Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (937968)	6/3/2016 6:49:20 AM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Recommended By TideGlider Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575352

California schemin’: Bill that would have criminalized climate change skepticism dies (for now) “Welcome to Goreshank. Here’s your ‘bible.'” Well, at least now we know why Obama’s been commuting the sentences of so many convicted felons — they’re trying to open up cell space for the heretics who have committed the crime of getting in the way of the climate change alarmist agenda. Unfortunately though for progressives who made California Senate Bill 1161 a first-round draft pick in their fantasy totalitarian league team, there is a bit of a setback: A landmark bill allowing for the prosecution of climate change dissent effectively died Thursday after the California Senate failed to take it up before the deadline. Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016, would have authorized prosecutors to sue fossil fuel companies, think tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.” […] The measure was introduced amid a national push by Democrats and activist groups to use the legal system to prosecute climate change “fraud,” prompting a backlash from skeptics who have denounced the campaign as an assault on free speech. The science is so “settled” that they’re looking to throw doubters in jail, which is like a restaurant owner proving to health inspectors his place is botulism-free by killing customers who look a little peaked. They’ll be back though: The bill is considered dead because the house-of-origin deadline is midnight Friday and the state Senate is not scheduled to meet again before that. Later this year, however, the same language could be reintroduced under a waiver of the rules or inserted into another bill as part of the gut-and-amend process. They won’t rest until this is an actual prison inmate conversation: “What are you in for?” “Armed robbery and grand theft auto. You?” “Called Bill Nye a disingenuous a**hole.”

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (937968)	6/3/2016 12:11:53 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575352

It was before they started building subdivisions all over.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (937968)	6/3/2016 12:40:25 PM
From: Brumar89	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB TideGlider Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575352

Wear Orange to Stop Gun Violence? [ 60+% of "gun deaths" are suicides. I think Robin Williams hanged himself with a belt, so that was a belt death. Knives, blunt objects, and hands each kill more people than "assault rifles" and "non-assault rifles" combined. ] Today is National Gun Violence Awareness Day. To show opposition to gun violence, some people, including a few celebrities, are wearing orange–the color that hunters wear to avoid being shot accidentally. Cute. Various landmarks, including the Empire State Building, are also being illuminated with orange light. I certainly am opposed to violence, including but not limited to gun violence. The problem is that the antidote to “gun violence” inevitably turns out to be nothing but more gun control laws. Which means that the usual bad arguments and misleading statistics are being trotted out today. This Chicago Tribune column is sadly typical: Each year,…more than 30,000 die from gun violence. Actually, over 60% of those 30,000 are suicides. Suicide is a serious problem, but it is not a problem of “gun violence.” If a person hangs himself, is that rope violence? I’ll speak out in support of measures to address the epidemic of gun violence, because I think it’s the right thing to do. By adding my voice to the chorus saying it’s time to adopt common-sense measures like a ban on assault weapons and requiring universal background checks, I hope to make a difference. Sorry, but you’re not going to make a difference with those tired old proposals. “Assault weapons” don’t exist, but if the writer means semiautomatic rifles, they are almost never used as murder weapons. Knives are used far more often than rifles of all types, not just semiautomatics, and both blunt objects and bare hands are more commonly murder weapons than rifles. And making background checks “universal”–i.e., if my friend and I want to trade guns, we have to pay someone to run background checks on one another first–would have essentially zero impact on the homicide rate. Criminals don’t buy their guns legally in the first place, and background checks are useless with regard to lunatics because the lunatics are never on the list. Mainak Sardar, the engineer from Minnesota who murdered his wife and a professor at UCLA, is typical. He reportedly obtained his firearms legally in Minnesota, presumably by passing a background check. There is no point in running more checks against a useless list. It is odd, too, that ever more hysterical demands for gun control have come during an era of declining violence. The homicide rate today is little more than half what it was for a time in the 1990s. Still, if celebrities, columnists and politicians are serious about trying to reduce gun violence, there is something they can do. After years of decline, the homicide rate rose in 2015. The upward trend seems to be continuing, as many cities are experiencing far more shootings than they did a few years ago. The only plausible explanation for the current spike in homicides is the war against the police being waged by Black Lives Matter and, generally speaking, the Democratic Party. Therefore, the most tangible step a columnist, celebrity or politician could take to fight gun violence would be to encourage respect for the law, and for law enforcement. Given the dishonorable role of the Democratic Party in the war on cops, a second constructive step would be to vote for Republican politicians. But that isn’t the message that the sponsors of National Gun Violence Awareness Day are trying to promote. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/06/wear-orange-to-stop-gun-violence.php [ Democrats promote more "gun violence" with their pro-criminal policies. ]