Support NeoGAF

[Chichikov]

We praise democracy too much anyway. More Plato's republic, less of this dumb people voting on shit they don't comprehend shit please.

I think the solution for uneducated voters is to get them educated, not disenfranchise them.

p.s.
The term "unamerican" get thrown a lot these days, but I'm struggling to find anything that would better fit that bill than your post.

Sad part is that no amount of reason, logic, facts and stats will convince 90% of irresponsible/ignorant citizens that they're wrong and/are fucking fucking stupid.

They were persuaded by lies, don't you think that they can be persuaded by truth?
The public (however you want to define it) had changed its opinion about more meaningful things than the top marginal tax bracket.

 

[Magni]

Are there actually people who think owning a gun is a natural right? That sounds like an extreme, fringe position.

I've seen it argued that owning guns to protect one's self is a God-given right and that the purpose of the constitution is to protect that right (not to grant it).

 

[besada]

Speaking as a mentally ill gun owner, I find it somewhat strange that we're attempting to solve our gun problems by further stigmatizing the mentally ill when the vast majority of those committing gun crime are not mentally ill.

Of course, we're trying to ban rifles while handguns are used for gun crime about ten times more often, so it's not like we're unused to finding reasons to not look at the real problem.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Speaking as a mentally ill gun owner, I find it somewhat strange that we're attempting to solve our gun problems by further stigmatizing the mentally ill when the vast majority of those committing gun crime are not mentally ill.

Of course, we're trying to ban rifles while handguns are used for gun crime about ten times more often, so it's not like we're unused to finding reasons to not look at the real problem.

Well, if we're going to start gun control, might as well work our way instead of jumping immediately to handguns.

 

[GaimeGuy]

That's a shitty way to look at a democracy if you ask me.
Isn't what you're doing here is basically lamenting that people you disagree with have the same vote as you?

They "disagree" about things that are factually incorrect.

They blame Obama for the deficit despite congress controlling practically all aspects of monetary/fiscal policy, including revenues and expenses. Every one of obama's proposed budgets has called for more revenues AND less expenses than the ones congress has passed.

They violate the spirit of the 1st amendment by basing their political views and votes on how "Christian" they perceive a politician to be (You can't preserve religious freedom if your Christianity is used as a litmus test to give you the political power to govern. Because then you have only christian perspectives in government, and only those loyal to christianity with their policies can be allowed to enact policy.).

They scream bloody murder and nearly riot at the prospect of government regulating health care, because they see it as unconstitutional by virtue of omission (despite the 9th and 14th amendments allowing the federal government to recognize personal rights through the judiciary and the legislature, and requiring all levels of government to recognize any right recognized by the federal government). Yet at the same time, if the government were to dissolve the air force or merely slash funding, they would scream bloody murder, despite the concept of an air force not existing at the time of the constitution's drafting, and never being inserted into the constitution.

They complain about obama's "radical" pastor while AT THE SAME TIME calling him a communist and a muslim.

They are convinced of mass voter fraud in spite of all evidence to the contrary, and they want to protect people's rights to vote by enacting a policy which would legally prevent millions of people from exercising their right to vote.

They do not even understand the separation of powers properly (Remember how the tea partiers wanted the House of Representatives to be given the task of constitutional review/justification for legislature? That demonstrates a fundamental conflation of the roles of the judiciary and legislature. Obviously Congress should have some common sense understanding of the constitution so they don't waste everyone's time passing unconstitutional legislation, but that's completely different than requiring every bill be constitutionally justified and cited as a matter of parliamentary procedure for the legislature).


And no amount of logic, reasoning, or facts can convince them otherwise.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Ain't no way Hillary would win Texas, but it's cool seeing her running so strongly at the moment. She really does have a chance to be the first female president.

Democrats gettin' first African American and first female president... if they get first hispanic and first asian president, wrap it up.

Yeah I don't think she'd win Texas. But between being a galvinizing force for Dems in the state, and the renewed grassroots push to flip Texas blue in ~8 years that's warming up (posted a week or two ago), it could be a big tipping point in terms of getting Dems organized and voting in ways they haven't before. Once Texas is shown to be in play, or even trending, ground games will decend. Battleground Texas. Oh god, can't wait.

 

[besada]

Well, if we're going to start gun control, might as well work our way instead of jumping immediately to handguns.

