Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2013 4:46:54 GMT -6
To add on. Our Federal Government also developed a stimulus package to help Australia through the GFC. One parts of it was invest in capital works in schools. This project saw a massive blow out in costs, contractors overcharging. In addition public schools were limited to only a few templates of building they could implement. For example if they wanted a new hall they had to get the hall as per the fixed design as opposed to one that would be designed to meet their needs. While many schools got capital works they needed they wondered if it was worth the price. The other one was to subsidise the installation of insulation into roofs of homes. The effect of this was the government was allowing unlicensed contractors to implement the insulation which meant the following; A material increase in house fires across the period. A number of labourers dying in fires due to being part of unqualified operations A lot of home owners having to rip the insulation out and having it replaced at their own cost. And of course you had the usual array of rorting and overcharging which is precisely what i'm talking about. if the government were doing the job, obviously, none of those things would have happened. anytime a private company,especially a large corporation such as haliburton, are contracted by the government for something, the overwhelming majority of them will screw the government. if the government did the job, and everyone was on the government payroll, instead of contracting with a private corporation to do it, there would be no gouging and cost overruns. No, they do it in the public service as well. Interstate they had a major scandal when a senior government official stole 13 million dollars from the coffers of a number of year. Health officials in queensland were desperate to fill doctors positions. They failed to do reference checks on the successful candidate. Hell they even failed to google him. Thus a doctor who had been repeatedly disciplined in the USA was able to get a job here in Australia. (Not blaming the Americans here, they did the right thing) What you are advocating is that the USSR was based on. The USSR was far more corrupt then anything that is seen in the USA and that is why it failed
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Apr 13, 2013 12:46:23 GMT -6
Jumbo the real bottom line is this. Socialism, communism and the like never have and never will work.
Never
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Apr 17, 2013 10:43:23 GMT -6
The USSR was far more corrupt then anything THAN anything!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2013 16:07:25 GMT -6
Bravo, oslooskar! The "Dummy" said it all. I must admit that, prior to this, I can't recall having engaged in any serious discussions about the Third Amendment. The argument is exceptionally well laid out---and extremely difficult to refute. Thanks for raising the issue.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Apr 17, 2013 18:51:00 GMT -6
The USSR was far more corrupt then anything THAN anything! Outstanding video! That is getting a repost on FB.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2013 20:18:49 GMT -6
Outstanding video! That is getting a repost on FB. It gives you the right to bear arms, but it doesn't give you the right to own any type of weapon on the market. Nor does it allow you to own you own tank (geez, getting to work would be a lot easier) or a rocket launcher (makes for one hell of a hunting trip) As far as the first amendment goes aren't you guys undermining that with anti-discrimination laws, anti villification laws, politicians who tell the religious that they can only pracitce within the walls of their churches or homes. Your own Supreme Court describes the constitution as a living document, its time to revise the 2nd amendment to take into account what is happening in society today!! Anyway why are you people so paranoid about background checks. Surely you want to ensure the convicted felon living down the road cannot buy a weapon.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Apr 17, 2013 21:54:00 GMT -6
It gives you the right to bear arms, but it doesn't give you the right to own any type of weapon on the market. Nor does it allow you to own you own tank Where did you get that idea? You certainly can. Again, wrong. No, we're not, and where did you get that idea? Kindly cite a SCOTUS decision in which the words "the Constitution is a living document," or words to that effect, appear. Because we don't want to wind up like Australia, a nation that doesn't trust its law-abiding citizens with firearms. We generally fear a government that fears its armed citizenry. Our own history, and that of many other nations, bears out this fear. In conclusion, we're really sorry our nation doesn't meet your high, idealistic college student expectations. However, of course, that can be easily remedied at zero time and cost just by never coming here.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Apr 18, 2013 8:03:10 GMT -6
Outstanding video! That is getting a repost on FB. Per: Piers Morgan CNN You don't need to have a movement to deport me..if these laws do not pass,I'll deport myself. Well,I say" don't let the door hit you in the azz.. Bye !!!
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Apr 18, 2013 8:48:45 GMT -6
You don't need to have a movement to deport me..if these laws do not pass,I'll deport myself. Well,I say" don't let the door hit you in the azz.. Bye !!! I was watching him on CNN last night after the Senate vote. Man, that dude's working himself up to a stroke. He needs a vacation.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Apr 18, 2013 9:23:55 GMT -6
Maybe someone can explain the logic of this for me regarding guns.
Why would there need to be a law passed (with no consequences) requiring a head of house to own a gun? (I believe this was done in a small town in Georgia)
The exceptions to this law are: person cannot have any mental illness, physical disability and if they are not pro-gun then they don't have to own one.
