Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Not sure I've ever heard so much BS in a while, especially from you Dex who I think just loves to argue - and win. And Edmund, statements like the one I highlighted below just define you as a narrow minded extremist in your own right, at least in my opinion. Seems like you deem yourself the rule maker deciding which parts of the Constitution make sense to you. Guns can't be touched because the founding fathers thought everyone had a right to own - a musket. But degrading and stripping the rights of millions of Americans is okay. Or are Muslim Americans not really Americans at all?
The obvious common thread is not guns, but Islam -- not that the perpetrators just happen to be Muslim, but that Islam is the motivation of these acts of mayhem. It occurs to me, that if we (the USA, but also the world) were being plagued by constant terrorism by a adherents of Satanism, rather than Islam, there would be much less "understanding" by Obama and the Dems.
The facts are, most mass public shootings in this country are not done by Islamic terrorists or any other Muslim. Most mass murderers are generally mentally ill or distressed people. The Islamic extremists that kill under that religions banner will certainly get the most story line, but there are hundreds of mass killings that occur, astonishingly, quite frequently. Most of these killers use hand guns, not assault weapons. But those who use assault weapons incur a higher death rate. Most of the victims know there killers. A large number are from domestic disputes. Many are work or school related. And yes, some like the killer attacking Planned Parenthood workers, could even be labeled Christian terrorists. And there have been numerous occurrences of attacks on women's health groups by deranged individuals believing they are doing "Gods work". They're still extremist, brain washed individuals, anyway you look at it.
Not sure I've ever heard so much BS in a while, especially from you Dex who I think just loves to argue - and win.
Let's try to keep this discussion on a courteous level. I do not demean posters. As to loving to argue - no, I love the truth.
As to the use of the word Muslim/Islamic and terrorism; it is a failing of our ability to identify the terrorist. In the past wars we did not say Japanese Buddhist, German Christian, Vietnamese Buddhist. We could use the word Middle Eastern Terrorists but that labels a whole area where some of our friends are said to reside. So, let's not make too much of the word Islamic terrorist. Come up with a better word and maybe people will use it. I usually use the just the word terrorist.
Mike said: "And Edmund, statements like the one I highlighted below just define you as a narrow minded extremist in your own right, at least in my opinion"
Mike is unable to refute the analogy with Satanism. Instead he calls me 'narrow-minded'. The substitution of Satanism for Islam is to draw the point that apologists for Islam would (presumably) be less sympathetic if some less politically-correct group were engaged in the very same pattern/scale of the problem. -- Yet objectively, if the damage done by one religion (Satanism) is the same as another (Islam), those two belief systems should be held to the same standard.
It takes a village to raise an Islamic terrorist. And that village is NOT populated with Buddhists, Christians, Jews or Hindus. Not even Satanists! Its not just the triggerman/woman. Its not just the suicide bomber. A network of funders, families, madrasas, imams, etc. etc. -- This is a global criminal conspiracy. Nothing less. Further 'regulating guns' won't stop them. They still want me dead, and everyone reading this, and our families.
A large plurality of American Muslims prefer sharia law over our current Constitutional system:
But yeah, "most Muslims are peaceful" --just like Islam's founder -- a true 'man of peace'. Just like the Boston Marathon bombers, and the SanBernadino (SB) shooters.. they are peaceful... right til they spontaneously radicalize, and put a bomb in a marathon path, or a train station.
Soft targets: Am really surprised the Prophets peaceful followers have not yet figured out there are lots of schools and churches in rural America where it could take a real, long time for sufficient first responders to respond. Coordinated attacks on elementary schools in adjacent rural counties, hundreds dead.-- I fear it is coming -- the ISIS JV team is unfortunately pretty quick at adapting, metastasizing -- like a virus. The REAL JV team -- the Hussein-Obama Administration is inept, slow-witted, too busy taking selfies, and sending Twitter messages (remember #SaveOurGirls...? -- Gee Twitter as a national policy tool -- THAT is thinking outside the box).
9/11 and we still have people who want civilization to lay down like sheep among the wolves.
When the Huns were bearing down on Rome, do you suppose some Roman apologists for the Huns suggested outlawing swords? - Ditto when Mehmet was laying siege to Constantinople.
