colourwheel

Yes there is freedom of speech but just because you are free to speak your mind doesn't mean you cant be held accountable for your actions no matter what you are speaking about. Saying pundents who constantly keep repeating the same false hate rhetoric should be held accountable by either correcting themselves to the public or being fined a huge fee when their rhetoric specifically lead to people doing dangerous things. I think this would also help people to be more careful what they say in the political world so we never endup with another michael bachman... :rolleyes: Almost everything that has come out of bachman's mouth has just been stuff she made up in her own head it would seem. Just a hypothetical example: Say I had a popular radio show and kept brainwashing my audience with hate and fear spreading complete nonsense and lies aimed towards Jim_uk. Then say all of a sudden one day Jim_uk starts getting letters laced with toxic material in the mail by some nut jobs stating the same kind of false rhetoric you would hear on my radio show all the time. You really don't think there should be any consequences for me or be held accountable for the lies i was speading that lead to these nut jobs sending Jim_uk theatening hate mail laced with toxins because i have the freedom of speech?

I would agree with this if there wasn't a strong political message in the letter theatening Obama and Bloomberg or anyone who would show up at their door. You have to ask yourself how many political pundents on TV and radio have you heard trying to make people scared Obama and his Radical army are going to come and take everyones fire arms away? I can honestly say I have heard this false narrative come back to me reading web articles and watching cable news many times over. You honestly believe this person made up this idea in his head alone that Obama and Bloomberg are some how connected to authorities going to come to their house and take away their fire arms? Criticising is one thing, but to keep having political pendents in media constantly keep making false claims and statements to generate fear and hate focused towards political leaders is another thing. And yes, I think that could be a good start that people should be held accountable for repeated false political rhetoric that leads to nut jobs executing dangerous and harmful things such as this person who send out Ricin laced letters. When you think about it who did these letters endup harming? The people who handled the mail...

You know what happens to these people? they get arrested and investigated... :rolleyes: And i have never read or seen any political movie advocating for people to kill the president. There are always nut jobs in the world but for this particular situation it is Radical Right wing rhetoric to blame if anything. Nothing to do with the the left wing rhetoric in the persons letter... Was never claiming anything to be right or wrong. But to actually execute domestic terror over someone who doesn't there is a huge difference. This is why it is not equally dangerous.

Would be interesting to see an example of far left rhetoric that is just as damaging as far right. As much as i can agree there are crazy people on either side of the political spectrum, I would hardly concided them equally dangerous when people are sending letters laced with toxins threatening to kill people who show up at their door on the far right....

As much as I agree this particular person should be locked up for what he has done when the authorities find him. But I do believe political rhetoric has a lot to do with what the person has written. It is almost like the person was listening to too many ted nugent hate speeches. Also the scary thing about this is there are a lot of people who might not go to the extreme of sending toxic letters around to public officials but who actually believe strongly that the government is going to show up at their houses and take their fire-arms away.

I am sorry, I stand corrected... 2/3 of the United States Senate and House of Representatives and 3/4ths of the States Congress. Was never claiming it to be easy, yet it can be done.

Well the ironic thing is despite what anyone thinks "if" congress and the senate decide to abolish the 2nd amendment then the president signs off on it they could legally amend it where no one could have the right to bare arms despite whos god they think wrote the constitution... Really when you think back why the 2nd amendment was written for was to protect people from a tyrannical government. Don't you think no matter how well armed you prepare your self with that it won't make the slightest difference in this age. You could arm yourself with over a billion rounds of ammo and have a huge arsenal of weapons from signl shot pistols to rocket launchers.... and what will the government have...? everything else..... what gives when you have a person with an AK47 fighting against a government nuclear submarine? :rolleyes: The 2nd amendment is outdated.... sure there are ways to fight a tyrannical government if needed, but to use fire arms is unrealistic these days in my opinion.

Recently two letters were sent to Obama and Bloomberg that were laced with Ricin. Ricin is a highly toxic, naturally occurring carbohydrate-binding protein of the type known as lectins. in one letter was written this... My thought is Radical Right wing rhetoric is to blame for this persons extreme to commit domestic terror and making threats to end the lives of Obama and bloomberg. On the other hand no politicitan has ever stated they are ever going to take peoples guns away other than people like Wayne Lapierre "claiming" the government is going to. Besides the lack of intelligence the person has to have to be thinking any letter sent to any public official will ever reach them without being screened 1st is beyond me. But the most laughable thing in this letter is this line... "The right to bear arms is my constitutional, God-given right and I will exercise that right till the day I die." As if claiming the constitution was written by God himself... :rolleyes: The point i am trying to make is should people be held accountable for false political rhetoric which ultimately leads to crazy people doing dangerous things like the person who sent these letters off?

