Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Ad Campaign Update

The Presidential election at this stage appears to be in a place where both sides are extremely cautious. Romney seems to be playing it cool and waiting for any hint of an Obama gaff before pouncing. Once such gaff came this week when Obama made a comment about business owners not being solely responsible for their success. It has played right into the hands of those that claim the President is hostile toward the private sector.

And another.

The Obama team responded with a video that adresses the controversy directly.

Forward is the theme of the reelect Obama campaign.

I suspect this is how the Presidential election will prod along for the next two months or so until things heat up in the final weeks. Obama will wait for any opportunity to expose Romney as an uncaring billionaire who is miles out of touch with the ordinary man. Given Romney's wealth he will likely get the chance to do this. Romney will counter by portreying the President as a man hell bent on introducing the welfare state to America which is essentially an unamerican concept. Unless a major international issue flares up, which is quite possible, I think the campaign will be predictable and boring.


The System Works said...


In his autobiography 'Dreams from My Father', Obama actually writes about finding “conventional work” to make a little money before he could land his dream job of community organizer. Determined to remain in the private sector only briefly, he said it was like covertly infiltrating an enemy combatant's territory: “Like a spy behind enemy lines, I arrived every day at my mid-Manhattan office and sat at my computer terminal.”

Why are we ignoring this?!

Ted Leddy said...


I have been thinking alot about this. I think his comment that you quoted above was probably made in jest but there is no doubt that Obama does think the state should be the main driving force in the economy. To answer your question though, I think the Republicans are avoiding bringing up stuff from Obamas past. It didn't work with Ayres and Wright and it leaves a sour taste in the mouth.

I am a private sector fan myself and think that the only thing that will reverse the global recession would be if the American economy came roaring back. Debt has done massive damage to Europe. I fear it may do the same to the US in which case Obama will go down as a disastrous president. Having said that one can't ignore that in Europe, all the taxes and cuts have just contracted the economies. The Americans on the other hand had a stimulus which may have seemed wasteful but the US economy is one of the few in the western world that is growing. Is this a vindication of Obamas policies? You have great knowledge of such hings I have noticed. Enlighten me.

builder man said...

Builderman said: The US election is only about who can raise the most funds to slag off their opponents with lies, half-truths and manipulation of any facts. No debate on gun control. No debate on the Middle East. No debate on anything the powerful lobby groups don't want debated. And this is a democracy? It is the world's most expensive election for the world's most ignorant electorate. Sample billionaire supporter of Romney is anti-Palestinian and any human decency Sheldon Anderson,Jewish owner of Whorehouse Vegas who was a Democrat who became a Republican as his wealth increased. Quelle surprise! Last principled President was Eisenhower who said this: 'The day will come when the people will make so insistent their demand that there be peace in the world that the Governments will get out of the way and let them have peace.'

Paul said...

The reason factors like the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms (a guarantor of freedom hence why you hate it) will not be debated Uncle Jo is because it is a constitutional issue. Leftists would rather chip away at such freedoms covertly rather then debate them. Not least as no facts support their argument. No debate on the Middle East? Well the election is taking place in America you see; if the people were as ignorant as you say the debates would be more like watching Question Time.

builder man said...

To Paul. The 2nd amendment refers to a militia, not individuals, 'people' being a mass noun. You seem dismissive of people's freedom to watch a movie or go to school without being slaughtered. Why is it only YOUR freedom that matters? Debate is a crucial part of a democracy which is why you are against it? America's influence in the Middle East is enormous. With their democracy so corrupted, all suffer.

builder man said...

Just watched the Olympic opening ceremony where the NHS was a central part of the pageant and much applauded. Apparently Mitt Romney was there. Will that prompt a debate on health care in the US?

Paul said...

Builderman, why do you always tell lies about people and engage in the crudest of semantics to further an argument. Oh that's right you’re a leftist fucktard I understand! Why was I dismissive of 'people's freedom to watch a movie or go to school without being slaughtered'? Answer please?

Would you care to explain how well gun control has worked in the UK?

Of course not you'll just shoot from the hip (no pun intended) as you cannot actually present a decent argument. Like every other freedom hating lefty. Take note every single argument I have presented on my blog concerning so called gun control has been backed by solid facts, references and statistics not a single detractor has ever used a similar methodology to refute these arguments.

