protesters bring firearms to town hall meetings

[Legacy Account]

Originally posted by Dragonsreach

Originally posted by supervike
I think they are making a valid \'freedom of speech\' expression by carrying their guns.
The trouble is, to my mind, their valid \'freedom of speech\' expression may well be considered as intimidating and/or intimidation and thereby denying a \"freedom of speech\" to others.

Absolutely. Carrying a weapon is nothing to do with freedom of speech whether it\'s a legal right or not.

 

[Minicreatures]

You gotta fight, for your right, to arty! Especially if you happen to be armed!

:beer:

What exactly are nobs?
Nazis Offering Bananas?
Nudists Obstructing Boats?
Nachos Obliterating Babies?
Natives Oscillate Bleakly?

 

[Minicreatures]

Originally posted by Spacemunkie

Originally posted by Dragonsreach

Originally posted by supervike
I think they are making a valid \'freedom of speech\' expression by carrying their guns.
The trouble is, to my mind, their valid \'freedom of speech\' expression may well be considered as intimidating and/or intimidation and thereby denying a \"freedom of speech\" to others.

Absolutely. Carrying a weapon is nothing to do with freedom of speech whether it\'s a legal right or not.

You talk to your gun alot? Hmm...

 

[Legacy Account]

I have never owned and will never own one, so no.

 

[Farin]

@Dr. Evilmonki

Both sides have their wackos, weirdos and namecaller who believe that a political debate consist of angry rants and weird accusations - the lesser their based in reality the better - but i have to say Fox and especially O´reilly, Hannity and that weird lunatice who cries alot ( forgot his name ) really seem to excell at it.

I don ´t think we have to dignify those guys or there opinion by mentioning them here - i consider every single member here on CMON as too smart as to fall for that kind of crap.

what are nobs ??? surely you don´t mean snobs, right ?

@Donna

Maybe we qualify for some kind of award now - \"most polite community in teh web\" .

@Airhead

Coming back to your challenge, Skeeve already mentioned the enviroment. Damages and so called external costs caused by pollution , for example through acid rain, cannot be regulated by a free market because the price as the regulating value is only influenced by the two factors demand and supply , the damage on the enviroment doesn´t influence it - and therefore in a completely free \"lesse fairez Market socciety\" , many products would be too cheap, because they don´t take into account the external , the social costs.

classic example - acid rain causing costs for the forestry because of the decreased number of trees. If there is still teh same demand in wood , the price for wood increases and teh external costs can be seen as that price difference. Now odf cause someone could produce a synthetic substitute for wood - but that wouldn´t be very economical , since it would use other ressource

doesn´t of cause mean we can´t find market solution for enviromental poroblems - cap and trade, if well executed is a good example.


@Minicreatures

off topic for a last time, hopefully: Here in germany we basically got a five party system. And considered thast these 5 parties include the german green party, (christian) conservatives , socialists and liberals it´s hard to find a topic where they will all agree, so yeah, in the best case scenario it can be very \"interresting\" .seriously you americans should think about voting an independent party into the senate or the house - they can´t be all lunatics , and it might help to break the gridlock between Democrats an Republicans

oh and talkin with your gun... ever seen Steven Colbert with his sweetie, gotta admit i laugh about it every time - that and the \"british \" guy

 

[DrEvilmonki]

nobs = bollocks (must be localised slang)

Also why are we debating if government can run healthcare better - the health care reform is talking about a public INSURANCE option. The government will not be running the healthcare system, they are not taking away peoples private insurance.

I would have at least some respect for those expressing their so called democratic right if they weren\'t blatantly lying about what was being proposed.

 

[generulpoleaxe]

Originally posted by Mr.S.Marbo

Originally posted by airhead
I challenge anyone to name anything the government does that private enterprise cannot do better and with less costs.

Run the railways!!!!

In 1997 the nationalised system of railways in the UK were privatised.

*In 1994 the nationalised railways required a subsidy of £2168 million (that figure is adjusted for inflation to the 2005 equivalent value) to run. In 2005 private companies required financial support from the taxpayer of £4593 million!!!

*Safety - four major accidents have occurred since privatisation of the railways (Southall (1997), Ladbroke Grove (1999), Hatfield (2000) and Potters Bar (2002) - A total of 48 people were killed and 820 injured in these crashes). In addition to this there have been two other serious accidents (Great Heck (2001) and Ufton Nervet (2004)) with fatalities. In one case lessons from a previous crash were not learnt and the same mistakes made.

