Guys, I'm going to meet the president

[Foxi4]

Part of the reason England was taxing us was to support the war they were having with France. That was of no concern to us; we were more upset about the taxes they forced us to pay. Napoleon might've considered invading our country, but fortunately England stopped him. The War of 1812 wasn't related to our struggle for independence... we'd already won it.

That was his entire point. The War of 1812 was a conflict between the newly-formed United States and Britain, this is where the whole "threat of invasion" bit comes in in the context of a newly-established state. Conflicts prior to establishing the United States of America as an independent country were not conflicts between the U.S. and external powers, they were internal conflicts between the colonizers and the governing bodies or between two different governing bodies.

Let me put it this way: if we hadn't won the Revolutionary War, we would've been subjected to tyrannical rule for the rest of history. And in addition to the Declaration of Independence, we also had to have a way of governing ourselves should we win our independence.

Tyrannical rule of which the Constitution says nothing about because King George was the King of Britain, not a president of the United States.

I don't get what you're trying to say with this. Drinking whiskey was a sin in the Northerners' eyes, but the South depended on it for their income. The South also depended on slaves. To this very day, Southerners are still very backward. I should know: I lived there. They hide their contempt for outsiders by their shows of religion.

That's pretty much his point as well - this tension between the North and South brewed an internal conflict, which is exactly what we were talking about.

My point exactly. We weren't very stable then; we aren't very stable now.

Wow... no.

Now you're just being silly. Have you ever heard of movies that are based on real life events? Well, here's one. And since you have such a good understanding of our history, why don't you try watching it and see how closely it reflects what actually happened? Then we can have a meaningful discussion about it instead of mindless bashing.

Or you could just read a history book. Probably a better source of information than a movie or a musical, since the primary purpose of those two is entertainment, not education. Unless we're talking about documentaries, but those often leave important bits out due to running time constraints.

 

[grossaffe]

Today in Conspiracy Theory Monthly: "Anecdotal Evidence Proves My Point!", a charming story about little Jimmy who couldn't buy an AK47.

Seriously though, by this logic, the United States government plans on taking away all your cars because they require you to have a driving license. Before you know it, Obama will liberate your fishing rods because fishing permits are required to legally fish.

That's quite the straw-man you're building there. Unlike cars, there is quite the vocal group out there that is trying to ban guns, and they've been at it for a long time.

 

[Foxi4]

That's quite the straw-man you're building there. Unlike cars, there is quite the vocal group out there that is trying to ban guns, and they've been at it for a long time.

Not really a straw-man, no - your point was that "the first step to disarming the nation is to register who owns guns", wheras I merely wanted to point out that I don't see a correlation between disarming anyone and registering. Structly speaking, the state can ban any kind of weapon via legislature if the votes are there to push it through, registered or unregistered. Registration itself has nothing to do with this.

Long story short, everything's for the people, but certain things are only for those who have the physical and mental capacity as well as knowledge to properly make use of them. The way I see it, the only way to make sure that only capable people own guns is to introduce a licensing system.

 

[Gahars]

Foxi beat me to a lot of the main points here, so I'm just going to focus on the particularly galling parts.

Napoleon might've considered invading our country, but fortunately England stopped him.

England didn't "stop" Napoleon from invading the Americas, he gave up the idea after the Haitian revolution and instead negotiated with Jefferson for the Louisiana Purchase.

The South also depended on slaves. To this very day, Southerners are still very backward. I should know: I lived there. They hide their contempt for outsiders by their shows of religion.

I'm as yankee as you can get without playing on the field and even I know this is bullshit. Generalizations are kinda bad, ya know?

My point exactly. We weren't very stable then; we aren't very stable now.

Come on, try and think a little here.

I see you didn't take my advice.

Now you're just being silly. Have you ever heard of movies that are based on real life events? Well, here's one. And since you have such a good understanding of our history, why don't you try watching it and see how closely it reflects what actually happened? Then we can have a meaningful discussion about it instead of mindless bashing.

You realize that "Based on" in no way means "factually accurate," right? For the love of God, please tell me yes because you really worry me.

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.

You can say that again, Ben.

 

[grossaffe]

Not really a straw-man, no - your point was that "the first step to disarming the nation is to register who owns guns", wheras I merely wanted to point out that I don't see a correlation between disarming anyone and registering. Structly speaking, the state can ban any kind of weapon via legislature if the votes are there to push it through, registered or unregistered. Registration itself has nothing to do with this.