We SHOULD be jumping immediately to handguns -- that's where the deaths are. Of the 12k homicides from 2011, more than 8k are from handguns. But we're gutless, so we're targeting the mentally ill and assault weapons.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

I think the solution for uneducated voters is to get them educated, not disenfranchise them.

p.s.
The term "unamerican" get thrown a lot these days, but I'm struggling to find anything that would better fit that bill than your post.

I'm not American so that's all good. As for education. I've seen an unbelievable amount of 'educated' people who talk nonsense or support things which to me seem objectively wrong. I'm beginning to doubt whether education is the answer. I would think that the Netherlands, which is extremely secular compared to the us, and has a high education level, wouldn't vote for the party/ies that is/are now in charge and calling for austerity etc. Yet here we are. People want their mortgage deductions and people don't want to 'pay' for other people's unemployment or give aid to Africa. It's sad. I don't believe that education is going to solve anything because otherwise we'd be moving closer to a liberal world and not swinging back and forth. See: Obama talking about being similar to Reagan.

 

[TacticalFox88]

We SHOULD be jumping immediately to handguns -- that's where the deaths are. Of the 12k homicides from 2011, more than 8k are from handguns. But we're gutless, so we're targeting the mentally ill and assault weapons.

See, this is where I disagree. The Public, while in favor of gun control, still are generally in favor of the Second Amendment. Jumping on handguns would pretty much kill any reasonable support as people's irrationality will immediately jump to conclusions that the government is going to ban all weapons.

Which isn't completely unfounded, logically. If you attack handguns, which are considered the smallest and most "non-lethal" (I use that very loosely, mind you), then pretty much everything else is fair game, in their eyes.

We're going to have to ease the public, sad as it is to say, into tackling the handgun problem.

 

[Amir0x]

Yeah I don't think she'd win Texas. But between being a galvinizing force for Dems in the state, and the renewed grassroots push to flip Texas blue in ~8 years that's warming up (posted a week or two ago), it could be a big tipping point in terms of getting Dems organized and voting in ways they haven't before. Once Texas is shown to be in play, or even trending, ground games will decend. Battleground Texas. Oh god, can't wait.

is it weird the only positive I can think of for an electoral college system is that it makes the actually following of election night way more fascinating and fun to watch?

Waiting as hour after hour leaks by, states slowing confirming results one by one, the college totals ticking up and up under the portraits of each candidate. It's just fun to watch

 

[Chichikov]

They "disagree" about things that are factually incorrect.

They blame Obama for the deficit despite congress controlling practically all aspects of monetary/fiscal policy, including revenues and expenses

They violate the spirit of the 1st amendment by basing their political views and votes on how "Christian" they perceive a politician to be (You can't preserve religious freedom if your Christianity is used as a litmus test to give you the political power to govern. Because then you have only christian perspectives in government, and only those loyal to christianity with their policies can be allowed to enact policy.).

They scream bloody murder and nearly riot at the prospect of government regulating health care, because they see it as unconstitutional by virtue of omission (despite the 9th and 14th amendments allowing the federal government to recognize personal rights through the judiciary and the legislature, and requiring all levels of government to recognize any right recognized by the federal government). Yet at the same time, if the government were to dissolve the air force or merely slash funding, they would scream bloody murder, despite the concept of an air force not existing at the time of the constitution's drafting, and never being inserted into the constitution.

They complain about obmaa's radical pastor while AT THE SAME TIME calling him a communist and a muslim.

They are convinced of mass voter fraud in spite of all evidence to the contrary, and they want to protect people's rights to vote by enacting a policy which would legally prevent millions of people from exercising their right to vote.

They do not even understand the separation of powers properly (Remember how the tea partiers wanted the House of Representatives to be given the task of constitutional review/justification for legislature? That demonstrates a fundamental conflation of the roles of the judiciary and legislature. Obviously Congress should have some common sense understanding of the constitution so they don't waste everyone's time passing unconstitutional legislation, but that's completely different than requiring every bill be constitutionally justified and cited as a matter of parliamentary procedure for the legislature).

The first amendment does not hinges on your speech being factually correct nor does it care about your motivation, and that's a very very good thing if you ask me.
I also think you're characterization is a bit unfair, you're painting a really large part of the population according to the craziest of them.

I'm not suggesting that low information voters aren't a problem, I'm just saying that the only thing you should do about that is educate them.

