But yes, agreed with both of you here.

I don't think that's true. Republicans have much more cognitive dissonance when it comes to carving out defense spending from an overall dogmatic mantra of spending cuts. If it wasn't such a huge part of the budget and it wasn't more than something like the next 20-25 military budgets' of other nations combined the dissonance wouldn't be so strong, but it is.

Democrats don't deny that the spending create jobs, though they'll happily point out the waste in the procurement process and the pointlessness of certain military spending projects. They, in general, argue that a lot of that money could be better spent elsewhere or, gasp, even contribute to overall cuts.

Democrats aren't exempting the military from an overall SPEND MORE dogma because Democrats don't have anymore, as if they even did, an overall SPEND MORE dogma, and certainly not one as strong as the GOP's CUT MORE dogma (where there are signatures on a page, lest we forget).

So you can't really compare the two, as you've done. Well, unless painting in black-and-white is your goal.


You say vilification, I say scrutiny. Like it or not, it's an enormous part of the budget, and it's primary benefit (national defense) is hard to quantify, though spending more than all of your allies and most of your, er, non-allies, combined seems a little overkill.

If you want to justify the defense budget as a works program, then even you must admit there's a valid question as to whether that's the best way to set up a works program. I'd propose there are likely cheaper and more effective ways to get young people an education and on-the-job training. This is not an argument to gut the defense budget. The military as a works program has always been a decent side benefit. But, dogmatically (I say this as my gift to you), it shouldn't be the nation's largest works program.

I think that's an unfair characterization of most liberals. Most liberals are fine with a good amount of military spending, but not the amount that we are currently spending - and that a lot of the excess can be used for more efficient economic stimulus or safety nets. There is a level where spending loses a good deal of its marginal productivity compared to other uses.

I'm all for our allies that reap the benefits of our military to pitch in. For every dollar they spend, we'll spend it on "more efficient economic stimulus and safety nets". They owe us about....$10 Trillion and counting. :)

It's generally bad form to offer a gift and then demand payment for said gift ;).

It isn't a gift anymore if we dismantle it. ;)

So now that we've clarified that....for every dollar our allies pledge, we pledge a dollar to our economy. There is nothing wrong with the barter system.

I think most of the 'allies' would have preferred America not to have gone to war in the first place, definitely the people in those countries by and large were hugely against it (the Polls in the UK showed just how much of a travesty the concept of 'democracy' is when the polls were 80%+ against war and we have generally jumped head first into them anyway ...).

The idea that the American military benefits 'allies' is a travesty - America makes its decisions for its own purposes and often ignores the requests of other countries not to be aggressive on a military front, so the concept that other countries 'owe' for the US spending is frankly ludicrous.

Its a bit like a millionaire turning around and requesting you pay for the mansion he built because he feels it stimulated the economy, its an eyesore, you didn't want it and sure as heck aren't about to pay towards it now he's made the mistake ...

Or how about we just pledge money to our economy and dismantle our overly large military. That works much better for me.

Who would you rather start the next conflict then?

So you think we should be starting conflicts just for the sake of starting one?

It's the new Republican logic. I mean we can't have all these weapons piling up. We have to kill someone with them! ;)

Don't get me wrong, I'm good with keeping things the way they are. I didn't bring this up. I'm not good with just dismantling our military might because it's 'annoying' and bothers some people for a moment in time while watching or reading the news.

I'm not above negotiating a better deal though. If you really want to help our economy, our allies have always been huge benefactors of our armed services, our technology, our intelligence, surveillance, special operations, and everything else. There is no doubt about that. I'm okay with give and take. If Americans are generally concerned about the cost, then we should split those costs with other rich nations. It's a good compromise in my book.

This isn't Republican logic nor is it new. This has been our American mindset since 1945 and it's worked pretty well so far. Not perfect, but better than our beliefs from 1915-1940 that not maintaining a strong military made everybody nicer. It's just not the reality of the world we live in. Somebody will always be militarily on top and I'd prefer it to be us than anybody else.