*One of the principal expectations from privatisation was that the railway service could be delivered more efficiently in the private sector because of the profit motive. The expectation that there were considerable costs that could be slashed from the system was not fulfilled; new operators found that BR (the government controlled rail operator before privatisation) had already done much of what could be done to improve efficiency.

*The privatised railway has not shown the improvement in punctuality and reliability that was hoped for.

*Every year I pay more for travelling by train and they are dirty, late, slow and expensive - much worse than when they were under government control!

Sorry a bit off topic but don\'t always assume the private sector does it better, it doesn\'t always. Both the public and private sectors can be inefficient. One thing the public sector can do better than the private is equitable distribution of resources, the private sector is concerned with profit only, it doesn\'t care.

Wrong, they were not privatised (the goverment said they were but they were not) they were turned into a franchise network.
The people foot the bills for maintenaince of the railways and the franchise owners profit from people using the carriages (one of the worst cockups by that conservative goverment as it still costs us millions)

as for the privatised energy companies, the goverment has repeatedly increased it\'s interferance in the market pushing up costs for said business which in turn is passed on to the consumer.

you either privatise and leave alone (only stepping in when the people ask you to step in) or you go the whole hog.
The half arsed schemes from all parties in the UK since WWII has contributed to the shite we are currently in (not one party has committed itself fully instead prefering to play party politics which the people always pay for.)

 

[Ritual]

Originally posted by generulpoleaxe
as for the privatised energy companies, the goverment has repeatedly increased it\'s interferance in the market pushing up costs for said business which in turn is passed on to the consumer.

In Sweden the government lifted most of its control over the energy market some years ago. Prices have gone through the roof since then. They are more than tripple what they were before.

 

[supervike]

Originally posted by wiccanpony
wow! 4 pages and dueling pistols haven’t been drawn ... man! we be cool

I like these debates. Intelligent (well mostly) well thought out replies on both sides.

It\'s too bad the forums here aren\'t really a microcosom for the real world....

 

[generulpoleaxe]

Originally posted by Ritual

Originally posted by generulpoleaxe
as for the privatised energy companies, the goverment has repeatedly increased it\'s interferance in the market pushing up costs for said business which in turn is passed on to the consumer.

In Sweden the government lifted most of its control over the energy market some years ago. Prices have gone through the roof since then. They are more than tripple what they were before.

interesting, didn\'t realize that.
how is the goverment taxation on said industry? that could be a contributing factor, if not then the people need to tell the companies where to go or get their representatives (politicians) to step in.

 

[Ritual]

Originally posted by generulpoleaxe

Originally posted by Ritual

Originally posted by generulpoleaxe
as for the privatised energy companies, the goverment has repeatedly increased it\'s interferance in the market pushing up costs for said business which in turn is passed on to the consumer.

In Sweden the government lifted most of its control over the energy market some years ago. Prices have gone through the roof since then. They are more than tripple what they were before.

interesting, didn\'t realize that.
how is the goverment taxation on said industry? that could be a contributing factor, if not then the people need to tell the companies where to go or get their representatives (politicians) to step in.

We have generally high taxes in Sweden, but I don\'t think taxes on energy are any worse than any other type of commodity. If anything it would be less taxes as we have tax reduction on environmental friendly alternatives, and a lot of the energy that is produced in Sweden is environmentally sustainable.

The problem as I see it is that energy is a necessity and people have to pay what the companies charge, as long as there are no cheaper alternatives. And, as the companies want as much profit as possible, they keep the prices up. It\'s like a cartel arrangement, but without a cartel (that would be illegal). For the politicians, the lifting of regulation of the energy market is a matter of prestige. They made the decision based on the assumption that a free market and competition will keep the prices down. Reinstating regulations would mean admitting they are wrong, and might have effects on other, similar matters. So, they pretend as if nothing\'s happened.

Just an illustration that the dogmas of capitalism doesn\'t always apply.

 

[skeeve]

Originally posted by generulpoleaxe

Originally posted by Ritual

Originally posted by generulpoleaxe
as for the privatised energy companies, the goverment has repeatedly increased it\'s interferance in the market pushing up costs for said business which in turn is passed on to the consumer.