I'm not American so that's all good. As for education. I've seen an unbelievable amount of 'educated' people who talk nonsense or support things which to me seem objectively wrong. I'm beginning to doubt whether education is the answer. I would think that the Netherlands, which is extremely secular compared to the us, and has a high education level, wouldn't vote for the party/ies that is/are now in charge and calling for austerity etc. Yet here we are. People want their mortgage deductions and people don't want to 'pay' for other people's unemployment or give aid to Africa. It's sad. I don't believe that education is going to solve anything because otherwise we'd be moving closer to a liberal world and not swinging back and forth. See: Obama talking about being similar to Reagan.

And because you think that the Netherlands should give aid for Africa they should just do it because you said so?
You see the problem here?
Remember that "the other side" probably say the same thing about people who vote like you.

 

[jamesinclair]

This just happened on a friends facebook, the friend made the post, the crazy guy replying is some insane nutjob from Alaska on her friends list, and Maxwell is obviously me and all names have been censored to protect the innocent. But really I have no words, how does someone like this function in real life?

The people who are most attracted to guns are the ones who should never have them

 

[TacticalFox88]

Yeah I don't think she'd win Texas. But between being a galvinizing force for Dems in the state, and the renewed grassroots push to flip Texas blue in ~8 years that's warming up (posted a week or two ago), it could be a big tipping point in terms of getting Dems organized and voting in ways they haven't before. Once Texas is shown to be in play, or even trending, ground games will decend. Battleground Texas. Oh god, can't wait.

Realistically, if Texas goes purple or even more hilariously, blue, what are the GOP's chance of ever getting the White House again?

 

[platypotamus]

I think Hillary could carry Texas for her second term, if the first goes well enough

 

[Rocket Scientist]

No, I say we give aid because of various arguments which make it objectively right to support giving aid.

 

[Chichikov]

No, I say we give aid because of various arguments which make it objectively right to support giving aid.

Are you imagining a government that is controlled by an objective algorithm that decide what we must do?

What are we talking about here specifically?

 

[gcubed]

I think a national registry of owners and purchases as well as strict inventory and stock rules for suppliers/vendors ... as well as the real enforcement of those laws... would solve more issues then focusing on mental issues and assault rifles ever could

 

[Suikoguy]

The people who are most attracted to guns are the ones who should never have them

I like this line.

I think a national registry of owners and purchases as well as strict inventory and stock rules for suppliers/vendors ... as well as the real enforcement of those laws... would solve more issues then focusing on mental issues and assault rifles ever could

This to. It's far more important then an AWB.

 

[Oblivion]

Welp, time to secede while there's still time.

Fixed.

 

[HyperionX]

See, this is where I disagree. The Public, while in favor of gun control, still are generally in favor of the Second Amendment. Jumping on handguns would pretty much kill any reasonable support as people's irrationality will immediately jump to conclusions that the government is going to ban all weapons.

Which isn't completely unfounded, logically. If you attack handguns, which are considered the smallest and most "non-lethal" (I use that very loosely, mind you), then pretty much everything else is fair game, in their eyes.

We're going to have to ease the public, sad as it is to say, into tackling the handgun problem.

It is pretty obvious that we will need to go after handguns in the long run. The only way I see that happening is that at some point in the future the culture must be fundamentally changed. Guns can no longer be seen as a right, self defense should no longer be seen as a justification for owning a gun, and organizations like the NRA must become as disreputable as the KKK has become.

Only then can real gun laws be passed. I suspect it will a follow a process in the same vein as gay marriage is following. Initially they will be wildly unpopular, but ultimately become the accept norms of society.

 

[B-Dubs]

Realistically, if Texas goes purple or even more hilariously, blue, what are the GOP's chance of ever getting the White House again?

If they can't turn NY or CA? 0.

EDIT: I just want to point out that I am saying this with a 2004 state breakdown in mind. If they turn Texas with a 2012 breakdown? You may as well not even bother with elections. The day the Dems turn Texas is the day the GOP either moderates to an insane degree, or the day it dies.

 

[RDreamer]

Speaking as a mentally ill gun owner, I find it somewhat strange that we're attempting to solve our gun problems by further stigmatizing the mentally ill when the vast majority of those committing gun crime are not mentally ill.

Of course, we're trying to ban rifles while handguns are used for gun crime about ten times more often, so it's not like we're unused to finding reasons to not look at the real problem.

It allows them to completely sidestep the debate. You see, law-abiding citizens don't shoot people, almost by definition. And anyone that shoots someone is mentally ill (or at least obviously not mentally all there... or at least the people saying this stuff cannot fathom it, and so they place them in that box).

 

[empty vessel]

Preventing mentally ill people from having guns is justified.

