Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[digitaldog]

I took you off my ignore list hoping that you'd stop the personal insults.  Apparently, I made a mistake.

How idiotic. More consistent mistakes on your part.
Please place me back. You need to continue to:

[Peter McLennan]

FFS, Alan, stop with the incessant repetition.  You sound like an old man.

Oh, wait.

Your relentlessly repeated opinions are founded in ignorance and adherence to the rightist songbook. Try to see a little bit beyond your ever-so-limited horizon.  You might find things a little rosier than you think.

There are many reasons for the current uptick in prices, nearly none of them have anything to do with Biden or his financial plans to rescue America from a global medical emergency.  They are not yet implemented and have had so far very little effect on the economy as a whole.

[TechTalk]

No, it couldn't.  That's an idiotic claim.

Alan is almost correct in saying "It was based on religious protection but it could have been free speech as well". Actually, both First Amendment rights—protection from infringement upon religious beliefs and a free speech protection from compelled speech—were argued by Masterpiece Cakeshop and considered by the court.

Alan is also correct in saying that "The courts agreed with him but based on a different rationale that the Rights Commission looking into it was not being fair to him.  The courts skirted the question." The Supreme Court decided to dodge both First Amendment questions in their decision for the bakery. They ruled for Masterpiece Cakeshop on the grounds that a lack of neutrality was exhibited by the Colorado Civil Rights Division which compromised its decision making process. In other words, they punted on both issues.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD., ET AL. v. COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION ET AL.

But... they're being sued again for refusing to make a birthday cake commemorating a transgender woman's gender transition.

https://www.courthousenews.com/piece-of-cake-masterpiece-cakeshop-back-in-court-for-trial-on-discrimination-claims

[Alan Klein]

Alan is almost correct in saying "It was based on religious protection but it could have been free speech as well". Actually, both First Amendment rights—protection from infringement upon religious beliefs and a free speech protection from compelled speech—were argued by Masterpiece Cakeshop and considered by the court.

Alan is also correct in saying that "The courts agreed with him but based on a different rationale that the Rights Commission looking into it was not being fair to him.  The courts skirted the question." The Supreme Court decided to dodge both First Amendment questions in their decision for the bakery. The ruled for Masterpiece Cakeshop on the grounds that a lack of neutrality was exhibited by the Colorado Civil Rights Division which compromised its decision making process. In other words, they punted on both issues.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD., ET AL. v. COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION ET AL.

But... they're being sued again for refusing to make a birthday cake commemorating a transgender woman's gender transition.

https://www.courthousenews.com/piece-of-cake-masterpiece-cakeshop-back-in-court-for-trial-on-discrimination-claims

Now you're in trouble supporting me against Chris and Andrew, especially.  Thanks.  I didn't know free speech was one of the baker's defenses in addition to the religious aspect.  The Supreme Court just punted rather than making the decision they're going to be faced with again with the second case.  If the baker refused to sell his cakes to gays, which he has not done, then there might be  a case.  But asking an artist to create something that goes against their religious beliefs seems to be a bridge too far, especially when you're talking about one baker/artist.  There are constitutional rights on both sides that have to be balanced.  The customers can go elsewhere. 

[digitaldog]

Alan is almost correct in saying ...

Now you're in trouble supporting me against Chris and Andrew, especially.

”Sometimes wrong; never in doubt." -Atul Gawande
Almost correct, often idiotic and wrong.
Pat yourself on the back Alan; no one else would do so. 

[TechTalk]

To be clear in my point of view, I don't support anyone's positions, statements, or ideology except my own. My only ideological position is that I despise any and all forms of ideology for the brain rot it encourages. Generally speaking, I prefer facts over fiction and favor reason and pragmatism balanced with empathy and compassion for the human condition.

Regarding the great cake debate — which was simply a diversion from whether conservatives are being silenced by "Big Tech" (they're not by any stretch of the imagination) — I don't have an opinion. I have an empathetic view of both sides in the case and consider it a gray area not lending itself to an unequivocal decision either way. Apparently, the Supreme Court wanted to dodge creating a precedent from the case as well.

Of the two Masterpiece Cakeshop First Amendment arguments, I'm less empathetic to the religious freedom argument than I am to the freedom from compelled speech argument.

[Robert Roaldi]

Funny article (I think) about Trump supporters who self-destruct at CNN, https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/05/25/rick-santorum-cnn-donald-trump-490813. Commentator after commentator said really stupid things. Is is that hard to find better staff?

[Alan Klein]

Funny article (I think) about Trump supporters who self-destruct at CNN, https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/05/25/rick-santorum-cnn-donald-trump-490813. Commentator after commentator said really stupid things. Is is that hard to find better staff?

