rebuilding the economy without people constantly ranting about spending, then building up of military to 20 million men as well as getting our nuclear arsenal back to cold war levels. Then we should vassalized latin america in the style of eastern europe between 1945 and 1989, then pacify the middle east. The pacification of the middle east would be handled by administratively dividing the regions of north africa and the middle east as far east as afghanistan and pakistan into military regions. The final result would be very similar to the ancient roman colonias and the spanish american colonias of the 16th and 17th century, whole cities would be built in the middle east and populated by american, canadian, and latin american and brazilian peoples, however the construction of the proposed metropolises would be built by arab muslim labor. The result would be a forcibly westernized arab world that is no longer a threat to civilization.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Delusional Conservatives like JDFP and classic-xer constantly rant about idiotic culture wars issues and refuse to admit the need for practical reform. Instead they rant about the 2nd admendment, and don't even care about the national interest of the nation. This phenomenon can also be seen in the anti-war left who refused to accept the need for a strong military and assumes that peace is the natural state of humanity despite the historical record massively refuting them. In an ideal solution to the political problems of america both the conservative and libertarian tea partiers AND the anti-war liberals would be purged from the body politic, after which we could get to the business of first rebuilding the economy without people constantly ranting about spending, then building up of military to 20 million men as well as getting our nuclear arsenal back to cold war levels. Then we should vassalized latin america in the style of eastern europe between 1945 and 1989, then pacify the middle east. The pacification of the middle east would be handled by administratively dividing the regions of north africa and the middle east as far east as afghanistan and pakistan into generalkommissariats or military regions. The final result would be very similar to the ancient roman colonias and the spanish american colonias of the 16th and 17th century, whole cities would be built in the middle east and populated by american, canadian, and latin american and brazilian peoples, however the construction of the proposed metropolises would be built by arab muslim labor. The result would be a forcibly westernized arab world that is no longer a threat to civilization.

According to the majority, we don't have a major economic issue or a major debt issue. We can simply ignore those issues because they're irrelevant as far as the majority are concerned.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

According to the majority, we don't have a major economic issue or a major debt issue. We can simply ignore those issues because they're irrelevant as far as the majority are concerned.

There's ways of acquiring assets to render spending a viable option again, left-wing democrats believe it is easiest to raise taxes on the wealthy, remember taxes were much higher on the high quartiles for most of the current saeculum than they are now. If however opposition prevents reasonable taxation, assets would have to be found abroad. Debts to foreign countries do matter under traditional republican and democrat foreign policies. However under my proposed solutions I've just mention foreign debts for the most part would not matter because they would be "renegotiated" after the military phase of the proposed programme.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The gun toters think the government should begin to do its job, get serious and crack down on the boys in the hood, the mentally ill, the sicko's who illegally obtain firearms and all the illegal gun owners and gun dealers in the US vs cracking down on us (legal gun owner and law abiding citizens who own assualt rifles), pointing its finger at us and limiting and adding restrictions on our access to firearms.

But it is precisely the "boys in the hood" who will go to prison under the liberals' gun-control schemes: In New York State, for example, 94% of those incarcerated under that state's iconic Sullivan Law are African-American or Latino - and it doesn't figure to be any different under the new batch of restrictive, confiscatory gun laws Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law yesterday.

Gun control is one of at least three contemporary political issues in which the putative "liberal" and "conservative" positions are being assigned counterintuitively; immigration and the Second Cold War; i.e., the "War on Terror" are the other two.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The gun toters think the government should begin to do its job, get serious and crack down on the boys in the hood, the mentally ill, the sicko's who illegally obtain firearms and all the illegal gun owners and gun dealers in the US vs cracking down on us (legal gun owner and law abiding citizens who own assualt rifles), pointing its finger at us and limiting and adding restrictions on our access to firearms.

"Crack down on The Boys in the hood" = keep guns away from black people. You guys were OK with gun control as long as it was about keeping guns out of the hands of non-whites. Then Waco and Ruby Ridge comes along and the white gun nuts come under society's gaze and you guys freak out and start screaming conspiracies about UN black helicopters.

Originally Posted by The Rani

What I already do is extend my circle of compassion beyond a few dozen white folks whose deaths end up in the national news.
Most of us don't do that. At all.
When JFK got shot, Malcolm X said something about "chickens coming home to roost." He was spot on with that one. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

why inject race into the conversation, rani?

and i find it hilarious that you assume that "most of us" don't "extend our circle of compassion."

who died and gave you this "special" insight into other people?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Whether about body counts or not, one thing for certain is that what matters is the real world, not comparisons of the real world to some unreal imagining.

but the rani *was* talking about body counts, and attributing multiple deaths to the policies of the obama administration. so why can't i attribute lives saved to the policies of the obama administration? (notably the extension of health care coverage)

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

So far the bouncer's estimate is accurate, since Romney would (really) have been more like GW Bush, and the body count under Bush was much higher than under Obama. Obama is at least winding down the wars that Bush started. That would also be true for domestic violence (if he can get any gun control).

yeah. you get it. the reduction in gun violence is another way to save lives.

Originally Posted by The Rani

You really need a list? I thought you were supposed to be a liberal/progressive.
Since (apparently) the answer isn't obvious ... besides voting for people who aren't war criminals in presidential elections, there's making socially conscious choices. A good friend of mine runs this awesome organization.

you really need to lose the rudeness, rani. it ruins your message. you may be the perfect "compassionate shopper," but you come across as a jerk on this forum.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

According to the majority, we don't have a major economic issue or a major debt issue. We can simply ignore those issues because they're irrelevant as far as the majority are concerned.

if by "the majority," you mean the people who voted for president obama -- you've got it wrong. we do have a major economic issue. it's called income inequality.

Originally Posted by Odin

"Crack down on The Boys in the hood" = keep guns away from black people. You guys were OK with gun control as long as it was about keeping guns out of the hands of non-whites. Then Waco and Ruby Ridge comes along and the white gun nuts come under society's gaze and you guys freak out and start screaming conspiracies about UN black helicopters.

odin, i first came across this idea about a week ago and i thought it was a little nuts. but now i'm not so sure.

"nuttery" and psychopathy don't recognize any racial boundaries.

would be interested in whether this may actually be more of a gender issue.

Originally Posted by the bouncer

but the rani *was* talking about body counts, and attributing multiple deaths to the policies of the obama administration. so why can't i attribute lives saved to the policies of the obama administration? (notably the extension of health care coverage)

You can do whatever you want. But there's a big difference between taking an action intended to kill people that results in actually killing actual living people and waving words around and projected statistics.

Supposed lives are not even remotely qualitatively comparable to actual lives. What's more, human life being nonfungible, your attempt to do math with it is fundamentally flawed at the outset -- even if you were able to talk about actual, real lives being saved.