dayman

We have by far the most guns, and we have the most gun violence. We have the most mass shootings, and it's really easy to get weapons good for mass shootings. This isn't arbitrary abstraction. We're pretty safe right now relative to our past selves...but gun crimes have been increasing over the last decade the only such crime to do so...these stats are arbitrary?

birdog's point is some countries are proud of their system whether it would be ideal for us or not. Regardless of who you are you are a fool if you were proud of the old system and if you will be proud of the new one. I don't think the gov't needs to own most hospitals like in the UK, but a public payer is ideal either way. These are basically facts that cannot be argued against credibly.

I'm going to admit when Mitt brought up Norway as if he was a message board poster in the Morgan interview I almost threw up. You want to compare Norway to us in gun violence and mass murder? Lets do this Mitt. The lack of follow up was pathetic. No balls.

The "attack" would be all out war of the hugest magnitude in an area of the world we can't help but stick our nose in for obvious reasons. If anyone says they "support the attack as POTUS" (which I did not hear Mitt say btw) there is only one thing that would mean. And that would be that I will not vote for him. It's simple...any POTUS I want needs to speak to OUR interest. OUR interests are not Israel and Iran going to war under any circumstances. It's really that simple. I personally would like to hear both POTUS candidates posture in a way that communicates that to the voters. I understand there are things better kept close to the vest, and things we all do not know. But we do live in a democracy and these are the facts of life. There's a storm brewing and it's the type that can go one way or the other if certain things happen and certain people are in power. The American people have to decide who is in power. It's that simple. I'm just a guy. But I have 1 vote. To me, if you don't speak on the issue for fear of not saying something I like...you might as well have said the wrong thing. I'm not a 1 issue guy, but this is a big one. A huge one. I am kind of young but most of my buddies who served are out but our younger brothers are in still...and it effects are nation even if you don't have people servings in a million ways. Whatever you think on MItt's taxes (which BTW I actually do think are not off limits but that's just me), this certainly if you are running for POTUS deserves more than vague statements designed for me to simply move along and punch the ballot for you. This IS your job as president. More than anything else, this is the one single thing I vote to give you power to act on unilaterally in this day in age. And if I had to pick 1 thing (which I hate doing) this is what it is. This is POTUS. Commander in chief. People may disagree but on that 1 issue, to me Obama is miles ahead of where I see Mitt at this time. It isn't even close. I understand people hate Obama for a variety of reasons maybe even as Commander of our military. I don't.

Read the thread I've not held back. And btw, I don't have a solution. I don't have the answers to fix healthcare perfectly with one bill, to reduce gun violence the most it can be with a single federal act, to counteract human-influenced climate change, or to help the American economy come out on top in this global down turn. Nobody does. I'm not on an high horse here I really am not. Like every issue though, I do have have an general starting point that I can be moved off of when in discussion (easily). But if you want to know where I'm at mentally to discuss...it's simple. As I see it (only me I'm talking about) there's hunting and protection. Certain guns are commonly used for hunting. Certain guns are carried as concealed weapons and by common street police in most jurisdictions. Anything not used for those purposes seems, to my naive mind, to be overboard. The starting point for my admittedly "liberal" attitude for this discussion is simply that the sale of guns not commonly used for hunting or as carried as concealed weapons by law abiding citizens for protection should be stopped...and furthermore they should be made illegal. That is to say yes, if I were king, I would take those weapons away whatever I determined them to be with the aid of advisers and after debate with those I respected. I am not king. And with good reason. And I'm not God. I don't have some huge answer. But I fail to see at this point, why at the very least there are gun show loop holes, or even federal documented sales of guns that can kill as many people in a minute as a huge bomb. I'm not a gun expert. I'm not a policy expert. I don't claim to have all the answers. But I don't like hearing that it's all about mental health. It isn't all about mental health. That much is obvious. And that is my point. Once the most extreme on both sides of this issue accept this, we can engage in the debate in a way that makes sense. I understand guns don't kill people, but people who want to kill people often use guns. This is common sense.

Honestly newsroom has strung together a few pretty good episodes. It's a shame, although no unpredictable, that some portion of the potential audience won't like it b/c of the way it represents certain stories/people but it really does have the seeds to become a good show. And I don't even like Sorkin all that much.

Have you seen my posts? Yes I'm serious. They're just whatever I would say if I were talking (even worse as if I were just thinking out loud) they're terrible everybody on this board should know that by now...why do you think I use so many "..." it's when things get weird it just allows the reader to regroup without me rewriting anything. Anyway I'm being dead serious...I'm !@#$ing worried about my personal laptop some idiot friend got the stupid new batman movie offline handed me a usb and now my chrome runs slow and spell check doesn't work. Malwarebytes found a few infected files that I think it got rid off but no fix on this stupid spell issue and chrome still runs kind of slow. I think I have a problem and it's not my first rodeo...used to pirate a lot of music couple years ago and it always ends with me having to reset my windows which is a HUGE pain. Basically coming to terms with the fact that this will happen again. You sould rejoice. I'm passing my version of a kidney stone.