We can basically slice our military budget in half and still be on top. Heck, we could slice it by 3/4ths and still be on top. At this point a good portion of our military budget seemingly exists to make defense contractors rich.

I would agree it isn't republican logic and is pretty short sighted to think these wars are only happening during republican administrations. However I take issue that all of these conflicts kept the world safer and have worked pretty well so far. There have been a lot of dead American soldiers and innocent civilians killed in these endless wars.

I don't know enough about that to tell you if 75% of it is to make 'defense contractors rich'. That seems exaggerated. But I agree it's bloated, it's got to be bloated...it's a publicly* funded program after all.

*assuming we actually are paying the bill, which I doubt based on our national deficit increases.

Lots of death, agreed. Imagine if we didn't have superiority or better yet, supremacy on the battlefield. Lots more death probably.

I don't believe we have reached an era that equates to "the end of warfare" and I also don't believe the only reason we still have Americans and foreign civilians dying is simply because our armed forces exist.

Yep, exactly where I was going with that. :)

And what reason exactly would anyone have for attacking us had we not engaged in these wars these past fifty years? An extremely complicated battle with a country surrounded by two huge oceans to win over their coal and corn reserves? There's a reason most of the wars are happening right near the center of a lot of the world's energy and religious texts.

Agreed, nobody is going to launch a classic full scale conventional war in North America against the USA. We are much too isolated for anything like that to take place and without some good reason like us going all Hitler on the world or something, we shouldn't have to experience anything like that.

It's pretty much all about protecting our global economic trade for resources. And the flip-side of our isolation is also valid, we, in fact, are very isolated and we rely on and are completely dependent on fair trade of goods.

You didn't post that in German, did you motherfucker?

lmfao!

To be more accurate, I'd say Russian as opposed to German.

Da...

The Brits could probably resist the Russians... the channel isn't easy to cross.

Fair point, there were multiple options.

Wouldn't matter much when your population can be starved to death.

I think the Wolverines would disagree with you.

True. Original, not remake.

I think you meant to say "sports stadium."

LOL :D

(I was referring to more modern times, rather than World War 2 ... in a similar vein I won't blame countries for not defending England from the Viking raids ;) )

I'm glad he's trying to take the initiative to do something about this. The gun show loophole is the low hanging fruit. This won't solve our shooting problems but its the most visible issue. Get it out of the way, show some success and maybe other, more relevant measures will follow.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/31/politi...uns/index.html

He's the reason the 2nd amendment exists. A genuine wanna-be despot in the Oval Office, still perhaps not the worst President of all-time (I still hold Carter out as worse) but certainly the most dangerous clueless bastard to ever step foot in the room.

While I want to see something done -- this isn't the way to do it.

How would you do it or start it? There's no will in Congress to do anything.

It's unfortunate but that's the way it is setup. Only way around it would be get enough states to call for a constitutional convention which is long overdue.

You're letting perfect get in the way of good. The gun show loophole is a canonical example of low-hanging fruit.

This is particularly unhinged. Even for you.

Funny that Jon wasn't saying anything like that during the Bush, Unitary Executive, years.

I think the executive action options only make the situation worse. It's like the politicians know it's there, so they roadblock further knowing than they can increase their public 'anger' and further polarize the situation. I think you'd see more compromise if executive actions weren't an option.

If the President couldn't do anything Congress would just compromise out of a spirit of generosity?

It's amazing, since like 90% of Americans support closing this loophole, that nothing can be done short of an executive action. If congress can't compromise on something that 90% of Americans want, what choice is there that is left?

It's amazing that people who work for drug companies have to register into a public database to visit me, can't buy me a cup of coffee, but they can go to a flea market and sell guns without doing anything.

Another attempt to repeal Obamacare but this one sounds more positioning for the elections than anything else.

House GOP: First task sending White House bill repealing ObamaCare, defunding Planned Parenthood | Fox News

As opposed to all the other ones?

