patrick.net

Yes, Quigley, we really need more gun violence. There just isn't enough of it. Thank god for the republicans.

Who am i believe ? Senator Murphy's commentary where he says this:

Representatives from countries all over the world, including the United States, voted at the United Nations in April to do just that — create an international treaty to establish basic rules and procedures governing the cross-border flow of weapons and to close the loopholes that allow irresponsible arms brokers to operate outside the international regulatory system. Now the treaty has to be signed by President Barack Obama and ratified by the U.S. Senate.
The goal of the Arms Trade Treaty is to prevent weapons from reaching the hands of warlords and human rights abusers; it does not interfere one bit with domestic arms sales or legitimate international trade.

Or should I believe the paranoid fantasies of right wing fringe wackos who think all these countries are signing this as a conspiracy to help the liberal commie shadow government of the US take away everyone's guns.

Quigley says

Here are the 46 senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N.

"give your rights to the UN"

good one Quigley.

Agenda 21 rolling along

More...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/opinion/tell-the-truth-about-the-arms-trade-treaty.html?_r=0

http://rt.com/usa/nra-un-ban-arms-trade-treaty-us-380/

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/nra-must-drop-its-campaign-of-lies-against-un-global-arms-trade-treaty

Kind of amazing that in 2013, it's still the wild west in much of the world, and that we don't already have this.

The A.T.T. would help prevent the irresponsible and illegal transfer of conventional arms to commit violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. It would stop unscrupulous arms dealers from operating with impunity. It would provide at least some transparency and accountability in the arms trade. And it would establish common international standards for the trade in conventional arms — rules of the game, essentially — that countries must incorporate into national control systems.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/opinion/tell-the-truth-about-the-arms-trade-treaty.html?_r=0

Those opposed to the accord have misrepresented what it does, suggesting that it would somehow infringe on American gun owners’ rights. It would do nothing of the kind.

The treaty applies only to international transfers of conventional arms and, in fact, reaffirms “the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms” within its territory. The treaty’s preamble also makes specific reference to the legitimate trade, lawful ownership and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities.

Homeboy says

Yes, Quigley, we really need more gun violence. There just isn't enough of it. Thank god for the republicans.

Yep, all these thugs in inner cities who are responsible for the lion share of violence in this country are card-carrying Republicans.

marcus says

The treaty’s preamble also makes specific reference to the legitimate trade, lawful ownership and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities.

Self-defense is conspicuously absent from this "specific reference".

marcus says

Brown in California. Finally, now that we have a dem. governor

Huh?

Did Moonbeam intervene in the Stockton and San Bernardino bankruptcies or something? Is LA or San Jose suddenly flush with cash and have their pension liabilities fixed?

Last I checked, Stocton and San Bernardino are still going through bankruptcy and everyone is getting screwed from the taxpayer with higher taxes and reduced services to the bond holders losing over 60% of their investment - while Stockton is arguing that the pensioners shouldn't have to give anything up to save the City they helped bankrupt.

IRT teachers. The US ranks between #1 to #3 in the world on spending per pupil. Poorer communities with high minority populations often get more money per pupil than the national average. The average US teacher is paid more than other OECD countries.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/oecd-education-report_n_3496875.html

Where does all that money go if not to teachers, union dues, school books and buildings? Administrators?

Are American kids uniquely more stupid than the rest of the planet where we need to spend so much more to educate them?

marcus says

LEt's make teaching a highly respected profession like it is in some countries
that do so much better than we do, and lets compensate them well, but first lets
kill the teachers unions.

What planet do you live on? Of course teachers are a respected profession in the US and they are well compensated for working 2/3 of the year. US teachers make more on average than teachers in other OECD countries.

"The average first-year high school teacher in the United States earns about $38,000. OECD nations pay their comparable educators just more than $31,000."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/oecd-education-report_n_3496875.html

Just sick and tired of teachers deflecting ANY blame for the terrible education results we get for the money we spend.