My purpose of saying those are important is simply to point out that they exist and that they mean something. What they mean...whatever. I have my opinion it's known in here it's the most "left" of anyone except Joe Six who goes further than me (I think)...others are on their own level...people come all over the board. But the idea that we don't have the most guns and the most gun violence is not an idea..b/c those are not the facts. And in most discussions about any other topic that means something. For some reason with guns...to some people...it does not. But it should. Even to the most pro-gun people...they need to accept these facts a starting point to discussion whether they want to have the discussion or not.

I type real fast and somehow, IDK why, the spell check no longer works. It's actually going to be a problem this started about 2 days ago. I'll never proof my own posts b/c I'm above that, so without auto catch every homophone, common spelling error, or even just muscle memory gone wrong in my fingers is going to make me out to be a fool. I say this not as an excuse, but to ask if anyone knows why on earth the autocheck would suddenly not work in google chrome/windows 7/whatever the problem is. WTF is going on? The automatic red lines are gone, and now I have to type for myself and this is truly scary.

Do you really think that kind of language does anything in any situation though? Pretty clear to me that's not the way to go if you actually want a solution. We're going to have to give on our position, and they will on theirs, in order to compromise. The main "gets" we would need would be some assurances that they cooperate and enter the responsible international community...unless we are saying it's worth a war to crush them (which I'm not and I don't think you are either) then there's no point in taking that approach in rhetoric.

Fair enough opinion. I do disagree that they are equal to a suicide bomber of a country though. That is my fundamental disagreement and I think American policy discussion from that starting point will be warped and hurt our decision making.

Simply that denying those facts the obvious correlations in any discussion is nonsencial. I don't care what peoples poisition is honestly I am always reminded how far apart certain people are from each other on this issue each time it hits the news again...gun homocides havne't gotten any better w/ the policy we've had since 2000 and nonfatal gun crimes have gotten 20% worse. We do have 5% of the world population and 50% of the guns. We are heavily armed and have heavy gun incidents. Simple facts. Does this mean you must be in favor of gun regulation? No, but it does mean you must acknowledge these facts when debating others on the merits of dealing with gun violence in America.

The question is simple...if Iran is really so insane why is the regime still oporurating? They're either completely off the map, dangerous, and unpridictable or they hold positions against us and others with an ideology we don't share and we're at political odds with them. In one scneario war is probably necessary. In another it would be a disaster. We aren't at war, we haven't been at war, the only thing we can do is follow Israel into one. Israel btw is in the grips of what would be a very "conservative" (not that the term translates) government here in the US. Their own foreign policy strong men dominate all levels of government at the moment. They can and will do what they need to do and we won't sit by and watch them be destroyed...but that said...what are we dealing with here? An insane nation or a hostile towards our interests nation? It think the truth of the matter is that Iran while I personally do not like the regime...is not some evil "must be stoppped" regime. There is clearly room for peace here. And peace may well mean Israel doesn't get to control all aspects of Iran military operations. And if that is what it is, that is what it is. And that's fine by me and should be fine by us as a nation.

I wouldn't call them a responible world actor but I would call them a rational actor in the sense that things made not in their best interest by conditions placed on them throught the world community can and will deter certain of their own behavior adn things that threaten their very existence as a regime will be forgone. They're dead set on going forward with what they see as their soverign right, to have nuclear domestic energy program...and that means having the ability to make a bomb along with it really. That said, I think we can use this carrot as a lure to bring them into a situation where they can be expected to act mores so as a responsible member of the international community. That doesn't mean they'll be responsible in terms of cooperating with our best intersts or that of Israel..but at least that perhaps if we make concessions and they do as well...they can come back closer to the international community in terms of where they are now and that is ultimately the goal of all involved who don't want war. And I do think that by the narrow definition I hold "rational actor" to they are in fact still a rational actor even if they are dysnfuctional and possibly mislead and eating severe sanctions right now. Basically in sum what I'm saying is the starting point in negotiation and the talking points of "no nuclear program whatsoever" is ok to an extent in this game of chicken/diplomacy but the honestly take that approach to the problem beyound international posturing and not being open to creative options including some form of nuclear Iran as a result is something that is a non-starter in terms of real progress. Now...there may and hopefully are some alternative approaches to compromise besides nuclear Iran that can work...so I'm not suggesting those aren't preferable. Nuclear nations will always argue they're bad and should be controlled. NonNuclear states seeking them will alway aregue security. The real issue here is proliferation v. security. If we can break the interests off from specific tactics I think there is some room to make a deal here.

As predicted Romney touched on foreign policy in Israel (no ****) on "foreign soil." His "I won't comment on foreign policy on foreign soil" w/ MOrgan was just what it always was..."I'll only give speeches about foreign policy I won't talk in interviews or answer follow up questions about it."