Long story short, everything's for the people, but certain things are only for those who have the physical and mental capacity as well as knowledge to properly make use of them.

Registration has everything to do with actually getting the guns. Do you think gun owners would all rush in to turn in their guns if they were to be outlawed? Hell no. By registering them, though, they're giving the government a nice map of where to find them.

 

[Foxi4]

Registration has everything to do with actually getting the guns. Do you think gun owners would all rush in to turn in their guns if they were to be outlawed? Hell no. By registering them, though, they're giving the government a nice map of where to find them.

Now this is really getting into Conspiracy Theory Monthly territory. We're not talking about putting stamps on guns, we're not in primary school and guns are not Sheriff Woody's boot - we're talking about actual licenses you have on you that permit you to purchase, carry and use firearms and ammunition. You're making it seem like an establishment of a police state when it's really a pretty simple matter.

All I'm saying is that there should be a certain (hopefuly high) set of standards which a gun owner should meet, not because the evil government is out there to make someone's life miserable but for everyone's safety. If Jimbo wouldn't be able to pass the tests required for a firearm license then thank goodness that his weapons would be confiscated or rendered inoperable because Jimbo was a walking loose cannon in more ways than one. Conversely, if Jimbo meets all the requirements, stores his guns in a safe fashion, adheres to safety regulations and does not cause an immediate threat or any disturbance to anyone around him, I give him my blessing to buy a tank for all I care.

I really don't understad why a requirement of a driving license is a "d'uh" matter for everyone while a license for owning firearms is a no-go - driving licenses are issued so as to make sure that drivers know how to properly operate a vehicle on the road and by proxy don't cause an immediate danger to everybody on said road by being a liability, aka a dumbass. Firearms are exactly the same in this regard - if you don't know how they operate, how to store them and how to safetly use them then by God, you shouldn't own one and the state should be overlooking this, not to disarm the populace but simply for the safety of other citizens.

 

[Clydefrosch]

disarming the population is actually what should happen.

collect every gun there is and then we can talk about redistributing them on a basis of being a responsible adult who is not driven by fear and panic. one who feels that spending some time on getting a license (that deserves the name license) to carry a gun, is, while maybe a bit of work, not a reason to take your guns out to the street to fight for your right to save said time.

 

[grossaffe]

Now this is really getting into Conspiracy Theory Monthly territory. We're not talking about putting stamps on guns, we're not in primary school and guns are not Sheriff Woody's boot - we're talking about actual licenses you have on you that permit you to purchase, carry and use firearms and ammunition. You're making it seem like an establishment of a police state when it's really a pretty simple matter.

All I'm saying is that there should be a certain (hopefuly high) set of standards which a gun owner should meet, not because the evil government is out there to make someone's life miserable but for everyone's safety. If Jimbo wouldn't be able to pass the tests required for a firearm license then thank goodness that his weapons would be confiscated or rendered inoperable because Jimbo was a walking loose cannon in more ways than one. Conversely, if Jimbo meets all the requirements, stores his guns in a safe fashion, adheres to safety regulations and does not cause an immediate threat or any disturbance to anyone around him, I give him my blessing to buy a tank for all I care.

It should also be worth noting that we do have background checks. There does need to be a conversation about mental illness and including that in our background checks, but this still does not require a registry.

I guess I'd also be getting into Conspiracy Theory Monthly if I said the government was tracking all of our movements through our cellphone metadata. Surely they wouldn't search through our emails. Or all the Internet traffic that passes the country's border.

 

[calmwaters]

That was his entire point. The War of 1812 was a conflict between the newly-formed United States and Britain, this is where the whole "threat of invasion" bit comes in in the context of a newly-established state. Conflicts prior to establishing the United States of America as an independent country were not conflicts between the U.S. and external powers, they were internal conflicts between the colonizers and the governing bodies or between two different governing bodies.
Tyrannical rule of which the Constitution says nothing about because the Constitution in no way refers to King George - King George was the King of Great Britain, not a president of the United States.
That's pretty much his point as well - this tension between the North and South brewed an internal conflict, which is exactly what we were talking about.
Wow... no.
Or you could just read a history book. Probably a better source of information than a movie or a musical, since the primary purpose of those two is entertainment, not education. Unless we're talking about documentaries, but those often leave important bits out due to running time constraints.