Natural right can be restricted in every case if it survives strict scrutiny analysis as it should.

The entire point is that restricting a natural right is situational.

Just to chime in here, your "natural right" language is terribly antiquated. Nobody talks about natural rights anymore in the legal world, thankfully. We call them fundamental rights (and there ain't nothing natural about them).

Also, your first assertion is way too broad and, hence, false.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Are you imagining a government that is controlled by an objective algorithm that decide what we must do?

What are we talking about here specifically?

A group of people who have no material or other possessions and who's sole purpose in life is to find the objectively right way to govern. They're while life from childhood is dedicated to finding truth and they don't own anything so that nothing they do benefits them personally. It's basically a dictatorship and various dictators have actually said Plato was their 'influence'. Plato changed his ideas up but I never read his other book. Obviously this is not realistic but the problems with democracy are getting on my nerves more and more as I grow older. People just don't learn. They go back and vote for these parties which continously make bad decisions. Maybe it's still too soon to really see the effects of education however.

 

[besada]

Which isn't completely unfounded, logically. If you attack handguns, which are considered the smallest and most "non-lethal" (I use that very loosely, mind you), then pretty much everything else is fair game, in their eyes.

The only people who think handguns are less dangerous than rifles are people who don't know anything about guns and people who can't read.

Ten times as many people are killed by handguns yearly as by long guns. And it's long guns the founding fathers were talking about anyway. You'll never get long guns gone because they're legitimately used for sustenance hunting.

But there's no legitimate need for handguns. Shotguns are the best weapon for home defense and rifles for hunting. Handguns are for killing people, full stop.

 

[RDreamer]

Just to chime in here, your "natural right" language is terribly antiquated. Nobody talks about natural rights anymore in the legal world, thankfully. We call them fundamental rights (and there ain't nothing natural about them).

Also, your first assertion is way too broad and, hence, false.

That'd probably be my language. I should probably use individual right or as you said fundamental right.

I know there's nothing literally natural about them, especially about owning a gun

 

[Chichikov]

A group of people who have no material or other possessions and who's sole purpose in life is to find the objectively right way to govern. They're while life from childhood is dedicated to finding truth and they don't own anything so that nothing they do benefits them personally. It's basically a dictatorship and various dictators have actually said Plato was their 'influence'. Plato changed his ideas up but I never read his other book. Obviously this is not realistic but the problems with democracy are getting on my nerves more and more as I grow older. People just don't learn. They go back and vote for these parties which continously make bad decisions. Maybe it's still too soon to really see the effects of education however.

Yes it is.
Do I need to explain why I think that's a bad thing?
I kinda hold that truth to be self evident.

 

[B-Dubs]

The only people who think handguns are less dangerous than rifles are people who don't know anything about guns and people who can't read.

Ten times as many people are killed by handguns yearly as by long guns. And it's long guns the founding fathers were talking about anyway. You'll never get long guns gone because they're legitimately used for sustenance hunting.

But there's no legitimate need for handguns. Shotguns are the best weapon for home defense and rifles for hunting. Handguns are for killing people, full stop.

I agree with you, but good luck convincing people of this.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Yes it is.
Do I need to explain why I think that's a bad thing?
I kinda hold that truth to be self evident.

If the decisions they make are objectively the best there is nothing wrong with it.

 

[Black Mamba]

Just to chime in here, your "natural right" language is terribly antiquated. Nobody talks about natural rights anymore in the legal world, thankfully. We call them fundamental rights (and there ain't nothing natural about them).

Also, your first assertion is way too broad and, hence, false.

I was using his wording. I wanted to correct him and mention they are fundamental rights but I just didn't want to steer us off in another direction.


Not sure how my 1st assertion is overly broad as that would be for Congress/states to define, not me. If it ends up being too overly broad, then the Courts can reject it.

edit: I guess we can just agree that when we say "mentally ill" we simply mean people we can agree on that are not of a state of mind to be purchasing firearms as deemed by professionals. This is for convenience sake.

 

[TacticalFox88]

The only people who think handguns are less dangerous than rifles are people who don't know anything about guns and people who can't read.

Ten times as many people are killed by handguns yearly as by long guns. And it's long guns the founding fathers were talking about anyway. You'll never get long guns gone because they're legitimately used for sustenance hunting.

But there's no legitimate need for handguns. Shotguns are the best weapon for home defense and rifles for hunting. Handguns are for killing people, full stop.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, wholeheartedly.