I mentioned this in the Planned Parenthood thread a week or so ago. All this does is make it so Republicans can act like they kept a promise to the American people. Such progress!

Closing the gun show loophole just seems like a small thing and there is support within the NRA ranks. I think its opposed because it'll be a stepping stone to other background checks - private sales, family gifting etc. Smart of Obama to concede it won't stop all the attacks.

Obama Returns From Hawaii Saying He's 'Fired Up' for 2016 - ABC News

I'm all for the TPP and it may be one of those that Obama gets credit/blame for after he's long gone. Not sure what the definition of nonviolent is or what his alternative is to incarceration but guess its good there is bipartisan support.

The GOP will use immigration or gun control as a "reason" they can't pass incarceration reform.

Never seen a president tear up like this.

Obama: We Are Here to Prevent the Next Mass Shooting - NBC News

I'm okay with this. Not sure why this is controversial.


I guess things are not as automated as I thought. Not sure the $ but in general I guess I'm okay with this.


I'm okay with this but I guess there needs to be some privacy controls.


I wouldn't buy one if there are "electronics" in the weapon that could prevent me from shooting it. I think this is okay if its optional/additional to but not required for all weapons.


I guess a first step on the low hanging fruit.

So is this executive order actually going to prevent any gun deaths?

No-one can or will ever know.

Personally, if the headlines are that it's going to make gun sellers licensed, and make it harder/impossible for people with mental illness to get guns, particularly rapid fire guns, then I really don't see how people can argue against it: if you are a respectable gun seller and not mentally unstable it shouldn't affect you in any way other than it might tale a couple of weeks extra to get your gun.

Who would honestly say a couple of weeks delay isn't worth the possibility of saving one innocent life? And if you do think of it as an outrage and a restriction of your rights, would you be comfortable with the reverse: speeding up delivery of your gun in return for one extra random, unknown to you, person being killed?

And as a by-product, if it means that there will be more of a black market for guns because some people can't get them because of the regs, anyone caught with an unlicensed firearm or selling them without the requisite checks gets thrown into jail, no questions asked. So more bad guys off the streets too.

(I realise this last part won't actually happen, but the point remains: legislating against keeping weapons that can kill multiple people out of the hands of those unfit to own them has to be a good thing)

Republicans use the budget reconciliation process to pass a repeal of the ACA, avoiding Democratic filibuster, which Obama will veto anyway.

Ryan Scores Dual Wins With Obamacare Repeal Vote | RealClearPolitics

GOOD USE OF TIME AND MONEY.

I'm so old I remember when the reconciliation process was the very height of tyranny.

I read somewhere this was something like the 62nd time the Republicans have tried to appeal ObamaCare. I get that your party hates the law, and early on at least fought against it, but now you are just wasting time and money....and to my knowledge have not proposed any alternatives to it, just back to the old way. There had to be somewhere you could compromise it or change it to make it a better law for Republicans to swallow. But you won't do that either, and I think every Republican Pres. candidate has said they will repeal it-when do you give up on this-when/if Hillary wins?

The Governor of Maine is in hot water.

The governor of Michigan needs to be dunked in the city of Flint's water.

No doubt. Someone needs to see prison for poisoning all those people, especially children. Damage from lead poisoning isn't something that's reversible.

Definitely. You gotta play to your base. Shoulda said Bubba and Cletus. :)

The party doesn't hate the law. They proposed it a couple decades ago. They just don't like Obama.

And ensure another Democrat President.

I like what Obama said overall but he really should have done something like this right after Sandy Hook in 2012-2013 instead of waiting for his last year.

Log In - The New York Times

I don't see how anyone could possibly object to that proposal. It's about 10% of what is needed, but hey, progress...

He won re-election last year, is term limited, and is in a state of warfare with the legislature, including the GOP in the legislature. We're going to see more, not less, of this. He's also specifically pursuing policies to hurt the bluer (i.e. Greater Portland) parts of the state that voted against him.

