[sentinel28a]

XenoBlade, on 04 December 2012 - 12:04 PM, said:

Can't say they are the best role models. They haven't really did anything amazing enough to get that honor. The princes mother, on the other hand...

Tho i agree with rondo, the obsession is sick.

Diana was indeed a good role model. She was more than just a pretty face: she did a lot to raise AIDS awareness (at a time when people were either denying AIDS existed or terrified you could get it by touching infected people) and she pioneered land mine removal efforts. She was a damn sight more impressive than Charles, who has latched himself to climate change while tooling around in a fleet of gas-guzzling limos and helicopters. (Don't tell me it's a crisis until you start acting like it's one, Chuck.)

I have an enormous amount of respect for William and Harry. No one would've minded if they sat back and lived a life of fun and extravagance; hell, they're royals. But they both volunteered for and went to Afghanistan, and Harry at least got shot at. Neither had to go, but they went. That's a calling to high office that their grandmother and especially great-grandfather always espoused--one of my favorite parts of the movie The Queen was Tony Blair pointing out that the stresses of WWII shortened George VIII's life. That's what a royal person should be. Heck, I wish some of our politicians acted like that.

I have nothing personal against Michelle Obama; even if I don't agree with some of her initiatives regarding childhood obesity, I respect her efforts. This country's been lucky that most of our First Ladies have been decent and good people. Eleanor Roosevelt championed civil rights long before it became fashionable, Betty Ford took on alcoholism (she herself was a recovering alcoholic), and Laura Bush did a lot for libraries and reading programs. Heck, even Dolley Madison was the last person to leave the White House when the British attacked in 1814. Jackie Kennedy and Barbara Bush just were classy ladies.

Ben Da Mad Irishman
"Patton is my homeboy"

[Dark Stranger]

So in the good kind of crazy changing world. UFC just annoucened thier first womens champaion. So yay!

[rondo]

Man, can union's not be in the news? Now up, the right-to-work vote in Michigan.

[Dark Stranger]

And it passed!

[Valkyrie]

Concealed Carry Ban in IL = NOPE.

Finally. Not that I own a gun (my husband doesn't either), but it's nice to know Illinois doesn't have to keep being the Special Snowflake of Gun Control.

[rondo]

Valkyrie, on 11 December 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

Concealed Carry Ban in IL = NOPE.

Finally. Not that I own a gun (my husband doesn't either), but it's nice to know Illinois doesn't have to keep being the Special Snowflake of Gun Control.

You still will be. I am sure there will be political nonsense to muck this up for ages to come and if legislation does pass, you'll have to go through endless red tape to take advantage.

[XenoBlade]

I feel sorry for Michigan workers. Lower pay a-go-go.

And honestly, don't think I really agree with carrying guns.

Just look at Japan. Strict gun laws, do we hear many shootings over there? No.

This post has been edited by XenoBlade: 11 December 2012 - 04:08 PM

[Valkyrie]

That's Japan. Different country, different laws, different culture.

I'm not a huge gun advocate either, but there's something to be said when you're in the only state out of fifty that bans concealed carry. Even then, it hasn't helped, even in Chicago.

[XenoBlade]

Yes it's different in many aspects. However that is the point of a comparison. I can name other countries who rarely have an gun related violence. Everyone having guns doesn't solve anything. If it's again "Different country/culture/law" then that means we as americans are so barbaric that we can't even emulate or even relate to another culture. I kinda hope that isn't the case.

My only thing is when these said guns get into the wrong hands. Which happens far more then it should. If we had competent gun control, then it wouldn't be an issue. But you really can't look to American and think we would be smart. That and the people who have them so make sure their children never get a hold of them. (All in all, I wouldn't be against guns if there weren't so many idiots in America)

[Valkyrie]

Very true. It's just a matter of figuring out a system that actually works. Although really, in a huge country like ours, the way we are right now, that might be easier said than done.

[Dark Stranger]

XenoBlade, on 11 December 2012 - 04:04 PM, said:

I feel sorry for Michigan workers. Lower pay a-go-go.