What's the point of a talk show having a contrarian if you fire them for their views?  That just tells everyone else they better conform with the station's political views, or else.  Fox does a better more balanced job with liberal/Democratic viewpoints than MSNBC and CNN do with conservative/republican ones.

[Alan Klein]

This is always good for stimulating conversation here in LuLa, especially with non-Americans and non-Texans.

Texas lawmakers send permit-free gun carrying legislation to governor's desk 
Texas is a step closer to allowing residents to carry handguns in public without obtaining a license or training.

The Texas legislature on Monday approved the final version of a permitless carry gun bill, sending the legislation to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's desk for his signature.
House Bill 1927 would allow individuals 21 and older who can legally possess a firearm in the state to carry a handgun in public places without a permit.

Texas joins a handful of other conservative-led states that have passed measures this year allowing some form of permitless carry and expanded gun rights at the state level, as President Joe Biden took action to institute some limited gun restrictions and is calling on Congress to do more in the wake of high-profile mass shootings.

Once signed, the bill will go into effect in September and Texas, which has a strong gun culture, would be by far the largest state to allow its gun owners to carry weapons in public without a license.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/25/politics/texas-passes-permitless-gun-carry/index.html

[Robert Roaldi]

What's the point of a talk show having a contrarian if you fire them for their views?  ...

That's an interesting reading of what happened. Contrarian doesn't mean "batshit crazy", you know.

[Robert Roaldi]

This is always good for stimulating conversation here in LuLa, especially with non-Americans and non-Texans.

Texas lawmakers send permit-free gun carrying legislation to governor's desk 
Texas is a step closer to allowing residents to carry handguns in public without obtaining a license or training.

The Texas legislature on Monday approved the final version of a permitless carry gun bill, sending the legislation to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's desk for his signature.
House Bill 1927 would allow individuals 21 and older who can legally possess a firearm in the state to carry a handgun in public places without a permit.

Texas joins a handful of other conservative-led states that have passed measures this year allowing some form of permitless carry and expanded gun rights at the state level, as President Joe Biden took action to institute some limited gun restrictions and is calling on Congress to do more in the wake of high-profile mass shootings.

Once signed, the bill will go into effect in September and Texas, which has a strong gun culture, would be by far the largest state to allow its gun owners to carry weapons in public without a license.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/25/politics/texas-passes-permitless-gun-carry/index.html

I have asked several times but have never received an adeqaute answer. Since one of the main reasons for widespread gun carrying is for self-protection, it implies that people seem to be fearful for their safety, or at least that they are open to that marketing strategy. But the US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, which would lead me to think that pretty much all the bad guys would be in jail by now. But they don't seem to be. So what gives? Is the pro-gun lobby fostering false fears or is the US infested with much large numbers of criminals than other countries?

Is this move in Texas a result of higher crime rates there combined with inadequate policing? Come to that, does the widespread belief that you all need to carry guns all the time come from you thinking that your police forces aren't doing their job?

Thousands of armed citizens carrying forearms everywhere they go, is that a good look for a state? Maybe they're trying to decrease immigration, "Don't come here, it's a dangerous place" is the message I'd get.

Is there much evidence that citizens are able to thwart crime by carrying guns? Does it work or is it marketing hype?

[JoeKitchen]

FFS, Alan, stop with the incessant repetition.  You sound like an old man.

Oh, wait.

Your relentlessly repeated opinions are founded in ignorance and adherence to the rightist songbook. Try to see a little bit beyond your ever-so-limited horizon.  You might find things a little rosier than you think.

There are many reasons for the current uptick in prices, nearly none of them have anything to do with Biden or his financial plans to rescue America from a global medical emergency.  They are not yet implemented and have had so far very little effect on the economy as a whole.

You really need to learn how markets works, especially those based on speculation and long term planning.  Believe it or not, investors and business owners look to future policies coming down the line and try to determine plans to offset the cost, if it is a costly policy.  Not to mention, markets abhor uncertainty, especially when it comes to tax increases, like Biden has been talking about, which also causes prices to increase.  Last, just like in the days of Obama, Biden talks down business and entrepreneurs, which also effects the mental landscape and prices. 

So, even though these policies are not yet implemented, they are already effecting prices due to speculation and good business planning. 

PS
On top of that, the extra $300 per month in the last Biden passed relief package has already gone out.  It is undeniable that this is keeping people from seeking work.  I hear about it all the time from local business owners.  If it was not for the fact that my assistants are 1099 employees and I pay then directly, of which the payment is only claimed at the end of the year, I too would not be able to find any assistant since they would just sit at home collecting unemployment.  (Now they are collecting and still working though, a win-win for them.) 