It's just that the hill we have to climb to get the public to reasonably consider banning handguns or at the VERY LEAST, imposing draconian regulations on them, is extremely steep.

 

[Chichikov]

The only people who think handguns are less dangerous than rifles are people who don't know anything about guns and people who can't read.

I can read and I've spent (too) many years in the military and it's my somewhat qualified opinion that rifles are significantly more dangerous and more lethal than handguns.
It's not even close.

But there's no legitimate need for handguns. Shotguns are the best weapon for home defense and rifles for hunting. Handguns are for killing people, full stop.

With that I agree completely, though I would add that for most people even a shotgun isn't going reduce their overall risk in life.

 

[HylianTom]

is it weird the only positive I can think of for an electoral college system is that it makes the actually following of election night way more fascinating and fun to watch?

Waiting as hour after hour leaks by, states slowing confirming results one by one, the college totals ticking up and up under the portraits of each candidate. It's just fun to watch

I love the game-ish-ness of it all. If I could buy DVDs of my favorite Election Night coverage from years past, I'd do it. It's immensely fun to watch.

 

[Oblivion]

The only people who think handguns are less dangerous than rifles are people who don't know anything about guns and people who can't read.

Ten times as many people are killed by handguns yearly as by long guns. And it's long guns the founding fathers were talking about anyway. You'll never get long guns gone because they're legitimately used for sustenance hunting.

But there's no legitimate need for handguns. Shotguns are the best weapon for home defense and rifles for hunting. Handguns are for killing people, full stop.

So Glenn Beck was right! You guys DO want to take away their guns!

 

[Rocket Scientist]

The shotgun versus handgun debate is interesting (I'll try and stop using this word) and I hadn't thought about that. Do you mean that a shotgun is better because of the spray? A handgun only has a bullet so your aim needs to be better. I assume that's why a shotgun would be better? It's a bigger inconvenience than just having a small handgun though. Every one would need a big safe. And wouldn't having the same amount of shotguns out there as there are defense handguns mean that if something went wrong and someone went on a rampage the damage would be greater? Or are we talking shotguns with 2 round 'magazines'.

 

[TacticalFox88]

I love the game-ish-ness of it all. If I could buy DVDs of my favorite Election Night coverage from years past, I'd do it. It's immensely fun to watch.

Hell, you can make several volumes out of Fox News alone.

Glorious.

 

[GaimeGuy]

The first amendment does not hinges on your speech being factually correct nor does it care about your motivation, and that's a very very good thing if you ask me.
I also think you're characterization is a bit unfair, you're painting a really large part of the population according to the craziest of them.

I'm not suggesting that low information voters aren't a problem, I'm just saying that the only thing you should do about that is educate them.

Yes, the only thing you can do is try to educate them. I just lament the fact that there are so many of them, since the more there are, the more difficult it is to convince them they're wrong, since they can find so many other people convinced of the same "facts." And the internet and cable/radio pundits allow anyone to easily find sources of authority and echo chambers for these "facts."

Education becomes nigh impossible when beliefs become facts in someone's mind

 

[HyperionX]

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, wholeheartedly.

It's just that the hill we have to climb to get the public to reasonably consider banning handguns or at the VERY LEAST, imposing draconian regulations on them, is extremely steep.

We can start by donating money to anti-gun organizations. At least so that people will be aware of the problem. You'll stunned by how much of the gun community believes in delusions like guns have saved millions of lives every year.

 

[besada]

We should at least start talking about it. I live in Texas. I know exactly what kind of shit storm would bloom of we tried to take away handguns. I have no illusions on that front.

But when it comes to the national conversation about guns, we ought to be trumpeting those numbers from the rooftops instead of wasting time nibbling at the edges with assault weapons, which are probably responsible for less than two hundred deaths a year.

Let people keep their long guns, semi-automatic or otherwise. It's the handguns that are killing us.

I know why conservatives are completely ignoring those numbers, but I have a hard time understanding why liberals are. We're not Senators, we can talk about stuff that has no chance of passing. The battle to reduce gun homicides will be a generational battle, so we should probably at least start being straight about where the problem is.

If you want the most common gun homicide scenario, it's two non-mentally I'll people arguing when one pulls a handgun and shoots the other. That's the face of American handgun death, not Sandy Hook.

 

[Chichikov]

The shotgun versus handgun debate is interesting (I'll try and stop using this word) and I hadn't thought about that. Do you mean that a shotgun is better because of the spray? A handgun only has a bullet so your aim needs to be better. I assume that's why a shotgun would be better? It's a bigger inconvenience than just having a small handgun though. Every one would need a big safe. And wouldn't having the same amount of shotguns out there as there are defense handguns mean that if something went wrong and someone went on a rampage the damage would be greater? Or are we talking shotguns with 2 round 'magazines'.