Also tired of teachers claiming they live in poverty when many have fat pensions that require no personal contribution.

socal2 says

No one cares about Gay Marriage except a vocal segment of our pop culture in Hollywood.

That's bullshit. In 30-40 years the issue of gay rights will be looked at in the same way civil rights are today. Those who were opposed will look like fools. Everyone in the US should care about this issue because its about the rights of others and if there are those who think that not all should have the same rights, then they are clearly in defiance of the US constitution.

edvard2 says

That's bullshit. In 30-40 years the issue of gay rights will be looked at in
the same way civil rights are today. Those who were opposed will look like
fools. Everyone in the US should care about this issue because its about the
rights of others and if there are those who think that not all should have the
same rights, then they are clearly in defiance of the US constitution.

So Obama and Hillary were "fools" for being against gay marriage a year ago?

Polygamy was cool in parts of the West a long time ago. It's still cool in many primitive cultures in the Middle East and Africa. Are we fools now for not accepting Polygamy in our culture? Do we owe the Mormons a big apology?

Libs are real keen on thinking they can tinker with our culture and traditional family structure with no harm to civilization. Wasn't too long ago that Libs were telling us that a "good" single mother was just as good as a 2 parent household to raise children as long as they got government assistance or assistance from an extended family.

Now the child illegitimacy rates have SKYROCKETED in a few short decades creating massive social dysfunction and a generation born into guaranteed poverty.

Great work!

socal2 says

Libs are real keen on thinking they can tinker with our culture and traditional family structure with no harm to civilization. Wasn't too long ago that Libs were telling us that a "good" single mother was just as good as a 2 parent household to raise children as long as they got government assistance or assistance from an extended family.

That sort of rhetoric was used as a lame counter-argument all during the debate on gay marriage. Clearly that did not work, and those who held those ideas lost. And they will continue to lose. So keep arguing. You have no argument to make because the choice was made. Gay rights are a fact of life now and time marches on....

You don't think the culture can shift again as it is currently doing on abortion? We have virtually no longterm data on the benefits/detriments of same sex couples raising children. Give it 10-20 years and see where we are. Especially when more and more private groups and churches are forced to accomodate these alternative sexual lifestyles.

All we have had in the last 10-15 years is a relentless marketing campaign by Hollywood to change our culture to be inclusive to a tiny percentage of the population that have physical attractions to the same sex.

It is mentally much easier to simply say "what's the harm"? Some people want it, lets just give it to them.

Since I believe the only interest the government has in the marriage business is to help foster stable families to create and raise future tax payers to fund our entitlement Ponzi Schemes, I don't see why the government needs to change the definition of marriage for non-procreative couples.

I'm all for civil unions and giving gay couples equal benefits in terms of leaving their estates to each other etc. I think monogomy is a safer and more stable bonding arrangement for everyone, so we should make it easier for gay couples to stick together.

But I also think that all things being equal, it is obviously preferable for a heterosexual couple to raise children than gay couples. If you are State adoption agency, who would you adopt a child to if everything else is equal in terms of loving couple, education, finances, location etc.?

Anyway - you are proving my point how Democrats have been successful in diverting attention away from the important issues that affect the majority to focus on what (2-3%) of the population by playing on identy politics and wedge issues. Is gay marriage going to be a big issue in 2014-16?

socal2 says

The average US teacher is paid more than other OECD countries

I don't know about that. We spend very close to the same per student. SOmetimes more sometimes less. But we spend a lot more on testing, consultants and other BS. THe money doesn't all go to the teachers and the schools. As a high school teacher with 200 students, it's like having 40 students all day. If the govt is paying $9000 + per students for 40 students, that's about 400K. How much do I and my greedy teachers union get of that ?

The United States spent more than $11,000 per elementary student in 2010 and more than $12,000 per high school student. When researchers factored in the cost for programs after high school education such as college or vocational training, the United States spent $15,171 on each young person in the system – more than any other nation covered in the report.