In Sweden the government lifted most of its control over the energy market some years ago. Prices have gone through the roof since then. They are more than tripple what they were before.

interesting, didn\'t realize that.
how is the goverment taxation on said industry? that could be a contributing factor, if not then the people need to tell the companies where to go or get their representatives (politicians) to step in.

We are somewhat off target again but funny you should mentioned taxes and Sweden . Energy tax in Sweden is the highest (may be second highest now, my data are about 2 years old) in Europe and was increased at least twice since 1991. In addition to that , unless I am mistaken, \"clean\" energy (nuclear and hydro) and \"dirty\" energy (CO2 emitting) are taxed differently, you can guess which is taxed at higher rate

PS. Ritual beat me to it. ~30% of electricity in Sweden is Hydo-electricity(don\'t quote me on THIS number - this is from high school economic geography). Problem is that there is no possibility of growth in this sector. I assume there are just that many rivers in Sweden.

As for the amount of taxes. Check current figures, when I looked at it 2 years ago I think ~60% of your gasoline price were taxes, but that was before oil price insanity.

PPS. It occurred to me also, when you mentioned rise in energy prices in Sweden what period of time we are talking about?. Because over the last 2 years oil prices went way up, somebody has to compensate for this. So, the question is whether the price increase you have seen is much above oil price increase over the same period of time. Sweden is not energy independent, I know that you import from Russia for example.

 

[Ritual]

Originally posted by skeeve
As for the amount of taxes. Check current figures, when I looked at it 2 years ago I think ~60% of your gasoline price were taxes, but that was before oil price insanity

We have high taxes. We have had that for a long time. There hasn\'t been drastical changes since the de-regulation of the energy market. Some changes yes, but nothing that can explain the price increases of several 100 percent since companies could set their prices freely and since the number of energy producing companies have increased, which SHOULD make competition fiercer and prices lower.

The energy companies take every opportunity they can to raise prices (low water levels, for instance) and they almost never lower the prices again when the issues are resolved. When one company raise the prices, others follow. It is the reverse of what competition should be. Sometimes energy companies have lied about their reasons for raising the prices. But, as the other companies follow, there\'s not much the consumers can do.

The time frame I\'m talking about is the last 5-8 years, I think. I\'m not entirely sure when the market was de-regulated. But something like that... No, we\'re not totally energy independent, but AFAIK we don\'t use that much oil, other than for fuel and that\'s a different matter. What I\'m talking about is the price for electricity.

 

[EArkham]

This whole thread:

That is all.

Kep

 

[Farin]

@Same energy problem in Germany:

The prices for electricity and Gas are increasing and have been for about the same time frame given by Ritual.
In germany i think the most contributing factor is that, we got only 4 major corporations working like one big cartell - of cause noone will admitt it for very much the reason given by ritual

@skeeve: i know, i know, offtopic , but i would like to add that you can´t of cause rise the number of rivers in Sewden, but you can increase the efficency of the plants, you can build intelligent energy grids ( something we all will see in the near future ) that allocate or store electric energy in a more efficent way , and you can of cause try and replace old cables with new ones that haver smaller loss due to resistance per meter.

------------------

by the way back to the topic of town hall meetings.
Was i the only one who saw the scene with the , let´s say, hysterical-and-therefore-unable-to think-straight woman, who accused a jewish , homosexual Politician of promotting a Nazi health scheme ? :drunk:

in case you didn´t:

The daily show about Barney Frank and the Nazi namecalling

That´s not even funny anymore, it´s just sad. I certainly don´t say that all all people opposed to Obama´s policy are like that , but maybe, just maybe they should drop the angry name calling and ask legitimate question about health care cost and burocracy

 

[Dragonsreach]

Originally posted by supervike

I like these debates. Intelligent (well mostly) well thought out replies on both sides.

It\'s too bad the forums here aren\'t really a microcosom for the real world....

If Only.

 

[Minicreatures]

Originally posted by Farin
@Same energy problem in Germany:

The prices for electricity and Gas are increasing and have been for about the same time frame given by Ritual.
In germany i think the most contributing factor is that, we got only 4 major corporations working like one big cartell - of cause noone will admitt it for very much the reason given by ritual

@skeeve: i know, i know, offtopic , but i would like to add that you can´t of cause rise the number of rivers in Sewden, but you can increase the efficency of the plants, you can build intelligent energy grids ( something we all will see in the near future ) that allocate or store electric energy in a more efficent way , and you can of cause try and replace old cables with new ones that haver smaller loss due to resistance per meter.