For a state that produced Margaret Chase Smith, George Mitchell and Olympia Snowe, it's really pathetic.

US jobs report: economy adds 292,000 positions in strong finish to 2015 | Business | The Guardian

5% unemployment. Even if you think that's a compromised number, it's still low and much better than in late 2008.

Common sense is hard for some.

Probably

The gun lobby and their Republican buddies will because it will set a bad precedent for them, First step to the government "taking away all their guns" is how they see it. Most of this stuff was just denied in a gun control bill in Congress, so the lobby's influence runs deep.

I don't even know why the gun lobby opposes this stuff when the end result is inevitably this:

Gun Stocks Surge As Obama Issues Executive Orders On Gun Safety

:D @ molson

It has occurred to me to stock up on some weapons and ammo.

Pretty funny responses to Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback's tweet on Alex Gordon.

Governor Sam Brownback tried to tweet about Alex Gordon and quickly found out everybody still hates him! | DailyHaze

A serious question, why?

You'll still be able to buy guns next week, next year, next decade.

wow I almost feel sorry for him...almost

In the short term, prices will go up and supply will be tight. Ammo was hard to find the last time.

Isn't that an argument to wait until demand slackens?

Need vs cost is always an issue though, right?

There is definitely a perception among ammo buyers that the need is growing.

But if the question is whether to buy now because demand is high, it seems the best solution is to wait until demand slackens. If you really need something, demand doesn't matter, but if you can wait I don't understand why you'd buy now.

Who y'all gonna be shootin?

Some what ifs ...

1) What if I anticipate demand will continue to increase (e.g. betting on a Hillary win) and/or just price increases will occur
2) What if I anticipate some gun companies that I want to buy weapons from will go broke/sued e.g. Colt, Bushmaster
3) What if smart weapons will become prevalent/compulsory
4) New gun models are announced early in the year. What if I want to buy a newer model
5) What if I just got a nice bonus at the end of the year and I better buy what I want now or else my wife will find other uses for it

And the more cynical me sometimes think

6) What if there is another Katrina-like event where law and order was missing for days. Do I have enough for a situation like that


With that all said, no I do not believe Obama is trying to take away my 2nd amendment rights. I've said before that I am okay with more gun control and do believe its too easy to buy weapons.

I already have weapons and probably don't need a new one but I will likely buy some more ammo

Those smart enough to make sure they have adequate ammo are not typically dumb enough to answer that question with specifics :)

Okay, nevermind on my #1 above.

New Poll Shows Donald Trump Is a Real Threat to Hillary Clinton - US News

Heh.

I mean, I get it if you actively go to a range. And I don't view things from an enthusiast standpoint, but more of a utilitarian standpoint. Guns and ammo don't typically have shelf lives; if you're already prepared for Civil War II, Power Grid Pandemonium, or Zombie Apocalypse, I'd think you'd already be set.

Or maybe just some criminal trying to kill you? I love how Obama says he's never owned a gun. But he has hired guns now! I get that he's more important to the country than I am, but I'm more important to me than he is. Same principals at play here.

Or maybe you want protection from some criminal trying to kill you? I love how Obama says he's never owned a gun. But he has hired guns now! I get that he's more important to the country than I am, but I'm more important to me than he is. Same principals at play here. Basically, at least I *understand* why he would want a gun around to protect him.

If you are being hounded by criminals trying to kill you, I'm sorry.

Look at the stats. Criminals in America generally don't enter the house...because we are armed to the teeth. In Chicago, where criminals do quite a bit of "hunting", 90% of the crimes take place on the street or the sidewalk where people are less likely to be armed. Think about it. You aren't armed in your home because you are taking advantage of all the people that do defend their homes, good for you, but don't turn your nose up at the benefits we provide to you. Criminals assume you are armed.

Most crime occurs between people that know each other. There have always been very few random home break-ins. I'd imagine distance, unfamiliarity with the area, fear of being seen as an outsider, etc. play as big a role as the fear that everyone is armed.