That sum was slightly higher than some developed countries and it far surpassed others. Switzerland's total spending per student was $14,922 while Mexico averaged $2,993 in 2010. The average OECD nation spent $9,313 per young person.

LAUSD is in the $9 - 10K level, right at the average for OECD countries.

No our kids aren't any more difficult to educate. But we don't track a big number of kids for non-college careers at a young age. So those international tests are sometimes comparing apples with oranges.

socal2 says

We have virtually no longterm data on the benefits/detriments of same sex couples raising children

Um, wrong.

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/parenting/goldberg-smith-jpf-jul-2013/

socal2 says

Now the child illegitimacy rates have SKYROCKETED in a few short decades creating massive social dysfunction and a generation born into guaranteed poverty.

WTF does that have to do with gay marriage?

socal2 says

But I also think that all things being equal, it is obviously preferable for a heterosexual couple to raise children than gay couples. If you are State adoption agency, who would you adopt a child to if everything else is equal in terms of loving couple, education, finances, location etc.?

You have no point. I know plenty of same-sex couples who are raising children and doing so a whole hell of a lot better than some of the straight couples I grew up around. You lost this argument a long time ago. So no- it isn't "Obvious" that it is preferable for straight couples to raise children than gay couples.

To end this argument once and for all, all you have to do is answer a very simple question: Do you support the Constitution of the United States of America? Its really that simple.

Well I'm sure they have their reason, and I'm sure at the end of the day, it will protect us all from John Boehner.

Love
You're average Obama voter...

From Marcus' linked Wikipedia article on the arms treaty:

"On 12 July 2012, the United States issued a statement condemning the selection of Iran to serve as vice president of the conference. The statement called the move "outrageous" and noted that Iran is under Security Council sanctions for weapons proliferation"

So this vaunted international organization that will be protecting the rights and security of citizens worldwide has selected IRAN to be the Vice President of itself. And you are willing to hand over any control at all to these people? Outrageous is certainly the word, and I'd apply it to the level of stupidity needed to swallow the lie that this arms treaty will have no domestic affect on the rights and privileges of citizens. It's what you call a first step, a foot in the door, making the next treaty easier to accomplish by our crooked legislature and our puppet POTUS.
And if countries like Iran will be making decisions on which groups of people can get guns for self defense, this will be a major step backward for world security. This arms treaty council will effectively pick the winners and losers of every political conflict worldwide, simply by restricting arms to the side they want to see fail. So we will see more tyrants and less democracy in the world.
Awesome sauce.

Homeboy says

socal2 says

Now the child illegitimacy rates have SKYROCKETED in a few short decades creating massive social dysfunction and a generation born into guaranteed poverty.

WTF does that have to do with gay marriage?

See? I believe socal has made his point. People like you always try to bring everything around to gay marriage. Thhhhhuper!

Quigley says

See? I believe socal has made his point. People like you always try to bring everything around to gay marriage. Thhhhhuper!

HE was directly responding to a post about gay marriage, you stupid fuck. I didn't bring it up. Your reading skills suck.

Quigley says

See? I believe socal has made his point. People like you always try to bring everything around to gay marriage. Thhhhhuper!

@Quigley, that's way out of line. First of all, Homeboy didn't bring the thread to gay marriage, socal2 and I did:

curious2 says

socal2 says

What is the House doing right now?

Probably voting to repeal Obamacare, which can't be repealed in this Congress because the Republicans lost the 2012 election by campaigning on the platform that you disingenuously revise and then unconvincingly de-emphasize. Earlier in the year, they were borrowing and spending millions of dollars in a futile effort to stop gay couples from getting married, which is yet another issue where Republicans are not even trying to help "the MAJORITY", in fact a majority support marriage equality. The Republicans have become less like a serious national political party and more like a tent full of faith-healers trying to stage a revival. The only reason they even control the House is because of gerrymandering, most voters chose Democrats in 2012.