Oh and the 2nd Amendment is not for a ‘militia’ it is an individuals right:

‘A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8]’ Take note the militia is not specified in any sense, therefore the use of the term ‘well regulated’ is moot. Case law in the main upholds this. See In District of Columbia v. Heller for instance.

The second Amendment upholds and enshrines an individual right to practical self-defence (non existent in GB) and limits tyranny. That is why you dislike it, it would stop the kind of authoratarian socialist regime you would undoudetly prefer such as Cuba or North Korea.

builder man said...

To Paul.Dismissive of other people's freedoms. Because you refuse to accept that a DEBATE on gun control may throw up ideas about how to stop the slaughter that is prevalent in the US. Guns in the UK are too easily available to the criminally minded and that is a problem that should be tackled more vigorously. But at least no disturbed individual can wander into Tesco and buy whatever weapons they want. Proof of a better approach is in the statistics:
I'm aware of DCvHeller and the Supreme Court of George Bush appointed right wing types. The sensible minority opinion came from Judge Stephen Breyer (who is Jewish) and who said: 'based on the values and the historical record, the Founding Fathers never intended guns to go unregulated.' In any case, might not America have changed after 200 years? To stop govs. acting tyranically (as at Waco and Kent State for instance), it is up to the people to be informed and act in unison against oppression of legitimate freedoms and liberty.

The System Works said...

Ted: I don't see any encouraging signs from the American economy. The real unemployment rate, which factors in discouraged and under-employed workers, is significantly over 20%, and over half of young people. Thats over twice the official figures. The government consistently manipulates the data in this regard. If you haven't actively looked for work in the last year, they don’t count you at all in the jobless stats! They've been doing this since 1994, I believe. And history shows us that workers and graduates who get off to a bad start in their careers tend to be handicapped for the rest of their working lives. Obama's target unemployment rate after the stimulus has never been reached.

Its also fairly clear that the rate of inflation is a lot higher than what Bernanke insists, if you do your own shopping. The Consumer Price Index itself has become a total fraud. It used to measure the cost of a fixed basket of goods year by year: eight ounces of steak, a gallon of gas or a loaf of bread, for example. Whatever the change was in the cost of that basket of goods, that’s effectively how much your income had to go up in order to maintain a constant standard of living. However, now when the authorities see that the price of steak is going up, they project that people are going to buy more chicken or hamburger, and so compare the cost of a basket of goods one year to a DIFFERENT one the next year. So they measure the cost of living but not of maintaining a constant standard of living as the public expects. The government redefined it to make it maintaining a constant level of satisfaction.

The System Works said...

The stimulus has been an absolute disaster that has done serious economic harm. If you want to know why it hasn't created jobs, I can point you towards an invaluable study here:

The gist of the findings are twofold: Almost half the hires for the stimulus projects were already working, and the fact that aggregates conceal what matters; neither labor nor physical resources are fungible.

O.K., I'll clarify this further. This was explained to me by someone working in the contruction industry in the comment section of some economics website, and I've found it invalauable ever since. Say that a lot of home construction workers have been layed off after the housing bubble burst. So Obama says: "Don’t worry, we’ll build a road or a bridge and employ them!” The only problem is that the type of construction home builders are trained for has nothing to do with bridges. Perhaps people like those in the Obama administration lack the appreciation for the real complexity of these jobs and assume that any blue collar work is trivial and interchangeable with a little retraining, but it’s not the case.

Not only that, but the people who can *start a project are very different than the people needed to bring it to completion, and in general the people needed at the beginning of a project are the least likely to be unemployed. In fact, even in a recession there is a shortage of such people. So it was predictable as rain that new stimulus projects would have to scavenge project leaders, architects, managers, and senior engineers from other existing projects that may have more value. It was absolutely, 100% unavoidable.

