CNN Democratic Debate

• cruiser_96

  

  BoatShoes;1756981 wrote:It's simple. Non-ideological and emotional invested conservatives and libertarians do not find the idea of things like paid-leave, non-intervention in the middle-east and tuition free college to be "oppressive." They may disagree but they do no think of these folks on stage to be wannabe tyrants.
  
  I'm listening to talk radio today - these same people who were convinced that Hillary was done - they simply cannot comprehend that she did perfectly fine last night in the minds of most people.

  Dance with the devil, and he'll let you lead for a bit, my good OC'r.
  
  Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it.
• Apple

  

  I tuned the debate in last night. A couple observations:
  
  • Amazing how the Dems are so willing to give things away… with the only suggestion how to pay for the freebies is to take it from the rich.
  • All of the people on stage have bought into the global warming/climate change/whatever they call it next anti-capitalist religious scam.
  • When Bernie did his anti-Hillary email rant it pretty much solidified my thought he is only there to give the illusion that the Dems are upping the game so it does not look like a Hillary coronation.
  • Black lives matter, as opposed to all lives matter.
  • Banks are bad.
  • Hillary was the only candidate that I remember as speaking as though the real opposition are the Repubs as opposed to others who were focused on winning the nomination.
  
  Ultimately, my visual observation was that the entire ordeal looked like the reincarnation of the cast of the old Gomer Pyle USMC TV show up on stage. You OC young-uns probably won't remember but… they had Chaffie (Gomer) on the right with Webb (Sergeant Carter) on the left, O'Malley next to Gomer (Gomer's friend Duke Snyder) then you had in the middle Sanders (Floyd the barber) duking it out with Hillary (Aunt Bea). Unfortunately, Biden (Andy) wasn't able to make the big commitment and so was not able to be included.
  
  The sad thing is that all of them were regurgitating the same old failed liberal tripe that was being sold to the American voters back when Gomer Pyle was on TV!
• SportsAndLady

  

  ^ you don't believe global warming is "real"?
• Apple

  

  S&L: I like your humor!
  Well played!
• QuakerOats

  Apple;1757010 wrote:I tuned the debate in last night. A couple observations:
  
  • Amazing how the Dems are so willing to give things away… with the only suggestion how to pay for the freebies is to take it from the rich.
  • All of the people on stage have bought into the global warming/climate change/whatever they call it next anti-capitalist religious scam.
  • When Bernie did his anti-Hillary email rant it pretty much solidified my thought he is only there to give the illusion that the Dems are upping the game so it does not look like a Hillary coronation.
  • Black lives matter, as opposed to all lives matter.
  • Banks are bad.
  • Hillary was the only candidate that I remember as speaking as though the real opposition are the Repubs as opposed to others who were focused on winning the nomination.
  
  Ultimately, my visual observation was that the entire ordeal looked like the reincarnation of the cast of the old Gomer Pyle USMC TV show up on stage. You OC young-uns probably won't remember but… they had Chaffie (Gomer) on the right with Webb (Sergeant Carter) on the left, O'Malley next to Gomer (Gomer's friend Duke Snyder) then you had in the middle Sanders (Floyd the barber) duking it out with Hillary (Aunt Bea). Unfortunately, Biden (Andy) wasn't able to make the big commitment and so was not able to be included.
  
  The sad thing is that all of them were regurgitating the same old failed liberal tripe that was being sold to the American voters back when Gomer Pyle was on TV!

  Thank you; exactly why I tuned out. I knew it would simply be a race to see who could give more of other people's money away, and grow government bigger to entrap millions more.
  
  The only lives that matter to these radicals are those that can be bought. How sad.
• Spock

  

  I couldnt believe how inept all of them were when talking about how to deal with Russia and the middle east. We will lose the rest of the worlds respect if any of these people are POTUS.
• HitsRus

  

  BoatShoes;1756980 wrote:What I find shocking is how people act like this is completely absurd when they are seemingly unaware of the various theories of products liability that affect all sorts of other goods. You seem to think the only theory of liability is negligence and that people are saying manufacturers should have joint liability for said negligence when that is not the case.
  
  The argument is that gun manufacturers should be liable for the damages under a different theory of liability as other types of merchants are in different instances.
  
  For example car companies are subject to liability for design defects that harm people and one such theory of design defects is that manufacturers should be liable for products that are inherently dangerous.
  
  For example, if a drunk driver or a mad man drives a car into a school bus and kills a lot of children - and it just so happens that the car was designed with, say, dynamite in the engine to ensure that it could be an efficient killing machine, the car manufacturer could still be partly liable for this inherently dangerous design.
  
