greg1647545532 Posted March 22, 2018 Report Share Posted March 22, 2018 Jesus Christ. Dow Drops 724 Points Amid Fears Of A U.S. Trade War With China Smooth moves, Donny T. Unlike most stock market moves, this one seems squarely on the shoulders of the master negotiator himself. Anyone want to defend the moron this time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted March 22, 2018 Report Share Posted March 22, 2018 (edited) Tim, they hated your long winded posts long before I ever got here. All I did was give you an excuse to write more. This conversation is mostly for us, embrace it. you still win on the other points noted and you embrace them. I've not said this anywhere, nor have I implied it. There are always going to be some deaths, the question is are we at the lowest number we can possibly be at. You say yes (your "Cost of freedom" mantra), I say no (my "we can always improve" mantra). actually, I've noted before that we can improve. I just don't condone sacrificing our rights or freedoms by infringing on the hundreds of millions of responsible members of society in order to target a few dozen. again, your opinion not mine. I don't know if they are effective or not. I think you've made it clear that you don't think what we're doing today is effective but continue to duck behind your purposefully left ambiguity of wanting to spend more in hopes of finding something you won't clearly define. yes, because that is the difference between speculation and fact. or "your best guess" vs "actual evidence" if you prefer. I don't need to spend money to know that the policies we have in place or would put in place will never be any more effective when the policy isn't what is going to stop the person. Keep looking to spend money on gun studies and let us know when you're ready to address the real problem. Until then, no, I don't want to piss away more money on dumb attempts to address the wrong thing. that's where we are now, nobody is spending money because it won't do any good because the dickey amendment prevents the research from being used. perhaps those asking for the money need to better define what they are in hopes of using it for. thus far I've yet to see anyone actually inform us on what data is missing and what it is they are going to apply the data to find out more about. Again, specifics, not social science blabber. when we look at the problems of mass shootings, violent crime with a fire arm, et al we can actually make smart decisions and legislation and some of it may not even be gun laws. what's there to look at Kerry? again, any details? the fact that you note that it may not be gun laws nudges you closer to the truth. gun laws aren't what is needed to stop or even reduce mass shootings. not unless you plan on banning all guns. you can ban bump stops, make the age to buy 21, increase background check requirements, etc, but none of those things will impact the person and their motive nor magically stop them or change their mind. The gun violence conversation in this country is just plain stupid on both sides - having information and research will solve that problem. again, come to the table with specifics and perhaps those with the purse strings will see value in it. that's a question for the researcher setting up the study, they determine the parameters. if you support the cause then put up your opinion if you were in their shoes. you're a smart research oriented guy. I want detailed information on it all. I don't want broad strokes and I don't want detail for just one demographic. what's missing from the data we already have. what specifically do you need around suicide, murder, gang on gang crime, crime in chicago or small town USA. I hear you, you want to spend money....I do do it every day....but when I do I know exactly what I'm looking to buy; you're stating you don't and that you want to buy it all....but you can't so what exactly do you want? if you're rebuilding a car you know the list of parts you need you don't go in and buy everything in the parts store just to make an informed decision. A subset of this is how effective is our enforcement of current policies across the board? enforcement within the industry itself (background checks)we don't need to spend money studying background checks. we know where the holes in this leaky bucket are at and we know how not all the water will stay in it (ie...criminals won't use them). Spend the money more wisely patching up the top 2-3 holes we already know are big. As with any problem you have a starting point, you define success and then you measure along the way as you implement and improve enforcement within the communitywhat exactly within community enforcement are you looking to find/study? come on, you have to have details if you have a thought on the matter. anywhere there is a regulation surronding access already in place, can we look at it and see how effective enforcement is around it? blah, blah.....I have doors on my house, they seem fine but I need to conduct a study on how drafty they may be. and even though I can't define what I see as a successful solution to the problem I may or may not have, I do know I want to spend money to find something....OMG, the circular wasteful logic in that is why our gov't is so fucked up conducting