Socal2 then launched into a distraction calling the Constitution a "girly" issue.

Second, socal2 hasn't made any point, he's merely a partisan drone trolling with misrepresentations of his party's platform. He is too dogmatic and intransigent to understand that on the Internet, he can't just make stuff up and pretend it's the platform, because people can read the actual platform. Instead of wasting everyone's time trying to fool us about his party, he should be trying to change his party. Frankly, you've chosen the wrong ally if you think socal2 is going to stand for your Constitutional rights or anyone else's; with friends like that, you don't need enemies. He and Bop69 illustrate why their party lost, and it's in large part because they don't care about the Constitution at all, they only care about their misguided crusades. If socal2 made anyone's point, it would be President Obama's: the Democrats have built a winning coalition comprising a majority of voters, while the opposition is reduced to praying that they can hide their own platform and lie about what they believe and somehow steal a win in 2016.

Does anyone still read curious2's posts? I've had him on ignore for quite some time, but I can see on the index page thread previews that he's still stalking me. He seems kind of obsessed. I can't imagine anyone would be interested in any of the garbage he has to say. Too bad ignore doesn't work on the index page.

Homeboy says

Does anyone still read curious2's posts? I've had him on ignore for quite some time, but I can see on the index page thread previews that he's still stalking me. He seems kind of obsessed.

Actually, Homeboy, twice as many people ignore you as me, and I have more than twice as many "Likes". So yes, people still read my posts. Anyway I don't stalk you, don't even pay much attention to you except when you spam the index page with your frantic and obsessive threads defending Obamacare, at least five so far today. Your addiction to those "not habit forming" SSRIs that you can't afford has made you anxious for any legislation to shift the cost onto your neighbors, and forces you to Ignore contrary information. Your descriptions of bouts with depression read like a 17th century American Indian trying to drag settlers into rain dancing: Oh the droughts are terrible, we must all do rain dances to end the droughts and bring on the rain. Nevermind that the rain dances are totally unrelated to the rain, you say anyone who points out that fact doesn't understand how bad your droughts are, and you keep popping your pills that you can't afford, and shifting the costs wherever you can.

Ah, another post from curious loser. I don't know what he said, but I'm sure it was lame.

curious2 = Homeboy = curious2

Bap33 says

curious2 = Homeboy = curious2

Yes, I invented another name so I can stalk myself and then put myself on ignore. You need to cut down on the crack a bit, pal.

curious2 says

Actually, Homeboy, twice as many people ignore you as me, and I have more than twice as many "Likes".

You actually look stuff like that up? You really need a hobby or social life or something.

The U.S. is finished when 60% of the population is eligible for free healthcare, an Obama cell phone and food stamps. We, unfortunately are already there.

bob2356 says

You actually look stuff like that up? You really need a hobby or social life or something.

Curious2 has a hobby - stalking me. Pretty shitty hobby, but I guess it's the best a loser like him can do.

carrieon says

The U.S. is finished when 60% of the population is eligible for free healthcare, an Obama cell phone and food stamps. We, unfortunately are already there.

Yeah, it's pretty sad how the oligarchs stole all the wealth and forced the middle class onto food stamps. The rich get richer and the rest get boned. We are no longer the greatest country in the world. Probably not even in the top ten anymore.

Homeboy says

WTF does that have to do with gay marriage?

Virtually every economic and social problem in our country today can be traced back to the breakdown of the family and staggering increase in percentage of kids being raised by single parents.

Liberals think they can alter the typical family structure, supplementing it with State support and it will have no impact on our society or health of our kids.

Well the jury is back and we have plenty of data showing how Liberals have mainstreamed single parenthood in our culture in the last 4 decades (via State welfare) and have doomed generations of kids born to poverty and single parents.