1st you think this 3d plastic gun is cool claiming the design will only improve. Now saying it's humorous because of it's cost when in the title is claiming it's a $25 gun in your topic title "Testing the "Lulz Liberator," a $25 3D-printed handgun". :rolleyes:

I would have to agree with those who are scared by the idea of people being able to print out guns in 3D printers. And one question can be asked if at all... what would be the point of improving on this design of a plastic gun anyways? Beside what McclaudEagle has said about not liking the idea that anyone can have a working "print" of a potentially dangerous weapon, unregistered or without a serial number. Just imagine how this will effect security at air ports and other places that do not allow the general public to carry firearms on them.

Oh come on now lets not get crazy and saying inflammatory things to provoke a crazy response , no one ever said the Democrats were doing a phenomenal job .lol Was intended to be sarcasm :biggrin: . Anyway I hope those evil Republicans completely stonewall anything the Democrats try and pass. The ones who voted for Republicans are the ones who want partisan gridlock. So the threats about them losing seats if they don't compromise, uh? No? Its actually the other way around. If they compromise ANY on lets say gun control? Then its likely they could lose a primary to a challenger. So you think the sequester spending cuts are a good idea for the Republicans to stonewall just to create partisan gridlock for no apparent reason when both parties right now think the sequester is a bad idea? If both political parties think sequester spending cuts are a bad idea now, why doesn't the republican majority speaker of the house bring it up for a vote to repeal? Are guns are more important than the well being of the countries economy? Doing nothing about the sequester spending cuts would be a job destroying tragedy not only to private job creators but also ultimately endup shutting down parts of the government. Good luck buying guns if you work for a company that lays you off because they lost billions in government buisness. For the record Deomcrates have a higher national approval rating than the republicans right now. Democrates are around 49% and Republicans at around 27% And i would have to say the democrates are doing a phenomenal job on capital hill despite the partisan gridlock. looking back to the end to the 112th congress every corner the Republicans have tried to stop important legislation the republican party has blinked. lol

It use to not be this way until Obama took office. Republican use to be thrilled if democrates supported republican policies. Not sure if you understand this but through out history legisation has been this way for decades and decades. I fail to see why Republicans recently think of this as an escuse to stop government. Looking back to the recent fiscal cliff debate Republican Mitch McConnell threw in with the extention of the bush tax cuts a new farm bill social plan that Republican in the house were totally against but without it most likely the bill would have not gotten through the senate. (OMG a republican that secretly threw in pork to a bill for a farm social plan to help out farmers on a tax cut bill extention. What is the world coming to?!?!? Republicans in favor of a social plan!!! lol) Being an ideologue, this is just politics. But if you are suggesting credible polls are purposely skewed to reflect in favor of one political side that is just non-sence. For one thing this would undermind the polling organizations who do these polls. They have a reputaion to up hold. Are you suggesting gallup polls are wrong?... congress approval rating is at 15% according to recent gallup polls. Republican party has a 26% approval rating nation wide, etc... Same polls done by wall street journal almost complete accrate off by 1%. republican party national approval rating is at 27% according to wall street journal. Credible Pollsters do not affiliate to any political party because they have a reputation to uphold. If word got out this was not the truth then their credibility nation wide would be dissolved and no one would ever take them serious anymore... You might think pollsters are skewed purposely in favor of one political party but without evidence to show the arguement here hardly holds up for credible sources... I would have to disagree with you on this. In this particular situation now Obama is not worried about being re-elected. If his interest are not entirely for the American people why would he be pushing so hard for an agenda that mostly is against the interest of business financial supporters who help elect people in his own party? I honestly believe Obama really is trying hard to help our country despite the political grid lock on capital hill.

:-) I see your point yet was never suggesting Democrats get a mandate to govern alone. But this does not give The republicans a mandate to stop government either. I believe in a two party system yet fail to see why the Republican are still up to the same plans of putting government at a stand still. I am glad the Democrates are unified as a party. But even being a democrate I wish the Republican party was unified too but wish they were more like the party post 2000.

Even on republican policies that Obama supports? What I see happening in washington right now seems more like a political trap for the GOP. Obama is not stupid, he knows what the republican party tried to do to him last term. Just saying seem what the republicans are doing right now does not seem like its helping their party out at all. If the republicans in office keep being anti-obama no matter what I see the next election cycle leading to more house seats lost in the GOP... The saying goes "losing national elections have a political cost" and the republican party is trying to use political capital they never had to begin with even after a huge defeat last election... The birther and truther movement has no point anymore... The republican base is shrinking, the republican party is internally divided, and the Tea party is almost dead. What purpose does the Republican party have if all they plan to do is debunk anything and everything Obama has planned for the good of the "country" when he does not have to worry anymore for his legacy to live on because he is now a lame duck?