@Heezsafe - That article surprises me only because I don't think people in our area have room for more guns and ammo. I alluded in another post to longstanding shortages of ammunition in sporting goods stores and folks with rooms stuffed floor to ceiling. (Suppose they can add additions)
@ Edmund - We're making progress. I note you now acknowledge that the Constitution might be altered by the ammendment process to allow some prohibition of certain weapons. (I don't think anyone is proposing taking away a hunter's shotgun or 5-round 30/30 deer rifle.)
Now ... Jefferson was a great writer. His 1776 Declaration of Independence led to the establishment of an independent nation for which we're thankful. To extend his words to mean that every Mom, Pop and Johnny should be allowed to carry around AK-47s is IMHO absurd.
I think that were he alive today Jefferson would argue that our greatest protection against tyranny lies not in being armed to the teeth, but instead in keeping our democracy strong. Debating laws like the ones we're doing is an important part of that strength.
Now ... given the highly precise satellite-guided cruise missiles in the government arsenal and space-based laser weaponary under development by Defense, do you really believe guns would protect you against a tyrannical government? (Today's modern weapons can enter through a distant building's window or strike targeted cars on roads thousands of miles away.) Assault rifles could certainly inflict a lot of carnage as the near-weekly human slaughter we've grown used to lately demonstrate. But, overthrow a tyrannical government in this day and age with guns? And replace it with what?
BTW - Going by your premise, who would determine when a government had become tyrannical and make the call to deploy arms against such a government? Would it be you, the NRA, the opposition political party? Would the nine Supreme Court Justices have a say in the matter? Please do tell who would undertake making such a monumental decision?
To extend his words to mean that every Mom, Pop and Johnny should be allowed to carry around AK-47s is IMHO absurd.
Who determines who gets what rights and what is absurd?
It always amazes me that those who think of themselves as champions of individual rights don't know the basics of our government and are the first to put themselves in judgement of what rights others should and should not have.
Dex said, Who determines who gets what rights and what is absurd?
Simple Dex. "We the people" get to decide. (The reason we have a Constitutionally elected representative government).
Seems to me we've already sloughed through (A) Constitutionality, (B) the three separate but equal branches of government and (C) Article V of the Constitution earlier in this thread. But, feel free to reread all that again.
Edmond's commentary re Jefferson and the right of the people to overthrow tyrannical governments. That's where the Declaration of Independence comes into play here. You are obviously unclear of the connection Edmund was making between Jefferson's views and the Second Ammendment
If someone else's post is germane to your post your should quote it. No one should have to guess your references.
I think I see the problem here...you've just posted a survey conducted by Frank Gaffney's firm....Frank is a noted birther and flame-thrower of all things having to do with Islam. He even tried to throw Grover Norquest out of CPAC, because he allegedly has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. And of course, he believes the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated our government at all levels, most notably accusing President Obama of imposing Sharia law.
Sorry Dex - I edited out the lines you quote. I thought my initial point about We the people making law says it all. Sorry. Hope you're having a good day.
Sorry Dex - I edited out the lines you quote. I thought my initial point about We the people making law says it all. Sorry. Hope you're having a good day.
Edmund, if you are relying on slanted conservative propaganda for your views, I don't know what else to call it but narrow minded and extreme. You post an article from a right wing blog publication in which the founder (now deceased) of that group took his entertainment skills from the best of the group:
Listening to radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh helped Breitbart refine his political and philosophical positions
The Brietbart article is using crap statistics from the 'center for security policy' which:
has been widely accused of engaging in conspiracy theorizing by a range of individuals, media outlets and organizations.
Some other things said about this "extremist" group:
Terri A. Johnson, executive director of the Center for New Community, and J. Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, have characterized the group as "an extremist think tank" [21] The Southern Poverty Law Center further criticizes CSP's "investigative reports," saying that they are designed "to reinforce [Frank] Gaffney's delusions.".[17] In one of the group's "Occasional Papers," it alleged Huma Abedin, then Hillary Clinton's aide, was an undercover spy for the Muslim Brotherhood.[17] The CSP's accusation was denounced by John McCain, John Boehner, Scott Brown, and Marco Rubio.[22] In a separate report, the group declared that Susan Rice, Richard Haass, and Dennis Ross, were being secretly controlled by a covert "Iran lobby."[17]
The University of Southern California's Annenberg Center for Communication has described the organization as "a far-right think tank whose president, Frank Gaffney, was banned from the CPAC [Conservative Political Action Conference] ... because its organizers believed him to be a 'crazy bigot.