Not only that, but it is incredibly destructive: Pulling a manager from an existing project can cause damages far exceeding the salary of that person. If a project manager or architect is enticed away from a project that has a $100,000 per day development cost, and his leaving causes a month of delays while a new manager is found and brought up to speed, that’s a cost that will never show up in the stimulus accounting – but his $150,000 job will be counted as a ‘job created’. No one will know that in addition to the stimulus money used to hire him, the real cost of that job was an additional $3 million dollars. I’ve never seen a single Keynesian model take that kind of destruction of existing projects into account or try to quantify the effect. You’d think this might be important to consider – especially in an era where specialization is so important, where even low-level positions require specialized training.

It was also inevitable that some of the people hired would be pulled out of retirement – when you need top guys, you’re not going to find them in the unemployment line. You’ll find them sitting on their sailboats in the Carribbean.

Let me ask a simple question: If your productive capacity is totally focused on making tables, but your population has plenty of tables but has a real shortage of chairs, and no one is trained to make chairs, how much fiscal stimulus would you need to pick up aggregate demand? Answer: Infinite. People don’t want more tables at any price. As long as that’s all you’re offering, aggregate demand will remain low, and all your table makers will remain unemployed. In fact, the stimulus is just masking the problem and delaying the necessary adjustment to a ‘chair economy’.

"Aggregate demand" may be way down, but Apple has no problem selling every iPad it makes.

In a simpler time with simpler labor requirements, you could get away with assuming that the law of large numbers would apply and labor could be treated the same. Unfortunately for Obama and the socialists, this is no loger the case.

The System Works said...

builder man: I have to ask, why do you keep mentioning the Jewishness of of certain people, like Steven Breyer and Sheldon Adelson, in your posts? You don't say that Obama is black every time you mention his name, or that Eisenhower was a Presbyterian when you quote him.

Shame on you, also, for hi-jacking the tragedy of what happened in Colorado to further your political objectives.

On gun control, I'd recommend watching this recent cool-headed analysis on Russia Today from Brian Doherty (of Irish Catholic extraction I believe), an expert on firearms in the US:

Doherty explains the errors of the thinking behind the clamor for gun control after the cinema tragedy. These events, and gun murders in general, are rare and getting rarer every year. This, despite the fact that ALL states have liberalized their gun laws in recent years, and many more Americans are carrying weapons. Four million Americans each year apply for gun-ownership licenses.

Alarmist news headlines notwithstanding, gun violence has, in fact, plummeted by half.

Paul said...

Builder Man, DC V Heller supports my arguments not yours a fact. Quoting the minority in such a case is pointless even if they are Jewish (I wonder what you are getting at?)

Typically you did not bother in any way to engage with the points being made. I will make it simpler for you; gun control laws exist to prevent gun crime right? Tell me therefore where they ACTUALLY do so? In England and Wales post the handgun ban of 1997, gun crime quadrupled in England and Wales the laws do not work.

They are bad laws that do not work. Allowing law abiding citizens to arm themselves and use weapons for self protection (as in the Channel Islands and NI) is a good idea. Those jurisdictions have both a lower homicide rate and reduced burglaries compared to England and Wales so sure gun control is a great idea! Needless to say gun crime increased after the bans of 1987 and 1997. A point you will prove incapable of arguing with. Why should the government be only allowed guns? We know the answer of course because you favour tyranny. Thanks TSW but don't expect decent replies from Builderbollox.

builder man said...

To TSW. I mention their Jewishness where it is relevant. Sheldon Anderson is an extremist supporter of an extremist Israel because he is Jewish. The damage he does has, and will have, an effect on the whole Jewish people. Steven Breyer represents the best of traditional Jewish values, of wisdom, intelligence and compassion. Not exclusively Jewish of course, but endemic in their culture and therefore relevant. I am suggesting, following the Colorado and other shootings and the debate among intelligent Americans on gun control, how these events might be curtailed. If you had any compassion for the victims, you would confront the facts. The incidences might be slightly reducing but they have a long way to go before they reach civilised levels. The incidence of intentional homicides committed with a firearm in the US is 3 per 100,000. In the UK (with very restrictive firearm laws) it is 0.07. Enough said. You don't seem to comprehend that freedom and liberty is not just about YOUR OWN self-indulgent ideas but must incorporate a wider responsibility to others. What you are advocating is a tyranny of self-obsessed motivations. That is not freedom. I'll deal with your silly economics at a later date.

builder man said...