  These sorts of have theories have been applied against guns for a long, long time like every other product.
  
  For example, back in 1816 in Dixon v. Bell a gun owner was held liable when his 12 year old servant pointed a gun at 13 year old with the intent to "pretend" to shoot her but the gun was loaded. The reasoning was because dangerous products like guns create special duties.
  
  And, some scholars have argued that firearms should fall within the inherently dangerous design doctrine which might justify liability for the manufacturers in addition to their customer custodians of firearms.
  
  This sort of tort system of enforcement for civil wrongs is said to be justified under traditional libertarian doctrine because it induces the marketplace to solve the problem itself. And, that is why products liability plays a much bigger role in the more market-oriented United States than in other countries. But I suppose it is unsurprising that rightists do not favor policies that cohere with their own doctrines. Just look at many of them endorse Trump who is as much of a hardcore trade protectionist as Bernie Sanders.
  
  It is like there is no genuine ideological coherence that defines conservatism in the United States anymore except "Oppose the Democrats and Obama even when they do things like pass Free Trade Deals!" Take the irony of the National Review arguing that Denmark is NOT Socialist despite universal healthcare and paid leave, etc. Well no crap! You are the ones calling Bernie a socialist for wanting the same thing!
  
  With that being said, a system modeled after something like Workers Comp wherein Firearm Manufacturers bear some of the cost of the harms inflicted on society by their products without having mass torts that would put them under like the lawsuits against Abestos manufacturing industry did for those companies. Frankly, I think that is a reasonable way forward without undue burdens on second amendment rights.
  
  Many anti-gun folks would probably prefer mass torts so they could put gun manufacturers under but I would rather we have a Workers Comp type system that would put in place a structure that would create incentives for the market itself and firearm enthusiasts to become motivated to solve the problems in away that coheres with their values.
  
  If the chamber of commerce could make the deal on workers comp as opposed to being sued all the time maybe the gun lobby would accept gun violence comp versus being sued or (eventually having the industry shut down in its entire when the U.S. becomes California in 10 years).

  While most of this rant is irrelevant to the topic, the entire issue of holding gun manufacturers "responsible" above the usual legal and civil requirements is nothing more than an attempt at an end run around law, congress, and constitutional guarantees. It's an attempt to punish those manufacturers by myopic anti gun/anti 2nd amendment types.
• iclfan2

  

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1756970 wrote:Bernie kilt it.

  Yea, his response that "Climate Change" (It's not called global warming anymore S&L, because it didn't fit their agenda) is the number one threat to national security was a real solid one.
• majorspark

  

  BoatShoes;1756989 wrote:Jim Webb talked more sense on foreign policy than any Republican or Democrat candidate and would be a great SecDef in either a Republican or Democrat administration. His criticism of the Iran Deal, despite limited time was nuanced and avoided the over the top rhetoric of the entire Republican field.

  I actually liked a lot of what Webb had to say. He appeared knowledgeable and confident at times. But like everyone else on the stage his balls shriveled up like raisins at the chance to call Hillary on the carpet for her blatant lie when challenged on the Russia reset button issue. Anyone with any knowledge on Russia knows Putin has held the same power since he attained it and was just briefly under a different title to skirt constitutional law. Anderson Cooper swallowed her statement like...lets not go there.
• dwccrew

  

  isadore;1756962 wrote:1. In the case of the suit, they were bought for the purpose of robbing and killing
  2. Guns are specifically designed to kill
  3. For those who use the car analogy. gosh with cars we license folks to operate them.

  True, we license folks to operate cars; however, if we are to use a correct analogy the comparison is the purchase of guns and the purchase of cars, not the operation of each. You do not need a license to purchase a car.
• isadore

  dwccrew;1757093 wrote:True, we license folks to operate cars; however, if we are to use a correct analogy the comparison is the purchase of guns and the purchase of cars, not the operation of each. You do not need a license to purchase a car.

  gosh a ruddies then anyone who was not licensed by the state and whose gun was not registered who fired that gun would be criminally and civilly in violation of the law. That would be great.
• HitsRus

  

  [video=youtube;ABQG6Zj6Kc8][/video]
• Glory Days

  

  isadore;1757097 wrote:gosh a ruddies then anyone who was not licensed by the state and whose gun was not registered who fired that gun would be criminally and civilly in violation of the law. That would be great.

  so a minor misdemeanor violation/ticket then?..because that is basically the equivalent to driving without a license.
• Con_Alma