I don't see a Christmas tree, or the words "Merry Christmas" anywhere on that ornament. Perhaps because they want their Jewish and Islamic NRA members to feel welcomed. But, I would have thought they would have learned from the Starbucks dust-up.
Rather than PRBLX, I was sort of hoping for something like MOO, to flesh out the cliche: guns or butter. (Though looking at holding of funds like MOO, they seem more like assaults on butter and other real products.)
Well this endless discussion has surely been surly, vituperative, and incendiary.
There has been a lot of ink and dancing around, but skirting, what is the major issue. From my perspective , the posts have focused on a secondary but still important issue: gun control. In reality, the primary lesson from the San Bernardino tragedy is terrorism.
This too like gun control is not a new issue although it is much more so than the almost century old gun debate.
It is often said that humor and/or satire are superior ways to command a winning position in a debate. There is an excellent 2007 video produced by comedian Mike Kaminski that takes a position here. He addresses terrorism while satirizing General George Patton in the famous scene created by George C. Scott. Here is the Link:
Politics aside, this is terrific satire. It has been viewed by over 3 million folks. Take a timeout and enjoy its inventiveness. The message isn’t too shabby either.
He addresses terrorism while satirizing General George Patton in the famous scene created by George C. Scott. Here is the Link:
Politics aside, this is terrific satire.
I'm not sure why you are calling this satire. He just used the Patton mime to make his point.
Other than that I agree with a lot of it, except for the point that America fights to win in the ME. That time has past.
"Aristophanes satirized the lack of respect for the laws" synonyms: mock, ridicule, deride, make fun of, poke fun at, parody, lampoon, burlesque, caricature, take off; criticize; informal send up "a comedy troupe that satirized the conservative establishment of the sixties"
This is one of the longest threads I've seen since I've joined and I still can not find the mutual fund I should be buying or selling.
If you have come to this forum or for that matter any forum to find out what you should be buying or selling then you have my condolences. Be independent, think for yourself and never fall prey to groupthink.
Comments
(Edited to clarify antecedent)
"Yet, Shakespeare uses the threat of Turkish terrorism and Islamic conversion in nearly half his plays."
http://shakespeare.yoexpert.com/the-plays/what-is-the-relationship-between-shakespeare-and-t-31836.html
As to the use of the word Muslim/Islamic and terrorism; it is a failing of our ability to identify the terrorist. In the past wars we did not say Japanese Buddhist, German Christian, Vietnamese Buddhist. We could use the word Middle Eastern Terrorists but that labels a whole area where some of our friends are said to reside. So, let's not make too much of the word Islamic terrorist. Come up with a better word and maybe people will use it. I usually use the just the word terrorist.
Reply: “Narrow-minded extremist”. Stay classy Mike.
Mike is unable to refute the analogy with Satanism. Instead he calls me 'narrow-minded'. The substitution of Satanism for Islam is to draw the point that apologists for Islam would (presumably) be less sympathetic if some less politically-correct group were engaged in the very same pattern/scale of the problem. -- Yet objectively, if the damage done by one religion (Satanism) is the same as another (Islam), those two belief systems should be held to the same standard.
It takes a village to raise an Islamic terrorist. And that village is NOT populated with Buddhists, Christians, Jews or Hindus. Not even Satanists! Its not just the triggerman/woman. Its not just the suicide bomber. A network of funders, families, madrasas, imams, etc. etc. -- This is a global criminal conspiracy. Nothing less. Further 'regulating guns' won't stop them. They still want me dead, and everyone reading this, and our families.
A large plurality of American Muslims prefer sharia law over our current Constitutional system:
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/06/24/shock-poll-51-of-american-muslims-want-sharia-25-okay-with-violence-against-americans/
But yeah, "most Muslims are peaceful" --just like Islam's founder -- a true 'man of peace'. Just like the Boston Marathon bombers, and the SanBernadino (SB) shooters.. they are peaceful... right til they spontaneously radicalize, and put a bomb in a marathon path, or a train station.
Soft targets: Am really surprised the Prophets peaceful followers have not yet figured out there are lots of schools and churches in rural America where it could take a real, long time for sufficient first responders to respond. Coordinated attacks on elementary schools in adjacent rural counties, hundreds dead.-- I fear it is coming -- the ISIS JV team is unfortunately pretty quick at adapting, metastasizing -- like a virus. The REAL JV team -- the Hussein-Obama Administration is inept, slow-witted, too busy taking selfies, and sending Twitter messages (remember #SaveOurGirls...? -- Gee Twitter as a national policy tool -- THAT is thinking outside the box).