To Paul. The Channel Islands and NI are not representative of modern industrial societies with large conurbations. As you know, gun crime in the UK is largely (67%) black on black and a cultural problem that is slowly being tackled - not very successfully so far I admit.But it is still very much a minority pursuit and the gun laws are in place to keep it that way.The increased use of guns has nothing to do with the laws. It is a criminal element and a crazy fashion confined to a particular culture. By comparison to the US, as pointed out to TSW, the incidents are tiny. Too many but definitely curtailed by the laws. In my view, transportation (to S. Georgia), should be reinstated for crimes of violence. Would change the whole climate (literally!) within 10 years!

The System Works said...

builder man: Breyer's legal philosophy has precious little to with traditional Jewish values. Leftists always spout this crap when talking about people they like: such a person represents 'the best in the American/Jewish/Christian/Whatever tradition' just because that person is on the same page politically. Jews have a great tradition of entrepreneurship. Who fits into that role better: Adelson or Breyer? And are you saying Adelson has no intelligence, wisdom or compassion? No doubt you will say yes to that one, because you believe those who dislike socialism lack 'compassion'; simply because we don't want the state to rob some people and give (inefficiently) to others.

Your stats are unconvincing when you look at the wider picture. You have compared the gun crime rate in two countries, one with liberal gun laws (where such crime is decreasing) and one with authoritarian legislation (where gun crime has been increasing). However, there are countries with rates of gun ownership as high and even higher than the United States: Canada, Switzerland and Israel, for example. The homicide rate in these countries is low indeed, significantly lower than the US and in some cases, the UK. Then there are countries that have introduced tighter gun control only to see the gun crime rate spiral upward: South Africa, for example. You say 'enough said' but I think we need to say a lot more. The same goes for issues like healthcare in this country, where there is very little debate at all.

Ted Leddy said...

On Gun Control

I have never had a problem with America's gun culture. Many people seem to get far more wound up about Americans love of firearms than they do about many other more unusual customs around the world. I think it is perfectly normal and reasonable for a responsible person (particularly with a family) to want to keep a hand gun safely locked away in their home in case of an intruder.

However I think it is very reckless that people are allowed buy heavy machine guns and it doesn't even get noted on any federal level.

So which is better, the American or the British/Irish way? In Dublin, I don't think a person is less likely to be mugged or burgled than a person living in LA or New York. But in Ireland, a crime committed against you is very unlikely to involve a gun. Muggers, burglers, and the guys that rob corner shops do not carry guns in Ireland. I have never heard, either anecdotally or via the media of a person in Ireland being threatened by a gun this way. Only the criminals that rob banks and committ other serious organised crimes have guns. If guns became easier to access then I would fear that every junkie and aspiring criminal would end up with a gun as well as everyone else out there with a personal grudge to settle. And it that case, gun deaths would likely spiral. Instead of the scenario where a junkie tries to rob the till of a shop and usually leaves without anybody getting hurt, we might otherwise have regular situations involving law abiding citizens and low level criminals that resemble the shoot out at the OK Corral.

Of course, if you are the victim a mugging on the streets of Dublin London or Liverpool you would of course wish in the aftermath that you had a gun to scare off your assailant. But how do you trade this off. I don't know. But if I had to choose, I think the Brit/Irish model with its much lower crime levels is better.

Paul said...

Firstly, Ted there is no Brit/Irish model of gun control at all. There are different laws across both countries. But as a leftover in part from the troubles pistols can be kept for self-defence in Northern Ireland. NI has a reduced homicide rate compared to mainland GB, I do not know if it is less than the Republic.

'However I think it is very reckless that people are allowed buy heavy machine guns and it doesn't even get noted on any federal level.' It does and no one in the US can legally own a HMG! You may be referring to assault weapons I suspect. But that is really down to the states concerned IMHO.