I understand what you think on the issue of immigration, but what exactly does this point out about republicans always saying "no" to anything and everything Obama still puts his hands on? Trying to denying a cabnet member which shouldn't be a political issue to begin with and filibustering for non-credible reasons.... Karl Rove Praising Hillary Clinton as probably being a better president than Obama mainly based on just her experience being the 1st lady in the 90's.... I could go on with more examples and I agree with you on the iimmigration issue but your post really doesnt address the full topic issue here...

President Obamas administration drafted legislation this month that could give undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship in eight years, require employers to check workers immigration status and increase penalties for those who break immigration law. The legislative purposal closely resemble many of the reforms advanced in 2011 by Obama and, more recently, by Republican Florida Senator Marco Rubio. As an example both Rubio and Obama support special pathways to residency for those students and soldiers who were brought illegally to this country as children. President Obamas immigration proposal was leaked to the press and now Marco Rubio reacted with this to say, "President Obamas leaked immigration proposal is disappointing to those of us working on a serious solution." and he goes on saying that the porposal will be dead on arrival if brought to the senate or house. Further more recently on the other side of the Republican party (since the party is very divided), karl rove was asked a question at a conference if he thought Hillary Clinton would have been a better president than Obama. In his responce he went on to paising Hillary as a good public servant all the way back to being the 1st lady!?!? avoiding any high praising to her current accomplishments in the Obama administration as Secretary of State and very little note for her service as a democratic senator. Further more The recent Secretary of Defense appointment of Chuck Hage (a Republican). His confirmation was Bombshelled and filibustered by the Republican senate based only on personal grudges and clashing policy views for a non-political job!?!?! Would hate to be the senator to go down in history for filibustering a cabnet appointment for non-credible reasons... It can be argued the Republican party is just very ill tempered towards Obama no matter any bipartisanship as well as Anti-Obama anything from the republican side being an underlining racial disapproval to satisfy radical republican caucus and constituents. It can also be argued it's a larger plan on the Obama administrations part as political statagy to systematically and internally destroy the GOP's chance of gaining any more seats in the house in next cycle by making their party seem in a state of disarray to exactly show how foolish being the party of "no" can be. As it was very evident in Obama's 1st term the GOP's main goal was to throw Obama out of office no matter their own party's political cost by going against their own policies that they originally supported when known Obama agrees with them. I guess I am just very confused... Obama is basically a lame duck now and has no worry for re-election. Even if Obama gets nothing done in his last term He will still go down in history as one of the greatest pressidents in modern history as well as putting the mark in history as the 1st African American President. My question is why do you think the republican party still so defiant towards anything Obama puts his hands on, no matter how bipartisan the ideas are still? The only real thing this can accomplish is to energizer the partys' base but turn the heads of voters and support the republican party desperately needs to win future election cycles.

I still think the equation was too simple. Maybe it's just me but thats how i perceive doing arithmetic.

It's actually too simple. It's not like Thevenin's theorem or even Ohm's law. Yet it's suprising how many people can't manipulate the formula to I=current R=resistance and V=voltage to solve for one missing element to an equation where V = R x I

Sure that sounds nice to cut your spending, and was never saying the U.S. should spend more. The problem lies in what to actually cut. There isn't really an easy answer but The democratic party has an upper hand on this issue because it has been republican policies that happen to get our country into such debt to begin with... You either find stuff to cut or in the end cuts will be forced by the markets because you will no longer be able to borrow, a default means you have to balance the budget overnight and guess who suffers the most when that has to happen? it's not the 1%, as usual left wing policies will end up hurting the very people they're supposed to benefit. Parties should stop blaming each other and get on with solving the problem, if a fire starts in your kitchen you don't stand there arguing about who is to blame, you deal with it and then worry about who was at fault. If you have the "ability" to borrow more money despite how much you borrow I think the reality would be a family would borrow more money then to dramatically cut spending on buying food, clothing, medicine, school, etc... or anything a family would need at the time. Defaulting in this political situation is referring to not paying bills. Defaulting - Fail to fulfill an obligation, esp. to repay a loan or to appear in a court of law: "some had defaulted on student loans". Blame is only being put on the Republican party because they always try to put the country into an economic threat just to get things they want. You really don't ever see the democratic party doing this...