I believe it's England where home invaders prefer the owners to be home so they can get to the "gold and silver" easier whereas in America, they prefer the owners to not be home because they end up getting the lead instead. :)

I'll grant that the prospect of meeting an armed homeowner can be a deterrent. But how do other countries avoid this rash of general lawlessness? How are the Japanese avoiding being assaulted in huge numbers? Germans? Norwegians?

Also, how many rounds do you require to prevent a home invasion?

EDIT: IRT "...BUT NORWAY!"

True. I mean, if you take out our inner-city crime stats, we are in line with all those nations. I'm not normally in those Democratic bastions though, so I couldn't tell you why our cities are fucking everything up. :)

Now THAT bait I'll take.

I'm more interested in having a high number of rounds for the eventual breakdown of society OR for shooting as many of the bastards who try to remove a weapon from my home than I am for home invasion purposes.

And I'll take this one :)

Which is more likely in Trump becomes President, both nationally and globally the way he is carrying on.

It has all the hallmarks of a self-fulfilling prophecy

I live in Massachusetts, where very few people own a gun, yet somehow we survive. I live in kind of a downtown area where we occasionally have homeless people or heroin addicts trying to sleep on our back porch... am I supposed to grab a gun before I go kick them a couple times and tell them to move along? I generally oppose more governmental gun regulation, but it's really hard to defend at times, especially when owning a gun is basically a sign of cowardice in the culture I live in.
If that's because you can think you can fight off the (remnants of the) US Army, good luck!

But if it's for the eventual zombie apocalypse, I'll take you on my team any day of the week. As long as you get to the coast in a more reasonable period of time than Rick and crew!

Fort Gorges - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not sure I would pick that for sustainable living when the ZA hits. There looks to be too many open windows/slots on the lower levels (not the Z's but against the bad guys) and doubt there is ready source of fresh water.

What I would do is make sure I have a weapon ready to protect my family in case something happens and call 911 to kick them out. Do you let them stay in your back porch?


Funny, its the other way around in the South like GA, AL, AR, MS, TX etc. Its normal to have weapons - not just for self defense/ZA/UN etc. but for hunting, plinking etc. Not really that your are a coward if you don't have one or not supportive of gun rights but likely a liberal, a transplant and/or just don't get it.

You seem like a reasonably intelligent person...we have had the right to bear arms since the inception of our country. Why do you think people are going to forcibly remove guns from your home? Because they want more background checks? Sure, there is a small minority of people who want to ban all guns but just like the Supreme Court protected the discrimination of gay folks, they will protect your constitutional right as well.

Nobody is arguing that the government wants to remove the 2nd amendment in one fell swoop. It's a long term goal and the left knows they have to do this slowly but incrementally and without hurting their base in the process (the ones that primarily use the guns for violence).

:)
You continually touch on "y'all" but never touch on the large portion of Americans that kill with guns that dont say "y'all". Is this some effort to keep your opinions safely in the liberally-accepted PC zone?

From what I've read there is a spectrum of conspiracy/TEOTWAWKI beliefs.

Conspiracy would include some Illuminati, UN, Masonic/Jewish/Business Cabal trying to rule the world and if that was the case, the Supreme Court is likely ineffective or in in cahoots with the bad guys.

End of the World scenarios goes from Katrina-like event to some event that disrupts communications, the food supply chain (e.g. solar flares) to total economic collapse (e.g. virus in electric grid, nuclear war) to (my favorite) the Zombie Apocalypse.

Most of these events would result in a breakdown of law and order making the Supreme Court moot (or at least in the short term).

I think I am more on the lower end of Katrina-like event and some short term disruption of communications and food supply.

That will never happen. The left doesn't believe anything like this unless you boil down the term to such a small group that their are too few to ever make it happen. And even if they tried, the rest of the population and the courts would stop it from happening. This is as nutty as saying the oil companies started the Iraq war.