Again like Builder man you have failed to distinguish between illegally held and legally held weapons. The latter are not responsible for crime and would not be if the laws were loosened. Junkies are not going to go into Sainsbury’s and come away with firearms. Besides if they wanted guns they are easy to get from fellow members of the criminal fraternity under the current ineffective system. Inner city gangs murder one another with illegal weapons and always will. After all a legally purchased one would be registered and the applicant would foreseeably undergo a CRB check. So no guns for gangsters (legally), a means for law abiding Jo public to defend themselves oh yes time for a change. That said it has to be said that Builderman's proposal for mass deportations to South Georgia would also cut crime as all bat shit crazy ideas have done. There was reduced crime under Stalin at least in theory.

Paul said...

'The incidence of intentional homicides committed with a firearm in the US is 3 per 100,000. In the UK (with very restrictive firearm laws) it is 0.07'

Er no it aint BM for one thing the statistics you refer to (unreferenced) are likely to refer to suicides and culpable homicides.

'When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million. But murder rates for both countries are now changing. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and by last year it was 3.5 times. With American rates described as "in startling free-fall" and British rates as of October 2002 the highest for 100 years the two are on a path to converge.

The price of British government insistence upon a monopoly of force comes at a high social cost.
First, it is unrealistic. No police force, however large, can protect everyone. Further, hundreds of thousands of police hours are spent monitoring firearms restrictions, rather than patrolling the streets. And changes in the law of self-defence have left ordinary people at the mercy of thugs.'

Take note BM this argument is referenced.

The System Works said...


I agree with you on this aversion to traditional American institutions. I believe the Cultural Marxists are responsible for a lot of this. Few things boil the their blood as much as the right to bear arms and the notion of a Jewish state. The left talk a lot about diversity, but they really want to make the word a less diverse place.

builder man said...

To Paul. The statistics were referenced in my post to TSW, and were for intentional homicides. When they have converged you will have a case but I think you may be deceased yourself before then - hopefully not as a gun crime statistic!

builder man said...

To TSW. You are right - Sheldon Abelson is a nasty racist bigot. He demonizes the Palestinians in attempts to deny their right of self-determination in a place they have lived for centuries. He financially supports a bunch of reactionary politicians of whom many have similar agendas: Pro-life to the extent of denying abortion to rape victims; anti gay; anti Arab and anti -Muslim which is just as pernicious as being anti-Semitic; a casino licence provider (now that's handy!); pro big business and of course pro extremist Israel. A good fit for Romney though, hence the 100 million dollar donation. Of course it's not a totally corrupt political system is it?

builder man said...

To TSW. There are cultural aspects to gun crime. Canada for instance is thinly populated and hunting is common. It has good welfare provisions as has Switzerland. Would better welfare help the US? In Israel, crime is increasing including murder - now 4 times the UK rate.

Paul said...

'To Paul. The statistics were referenced in my post to TSW, and were for intentional homicides. When they have converged you will have a case but I think you may be deceased yourself before then - hopefully not as a gun crime statistic!'

'To TSW. There are cultural aspects to gun crime. Canada for instance is thinly populated and hunting is common. It has good welfare provisions as has Switzerland. Would better welfare help the US? In Israel, crime is increasing including murder - now 4 times the UK rate.'

I asked you to reference your arguments as well as form a distinction between legally held and illegally held firearms. Characteristically you failed to do so; also your stats here are plain and simple lies. The ‘intentional homicides’ are in a majority of cases suicide plus culpable homicides where people shoot in self –defence. Every day in America gun control saves lives by deterring assaults against householders unlike in the UK.

Answer please – Why are the stats decreasing dramatically in America (less gun control) and increasing exponentially in the UK (gun control and excessive welfare)? The answer is clear the LAWS DO NOT WORK!

builder man said...

To Paul. Isn't the distinction that in the US most homicides are the result of legally held weapons. In the UK almost all are illegal. That makes a case surely for gun control in the US and better enforcement in the UK. No law ever works perfectly. Are you making a case for NO laws then? My ref. has no content for suicides as you can see for yourself.Crime figures go up and down. As I said, when there is convergence you will have a point. Hang on!

builder man said...

Surprised no comment on Romney's gaffe at the Olympics.Thanks in great part to the Irish creative input, the opening ceremony was a masterpiece of the true spirit of the Olympics - people coming together to celebrate excellence and has received rave reviews from around the world. Including of course a celebration of the great Socialist enterprise of the NHS. By no means a perfect institution, nevertheless according to contributors on Ireland's most popular internet forum, p.i.e., it is worthy of the highest praise, not least because of the removal of the fear of being struck down by a treatment expensive illness.