studies on the impact of noise created by traffic on the life cycle of houseflies. Is a ban on "scary" guns even the right approach though. That is what data will tell us. so we don't have enough data to even determine if such a study would bring value? Dude, I think we have plenty of data on scary guns and we've been through this ban on them already. many of our our fucking decision makers on the hill have never even held a scary gun let alone know dick about them. I vote we spend money on getting every single one of them 1-2 years intensive training on firearms so they can engage in a conversation on them let alone spend money on studying them or making laws that impact our constitutional rights. you keep saying these problems are a one kind of thing, and really they are not, they are a mental health issue and a gun control issue. What is so wrong about understanding both sides of the problem so the changes we make are specific to addressing the needs of that situation in the most efficient way possible. It just may not be feasible to fix this only working from one side of the problem and research might just tell us that - until then insisting we need to fix only one element that we don't know if it is fixable or not is disingenuous.I've pointed out that the dickey amendment handicaps the study of it from the mental illness side in a severe way, so your argument here is null and void. the problem of suicide is far more a mental health and non-gun related problem. the gun is just a tool used by these people. remove the gun and work on the suicide problem and save a shit ton of time and money. little johnny didn't kill himself because he happen to find daddy's gun. Just the same we don't need to waste money to know depressed people who are likely on medication are at a greater risk of off'ing themselves if a gun is in the picture. Case solved by separating them from guns and focusing on them not guns. Root cause analysis is not blindly fishing. It's a very specific process that starts at an outcome and looks at all the contributing factors. You work in large corporation don't you? this shouldn't even be something you are confused about, it's a standard of any large company's audit department. we already know the root cause....a bad person picks up a weapon and does bad things with it. the weapon by itself/alone or in the hands of a good person does no harm, thus the bad person is the root cause. time to focus on the root cause....the bad person. If you don't value data and don't understand how it can improve than you will never see it as anything but. I can't help you there other than to say your blind devotion to 2a (and no other amendment) is keeping you from having an enlightened position on this.I love data. I'm surrounded by large amounts of it. I use it to solve problems. I have a background in engineering and design using said data to find solutions. There's no blind devotion. It's a crystal clear devotion to not fucking with our rights where a real solution is fairly clear. no you just don't want any form of gun control and claiming that it is a waste of money is just one tactic you think invalidates the argument for making some progress here. I've never used the phrase one more inch. You're back to making some broad assumptions again. I'm fine for spending money so long as it's with purpose...clear purpose. The government has experts for this, I just want them to be empowered and financially backed to actually study this instead of twiddling their thumbs while the rest of us talks about how stupid the last assualt weapons ban was. They are more than empowered with data. I too don't expect them to be twiddling their thumbs. I do however expect they come to the table with clarity on things when it comes to spending money. I'd rather look at it not from the end game of some extreme side, but from the most reasonable and prudent course that will get us to a happy medium in the middle. Everyone can agree that some gun control measures are drafted more from the heart than the head - well let's fix the intelligence problem around the conversation. to fix the head and heart problem, people need to separate emotion from law making and we as a society need to eject lawmakers who are drama lama fuck ups that actually do anything for a living but collect a paycheck. next we need to actually focus on what we know the root cause of things to be and solve for the problems that we can clearly identify and articulate what a successful solution is and how it is achieved. let's be clear about what I am saying here: I'm not asking for a ban, I'm not even advocating for gun control, I am saying that let's collectively get smarter about what the problems really are (not just your bullshit conjecture) and make smart decisions as to how to address them. Only someone who doesn't want any progress made would take issue with that. glad to hear your first two points. the one in the middle isn't bullshit conjecture. smart decisions don't require tons of money and they certainly don't involve all the bullshit that our law makers are putting out there. want to spend money, let's spend it on replacing the real cause of our issues and that is law makers who play games. I think I'm safe in stating you would agree with that last point. Edited