31 replies to this topic

[Rogerdodger]

PS: Luddites were the original Union members, willing to destroy the economy for their own self interests.

Similar to the teacher's unions destroying public education today.
"collective bargaining by riot"
"19th-century English textile artisans who protested—often by destroying mechanized looms—against the changes produced by the Industrial Revolution, that replaced them with less-skilled, low-wage labour, leaving them without work and changing their way of life.The movement emerged in the harsh economic climate of the Napoleonic Wars and difficult working conditions in the new textile factories. The principal objection of the Luddites was to the introduction of new wide-framed automated looms that could be operated by cheap, relatively unskilled labour, resulting in the loss of jobs for many skilled textile workers."

See:
Waiting for Superman

Part one: http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

Stupid in America: (How we cheat our kids) http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

Edited by Rogerdodger, 22 July 2012 - 10:03 AM.

[Rogerdodger]

Sorry but I missed where you offered a solution!

And your solution is to remove guns from law abiding citizens but not criminals?

Next we can make drugs illegal and that will stop drug use.
Then after that we will ban alcohol. Alcohol kills more people than do guns.

Let me know how that works out.

(Luddites always offer feel-good but ineffective solutions.)
Carrie (Luddite) Nation

I say ban the Axe!

Edited by Rogerdodger, 22 July 2012 - 10:53 AM.

[voltaire]

In today's news: 65 Million gun owners shot 0 people yesterday.

If there were 1 or 2 gun carriers in the theatre, lives would definitely have been saved.

"Ostriches"

I can imagine the scenario of everyone having a gun.

Scene 1: The looney opens fire and kills many.

Scene 2: A couple of heros pull out guns and start firing back.

Scene 3: Others perceive the "heros" as the crims and shoot at them.

Scene 4: Others perceive others as part of the plot and fire on them.

Scene 5: Everyone is firing at everyone else and then police enter.

Scene 6: Police determine it is a gang shoot out and kill everyone with a weapon.


Ok, a bit far fetched but elements of where it could develop.

[voltaire]

Sorry but I missed where you offered a solution!

And your solution is to remove guns from law abiding citizens but not criminals?

Next we can make drugs illegal and that will stop drug use.
Then after that we will ban alcohol. Alcohol kills more people than do guns.

Let me know how that works out.

(Luddites always offer feel-good but ineffective solutions.)
Carrie (Luddite) Nation

I say ban the Axe!

Roger

Having A gun in your home is acceptable as is having drugs. Neither is great but your choice.

Having either on the streets is not acceptable.

[Rogerdodger]

Having A gun in your home is acceptable as is having drugs.

As you have said to me: "That's a stupid statement" on several levels.

Yet you still have offered no solution to removing guns from the hands of criminals.

Edited by Rogerdodger, 23 July 2012 - 09:30 AM.

[diogenes227]

In today's news: 65 Million gun owners shot 0 people yesterday.

If there were 1 or 2 gun carriers in the theatre, lives would definitely have been saved.

"Ostriches"

I can imagine the scenario of everyone having a gun.

Scene 1: The looney opens fire and kills many.

Scene 2: A couple of heros pull out guns and start firing back.

Scene 3: Others perceive the "heros" as the crims and shoot at them.

Scene 4: Others perceive others as part of the plot and fire on them.

Scene 5: Everyone is firing at everyone else and then police enter.

Scene 6: Police determine it is a gang shoot out and kill everyone with a weapon.


Ok, a bit far fetched but elements of where it could develop.

I think that movie is called "True Romance", directed by Tony Scott and written (of course) by Quentin Tarantino. However, "Ostriches" might have been a good title too.

[Rogerdodger]

"With roughly 200 million guns loose in the country a maniac commits vast carnage in Colorado and the New York Times, in its headline, claims we are all 'reviving debate' on gun control. We can not even control our borders but somehow we are going to gather up two hundred million guns. As I say liberalism is dead--brain dead and otherwise."
R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.

Headline:
Obesity Kills 400000 Americans Annually
Fork Control Lobby pushes for more regulation
Dinner plate purchases to be registered in government obesity data base.
Happy Meals banned...If only one life is saved, it will be worth the loss of liberty.

PS: You still have offered no solution to removing guns from the hands of criminals.

Edited by Rogerdodger, 23 July 2012 - 03:05 PM.