And honestly, don't think I really agree with carrying guns.

Just look at Japan. Strict gun laws, do we hear many shootings over there? No.

I do love how everyone only picks up on the "lower pay" aspect of right to work. Instead of the whole not forcing you to join something to just earn a paycheck. Espically if your ideals don't match up to their.

[XenoBlade]

Dark Stranger, on 11 December 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

I do love how everyone only picks up on the "lower pay" aspect of right to work. Instead of the whole not forcing you to join something to just earn a paycheck. Espically if your ideals don't match up to their.

Yeah, not everyone wants people to fight against employers and Execs who don't care who you are, and rather you work for pennies fighting for them.

Oh yeah to add...the point of a job is to get money. Of course people are going to pick on the fact right to work means "right to work for less".

Just like how many people like to pick on the "Oh no, we pay more taxes" for the affordable care act aka obamacare yet miss out on everything else, and aren't altering facts.

This post has been edited by XenoBlade: 11 December 2012 - 07:42 PM

[Dark Stranger]

As someone who works in a union, I can tell you that the unions main goal isn't looking out for me. I can look out for myself just fine. They are mostly just taking my money and spending it on things we dont' need. Like a stupid new blood pressure machine with a flat screen display. Why should I work to have my money forceablly taken out to pay for things like that? And I not having money taking out gives me more money to spend how I want/need it to be spent. And yeah, since I'm already getting a fifth of my paycheck getting taken out for taxes, having my taxes go up even more isn't going to help my finacial situation.

Unions also bombard me with pamlets and emails pretty much telling me who to vote for. Like I can't pay attention to the world around me for myself and can't think for myself. It's almost nausiating.

[linlindesu]

Dark Stranger, on 11 December 2012 - 09:47 PM, said:

As someone who works in a union, I can tell you that the unions main goal isn't looking out for me. I can look out for myself just fine. They are mostly just taking my money and spending it on things we dont' need. Like a stupid new blood pressure machine with a flat screen display. Why should I work to have my money forceablly taken out to pay for things like that? And I not having money taking out gives me more money to spend how I want/need it to be spent. And yeah, since I'm already getting a fifth of my paycheck getting taken out for taxes, having my taxes go up even more isn't going to help my finacial situation.

Unions also bombard me with pamlets and emails pretty much telling me who to vote for. Like I can't pay attention to the world around me for myself and can't think for myself. It's almost nausiating.

Depends on the union itself.
I agree many unions are terribly organized and at times can lead to more bad than good. Like Teacher's unions for example ( pick up a copy of "Waiting for Superman" if interested but the documentary itself is rather bleh but the facts within it are not)
but at the same time unions were made to protect workers. Quick example is my sister in law complaining constantly about the union at the college she works at. For every 900 hours, the worker has to take a vacation, that is a vacation every 22 weeks ( or 5.5 months) To me, that makes perfect sense. ( keep in mind this is manual labor/ food industry work)

Unions are still a necessary evil if we want to keep our quality of life. If you truly believe unions need to go, read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" and remember how terrible things were before them.

[Dark Stranger]

Yes, things were terriable before. But times are different now. Social media itself is a huge deal when it comes to people being organized. Nobody needed to pay money to the OWS movement around the country.

[XenoBlade]

Dark Stranger, on 12 December 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

Yes, things were terriable before. But times are different now. Social media itself is a huge deal when it comes to people being organized. Nobody needed to pay money to the OWS movement around the country.

You'd be pretty naive to believe that "times are different now" in thinking execs WON'T screw workers over. Times are very similar to the past. Slavery for free labor, Chinese for cheap labor building railroads, the period or robber barons forcing people to work longer and make less (which started unions) hiring illegals to work cheap, outsourcing jobs to people who would work for cheap.

Do you HONESTLY think if unions and regulations were taken away, execs would treat workers fairly (like the do now *snicker*)? History repeats itself.