Shotguns are easy to operate, easy to maintain, easy to aim, have short range and low penetration (which is very important for limiting collateral damage).
If you decide to have a gun for home defense (and again, I think most people shouldn't) shotgun is the only choice that makes sense.

If you're worried about an innocent getting hit by the "spray" of the shotgun then it's a shot you probably shouldn't take anyway.

Yes, the only thing you can do is try to educate them. I just lament the fact that there are so many of them, since the more there are, the more difficult it is to convince them they're wrong, since they can find so many other people convinced of the same "facts." And the internet and cable/radio pundits allow anyone to easily find sources of authority and echo chambers for these "facts."

Education becomes nigh impossible when beliefs become facts in someone's mind

Don't get depressed, things will get better, every generation is smarter and more tolerant.
The arc of history and all that jazz.

And if you really serious about educating people, I think you should start by talking about them in slightly more friendly terms.

 

[HyperionX]

So Glenn Beck was right! You guys DO want to take away their guns!

To be honest that really is the endgame situation. It just isn't politically viable to say that out loud ATM.

 

[besada]

I can read and I've spent (too) many years in the military and it's my somewhat qualified opinion that rifles are significantly more dangerous and more lethal than handguns.
It's not even close.
.

I'm not talking potential lethality, I'm talking about what guns are actually being used to kill Americans. And rifles don't come close.

 

[empty vessel]

Not sure how my 1st assertion is overly broad as that would be for Congress/states to define, not me. If it ends up being too overly broad, then the Courts can reject it.

edit: I guess we can just agree that when we say "mentally ill" we simply mean people we can agree on that are not of a state of mind to be purchasing firearms as deemed by professionals. This is for convenience sake.

Ha. Well that's just question begging and takes all the fun out of the argument!

We should at least start talking about it. I live in Texas. I know exactly what kind of shit storm would bloom of we tried to take away handguns. I have no illusions on that front.

But when it comes to the national conversation about guns, we ought to be trumpeting those numbers from the rooftops instead of wasting time nibbling at the edges with assault weapons, which are probably responsible for less than two hundred deaths a year.

Let people keep their long guns, semi-automatic or otherwise. It's the handguns that are killing us.

I know why conservatives are completely ignoring those numbers, but I have a hard time understanding why liberals are. We're not Senators, we can talk about stuff that has no chance of passing. The battle to reduce gun homicides will be a generational battle, so we should probably at least start being straight about where the problem is.

If you want the most common gun homicide scenario, it's two non-mentally I'll people arguing when one pulls a handgun and shoots the other. That's the face of American handgun death, not Sandy Hook.

I'm with you, brother.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Yeah I don't think she'd win Texas. But between being a galvinizing force for Dems in the state, and the renewed grassroots push to flip Texas blue in ~8 years that's warming up (posted a week or two ago), it could be a big tipping point in terms of getting Dems organized and voting in ways they haven't before. Once Texas is shown to be in play, or even trending, ground games will decend. Battleground Texas. Oh god, can't wait.

It's already happening. Jeremy Bird is behind it - he was the National Field Director for Organizing for America.

 

[Piecake]

So, are Republicans just going after their pound of flesh, or are they really going to block Hagel?

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Anyone know if the fair wage minimum act of 2012 was passed? I couldn't find it on Google... Read an article saying it would have been the first raise for tipping minimum wage in 20 years or so...

 

[Oblivion]

Since we happen to be on the topic of gunz, can someone explain to me what the rationale is for those people who are against background checks at gun shows?

 

[Piecake]

Anyone know if the fair wage minimum act of 2012 was passed? I couldn't find it on Google... Read an article saying it would have been the first raise for tipping minimum wage in 20 years or so...

without even looking if it did, no, it did not pass

 

[Rocket Scientist]

without even looking if it did, no, it did not pass

Lol yeah I don't even know why I asked. The latest tipping thread is bugging me out. The whole tipping culture is sustaining an unfair wage model. Shit needs to go.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Since we happen to be on the topic of gunz, can someone explain to me what the rationale is for those people who are against background checks at gun shows?

Literally just watching this on CSPAN. The excuse of the NRA for opposing them is that its not a problem and people aready get checked. Its infuriated listening to this guy.