Before I go any further, I'd like to say that we're not arguing; we're having an intelligent conversation (you know what I'm saying). Right, the grievances in the Declaration of Independence were directed at Parliament. The Constitution didn't house those grievances, anyway.
I live in this country: I think I'm a pretty good judge of how stable it is. We didn't have school shootings or terrorist attacks in the early 1800s. Or people moaning and groaning about how we're destroying our environment. Or our position in the Vietnam Conflict (Congress never officially declared war).
Well but history books might leave out important bits due to space constraints. I don't think there is a history book which is comprehensive of pre- and post colonial history. Or a documentary for that matter. And just like there is a large selection of books, there are also large selections of movies. But movies are generally made for entertainment purposes and books are not. Well some people find books entertaining and soak up thousands of pages of knowledge.

 

[Foxi4]

It should also be worth noting that we do have background checks. There does need to be a conversation about mental illness and including that in our background checks, but this still does not require a registry.

That is good, however it'd be nice if background checks and testing didn't end immediately prior to someone buying a gun and instead continued onwards at regular intervals. Just because I'm not a nutter on monday doesn't mean that I won't snap five years later, and here registrations help keep track of things.

I guess I'd also be getting into Conspiracy Theory Monthly if I said the government was tracking all of our movements through our cellphone metadata. Surely they wouldn't search through our emails. Or all the Internet traffic that passes the country's border.

I see that we're touching upon the whole NSA debacle, to which I say "no comment" since it doesn't directly relate to the matter at hand. National security isn't exactly one of my concerns. That said, I can post this as comic relief:



I quite enjoyed that episode.

 

[calmwaters]

*snip*

England didn't "stop" Napoleon from invading the Americas, he gave up the idea after the Haitian revolution and instead negotiated with Jefferson for the Louisiana Purchase.[/quote]
It seems the money he got from that purchase didn't help out a lot.

I'm as yankee as you can get without playing on the field and even I know this is bullshit. Generalizations are kinda bad, ya know?

Maybe you missed the part about where I said I'd lived there. It's funny you should call yourself a yankee; I won't go into much description.

I see you didn't take my advice.

We're unstable in this country? I give up.

You realize that "Based on" in no way means "factually accurate," right? For the love of God, please tell me yes because you really worry me.

Yes. I would worry myself if I'd said no. But maybe I should just say no and have you constantly worry. Nah, I'll say yes.

You can say that again, Ben.

He said it.[/quote]

 

[Gahars]

Part Deux, Electric Boogaloo

Before I go any further, I'd like to say that we're not arguing; we're having an intelligent conversation (you know what I'm saying).

You two are having an "intelligent conversation," but all the intelligence is on Foxi's side.

I live in this country: I think I'm a pretty good judge of how stable it is. We didn't have school shootings or terrorist attacks in the early 1800s. Or people moaning and groaning about how we're destroying our environment. Or our position in the Vietnam Conflict (Congress never officially declared war).

OH BOY

-"We didn't have school shootings." We barely had any schools to shoot.
-"Terrorist Attacks" No, instead there were outright revolts and rebellions. When some idiot tries to light up fertilizer today, there's no danger of the entire government collapsing. That was a very real concern back then. And hey, if you want to stretch the time span here, there were plenty of acts that constituted honest to God terrorism. Read up on John Brown.
-"Or people moaning and groaning about how we're destroying our environment." Clearly you've never heard of the Transcendentalists.
-"Or our position in the Vietnam Conflict" Nope, but there were still plenty moaning about the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and so on.

It's fundamentally ludicrous to say that the United States today, the global superpower, is less stable than a backwoods republic that won its independence by the skin of its (and, mostly, France's) teeth. Minor discontent does not equal instability.

Well but history books might leave out important bits due to space constraints. I don't think there is a history book which is comprehensive of pre- and post colonial history. Or a documentary for that matter. And just like there is a large selection of books, there are also large selections of movies. But movies are generally made for entertainment purposes and books are not. Well some people find books entertaining and soak up thousands of pages of knowledge.

The medium does not matter. A book/film/show/etc. created solely for entertainment purposes is generally not going to be a very credible, academic source of historical information. A book written for pleasure holds no more weight than a movie made for pleasure.