This is artificially increasing demand, by flushing the economy with money, and artificially decreasing supply, by not allowing there to be enough labor to keep up with demand. 

This is all common sense stuff, but alas, I do realize that many on the left sacrifice common sense for years long studies that will tell them the same thing. 

[dreed]

There are many reasons for the current uptick in prices, nearly none of them have anything to do with Biden or his financial plans to rescue America from a global medical emergency.  They are not yet implemented and have had so far very little effect on the economy as a whole.

Yup, and Donald's tax cuts did nothing for the economy either except make the rich more money.

Businesses don't hire more people because they get tax breaks.
Businesses hire more people due to increased demand.
If the average Joe Smith isn't getting a pay raise to drive up demand then the corporate tax break is going straight to the business owner's pocket.

That's what Republicans do, feed their own selfish greed. They don't care about bottom feeders.

[dreed]

I have asked several times but have never received an adeqaute answer. Since one of the main reasons for widespread gun carrying is for self-protection, it implies that people seem to be fearful for their safety, or at least that they are open to that marketing strategy. But the US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, which would lead me to think that pretty much all the bad guys would be in jail by now. But they don't seem to be. So what gives? Is the pro-gun lobby fostering false fears or is the US infested with much large numbers of criminals than other countries?

(1) New laws keep getting passed to make criminals of people that weren't criminals before.
(2) As the inequality in the USA widens, more people turn to criminal behaviour to survive.

Is this move in Texas a result of higher crime rates there combined with inadequate policing? Come to that, does the widespread belief that you all need to carry guns all the time come from you thinking that your police forces aren't doing their job?

No, it comes from people being taught to live in fear for their safety. How well does that work? Well, what % of the population believe that Donald Trump should still be president? Say no more.

[JoeKitchen]

This is always good for stimulating conversation here in LuLa, especially with non-Americans and non-Texans.

Texas lawmakers send permit-free gun carrying legislation to governor's desk 
Texas is a step closer to allowing residents to carry handguns in public without obtaining a license or training.

The Texas legislature on Monday approved the final version of a permitless carry gun bill, sending the legislation to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's desk for his signature.
House Bill 1927 would allow individuals 21 and older who can legally possess a firearm in the state to carry a handgun in public places without a permit.

Texas joins a handful of other conservative-led states that have passed measures this year allowing some form of permitless carry and expanded gun rights at the state level, as President Joe Biden took action to institute some limited gun restrictions and is calling on Congress to do more in the wake of high-profile mass shootings.

Once signed, the bill will go into effect in September and Texas, which has a strong gun culture, would be by far the largest state to allow its gun owners to carry weapons in public without a license.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/25/politics/texas-passes-permitless-gun-carry/index.html

A year ago, I would have been against this. 

However, after all of the BLM rioting last year, of which cities did nothing about, and now all of the Anti-Semitic attacks, of which cities are doing nothing about, I am seriously reconsidering my stance here, and whether or not I should I buy a gun for defense. 

Philadelphia, like other cities, is seeing a large decrease in the number of police and very low new recruits.  Homicides are up because of it, but City Hall has yet to make the connection.  Thankfully, Roxborough/Manayunk, where I live, is surrounded by rivers and ravines on three sides and a rich neighborhood to the north, making it difficult to access, which is part of the reason I think it is consistently the safest neighborhood in the city. 

[James Clark]

I have asked several times but have never received an adeqaute answer. Since one of the main reasons for widespread gun carrying is for self-protection, it implies that people seem to be fearful for their safety, or at least that they are open to that marketing strategy. But the US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, which would lead me to think that pretty much all the bad guys would be in jail by now. But they don't seem to be. So what gives? Is the pro-gun lobby fostering false fears or is the US infested with much large numbers of criminals than other countries?

Is this move in Texas a result of higher crime rates there combined with inadequate policing? Come to that, does the widespread belief that you all need to carry guns all the time come from you thinking that your police forces aren't doing their job?

Thousands of armed citizens carrying forearms everywhere they go, is that a good look for a state? Maybe they're trying to decrease immigration, "Don't come here, it's a dangerous place" is the message I'd get.

(1) New laws keep getting passed to make criminals of people that weren't criminals before.
(2) As the inequality in the USA widens, more people turn to criminal behaviour to survive.

No, it comes from people being taught to live in fear for their safety. How well does that work? Well, what % of the population believe that Donald Trump should still be president? Say no more.

Understand that what the Texas government is doing isn't necessarily in tune with what actual Texans believe.  Most Texans are, in fact, not in favor of the absurdly named "Constitutional Carry" bill, and even Republicans are fairly split.  Additionally, vast majorities, including Republicans, do no like the idea of making it easier to purchase guns in general.