[Dark Stranger]

Proabably not. But the reason unions existed were to "organize labor". We don't need them for that purpose anymore. People are not so helpless as many democrats and unions would like to make people believe.

[sentinel28a]

The unions that exist to actually help their workers are good ones. You don't usually hear about them because they're not out there screaming--they're doing what they're supposed to do. I have a close friend who belongs to a metalworkers union that is a good bunch, and my uncle belonged to a railroad union that was all right.

The unions that you do hear about are the ones who force their workers to donate money to that union's cause--almost always the Democrat Party. That tradition goes back to the Progressive Era of the 1910s, when Democrats were on the leading edge of helping union organizers. That was a time when unions were desperately needed: there were no OSHA standards, corporations were laws unto themselves (the Anaconda Copper Mining Company ruled Montana, literally), and workers had nowhere to turn to.

But, as Dark Stranger has said, times have changed. We do have OSHA, we've got antitrust laws, and people are far more willing to speak up than they were 100 years ago. Corporate fatcats do not have near the power that they used to, nor as much as the media (who are themselves fatcats) would like you to believe. Walmart gets pissed at you, you get fired. Anaconda got pissed at you, and you disappeared. Bill Gates is seen as a philanthropist (which he is), while the Copper Kings tore national politics apart for 10 years--though people forget that even in the robber baron days, the most powerful men were very generous, which is why we have the Carnegie Libraries and Rockefeller Centers of the nation.

Are unions necessary? I believe so. Are they as necessary as they were a century ago? No, because they achieved most of their aims. That's what union thugs like Richard Trumka don't get. They won workers' rights decades ago. Now it's all about power. Michigan, Wisconsin, and Indiana wanted to give people the freedom to choose between unions or not. SEIU, AFSCME and the Teamsters don't want them to have the choice. They want the political power, and the millions flowing into union coffers through essentially forced donation (what gangs call "extortion").

If unions are all that great, then people will donate willingly. If they're not, they should go the way of the dinosaur. Protecting workers does not include assaulting your opponents on the street and beating them up--which happened last year in Wisconsin and happened a few days ago in Michigan. That's not the act of a union trying to protect its workers. That's the act of thugs, and another party that claimed to be standing up for workers--the National Socialist Workers' Party, to be exact.

As far as gun control goes...Chicago has the highest amount of gun-related deaths in the country this year. It also has the strictest gun control laws. Given that criminals don't pay attention to laws, the lesson should be obvious. Just about everyone in Montana owns guns, and we have one of the lowest homicide rates in the nation. Again, lesson should be obvious. Japan has tight gun control laws and low homicide-related deaths, but as was pointed out, it's a different culture. Japan also has one of the highest suicide rates in the world--because of their culture.

Ben Da Mad Irishman
"We should not be weeaboos"

[Valkyrie]

sentinel28a, on 13 December 2012 - 05:49 PM, said:

As far as gun control goes...Chicago has the highest amount of gun-related deaths in the country this year. It also has the strictest gun control laws. Given that criminals don't pay attention to laws, the lesson should be obvious. Just about everyone in Montana owns guns, and we have one of the lowest homicide rates in the nation. Again, lesson should be obvious. Japan has tight gun control laws and low homicide-related deaths, but as was pointed out, it's a different culture. Japan also has one of the highest suicide rates in the world--because of their culture.

Ben Da Mad Irishman
"We should not be weeaboos"

Eyup. And you know the saying "As California goes, so goes the country?" Same with Chicago to all of Illinois. (It's why there are people who get bitter during election season, because Chicago alone carries so much of the vote, along with most of Northern Illinois.) Thus, if you pass a concealed-carry ban directed at Chicago, and it's clearly not keeping guns out of criminal hands, then there's a problem. Now, if law-abiding citizens were able to carry in order to defend themselves, then criminals might think twice before attempting something. It may not deter crime completely, but there are more than enough areas in the city where this could be greatly beneficial.