I just don't see why they would need a law written for something that is being done already in America. Maybe I am missing something? But if I don't want to own a gun, I don't buy one and if I do want to own a gun I do buy one, so I just don't see why I need a law telling me this. Seems a bit redundant in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Apr 18, 2013 10:38:38 GMT -6
You don't need to have a movement to deport me..if these laws do not pass,I'll deport myself. Well,I say" don't let the door hit you in the azz.. Bye !!! I was watching him on CNN last night after the Senate vote. Man, that dude's working himself up to a stroke. He needs a vacation. That is not a shoot from the hip comment, Piers does look/act like he is going to give himself a stroke over this. Best for all especially him to go home before that happpens. I really miss Larry King, he conducted great interviews, it was not about Larry Kings opinions, & he let the person talk while letting the audience to decide and listen.
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Apr 18, 2013 14:17:43 GMT -6
I can say first hand contractors don't always do it better. They do in some cases but in other cases there are some flaws to the system.
A former colleague of mine who I studied with in school was a Navy SWO stationed at the 6th Fleet HQ in Bahrain. He was privy to some of the contract fraud investigations that were occurring. There were massive illegal contracts either maliciously or ignorantly carried out for the war effort in Iraq. We were paying companies like Halliburton a fee to transport our own equipment that we bought from them on our own air lifters in one example. The story in "Iraq for sale," was true, we were paying a price of a $100 per 30 can bushel of soda that companies like Halliburton were buying from the local economy at a price of $2 on average. Yes I get it we have to pay for the risk of them transporting those goods, but at 98 dollar margin? The were massive breaches of contract that were never pursued, where companies flat out did not provide any service rendered for the payment. Some contractors failed to adequately maintain equipment on the bases that were required of them. There was a huge investigation where several water facilities were not being maintained, resulting in a illnesses to the personnel on those bases including employees of those contractors. In Doha Qatar, contractors purchased second hand air conditioners for the "hooches" that had electrical problems and started fires as well several units that came with black mold inside them. This was found out, and was remedied, but only after several years of causing who knows what kind of harm to everyone involved.
In Iraq they were improperly disposing of human waste. They were not using the standards that the EPA set fourth, despite these items being in the contract. To get out of any legal ramifications, companies like Halliburton moved their corporate office out of the United States, formerly in Tulsa, OK to a lavish high rise in Dubai, with of the perks that go with it. Another shameful company, Blackwater basically were hired guns. In essence a violation of the very thing we were fighting. The were de-facto insurgents, by international rule of war, civilians engaging in armed conflict are illegal combatants. As far as I am concerned Erich Prince should be tried for war crimes. His efforts did more damage to the war than any other contractor out there. All Blackwater employees abandoned that "Sacred" Oath that they once took to be a soldier for hire, where their only loyalty to any US document, were those little pieces of paper with the pictures of former presidents or Ben on them! Some of them committed brutal murders, the same kind that we abhor on this board. They almost got away with it because there technically was no rule of law for them, until the Iraqi government demanded their heads at the end of a rope. Frankly we should have handed them over, to be executed in the proper fashion for their crimes.
I have personally seen an entire flight operation almost grind to a halt, because the contract was going to expire and the company could not agree on the renewal terms. Luckily they did reach an agreement but only within days of the expiration. In addition to this we had contractor security for the base gate, stateside, where the contract did not allow them to use their sidearm except immediate defense. If a person breached the gate the contractors were not to follow in pursuit and apprehend the suspect. They were no more useful than an armed wal-mart greeter. As a result they had to augment the guards with Air Force Security Police from another base, when the whole point was that the civillians were supposed to be able to handle the job. As a result this contract did not get renewed.
There are plenty of reasons on how the contractors are not ALWAYS that efficient to doing it organically. Having said that, are there times when a contractor can and will do it better? Absolutley! I will not deny for very specialized skills or when there are stopgaps that there are times when it maybe necessary for continuity that a contractor will be best suited for the job, such as working on a complex system that requires years of knowledge to master. At the same time there are plenty of tasks that do not require an over-bloated contractor force. I think in the last ten years we are becoming too reliant on the use of them.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Apr 23, 2013 9:34:10 GMT -6
A very reasoned and well-put defense of gun rights. Too bad the method of delivery - a dummy - will only guarantee that the condescending tone will be felt and the message unheard. This is what's wrong with debate in this country: you have to call the other side idiots in order to feel like you're making your point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2013 23:56:34 GMT -6
Maybe someone can explain the logic of this for me regarding guns. Why would there need to be a law passed (with no consequences) requiring a head of house to own a gun? (I believe this was done in a small town in Georgia) The exceptions to this law are: person cannot have any mental illness, physical disability and if they are not pro-gun then they don't have to own one. I just don't see why they would need a law written for something that is being done already in America. Maybe I am missing something? But if I don't want to own a gun, I don't buy one and if I do want to own a gun I do buy one, so I just don't see why I need a law telling me this. Seems a bit redundant in my opinion. I don't think people with a physical disability should be prevented from owning a gun, unless that disability prevented them from actually using it. Mental Illness yeah.....
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Apr 25, 2013 6:58:36 GMT -6
So anyone with a mental health issue should not own a gun?