Check it out here. - you'll also find other instances where the hard-right Texas government is not aligned with the wishes of moderately conservative Texans, to say nothing of actual moderates or liberals (most of Texas' major cities are blue).  Some select quotes from the poll above...

Almost half of Texas voters (46%) would make gun laws stricter, while 30% would leave them alone and 20% would loosen them.

Three-fourths of the state’s voters believe Texas should require criminal and mental background checks before any gun sales, including those at gun shows and private transactions. Only 18% oppose such checks.

A solid majority of Texas voters don’t think adults should be allowed to carry handguns in public places without permits or licenses, though the idea is popular with a 56% majority of Republicans. Overall, 59% oppose unlicensed carry...

[digitaldog]

I am seriously reconsidering my stance here, and whether or not I should I buy a gun for defense. 

Good idea (?) but you might want to consider a shotgun:

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/handgun-ownership-associated-with-much-higher-suicide-risk.html
Handgun ownership associated with much higher suicide risk
Men who own handguns are eight times more likely to die of gun suicides than men who don’t own handguns, and women who own handguns are 35 times more likely than women who don’t.

Or maybe not a shotgun:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15522849/
Guns in the home and risk of a violent death in the home: findings from a national study

[Robert Roaldi]

A year ago, I would have been against this. 

However, after all of the BLM rioting last year, of which cities did nothing about, and now all of the Anti-Semitic attacks, of which cities are doing nothing about, I am seriously reconsidering my stance here, and whether or not I should I buy a gun for defense. 

Philadelphia, like other cities, is seeing a large decrease in the number of police and very low new recruits.  Homicides are up because of it, but City Hall has yet to make the connection.  Thankfully, Roxborough/Manayunk, where I live, is surrounded by rivers and ravines on three sides and a rich neighborhood to the north, making it difficult to access, which is part of the reason I think it is consistently the safest neighborhood in the city.

It's not clear to me that merely owning a gun makes you safer. Don't you need to be constantly practicing, who has the time for that? As reported here once by John Camp once, and from what I've read elsewhere, the police aren't very good at hitting their targets, what chance does the average person have to be competent in their use.

The examples you picked of increasing danger are interesting. Were you caught up BLM riots very often?

I wonder if a bunch of citizens with guns could have stopped the storming of the Capitol on January 6th? Would you view such an intervention as a good thing?

[JoeKitchen]

It's not clear to me that merely owning a gun makes you safer. Don't you need to be constantly practicing, who has the time for that? As reported here once by John Camp once, and from what I've read elsewhere, the police aren't very good at hitting their targets, what chance does the average person have to be competent in their use.

The examples you picked of increasing danger are interesting. Were you caught up BLM riots very often?

I wonder if a bunch of citizens with guns could have stopped the storming of the Capitol on January 6th? Would you view such an intervention as a good thing?

Across the Wissahickon Ravine, BLM rioters marched and did property damage to East Falls.  Likewise, across the Schuylkill River, they did the same thing in west Philly but to a much greater extent.  They got so close, I could hear them from my house last summer, along with the sirens.  Like I stated earlier, the river and ravine make it difficult to get into Roxborough since there are only 5 access points, except from the north, which is what I felt stopped them.  With the exception of the Henry Ave bridge, they are all two lanes and one access point even most locals dont know about, so I feel both lucky and shrewd for picking this neighborhood to buy a house in. 

But anyway, thank you for your failed attempt at humor. 

Insofar as you comment on the average citizen owning a gun and being able to hit a target, I do agree with you.  Firing a hand gun accurately takes a lot of practice, and, it is like running, if you take a break your ability drops significantly.  On top of that, I have seen too many idiots with guns who want to show them off and wave them around loaded with their finger on the trigger.  My mother's good friend's daughter was shot and killed in a bar from one such idiot. 

So, at this time, I still think it is a good idea to require some kind of licensing course to allow for open carry. 

Insofar as owning a gun for home defense, I take a different route, albeit I do not own one at this time.  People should have the right to defend themselves in their own house, and a shorter barreled rifle and/or shotgun are ideal. 

Last, if the morons who stormed the capital were a serious threat to the nation, then yes, I would consider that aa good thing.  Being that they were a bunch of hapless losers, none of whom were armed, even with knives, well, that is whaat we have non-lethal force for, like tasers or tear gas, albeit right now anyway.

[Alan Klein]

That's an interesting reading of what happened. Contrarian doesn't mean "batshit crazy", you know.

Senator Santorum stated that American culture didn't come from Native American culture.  What's batshit crazy about that?