A musical is not going to be an accurate source for anything because it is entertainment first and educational tool a very distant second; creative liberties are inherently necessary to make it work as a piece of fiction.

I mean, if you want to cite 1776 in a serious setting, be my guest, but don't be surprised when you're laughed out of the room.

EDIT: Seemed to have missed this...

Drinking whiskey was a sin in the Northerners' eyes, but the South depended on it for their income.

That's not what the Whiskey Rebellion was about. At all.

 

[Pleng]

I live in this country: I think I'm a pretty good judge of...{anything}

Living in a country doesn't automatically qualify an authority on any specific aspect of it. Honey boo boo also lives in your country. Would you trust her as an authority on the stability of the country? (I'm kind of dreading your answer to this question already!)

 

[calmwaters]

Living in a country doesn't automatically qualify an authority on any specific aspect of it. Honey boo boo also lives in your country. Would you trust her as an authority on the stability of the country? (I'm kind of dreading your answer to this question already!)

I would not.

 

[CJL18]

When u meet him tell him how's does it feel to be known as the worst president in history and yes that even includes being worst than bill clinton

 

[tHciNc]

If you get to ask him a question, ask him why he thinks gun control is a good idea if the bad guys are going to have guns regardless of any laws or regulations. Why does he want Americans defenseless against criminals? It doesnt make sense.

Why do americans think you need guns to protect youself from criminals, brainwashed with propaganda i say , criminals have guns here, yet less than 0.1% of the general population do and we are fine... But then again we aren't gun toting trigger happy overweight rednecks, that think nothing of shooting people left right and center to protect themselves... But i suppose America has to be like that when they think they are the bully... opps i mean big brother to the rest of the world.

 

[calmwaters]

Part Deux, Electric Boogaloo

You two are having an "intelligent conversation," but all the intelligence is on Foxi's side.

Funny how I was replying to Foxi and not you.

OH BOY

-"We didn't have school shootings." We barely had any schools to shoot.
-"Terrorist Attacks" No, instead there were outright revolts and rebellions. When some idiot tries to light up fertilizer today, there's no danger of the entire government collapsing. That was a very real concern back then. And hey, if you want to stretch the time span here, there were plenty of acts that constituted honest to God terrorism. Read up on John Brown.
-"Or people moaning and groaning about how we're destroying our environment." Clearly you've never heard of the Transcendentalists.
-"Or our position in the Vietnam Conflict" Nope, but there were still plenty moaning about the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and so on.

It's fundamentally ludicrous to say that the United States today, the global superpower, is less stable than a backwoods republic that won its independence by the skin of its (and, mostly, France's) teeth. Minor discontent does not equal instability.

What I'm trying to say is that, well with all the wars and political factions, we have never been truly stable. I thought that was what this is about. And discontent, however minor it is, brings unstability. It's a challenge to the established order and some people resent it.

The medium does not matter. A book/film/show/etc. created solely for entertainment purposes is generally not going to be a very credible, academic source of historical information. A book written for pleasure holds no more weight than a movie made for pleasure.

Have you ever seen a picture which is based on historical events? And if you have, did you find it enjoyable to watch? Might I recommend Schindler's List? Stop generalizing: books/movies/shows/etc. fall into different categories. Fiction, fantasy, romance, the kinds Foxi reads, etc. I watched this movie the other night which detailed the founding of this hospital and thought it was an excellent comedy. Try and guess what the name of the movie is.

A musical is not going to be an accurate source for anything because it is entertainment first and educational tool a very distant second; creative liberties are inherently necessary to make it work as a piece of fiction.

Citation needed. (If you think I'm worth it...)

I mean, if you want to cite 1776 in a serious setting, be my guest, but don't be surprised when you're laughed out of the room.

So I take it you're not going to watch the movie. Well, be my guest; but I must say a little entertainment is good for you. And I'm telling you this movie is historically accurate; whether you want to believe me or not is your business.

EDIT: Seemed to have missed this...

That's not what the Whiskey Rebellion was about. At all.

I've also heard that alcohol has been called the "devil's drink"; wonder where that came from... they made whiskey in the South too; but okay, my memory of history isn't perfect (but it is pretty good). I've obviously gotten you upset since you don't ordinarily talk like this and I'm sorry for that. Maybe; just maybe; we can ignore this and get on with our lives without having to use the "ignore" option the 'Temp provides us.

