1626: Too Soon

[Carruthers]

Originally Posted by BrianAlt

... Based on the criteria put forth, there's only one obviously right answer.

I know. It's almost as if voters weren't attending to the criteria put forth.

[Rufio]

In the last show thread I did not say that fast food is as good for you as what you buy at grocery stores. Keith is absolutely right in shitting on fast food. What I was trying to say with that article I posted was that grocery stores also sell you shit and trick you into thinking that you're buying "natural/healthy" items when in fact they are not.

I personally do not eat out much, and what I cook at home I try mostly to buy from farmers market. I avoid shopping at stores like walmart where I know almost all the meat/poultry they sell is PUMPED with hormones.

Since that last article was not up to Keiths standards I suggest watching the documentary Food Inc.

[PsychoLoco]

I have only listened to about half of the show as I write this, but I don't think Keith will change his mind about gun control by the end of the show.

One of the things I enjoy about both Keith and Chemda is that they listen to other point of views and are willing to change their mind. About gun control, please read this article (a former Marine on gun control) and this video (Ice T is a former Army Ranger and self-proclaimed bank robber)now, and then finish reading my post. Jason Alexander has roughly the same view as Keith on assault weapons: They are overkill and should not be considered a legal weapon under the 2nd amendment. I like some of the points the writer makes in the article, especially regarding training and the choice of weapons by an attacker.

I was robbed in February 1996 while I was working as a cashier at a convenience store. During the robbery, I was attacked and pulled a crowbar out from under the counter (we used it to pry up the cover of the drop-safe in the floor) to defend myself. As soon as I pulled it out the robber grabbed one side and a fight ensued. I realized immediately that whoever gained control of the crowbar would beat the other person to death with it. After that incident, I understand that a weapon is a weapon is a weapon. The size and destructive capability of a weapon only escalates with one sides desire to exterminate the other.

I'm fortunate enough to have grown to 6'2" and 200 lbs at age 14, after a few years of Tae Kwon Do. No one has ever really tried to intimidate me physically since 7th grade. I don't have the life experience of being a smaller person who can't defend themselves in a hand-to-hand combat situation. Because of this, I can never bring myself to make self-defense decisions on behalf of another person. Each person should know their surroundings and be ready to defend themselves at all times by whatever means they are comfortable with. If that is gun-free or weapon-free, then that is their choice. I will never bring a weapon of any kind into another fight because the fight then becomes about the weapon, but that's because I know my hands are capable enough to end a fight.

The authors of the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms, lived under tyranny. They knew the only way to make a totalitarian government pause at the prospect of forcing citizens to do anything was to allow citizens the right to fight back with equal force. Granted, that concept today is somewhat of a joke given that Uncle Sam can track you from a satellite in outer space and send a laser-guided missile in with extreme prejudice to take you out. However, it is an integral individual right that formed the basis of the U.S. bill of rights. (This is where you chant USA! USA! USA!)

The great thing about America is everyone's right to debate and free speech and criticize the government. I'm all for licensing gun owners and background checks, but the fact is that law-abiding citizens will be the ones that suffer more and be more exposed to gun violence if guns are outlawed. I know this argument is decades old, but there were good reasons to give individuals these rights.

One area I'm an expert on and can try to make an analogy to is the US government's right to borrow (create a deficit). This has caused horrific consequences in the past 4 years to the entire world as debt has spun out of control. Yet, the US is still the most powerful economic force in the world. Why is that? It's because the founding fathers understood that if wealthy, powerful, and influential people had a vested interest in your success (you owed them money and had to succeed to pay them back), then they will support you far longer than they should because the alternative would be a financial loss. The largest holder of US debt is China, a Communist country. The Communists have bet their economic futures on the success of the US. This is another instance where our legal system has created an absurd reality. The point is that we don't always foresee every consequence, but the fundamental basis for a basic right was something considered vital to the success of the US by the people that created it.

[stulagu]

I'm so glad Penn State was punished SO harshly. Though I think it is silly to go back to the teams they beat and say, "congrats, you actually won in 1999!"

I think the NCAA was putting the kabosh on the culture of college football (or trying to). The fact is that these boys were being raped, and people higher up thought that it was ok to hide that to protect their football legacy. That is SICK. And I hope that this harshness really gets the message across that if you're caught doing something wrong at an NCAA school, it will not only hurt you, but the college for years to come.

The NCAA just did the equivelent of a slash and burn campaign on Penn State. Colleges and Universities make SO MUCH money off of their sports, and this is the risk you take by letting the NCAA organization run your sports, they also get to dole out the punishments. But schools make so much money from the NCAA sports that it is worth the risk to them.

[BrianAlt]

Originally Posted by stulagu

But schools make so much money from the NCAA sports that it is worth the risk to them.

I agree with you, but only up to a certain point. If the school had dealt with Sandusky when they should have, when they were informed, the worst Penn St. would have gotten is a slap on the wrist. Where's the risk in outing a known child predator?

[stulagu]

Originally Posted by BrianAlt

I agree with you, but only up to a certain point. If the school had dealt with Sandusky when they should have, when they were informed, the worst Penn St. would have gotten is a slap on the wrist. Where's the risk in outing a known child predator?

Yeah, this was the bad judgement of the century. The only explination is that they thought they'd get away with it.

[stulagu]

Originally Posted by BrianAlt

I can't believe the poll results. Based on the criteria put forth, there's only one obviously right answer.

I'm professional, but I haven't lost control

[BrianAlt]

Originally Posted by stulagu

I'm professional, but I haven't lost control

As professional as I am, I would never be considered professional enough to answer YES.

[stulagu]

Originally Posted by BrianAlt

As professional as I am, I would never be considered professional enough to answer YES.

ah, but you haven't heard my inner dialogue

[Blitzgal]

I'm so glad I decided to be a good girl and listen to the entire show before voting, because apparently the poll today is a trick. I'm still listening; too many damned phone calls at work today.