The System Works said...

builder man: The Olympics are a disgrace. The whole thing hasn't been about sport since about 1936. Its a glory project for politicians. Its no surprise you'd be a great fan of this massive money pit and propaganda exercise, the last testament to Tony Blair's megalomania.

Did you know, for instance, that when the Summer Olympics were held in Los Angeles in 1932, President Hoover didn't bother officiating at the opening ceremonies because "they weren't important". How much has changed, for the worse!

The opening ceremony itself was an exercise of totalitarian state-worship that probably made the North Koreans feel most at home. It was of course, Hitler and Goebbels that started this nonsense. They would have been proud of the grandiose worship of the state health service (without which, we would surely die, like everyone who got sick and wasn't a life peer before it was established!). Then there was the poor young boy on his bicycle in Essex who was grabbed by the neck and thrown on the street in front of a moving vehicle during the Torch Relay (that the Nazis invented, of course). And lets not forget the residents who were forcibly evicted from their homes in order to make way for these farcical games, and the others who had their homes converted into missile launching sites. Its a shame they weren't Palestinians or Travellers, they might have had a lot more public sympathy. All Boyle had to do was praise the NHS, and the stupid lefties got suckered.

I've noticed some of the train stations are actually quieter than usual this summer. Potential visitors are sensibly avoiding this city like a plague during the Olympics. Which may be the only good that comes from this insane project (for myself at least, and not for many a business).

Ted Leddy said...


More legally held guns are fine. It is the development of a gun culture that I fear. One in which every shop owner and every criminal feels they need one. That scenario will certainly lead to a much more violent society.

Ted Leddy said...


On the economy

I am certainly not a man for platitudes like "austerity isn't working" which is invoked incessantly by the left in Ireland. But when it comes to the recession, all I want is for the situation to improve. If at the time of the financial collapse in the US, President Obama had of introduced massive spending cuts, would the situation be better today? I do not pretend to know the answer to this. I can only go with my instincts and they tell me that while the debt would obviously be much lower, unemployment would have continued to drop until the recession leveled out and businesses began to grow again. That however could have taken over a decade. I'm not saying the stimulus was right and your excellent table and chairs analogy is valid. My point is, can we be sure things would be better if that apporach had been taken in 2009.

The System Works said...

Ted: A 'gun culture' need not be a bad thing. Switzerland has a long-established gun culture where every household has access to not just any old gun, but assault rifles. The same is true in Israel, where it is the less-armed Arab community that is responsible for a disproportionate amount of the murders. Canada's gun culture is as deeply embedded as America's. And most people there live in cities, not in isolated idyllic homesteads as builder man appears to be suggesting.

builder man said...

To TSW.Olympics. Actually you make some very good points. It has become a giant corporate exercise in many ways and the security apparatus is way over the top. Although people were not made homeless, they were forcibly relocated. Their compensation should have been much greater. But on balance I still think it worthwhile. It does provide a showcase for some of the better aspects of human nature, striving to improve etc. And the opening ceremony was a paean to ordinary people's accomplishments, including the NHS. Do you really think societies would function better without any gov. activity? Surely it's about getting the balance right?

Paul said...

BM - 'To Paul. Isn't the distinction that in the US most homicides are the result of legally held weapons. In the UK almost all are illegal. That makes a case surely for gun control in the US and better enforcement in the UK'

Ye Gods unplug yourself you utter fool! The crimes in America are the result of ILLEGALLY held guns! That is why states with strict gun control such as Illinois actually have more gun crime than those with less such as Alaska. Also TSW has brought to your attention the state of play in Israel and Switzerland countries with liberal gun laws and less gun crime. Also I have brought to your attention the fact that gun crime was LESS in the UK before gun control. However you just carry on with the same garbage like some senile imbecile at the BCP. All you do is troll.