[mss]

CONFISCATE ALL DOCTORS

Doctors Are the Third Leading Cause of Death in the U.S.

Cause 250,000 Deaths Every Year

By Joseph Mercola, D.O.

The U.S. health care system may contribute to poor health or death. According to Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, 250,000 deaths per year are caused by medical errors, making this the third-largest cause of death in the U.S., following heart disease and cancer.

Writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Dr. Starfield has documented the tragedy of the traditional medical paradigm in the following statistics:

Deaths Per Year
Cause
106,000 Non-error, negative effects of drugs2
80,000 Infections in hospitals10
45,000 Other errors in hospitals10
12,000 Unnecessary surgery8
7,000 Medication errors in hospitals9
250,000 Total deaths per year from iatrogenic* causes

* The term iatrogenic is defined as "induced in a patient by a physician's activity, manner, or therapy. Used especially to pertain to a complication of treatment."


Furthermore, these estimates of death due to error are lower than those in a recent Institutes of Medicine report. If the higher estimates are used, the deaths due to iatrogenic causes would range from 230,000 to 284,000. Even at the lower estimate of 225,000 deaths per year, this constitutes the third leading cause of death in the U.S.

Edited by mss, 24 July 2012 - 08:46 AM.

[Rogerdodger]

Maybe instead of Gun Controls we need Movie Controls?
Or maybe we need more "paralegals" and "breathalyzers" in the theaters?

Violent theater scene to be cut from 'Gangster Squad'...

I don't understand this at all.
The prevalence of extreme graphic violence in entertainment has absolutely no influence at all on young children.
Constant obsession with violent graphic computer games only helps children develop hand-eye coordination.
Besides, "survival of the fittest" is how we all got here anyway.

Guns kill, movies don't.

PS: Ignore the fact the the Columbine shooter was said to be obsessed with the violently graphic movie "Natural Born Killers", we have had firearms for hundreds of years but these mass shootings have only appeared since the movie industry had it's "Controls" removed.

Edited by Rogerdodger, 24 July 2012 - 10:54 AM.

[Rogerdodger]

Luddite Liberals would go bezerk if someone were to even suggest limiting the 1st amendment by censoring movies, but they have no problem trying to limit the 2nd amendment.
They really hate personal responsibility (and the ability of citizens to defend themselves from an oppressive government).



Beginning with some of the earliest exhibitions of motion pictures, there was public debate about the question of whether the motion picture industry was morally fit to control the content of its own products. As early as 1909 the People's Institute in New York City created "The New York Board of Motion Picture Censorship". This board quickly acquired a great deal of influence beyond New York City, and most of the major motion picture producers eventually agreed to submit all of their films to the board and to not release any films unless approved by it. To reflect its growing importance, the board changed its name to "The National Board of Censorship" and then, in 1915, to "The National Board of Review". The Board's "Seal of Approval" became the first formal attempt by the film industry to ward off legal film censorship through quasi self–regulation. Despite this effort, in 1914 three Congressional bills were introduced seeking to establish a Federal Motion Picture Censorship Commission. Each bill sought to establish that, "no copyright shall be issued for any film which has not previously received the certificate and seal of the commission." Although none of these bills became law, they were a clear reflection of public concerns over the quality, propriety, decency and taste of the movies being produced by Hollywood.

On November 1, 1968, the Motion Picture Production Code was officially replaced by the first version of the MPAA's voluntary movie classification system. This classification system assigns a rating (currently: G, PG, PG–13, R, or NC–17) to a movie based on the movie's content and the way that content is handled. These ratings are cautionary warnings for parents rather than an endorsement. Although the MPAA continues to issue certificate numbers for all films assigned one of its classifications , and its seal and certificate number are still displayed at the end of a film's credits, the certificate number now merely indicates that the movie has been viewed by the MPAA and has received an MPAA rating.

http://www.picturesh..._censorship.cfm

http://www.pictureshowman.com/images/O


Howard Hughes, for instance, conducted a much–publicized battle over "The Outlaw", his 1943 "adult western" starring Jane Russell. The Hays Office instructed Hughes to reshoot or eliminate 37 specific shots in which they felt Russell's breasts were overemphasized. Hughes refused to comply.

(Ever since then breasts and movies have gained in popularity.)

Edited by Rogerdodger, 24 July 2012 - 11:15 AM.