March 22, 2018 by TTQ B4U Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted March 22, 2018 Report Share Posted March 22, 2018 Now Trump is firing his cabinet and replacing them with people he sees on Fox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 Would the anti gun folks be for prohibition of alcohol again? Just curious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 Would the anti gun folks be for prohibition of alcohol again? Just curious. I can’t even follow the chasm of logic that has you comparing the ban of alcohol to reasonable and prudent gun control laws. We currently regulate alcohol more than we regulate gun, and you know what? It’s had an appreciable positive effect on American society. Alcoholism has been in decline since the end of prohibition thanks to the combination of regulation, community programs, and general changes in Sosial attitudes. We’ve also been able to study it the whole time and make meaningful changes and discontinue programs that don’t work. Things like Drunk driving and fetal alcohol syndrome have become less of a problem too over time. And you know what? You can still buy alcohol in your grocery store. What’s wrong with having that kind of meaningful change in the gun space? I don’t know what the anti gun people think, you should go out and ask them, but as far as I see it there aren’t any on this forum. Just because someone supports moderate and reasonable restrictions doesn’t mean someone is anti gun - it does mean they are anti stupid NRA absolutist nonsense. In my eyes a 100% ban is just as stupid as the no gun control at all position of the NRA, but I don’t have to worry, neither is ever gonna happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dammit Charlie Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 Would the anti gun folks be for prohibition of alcohol again? Just curious. Interesting approach on that. Logic would point to yes, but I guess alcohol is more socially accepted. Personally I love my AR's and bourbon. Anyone who tries to take them away can get fucked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 Interesting approach on that. Logic would point to yes, but I guess alcohol is more socially accepted. Personally I love my AR's and bourbon. Anyone who tries to take them away can get fucked. God, can you imagine if there was a National Alcohol Association that graded politicians to shame them into falling in line with their agenda? And politicians would slam back shots of Wild Turkey in their advertisements to emphasize to their potential constituents just how pro-booze they were? Can you imagine if people screamed their heads off about drunk driving laws because they're a "slippery slope" to total alcohol bans? "Not one drop!" of restrictions, they'd say. Can you imagine if the NAA put out videos charging people for a culture war against the un-American non-drinkers? Would people threaten to take to the streets in armed revolt if the drinking age was raised to 21? "I drink responsibly," they'd say, "So why do we need public intoxication laws?" "Why don't we focus on the people getting drunk and not the alcohol?" Crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 I take it nobody wants to defend Donny Trump's trade war today? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supplicium Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 Jesus Christ. Dow Drops 724 Points Amid Fears Of A U.S. Trade War With China Smooth moves, Donny T. Unlike most stock market moves, this one seems squarely on the shoulders of the master negotiator himself. Anyone want to defend the moron this time? Dow is up 7000+ points since he started office. 700 point slide is nothing, feels like we are skydiving but were not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 Dow is up 7000+ points since he started office. 700 point slide is nothing, feels like we are skydiving but were not You might want to check your numbers there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supplicium Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 Ok so technically the Dow was at 18,332.74 11/8/2016, Yesterday open 24,749 so 6417, so barely off... what is your point? Im in a group lobbying for the steel tariffs so I am happy with what is going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 Ok so technically the Dow was at 18,332.74 11/8/2016, Yesterday open 24,749 so 6417, so barely off... what is your point? Im in a group lobbying for the steel tariffs so I am happy with what is going on. Oh sorry, "started office" means something different to me, and presumably to most people for whom words have meaning. As of today it's $4130 up from inauguration day. But trending down over the last 4 months, guess that's nothing to worry about, might as well start more trade wars. They're easy to win after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supplicium Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 Again what is your point? You want us to buy foreign products? Make it harder for US companies to compete? Its not easy so we should roll over Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRed05 Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 Jesus Christ. Dow Drops 724 Points Amid Fears Of A U.S. Trade War With China Smooth