9/11 and we still have people who want civilization to lay down like sheep among the wolves.
When the Huns were bearing down on Rome, do you suppose some Roman apologists for the Huns suggested outlawing swords? - Ditto when Mehmet was laying siege to Constantinople.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-07/smith-wesson-soars-to-highest-in-2007-on-gun-control-talk
@ Edmund - We're making progress. I note you now acknowledge that the Constitution might be altered by the ammendment process to allow some prohibition of certain weapons. (I don't think anyone is proposing taking away a hunter's shotgun or 5-round 30/30 deer rifle.)
Now ... Jefferson was a great writer. His 1776 Declaration of Independence led to the establishment of an independent nation for which we're thankful. To extend his words to mean that every Mom, Pop and Johnny should be allowed to carry around AK-47s is IMHO absurd.
I think that were he alive today Jefferson would argue that our greatest protection against tyranny lies not in being armed to the teeth, but instead in keeping our democracy strong. Debating laws like the ones we're doing is an important part of that strength.
Now ... given the highly precise satellite-guided cruise missiles in the government arsenal and space-based laser weaponary under development by Defense, do you really believe guns would protect you against a tyrannical government? (Today's modern weapons can enter through a distant building's window or strike targeted cars on roads thousands of miles away.) Assault rifles could certainly inflict a lot of carnage as the near-weekly human slaughter we've grown used to lately demonstrate. But, overthrow a tyrannical government in this day and age with guns? And replace it with what?
BTW - Going by your premise, who would determine when a government had become tyrannical and make the call to deploy arms against such a government? Would it be you, the NRA, the opposition political party? Would the nine Supreme Court Justices have a say in the matter? Please do tell who would undertake making such a monumental decision?
Cover of this week's New Yorker
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine
Now *that*'s also funny.
I was quoting Conrad, and Kurtz certainly seems a Shakespearean character.
It always amazes me that those who think of themselves as champions of individual rights don't know the basics of our government and are the first to put themselves in judgement of what rights others should and should not have.
Simple Dex. "We the people" get to decide. (The reason we have a Constitutionally elected representative government).
Seems to me we've already sloughed through (A) Constitutionality, (B) the three separate but equal branches of government and (C) Article V of the Constitution earlier in this thread. But, feel free to reread all that again.
(Edited post)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-kill-terrorists-ad_566453c0e4b079b2818efc62
'Cowering', hahaha, what a candidate.
>> It always amazes me that those who think of themselves as champions of individual rights don't know the basics of our government
And speaking of actually knowing history, and rightwing revisionism of original intent:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment
If someone else's post is germane to your post your should quote it. No one should have to guess your references.
edit: I'll add where I got the quotes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Security_Policy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Breitbart
morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/PRBLX/quote.html
or this:
morningstar.com/etfs/ARCX/ITA/quote.html
And that too is funny.
http://www.nrastore.com/nra-2015-christmas-ornament
Well this endless discussion has surely been surly, vituperative, and incendiary.
There has been a lot of ink and dancing around, but skirting, what is the major issue. From my perspective , the posts have focused on a secondary but still important issue: gun control. In reality, the primary lesson from the San Bernardino tragedy is terrorism.
This too like gun control is not a new issue although it is much more so than the almost century old gun debate.
It is often said that humor and/or satire are superior ways to command a winning position in a debate. There is an excellent 2007 video produced by comedian Mike Kaminski that takes a position here. He addresses terrorism while satirizing General George Patton in the famous scene created by George C. Scott. Here is the Link:
Politics aside, this is terrific satire. It has been viewed by over 3 million folks. Take a timeout and enjoy its inventiveness. The message isn’t too shabby either.
Best Wishes.
I'm not sure why you are calling this satire. He just used the Patton mime to make his point.
Other than that I agree with a lot of it, except for the point that America fights to win in the ME. That time has past.
"Aristophanes satirized the lack of respect for the laws"
synonyms: mock, ridicule, deride, make fun of, poke fun at, parody, lampoon, burlesque, caricature, take off; criticize; informal send up
"a comedy troupe that satirized the conservative establishment of the sixties"