This post has been edited by Valkyrie: 14 December 2012 - 12:18 AM

[sentinel28a]

Sadly, I'm beginning to wonder if the only way to bring Chicago under control is a lot more force than the Chicago PD can muster. That means the National Guard, and that means a lot of trouble.

What is the unemployment rate in Chicago? That doesn't necessarily impact violent crime numbers, but it has to have some influence on it.

Ben Da Mad Irishman

[Valkyrie]

Yeah, pretty sure they'd only do that if they had no other choice. To be fair, Chicago PD is far from perfect. But I doubt they'd take kindly to having reinforcements sent in the form of the Guard.

As of October, it was 8.6%.

[rondo]

Man, I want to give condolences but even that isn't enough for what happened in Connecticut today. I'm at a loss for words.

[KirbyFanOne]

Every morning I wake up on my day off, I think it's going to be a good day.

I should know better by now that there will no longer be a good day off for me forever because I keep waking up and hearing stories about people who rampage on small children and schools, malls, and other public areas.

I don't know why I continue to be part of this culture. I believe somewhere there's a deeper cause than gun control, but to be honest I don't think we'll find it.

[rondo]

KirbyFanOne, on 14 December 2012 - 01:10 PM, said:

I believe somewhere there's a deeper cause than gun control, but to be honest I don't think we'll find it.

Honestly, I don't think it's the guns...it's the people and the state of mind people are in nowadays than in the past. That's my worthless opinion anyways.

This post has been edited by rondo: 14 December 2012 - 01:12 PM

[Dark Stranger]

Would anyone else like to hand these types of people over The Punisher then to our lousy justice system? I really don't want my tax dollars paying to take care of scum anymore. Rather have em get what they deserve.

[Prayer Police]

And someone goes on a child-stabbing spree in China today!!?
WTF, world!!?

This post has been edited by Prayer Police: 14 December 2012 - 01:45 PM

[Kyuu]

Prayer Police, on 14 December 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

And someone goes on a child-stabbing spree in China today!!?
WTF, world!!?

Somehow, I find that funny - in a sick, twisted-humor kind of way. At least, no one died in that knife attack.

[sentinel28a]

KirbyFanOne, on 14 December 2012 - 01:10 PM, said:

I don't know why I continue to be part of this culture. I believe somewhere there's a deeper cause than gun control, but to be honest I don't think we'll find it.

You're here, Kirby, so you're sort of stuck with the rest of us! S'okay, though...we stick together in the theater.

Some thoughts on this from me:

1) It sounds like the shooter was (durrh) mentally disturbed. If we're looking for a deeper cause, it could be the abysmal state of assistance for people with mental conditions. It's very tough for people to get some help--a lot of therapists seem interested only in money, and most psychiatrists charge $300 an hour. There are low cost and pro bono therapists, but they're hard to find and often swamped. In any case, it's tough to put a hand out and ask for help. (I've been in this position myself several times over the past few years.)

2) Gun control wouldn't have helped here. The three guns the shooter used were legal even under the more strict gun control laws of the 1990s. Anyone who starts his day off by killing his parents is intent on Joker-level mayhem.

Sadly, we don't have a Batman to stop them.

Ben Da Sad Irishman

[linlindesu]

I think we should all be thankful for the drilling even elementary schools have done every year ( I remember we called them "Code Red" drills). Those teachers locked doors, hid the children, and did anything they could to save their students.
I also think police need to release the names and descriptions of the girlfriend and friend of the shooter that went missing today as well. Either they skipped town because they know something or they may be dead already.
There's a time and a place for gun law talks, maybe in a few weeks. But I'm already annoyed at the amount of people using this for their cause. Let the victim's families mourn before forcing politics into this tragedy.

Though the news publishing a picture of the wrong guy gave me a good chuckle. Oh media, why you so silly?

[KirbyFanOne]

http://www.forbes.co...ephen-king-law/

I think we all know glorifying in in the media is not the best way of handling the situation. It's a large part of the problem, but then again US News outlets are terrible and just want to blab.