All I am saying is that folks like me who have no hatred for gay people, yet are concerned about the long term implications of divorcing (pun intented) procreation from marriage (as gay marriage certainly does) should not be listed as bigots. Especially when Liberals still haven't owned up to the damage their policies and advocay have already created with the massive increase in illegitimacy (and guaranteed poverty) in the past 4 decades.

socal2 says

Liberals still haven't owned up to the damage their policies and advocay have already created with the massive increase in illegitimacy (and guaranteed poverty) in the past 4 decades.

And when are conservatives going to own up to the damage their economic policies over the past 4 decades have inflicted on the middle and lower classes?

finehoe says

And when are conservatives going to own up to the damage their economic
policies over the past 4 decades have inflicted on the middle and lower
classes?

Last I checked, Democrats have had quite a hand in the economic governance over the last 4 decades holding the White House, majorities in Congress and Governerships.

It's like when people want to blame the entire 2008 crash on Bush or the Republicans and totally ignore that Democrats had total majorities in Congress starting in 2006.

Or it's like when Democrats want to blame all of the big blue Democratic run bankrupt cities like Detroit and Stockton or the dysfunction of California on Bush or the Iraq war or something.

sbh says

socal2 says

Liberals have mainstreamed single parenthood in our culture in the last 4 decades (via State welfare)

I'd say it's pretty lame to pin this on liberals. Yes, their side, democrats actually are the ones that advocate some types of state help for the poor, but don't kid yourself, this had to happen, and we would have paid in other ways ( crime, prison, inhumane treatment of many people) if we didn't have it.

Welfare has been anything but perfect, and has caused some problems while it solved others. On the negative side, a welfare culture has grown. On the upside, countless people have been able to rise out of poverty in part because of temporary or even medium support from welfare. And no, I'm not talking about myself.

Pinning welfare on the left is like pinning all wars and defense spending on republicans. Everyone knows and agrees these things are needed, but when it comes time to negotiate what the government spends on these and how, the politicians play their game, with the partys taking sides.

I know it fits your propaganda though to blame it all on the left.

I could just as easily argue that welfare is covertly what the right wants, because it allows their corporate overlords to keep wages lower than they otherwise could be.

marcus says

He is pathetic little man. I guess I once called him an idiot or something. Since then, he followed me around for quite a while trolling me. Sometimes I would see his lame attacks from the front page - or viewed a thread with ignoring off. That alone would launch him on to one of his little rants about me. That was his favorite troll, to claim tha I was obsessed with him (this comment is sure to get the same kind of respnse).

I put him on ignore a long time ago because his posts didn't make any sense. Just so much gibberish. But he's like a bulldog in an argument - he just won't give up. So it was too frustrating to try to argue with him, because I'd spend half the time wading through these incoherent rants, trying to respond, and then getting an even angrier and even more incoherent rant in response. Anyway, ignoring him seems to have really made him incensed, because I constantly see the beginnings of rants against me on the preview page. Once I was browsing the site and hadn't logged in, and saw one of his posts in full. It was this horrible hateful vitriol spewed at me, just totally out of the blue. I hadn't even said anything to him. I think he had made up a clever name for me, like "homefool" or something. Wow. I'm thinking the guy's mother didn't love him enough.

socal2 says

Virtually every economic and social problem in our country today can be traced back to the breakdown of the family and staggering increase in percentage of kids being raised by single parents.

Bull-fucking-shit.

And again, complete non-sequitur. The issue of single parents raising kids has nothing to do with the issue of gay people getting married. But I suspect you knew that and you're just trolling - trying to get a rise out of someone by pretending to be an ignorant bigot.

socal2 says

Last I checked, Democrats have had quite a hand in the economic governance over the last 4 decades holding the White House, majorities in Congress and Governerships.

The word "Democrat" is not synonymous with the word "Liberal". That being said, if conservative economic policies are so great, why are almost all of the states with the top per capita Blue, while ALL of those at bottom Red?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income#States_ranked_by_per_capita_income