I'm going to go way way out there in terms of the way Americans typically discuss foreign policy but IMHO...I don't think EVEN IF they build a damn bomb...it's worth going to war over. Period. Nuclear arms have historically been a deterent. We had our cold war never fired them. Lots of other countries have them and don't use them. Pakistan and India went to war constantly until the bomb now they both have one and never do anymore. I understand teh rhetoric of Iran is out of control but I do see them as rational actors, they are interested in their own preservation. Not to say I wouldn't try to do everything I can to stop them from getting a bomb. But the policy of "we will do what it takes to make Israel safe"...if that means going to war to stop Iran from getting a bomb...the bottom line is that's a stupid ****ing policy no matter what candidate says it. I think secretly at least Obama knows that and maybe even Mitt (I hope). And I sure as hell basically know Iran has done the math and knows it isn't worth it for any country to go nuts over this...

Plain and smiple facts about American guns: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/27/time-to-face-facts-on-gun-control/

FYI I have been reading most posts so just b/c I don't respond doesn't mean I didn't read or listen to the various points for Romney. Reminds me of this promo haha (zach galifianakis platform). "Washington DC is a mess. Things are a mess, IT'S A MESS" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSIX9q_rqB8

This is the book I should read? (just to be clear I've been on a book kick lately so I damn well might read it). And just to sum up quickly I would get what out of it? Is it unfair to say that Unnamed President left the next guy with the opportunity (not that he took it) to really capitalize on successful groundwork. Reagan left the next guy with a mini-bomb that went off in his face producing a 1-term reign.

I just chuckle when Reaganites talk about the evils of deficit spending. Historically since 1980 when Reagan won on the antitax, antiregulation, antigovernment platform that the Republicans have adopted the greatest accomplishment was not to reduce the size of government but simply to stop paying for it. But for some reason it will be different w/ Mitt Romney today...IDK why but I guess it will... If the Tea Party really wanted a hero would it be Reagan? I really don't see why. What if I suggested there was a theorhetical President that had 4 surplus budgets, actually began to pay DOWN the debt, eliminated 16 thousand pages of federal regulations, cut taxes on the middle class, reduced welfare rolls by lamost 60 percent, reduced the size of the fedeeral work force to the lowest level since 1960, pulled 7.7 million people out of poverty (compared to the 77,000 Reagan pulled out of poverty), and all while seeing the economy produce tons of jobs (92 percent increase in the private sector, largest increase in 50 years)? Does that sound like someone that the Tea Party could get behind? So long as I keep his name out of that paragraph it kind of does. Also so long as I don't mention that we did actually spend (gasp) quite a bit in that time on things that returned value. Anyway it is a tangent all I'm saying is that when I see people who in some topics love Reagan so much discussin things in here I can't help but chuckle. I don't hate Reagan btw, but I do prefer the unamed President I described above. I'm sure you all know who I'm talking about though and my God what a terrible man he was.

But seriously in a non-combative way I'm just asking (since this seems to be an issue for you) it's a simple question and I may well be wrong on it. But the basic equation is that we have things we need to do within the next 20ish years anyway everybody agrees on this, and we can do it cheaper than ever if we do it now, and it requires us to pay people to do it now when unemployment is an issue conservatives and liberals alike agree on...so why is this a political or ideological debate? What is the deal? How can a rational decision maker not come to this conclusion is what I'm asking? Raging about the debt is popular...but is it rational?

And just to go ahead and reveal where I'm tempted to go with this....I know this is a democractic talking point but we do have infrastructure and things we can do even if we don't have to do it now we will need to do it in the next 20ish years and probably can never do it as cheaply (at a profit?) as we can now. Plus it puts people to work and would help spur the economy. So my basic question is spending money you don't have is bad I get that. But ... would any business man not look at this and see gold? Do the facts support this "Obama spending like a maniac" pitch as a bad thing? Should we not be borrowig by issuing treasury bonds like drunken sailors right now to spur us in the short term and build for the long term at rates that look amazing? As a "business guy" would Mitt Romney not get this? Rape Europe while they are down b/c they may pick themselves up soon or later? Strike while the iron is hot?

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/pages/textview.aspx?data=realyield I know I know...don't spend money...but are people paying us money for the privelege of holding their money right now b/c the rest of the world is so !@#$ed? Will we ever be able to invest in ourselves the way we can right now? I'm not finance or economy guy, so I'm not trying to make a point here. I'm just asking is this normal? All those negative signs...seem...good to me...am I an idiot?

Haha, fair enough appreciate the honesty. I'm just saying I understand the "I hate Obama" argument somewhat. It's the other part I want to hear about. The "Romney for President" part is important to me if I can even consider voting for him.

You don't have to respond man lol. It's ok. I'm just saying...he's on the ballot now and it's getting close...time to give some serious thought to the choice (which I will and always do despite not liking the GOP the last few years) what should I think about? Why vote for Mitt Romney? I'm not even saying this as a political attack or some snarky comment. I'm just saying...there are quite a few posters here supporting him. What's up? Why vote FOR Mitt Romney? That's all I'm asking.