moves, Donny T. Unlike most stock market moves, this one seems squarely on the shoulders of the master negotiator himself. Anyone want to defend the moron this time? I was thinking how this man has the power to impact stocks by simply tweeting some ridiculous nonsense. What is stopping him from going "Ok friends who have money in the market, I'm about to cause it to drop so buy/sell" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 Again what is your point? You want us to buy foreign products? Make it harder for US companies to compete? Capitalism's a bitch sometimes but it works out best for everyone in the long run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 I was thinking how this man has the power to impact stocks by simply tweeting some ridiculous nonsense. What is stopping him from going "Ok friends who have money in the market, I'm about to cause it to drop so buy/sell" I believe that was a complaint at the beginning of his presidency when he was mentioning companies more often. Nothing to stop him, but if his friends acted on that the SEC has no problem with fines/jail. The nice part about being president is that you are a public person 100%, there is no expectation of privacy from the government itself so if he was telling his friends "Hold my beer, I'm gonna tank Boeing's stock" before tweeting it out, the SEC has no problem finding out (in fact he would have to self report). If you notice, he kinda stopped mentioning companies and business affairs that are not the media in his tweets. My guess is his cabinet or advisors put a stop to that shit quick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supplicium Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 Capitalism's a bitch sometimes but it works out best for everyone in the long run. So I have to pay workers comp, 20 different taxes, epa, etc which makes my price increase. You are ok with China making my same product, paying none of the cost I did, sell the product cheaper all in the name of Capitalism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 So I have to pay workers comp, 20 different taxes, epa, etc which makes my price increase. You are ok with China making my same product, paying none of the cost I did, sell the product cheaper all in the name of Capitalism? Yeah, that's the name of the game with global free trade. Costs go down for all consumers and some people need to find new jobs. Remember when protectionism saved the US textiles or British automobiles? Me neither. Tariffs never work in the long run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 And now Trump threatens to veto the bipartisan spending bill and shut down the government over... DACA? A problem that he created? I have orders cut for next week, I seriously can't even... fuck this shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRed05 Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 Again what is your point? You want us to buy foreign products? Make it harder for US companies to compete? Its not easy so we should roll over "European Cars ONLY" :lolguy: Not knocking you, I just think it's kinda funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 I can’t even follow the chasm of logic that has you comparing the ban of alcohol to reasonable and prudent gun control laws. We currently regulate alcohol more than we regulate gun, and you know what? It’s had an appreciable positive effect on American society. Alcoholism has been in decline since the end of prohibition thanks to the combination of regulation, community programs, and general changes in Sosial attitudes. We’ve also been able to study it the whole time and make meaningful changes and discontinue programs that don’t work. Things like Drunk driving and fetal alcohol syndrome have become less of a problem too over time. And you know what? You can still buy alcohol in your grocery store. According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, about 88,000 people die from alcohol-related causes each year, making alcohol the fourth-leading preventable cause of death in America. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence reports less than 33,000 people die each year from gun violence, and of those, nearly 20,000 are suicides. By comparison, guns are far less dangerous. That means alcohol is more than 2x as deadly as guns in the United States and by far hundreds of times more deadly if suicides are excluded from the comparison. Shouldn't congress be pushing for background checks for alcohol purchases and register everyone into a database to monitor addictions, driving records and limit their availability to it if warranted? What’s wrong with having that kind of meaningful change in the drug and alcohol space? It's likely because as I've noted about guns, most people recognize the dangers associated with alcohol our freedoms are valued more and shouldn't be infringed upon that much by our gov't. The cost of freedom is worth something whether it's 15k murders per year or 10k DUI deaths per year. or is it because the main goal of those in power is to reduce our freedoms when it comes to guns? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 Yeah, that's the name of the game with global free trade. Costs go down for all consumers and some people need to find new jobs. global free trade may lead to lower prices but why should it be that it means other countries get to fuck us in the ass? what is keeping us from being taken advantage of and be more of a win-win vs us constantly getting bent over? costs may go up but IMO it's worth it to not be victims and at the mercy of other countries all the time. we shouldn't be entering into agreements unless they are fair for both or all sides. If I'm hearing him correctly, POTUS is asking for it to be in our best interest or at least not a fuck-stick in the corn hole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 global free trade may lead to lower prices but why should it be that it means other countries get to fuck us in the ass? what is keeping us from being taken advantage of and be more of a win-win vs us constantly getting bent over? costs may go up but IMO it's worth it to not be victims and at the mercy of other countries all the time. we shouldn't be entering into agreements unless they are fair for both or all sides. If I'm hearing him correctly, POTUS is asking for it to be in our best interest or at least not a fuck-stick in the corn hole. If Trump were negotiating the sort of skilled agreements you're talking about, the stock market wouldn't be tanking. He's being an idiot about a complicated issue. The markets don't like blunt tariffs and pointless trade wars for a reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 I can’t even follow the chasm of logic that has you comparing the ban of alcohol to reasonable and prudent gun control laws. We currently regulate alcohol more than we regulate gun, and you know what? It’s had an appreciable positive effect on American society. Alcoholism has been in decline since the end of prohibition thanks to the combination of regulation, community programs, and general changes in Sosial attitudes. We’ve also been able to study it the whole time and make meaningful changes and discontinue programs that don’t work. Things like Drunk driving and fetal alcohol syndrome have become less of a problem too over time. And you know what? You can still buy alcohol in your grocery store. What’s wrong with having that kind of meaningful change in the gun space? I don’t know what the anti gun people think, you should go out and ask them, but as far as I see it there aren’t any on this forum. Just because someone supports moderate and reasonable restrictions doesn’t mean someone is anti gun - it does mean they are anti stupid NRA absolutist nonsense. In my eyes a 100% ban is just as stupid as the no gun control at all position of the NRA, but I don’t have to worry, neither is ever gonna happen. First off, it's no secret that an eventual ban on all firearms is the end goal. Nobody is being coy in trying to hide that. So we are essentially comparing a ban to a ban. Seems pretty logical to me. Now, being that I work in the 4th busiest high acuity intensive care unit in the entire country, I've seen more death than either you or your statistics can possibly imagine. I see what contributes to the deaths of people on a daily basis. Go read that in a study somewhere if it makes you feel educated on the subject. I also can't help but think that the proposed goal (though I think the gun control crowd really doesn't give an actual shit about) is to decrease the loss of life. If that's truly your goal as you guys claim it is, then alcohol is well within the realm of discussion. What purpose does alcohol serve? What possible benefit is there to society from it? I just had a good friend die of alcoholic cirrhosis. What good did it do him? I see the amount of trauma patients come thru the door that have alcohol in their systems. I'd wager its 2 out of every 3 that roll in our unit. It causes a severe increase in financial burden on our healthcare system, not to mention the loss of life it contributes to. Far more than firearms. So why can't we discuss it? Making a person wait until they are 21 doesn't seem to do a damn thing. You can have all the regulation, decline of alcoholism, community changes, etc. that you want; it still kills a fuck ton of people as well as drives up our cost of healthcare. Are you at a point in regulation with alcohol that the amount of deaths and injuries we incur because of it are acceptable to you? I think it's a valid question. That said, I rarely drink and couldn't care less if I never did again. Still, I wouldn't be for prohibition of alcohol because, again, I feel it falls back to personal responsibility. Same goes for firearms. I just don't get why the gun control crowd wouldn't be for further regulation of alcohol as well if their intentions truly are to save lives. *I'm just picking on alcohol because I see so much of the damage it causes. I could pick any number of things that contribute to human loss of life and go after it just the same.* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 If Trump were negotiating the sort of skilled agreements you're talking about, the stock market wouldn't be tanking. He's being an idiot about a complicated issue. The markets don't like blunt tariffs and pointless trade wars for a reason. markets respond like this over lots of things. I've learned to take it with a grain of salt anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.