Sure that sounds nice to cut your spending, and was never saying the U.S. should spend more. The problem lies in what to actually cut. There isn't really an easy answer but The democratic party has an upper hand on this issue because it has been republican policies that happen to get our country into such debt to begin with...

Sorry, but I see Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Biden telling us things like 'we don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem', getting ride of the debt ceiling, and we need to spend more. That's, to me, not caring about it. It seems that whoever is in power, doesn't care. I see democrats on TV telling we need to spend more, so please, don't tell me that democrats think it's important, I'm not seeing it by their own words. It might seem to you the Democrates don't care about the debt but they are not the party who threatens to put our country into defualt just to get things they want. That to me is totally not caring about the debt, threatening to not pay the bills. When you are in a financial bind, you don't just threaten to stop paying your bills you would most likely go get another loan and/or refinance.

The GOP certainly is not growing and based on the U.S. census The white male vote in america is rapidly declining. Understanding this unless the GOP severely changes their policy stances on womens rights, immigration, lgbt, etc... I don't see the GOP growing anymore. So by defualt, not because someone is telling me lies, or listening to some radical liberal media, The GOP is actually dying. Empirical evidence doesn't lie, The GOP as it is now won't survive.

Do you understand why this has mainly happened in our country? Our country does not have a very healthy middle class anymore. "job creators" have basically benifited from how skewed our government works to make over 300 times more than an average worker without any intent to try to stimulate the economy back. For a capitalistic nation we have some of the most unfair taxations laws that rich benifit the most out of. Our country has states that get rid important state taxes in very red and blue states but our secretly increasing sales taxes knowing full well the onces that will suffer the most from this kind of taxation is everyone but the rich... The answer is not to get rid of government programs that help a majority of the nation just because we can't afford it anymore. But this is not ruling out that Welfare, medicare, medicade etc... should not be atleast reformed. You look at the banks in our country and how they have basically gotten to the point they are too big to fail. Just imagine what would happen if all majory buisnesses got this way eventually... It would be great if our country could work on small government but as it is now trying to shrink our government i really don't think is the right anwaser.

Affirmative action is not about letting less skilled people equal opertunities in work places over people with more skills just because they are minorities. Affirmative action is about equally giving opertunities to people equally skilled reguardless of race or gender. No employer is forced into hiring someone who is less skilled than someone who is not. But if a work place has a very low minority employment role then employers would then have to put more emphasis on hiring a minority with equal or greater skill over someone who is not a minority. When the white male becomes an extreme minority in the U.S.A. Affirmative action will probably be impossed the same on them. Employers who are hiring people in the work place less skilled than other reguardless of race are not following Affirmative action but actually are only doing so to make their company or buisness look better. This is not Affirmative action ... sadly you see this happening in colleges where schools just want to look better letting minorities into the school over people who are not minorities when actaul school grades can be messured... again this is not Affirmative action this is just the school trying to look better when this happens, Otherwise in all honesty a majority of our top schools would probably be filled by people from asia since over 4,000,000,000 people are probably asian in this world given the estimate the current world population is around 7,000,000,000. You have to think if a company has only 4 placements for bio chemist job and two are already filled by white males they would probably try to find 2 people who are minorities who are equally qualified for the job. If no one who is a minority is qualified they will just hire anyone who is qualified. they are not going to hire some minority who has no experience and or qualifications just to fill the job placement. If an employer MUST look at race, in their hiring practices, that IS discrimination. I have had direct experience with this. I applied for a job that I figgered I was a shoe-in for. The qualifications exactly matched my skill set, and not many folks applied for the job. A man of color, with LESS experience, LESS training, and NO work experience got the job...... and got paid more per hour than I had asked for. In a private conversation I had with one of the hiring managers, I was TOLD, FLAT OUT, that he got the job, because they needed "more diversity in their workforce" due to some government regulation. Affirmative action is discrimination against the white man. Business should be able to hire the BEST QUALIFIED person for the job, regardless of their race. Agreed. Government programs such as affirmative action are fine sounding and well intentioned, but as I say, poorly implimented. It creates an agenda of percentages that needs to be adhered to or the work finds itself in jepardy of a lawsuit. The frequency of reverse prejudism law suits have made that clear. If we are going to get rid of descrimination we are not going to do it by creating a new set of victims. HeyYou your situation was very unfortunate. And honestly if that was the case where someone got hired who was "less qualified" or "not qualified" you could have made a challenging case. This is not what affirmative is suppose to be about.... you have an engineering company that only has white males hired they are not going to hire someone who has no qualifications for that job just because they are a minority.