I can say confidently I together with TSW have trumped you in this argument and your obstinacy has once again made you look very foolish. I pointed out (via a source from the BBC of all places your favourite broadcaster) that the homicide rate and use of guns in crime is decreasingly markedly in the US (with liberal laws) and increasing in the UK (strict gun control). That fact that you could not dispute demolished your knee-jerk Stalinist drivel. Yet all you did by way of response was to troll and say that if the levels between the UK and US were to draw level I might have a point! What an arse! You were and are wrong and have contributed nothing of any validity to this or really any other argument. I would invite you to debate on my blog but of course you would troll and not debate. Where were you educated? Central University of North Tyneside?

builder man said...

To Paul. The definition of legal and illegal guns is not simple. For instance many legal guns may be transferred privately and then used in a murder. Same with stolen guns. But these guns would not exist without the lax gun laws. Best info I've found is at For instance your favourite quote of Switzerland. Militia requirements make possession of long guns by males nearly universal. They have to keep their guns locked up and account for every bullet, so access is very restricted.A study of two alike cities, Seattle and Vancouver showed Seattle, with less restrictive gun laws to have a 400% higher gun murder rate.

Paul said...

'To Paul. The definition of legal and illegal guns is not simple. For instance many legal guns may be transferred privately and then used in a murder. Same with stolen guns. But these guns would not exist without the lax gun laws. Best info I've found is at For instance your favourite quote of Switzerland. Militia requirements make possession of long guns by males nearly universal. They have to keep their guns locked up and account for every bullet, so access is very restricted. A study of two alike cities, Seattle and Vancouver showed Seattle, with less restrictive gun laws to have a 400% higher gun murder rate.'

Absolutely hilarious that one and where is your source for Seattle? Besides you cretin it is obvious in the extreme the difference between legally held and illegally held weapons. The latter are responsible for all gun crime in Britain, increasingly so SINCE the actual bans were introduced.

You really are obstinate to the point of stupidity on this issue literally swearing black is white. For instance another deception you have practicised is over Switzerland. How the fuck is access there restricted? It wasn’t when I went! Gun laws there are liberal in the extreme with regards to the ownership and carriage of weapons. You can see people openly carry them in the countryside. And even as a tourist you can go to a club and rent an automatic for a quick shoot if you fancy it. Go and see for yourself. The biggest killer of the 20th century was democide – murder by government. It is you that wishes to see unparalleled power remain in the state and not to the individual. Like every other half witted hate filled old leftie, you bleat on and on like a broken record spouting the same dogma. Yet that dogma killed untold millions in the USSR/China/Cambodia etc all the while you were whistling red flag under a carpet of security that America provided.

The System Works said...

Ted: You indicate one of the biggest hurdles in arguing against the stimulus. The supposed benefits of the stimulus can be easily seen: we see a bridge, and men at work building it, for instance. However, the costs are distributed over a wide population and are all too often unseen. People forget that the government doesn't actually have money of its own, it has to be taken from the population. Every dollar spent on a stupid stimulus project was a dollar that may have been spent on a shirt or a watch, for example. Look closely, and you will see that all of these 'stimulus jobs' or 'green jobs' that the government helps make actually cost several jobs in the real economy.

This 'stimulus' stuff is akin to smashing the windows of all the stores on a street to help the glass makers. They glass industry might benefit from such actions, but the baker or butcher could have bought a computer with the money spent to fix his window and enjoyed a nice store-front at the same time. 'Stimulus packages' are like taking water from one end of a swimming pool, dumping it in the other end, and hoping that the overall water level will rise.

builder man said...

To Paul. The Seattle/Vancouver study is on the same website as is much other serious info, some you will like and some you will not! I realise that dogmatic people like you love to pigeonhole people so they can feel comfortable with their own antagonisms. I'm afraid my opinions and my life don't fit your profile of me but carry on if it makes you happy!

builder man said...

To Paul. Switzerland. I'm sure you know as a visitor that there was a debate and a referendum on more gun control after an increase in gun deaths. The people voted for no change which is fair enough, and seems the best way to deal with the issue. My original point was that in the US there is no real debate because of the power of the lobbies and no chance of a referendum.

Paul said...

BM- The link does not work, taken together with your unwillingness to engage on the points raised on this (Switzerland, comparing GB stats before and after gun 'bans' and Israel) you have been shown to be the dogmatic one.