------------------

by the way back to the topic of town hall meetings.
Was i the only one who saw the scene with the , let´s say, hysterical-and-therefore-unable-to think-straight woman, who accused a jewish , homosexual Politician of promotting a Nazi health scheme ? :drunk:

in case you didn´t:

The daily show about Barney Frank and the Nazi namecalling

That´s not even funny anymore, it´s just sad. I certainly don´t say that all all people opposed to Obama´s policy are like that , but maybe, just maybe they should drop the angry name calling and ask legitimate question about health care cost and burocracy

Yes I agree Farin. Unfortunately parts of the media and the politicians trying to ram this through without much deliberation of whats important, are blowing up and sensationalizing the name callers, ignoring the rest of the people, and giving disturbing comments to citizens who show up legally to debate wearing open firearms. It completely throws up enough smoke and mirrors to avoid the actual discussion of facts. It seems pretty convenient to me...

Also the name calling is going on from both sides, with both people and elected officials doing it.

The President was the one calling the people at the AZ townhall meeting unAmerican etc for carrying guns to the discussion, when there was no reason to even talk about that as an issue.

I think with alot of these things you have to consider who the target recipient(s) is (are), and what\'s the goal(s) hoped to be attained from the interaction.

 

[Farin]

Also the name calling is going on from both sides, with both people and elected officials doing it.

i agree , since i said that in my forst or second post

smokes and mirrors... yep , i had that exact words in mind

The President was the one calling the people at the AZ townhall meeting unAmerican etc for carrying guns to the discussion, when there was no reason to even talk about that as an issue.

then he made a mistake, and as shown by other incidents , Obama seems to be a man able to see a mistake, admit it, and maybe learn from it ... that´s something that can´t be said for many politicians, as it seems to be a common practice for todays politicians to just duck´n´ cover when they make a mistake and wait for the smoke to clear up - and since the media is bombarding us with tons of Stories 24/7 it usually works - well that, and finding a scapegoat of cause.

I think with alot of these things you have to consider who the target recipient(s) is (are), and what\'s the goal(s) hoped to be attained from the interaction.

There´s a big problem IMHO: I followed the topic for quite some time now, thanks to the web, and for me it looks like some of the republican / democratic politicians have stopped making real politics all together - instead they just pushing certain buttons: fear of socialism, fear of facism , fear of overboarding burocracy - no matter if they have any real connection to the issue at hands. When i see that young woman , or the other townfolks protesting and talking about facism or socialism, it gets pretty clear that they have no idea what those words mean: If that woman knew what facism is , she wouldn´t acuse Obama of being a fascist.

Instead of saying those words, they could simply say rhubarb - it would just make as much sense, and help advance teh discussion just as much

 

[Mr.S.Marbo]

Originally posted by generulpoleaxeWrong, they were not privatised (the goverment said they were but they were not) they were turned into a franchise network.
The people foot the bills for maintenaince of the railways and the franchise owners profit from people using the carriages (one of the worst cockups by that conservative goverment as it still costs us millions)

A franchise is still private (McDonald\'s is one). I am not sure what was still state owned when the privatisation took place.

1) All rolling stock was owned by private leasing companies and freight stock was owned by private freight companies.

2) All infrastructure (track, bridges signals, stations, was owned by Railtrack which was a company floated on the stock exchange (until it encountered major problems). Are you talking about the company that took over from Railtrack?

3) Maintenance of the railways was privatised and private companies soon started maintaining parts of the railways (rather badly in some cases).

4) Private freight companies took over freight business.

5) Private train operators provided the actual service.

I can\'t see anything else left that was not owned or under control of some private enterprise. It\'s a bit different now because of Network Rail, but in the beginning someone private owned every part of it (unless you are counting subsidies given to these private companies?).

A note about free markets too. I believe that the perfect free market is impossible to have and just a theory. Economists will say there are barriers to the free market, notably imperfect information and externalities.

 

[DrEvilmonki]

As an example of where government does a better job than private - how about health care in America.

% of medicare spending that goes into administration is approx 7% with 93% going into actual healthcare costs.

% of private insurance companies costs for administration (includes profit) is 25% with 75% going into actual healthcare costs.