Sent from my LS670 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Apr 25, 2013 17:41:49 GMT -6
So anyone with a mental health issue should not own a gun? Sent from my LS670 using proboards I would say for the most part, yes. Someone with mental illness should not own a gun. Mental illnesses are very complicated, they get misdiagnosed and frankly, it is a subject that we have not put allot of research into. Allot of mental illnesses are progressive. They can start out benign and work there way up into more serious issues. When someone is suffering under a psychotic episode, they have lost all external forms of reality. People think that major tragedies involving psychotic breakdowns only happen without warning and that they only happen spontaneously. The truth is, that they can happen over long periods of time. They can involve elaborate pr-calculated planning before executing. So in order to prevent mass public shootings and other incidents. I believe that gun ownership among someone who may be suffering these events should be restricted. In addition, I also believe anyone who is a substance abuser and cannot maintain their faculties should be restricted as well, including hard core alcoholics.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 7, 2013 22:43:53 GMT -6
Gun violence in US has fallen dramatically over past 20 years, Justice Dept. report finds By Pete Williams, NBC News chief justice correspondent Gun violence in America has fallen dramatically over the past two decades, and the number of murders committed with a firearm is down too, though guns are still by far the leading type of crime weapon, according to a new report from the Justice Department. As for where crime guns came from, the study notes that less than two percent of convicted inmates reported buying their weapons at gun shows or flea markets. The highest number, 40 percent, said the guns came from a family member or a friend. About 37 percent said the weapons were stolen or obtained from an illegal source. The rest say the guns were bought at a retail store or pawn shop. Murders committed with a gun dropped 39 percent to 11,101 in 2011, from a high of 18,253 in 1993, according to the report. Other crimes committed with guns were down even more sharply — from 1.53 million in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011, a drop of 70 percent, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Around 70 percent of murders were committed with a firearm, and of those, the vast majority involved a handgun -- fluctuating between 70-80 percent. The report is strictly factual and offers no analysis about the reasons for the decline in gun violence. usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/07/18108298-gun-violence-in-us-has-fallen-dramatically-over-past-20-years-justice-dept-report-finds?lite
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2013 2:58:27 GMT -6
Gun violence in US has fallen dramatically over past 20 years, Justice Dept. report finds By Pete Williams, NBC News chief justice correspondent Gun violence in America has fallen dramatically over the past two decades, and the number of murders committed with a firearm is down too, though guns are still by far the leading type of crime weapon, according to a new report from the Justice Department. As for where crime guns came from, the study notes that less than two percent of convicted inmates reported buying their weapons at gun shows or flea markets. The highest number, 40 percent, said the guns came from a family member or a friend. About 37 percent said the weapons were stolen or obtained from an illegal source. The rest say the guns were bought at a retail store or pawn shop. Murders committed with a gun dropped 39 percent to 11,101 in 2011, from a high of 18,253 in 1993, according to the report. Other crimes committed with guns were down even more sharply — from 1.53 million in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011, a drop of 70 percent, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Around 70 percent of murders were committed with a firearm, and of those, the vast majority involved a handgun -- fluctuating between 70-80 percent. The report is strictly factual and offers no analysis about the reasons for the decline in gun violence. usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/07/18108298-gun-violence-in-us-has-fallen-dramatically-over-past-20-years-justice-dept-report-finds?lite To speculate; there is one thing the USA is doing that the rest of the world isn't doing. That is a massive increase in penalties for violent felonies. As there is a number of graphs it would be preferable to look at the graphs. www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.htmlI would note the NRA often trundles out statistics from the late 1990's to back their claim the "gun ban" in Australia did not work. We had a major problem with the drug trade back in the 1990's. A vibrant drug trade leads to a major crime problem here in Australia
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2013 3:01:13 GMT -6
So anyone with a mental health issue should not own a gun? Sent from my LS670 using proboards Somebody suffering from depression because they have lost their job, or some other bad event....no The only exception is if the person develops a history of self harm. However persons who are disabled by their mental illness should not be allowed to have a weapon. This is only to protect them. I doubt the mentally ill are much of a threat to anyone but themselves.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on May 11, 2013 4:03:31 GMT -6
Kindly cite a SCOTUS decision in which the words "the Constitution is a living document," or words to that effect, appear.
unfortunately, my boy, there are far too many. i think that the first time that the imbecilic comment was made in a scotus decision was by justice warren in trop vs dulles. it has been used in many decisions since then to try and pervert the constitution, primarily the eighth amendment. i believe that it was used in roper, and also in the first kennedy decision
|
|
|
Post by Woody on May 17, 2013 7:55:25 GMT -6
Jumbo the real bottom line is this. Socialism, communism and the like never have and never will work. Never Like all -ism. Capitalism, social darwinism...
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on May 19, 2013 17:29:29 GMT -6
Jumbo the real bottom line is this. Socialism, communism and the like never have and never will work. Never Like all -ism. Capitalism, social darwinism... Capitalism works so well that even socialist and communists must use it to survive and progress.
|
|