  One doesn't need a license to drive a vehicle out on their own private land. I did it all the time as a kid, as did my siblings....we shot our guns too. No license.
• isadore

  Glory Days;1757105 wrote:so a minor misdemeanor violation/ticket then?..because that is basically the equivalent to driving without a license.

  start with $1000 fine and 500 hours of community service, then the penalty for you not being licensed, plus the penalty for the object not registered and the penalty for it not being insured
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1757106 wrote:One doesn't need a license to drive a vehicle out on their own private land. I did it all the time as a kid, as did my siblings....we shot our guns too. No license.

  need insurance Section 4509.101 of the Ohio Revised Code prohibits an individual from operating a motor vehicle in Ohio without maintaining proof of FR continuously throughout the registration period with respect to that vehicle, or in the case of a driver who is not the owner, with respect to that driver's operation of that vehicle. The law requires financial responsibility in the minimum amount of $25,000 for bodily injury to or death of one individual in any one accident, $50,000 for bodily injury to or death of two or more individuals in any one accident, and $25,000 for injury to the property of others in any one accident.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1757109 wrote:need insurance Section 4509.101 of the Ohio Revised Code prohibits an individual from operating a motor vehicle in Ohio without maintaining proof of FR continuously throughout the registration period with respect to that vehicle, or in the case of a driver who is not the owner, with respect to that driver's operation of that vehicle. The law requires financial responsibility in the minimum amount of $25,000 for bodily injury to or death of one individual in any one accident, $50,000 for bodily injury to or death of two or more individuals in any one accident, and $25,000 for injury to the property of others in any one accident.

  
  That doesn't negate my claims at all. Are you assuming I'm referring to a registered/licensed vehicle? I didn't reference such a thing at all. In addition, I was focused on the individual, me not being licensed.
• QuakerOats

  HitsRus;1757053 wrote:While most of this rant is irrelevant to the topic, the entire issue of holding gun manufacturers "responsible" above the usual legal and civil requirements is nothing more than an attempt at an end run around law, congress, and constitutional guarantees. It's an attempt to punish those manufacturers by myopic anti gun/anti 2nd amendment types.

  
  .....mainly an attempt by greedy lawyers to make more money - simple as that. These trial guys and workers comp guys are the biggest leaches in all of society.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  QuakerOats;1757136 wrote:.....mainly an attempt by greedy lawyers to make more money - simple as that. These trial guys and workers comp guys are the biggest leaches in all of society.

  You must be absolutely miserable. You see enemies everywhere and you're consumed by the party line.
• Heretic

  

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1757161 wrote:You must be absolutely miserable. You see enemies everywhere and you're consumed by the party line.

  Nah, when you go full politard, you get the same joy about being an obsessive freak that normal people do over their hobbies. Believe me, I have a friend who's kind of the left-wing version of Quaker and he's been fired up about this sort of thing and Bernie for a l-o-n-g time. Meanwhile, I'm just watching the circus and laughing...until I look at a calendar and realize there's 12.5 more months of this shit in front of me and then I just want to watch the world burn.
• QuakerOats

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1757161 wrote:You must be absolutely miserable. You see enemies everywhere and you're consumed by the party line.

  Not miserable at all; just like mentioning facts and participating in the debate.
  
  Good luck.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1757116 wrote:That doesn't negate my claims at all. Are you assuming I'm referring to a registered/licensed vehicle? I didn't reference such a thing at all. In addition, I was focused on the individual, me not being licensed.

  both need to be licensed and insured
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1757191 wrote:both need to be licensed and insured

  
  You do not need to register a vehicle on your private property and you certainly don't need to insure it. We had 2 different pick up trucks on the farm that weren't licensed at all. There was no reason to. We drove them around all the time as kids along with several tractors. In addition, you don't need to be a licensed driver to operate a vehicle on your own private property.
  
  Is there some law I'm missing with regards to this?
• HitsRus

  

  ^^^ but, but, but...​we've got to do something!
  
  (sarcasm alert)
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1757237 wrote:You do not need to register a vehicle on your private property and you certainly don't need to insure it. We had 2 different pick up trucks on the farm that weren't licensed at all. There was no reason to. We drove them around all the time as kids along with several tractors. In addition, you don't need to be a licensed driver to operate a vehicle on your own private property.
  
  Is there some law I'm missing with regards to this?

  gosh a ruddies so any time a person takes his gun off his property he could be arrested unless he and the gun were registered and insured. sounds good.