 

[Foxi4]

When u meet him tell him how's does it feel to be known as the worst president in history and yes that even includes being worst than bill clinton

Bill Clinton was a bad president? You mean the guy whose administration is responsible for:

• The longest recorded uninterrupted economic growth
• Reduction of the deficit to the point of the largest recorded budget surplus
• Decreasing the unemployment rate to below 5%
• Spearheading medical research, implementation of computer technology and education by:
  • Doubling the funding for the National Institutes of Health
  • Tripling the funding of Community Technology Centers
  • Increasing the funding of the National Science Foundation by 30%
  • Subsidizing Internet access for schools and libraries
  • Paving the road to college for students from underprivileged areas by starting the GEAR UP programme
  • Increasing federal funding of primary and secondary level education

...among other things? Wow, that sounds like a terrible president indeed! Arguably the worst thing that happened to Clinton as a president was the Monica Lewinsky scandal, his actual presidency was top-notch.

Funny how I was replying to Foxi and not you.

This is a public forum, y'know - anyone can throw in their two cents when they feel it's appropriate.

What I'm trying to say is that, well with all the wars and political factions, we have never been truly stable. I thought that was what this is about. And discontent, however minor it is, brings unstability. It's a challenge to the established order and some people resent it.

There is no immediate threat that the state will dissolve, wheras back then it could plundge into total chaos at any given moment - I'd say that's a big difference. It took a while for the United States to solidify itself as both a country and a nation, but now that it's gone through that process and actually became a superpower, things are far more stable than at the times of the founding fathers.

Have you ever seen a picture which is based on historical events? And if you have, did you find it enjoyable to watch? Might I recommend Schindler's List? Stop generalizing: books/movies/shows/etc. fall into different categories. Fiction, fantasy, romance, the kinds Foxi reads, etc. I watched this movie the other night which detailed the founding of this hospital and thought it was an excellent comedy. Try and guess what the name of the movie is.

If you're talking about "Patch Adams" starring Robin Williams, Patch Adams himself commented upon it saying "I hate that movie". Yeah... A couple interesting tidbits:

How old was the real Patch Adams when he ended up in a mental hospital?
The film depicts a mid-life Patch (Robin Williams) staying at a mental hospital. In reality, Patch Adams endured three different mental hospitalizations when he was much younger, during the time when he was 17 and 18-years-old.

(...)

Is Patch's girlfriend in the movie based on a real person?
No. In the movie, Patch's girlfriend is a fellow med student by the name of Corinne Fisher (Monica Potter). Corinne, who dies at the end of the film, is only very loosely based on Patch's real life wife Lynda, who Patch did meet at medical school like in the movie.

~http://www.chasingthefrog.com/reelfaces/patchadams.php

This is the definition of "historical inaccuracy" and "fiction".

As Gahars mentioned, there are movies and books that are written with the express intent to document history... and others which are made with the express intent to provide entertainment value. The latter take certain liberties which is why they're not considered viable sources of historically accurate information.

So I take it you're not going to watch the movie. Well, be my guest; but I must say a little entertainment is good for you. And I'm telling you this movie is historically accurate; whether you want to believe me or not is your business.

Again, this his not Gahars's point. His point is that there are sources out there that could be used in a debate and a movie made specifically to entertain is possibly the least accurate you could choose.

I've also heard that alcohol has been called the "devil's drink"; wonder where that came from... they made whiskey in the South too; but okay, my memory of history isn't perfect (but it is pretty good). I've obviously gotten you upset since you don't ordinarily talk like this and I'm sorry for that. Maybe; just maybe; we can ignore this and get on with our lives without having to use the "ignore" option the 'Temp provides us.

I don't think he was suggesting you to ignore him or threatening to ignore you - I think he was just setting the record straight in terms of what the rebellion was actually all about. Similarily the Boston Tea Party had very little to do with actual tea and everything to do with taxation and imposing monopolization of the previously free market, as well as a variety of different causes completely unrelated to tea.

 

[Costello]

I think you're arguing with people who are perfectly indifferent to economical and financial policies
but good on you for trying though!

 

[Densetsu]

So...

Ubuntu no Katana met the President

Ubuntuの刀, did the Secret Service rough up any of the students? I mean, they apparently pull 7th graders out of class to interrogate them about their Facebook status updates. They'd probably take notice if anyone looked at the President the wrong way