thegreaterbuzzette

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

 

You just took it the wrong way in the wrong medium for this conversation. Don't take it personal.

I get it. Just really touched a nerve. Too often in this political climate people are busy talking at each other instead of to each other. Makes a big difference. 

Though if this was Family Feud Top 5 Answers on the Board...."Things to say to tick off a woman"........'Don't take Abortion Debate Personal'......would win you the game. 

I really do not understand the aggressiveness to keep coming at me when I 100% am trying to educate and learn everyone's views on this. 

It doesn't have to be a all or nothing. This forum usually seems good for an adult conversation of listening and conversation (with some snarks here and there).

Get aggressive with someone who wants to fight. I'm genuinely trying to learn others' experience. 

15 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I'll be honest I'd hoped you would've done that after my first post instead writing that off as a singular example.  

You always a jerk? Or just my lucky day?

Having never 1st hand or 3rd party experienced an "encouragement" for abortion, I hold steady that my inquiry was justified and appropriate. 

But please male species....continue to debate what I can do with my body and show no respect when others are trying to have a civilized discussion to understand the spectrum of points of view.

12 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Right, because history doesn't matter or how it started. 

Of course history matters. No one was arguing with if things occured in past. The question was relevance in modern day. 

12 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Fine, here's a billboard from 2018:

 

 

This would have been a great example to use.

From what I've found in a quick research session, these were highly controversial and done as a counterpoint to extremeness on the other side. This is why red hot and ice blue doesn't solve issues. We need to come together, work together, use common sense and moderation.

54 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Gee, and here I figured that you'd respond by pointing out that you asked for examples of people encouraging abortion, and he responded with a story about somebody who lobbied to give people access to birth control.  

Oh, I could have gone there. But I felt the 100 years ago defense was pretty solid on its own.

18 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Here's an article about the founder of planned parenthood that talks about how she went to black communities with help of NAACP to drum up support for women's rights to birth control.

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/14/432080520/fact-check-was-planned-parenthood-started-to-control-the-black-population

 

In the 20s, black community really didn't support it.  It's not really clear if she put the same amount of effort into outreach to a different racial community, but her strong connection to eugenics makes people uncomfortable on the topic.  Needless to say that outreach is so effective blacks have more abortions on average them any other racial group in the country and its not even close.

I'm talking modern day. Not 100 years ago. There was a lot of **** done 100 years ago that was wrong no matter how you look at it.

19 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Sometimes I wonder if that's really about factors like money and the number of single parents that leads to that more then concerted effort to keep the black population down.  But that is one way to do it, encourage black women to get abortions and put as many black men in jail as possible.

 

As for whites trying to save their population, their birthrate and life expectancy is dropping in this country.  When the doors are closed and no one's looking, I do believe there's more to these pushes for limiting abortion rights then just religious reasons.  When your voting base is dying off...

Who are these people "encouraging" abortions? I've yet to ever see/hear someone advocate the use of abortion outside of a medical professional when it was medically warranted. (And even then, it's not "encouraging"....)

35 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

I’m not going to pretend to be a psych professional, but do you think that people with paranoid schizophrenia or psychosis should own guns?  People battling depression?  In a general sense, these are the EXACT archetypes for mass murderers.

Archetypes/profile.....yes. diagnosed.....nope

35 minutes ago, Springfield said:

If they are taking drugs to combat these instabilities then that’s great, good for them.  I don’t think that suddenly cures someone and makes them any less of a threat to society.

 

If a person values their right to own a gun over their own mental health then I’d say that is the EXACT type of person who shouldn’t be owing a gun.

But that's an impossible conundrums.....unless you find some psych-minority-report tech.

28 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

Nope, which is why I think the whole “mental health” argument (largely made by conservatives) is a giant load of horse **** designed to kick the can and shift the blame.

 

I’m just saying, since take all the guns away, is off the table this is what it’s down to.  Conservatives will only allow a (bull****) discussion about mental health because it’s so incredibly difficult to define and answer objectively that no action will occur.

Because the REAL mental health arguement isn't linked to who can and can't purchase/possess guns. The REAL mental health argument is separate from gun control and is a community health initiative. Its removing the stigma, ensuring access to health professionals, and making sure the tools/therapies/prescriptions are available to those who need them.

If a doctor failed to perform resistive efforts if you went into cardiac arrest during surgery that would be criminal.

An oath to protect and serve. 

Not sure if you all saw this yet :

https://www.foxnews.com/world/victims-gunman-darwin-australia-shotgun 

This (conspiracy) theory is really confusing me.

Isn't stopping abortion a Republican effort? Aren't Republicans often accused of being white supremacists, raciest, etc?

So if the theory is that allowing abortions keeps minority populations DOWN, wouldn't it then follow that Republicans support abortions?

Isn't ensuring access to abortion a Democratic effort? Aren't Democrats accused of catering to minorities simply to capture a vote? 

So if the theory is that allowing abortions keep minority populations DOWN, wouldn't it then follow that Democrats would condemn abortions?

9 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

If you wish to educate yourself as to what feminism is, Google is your friend. 

 

Humanism is equality for all humans. 

 

This is sad. Yet, what I have come to expect from those women who want to wear the feminism label like some enlightened elitist badge. You all are responsible for turning "feminist" into a dirty word. You also seem to get your rocks off by alluding that you are a superior female species, implying that "other" females are less than. It's almost exactly the same as what white supremacy groups do if you think about it.

I am woman, I am competent, I am enough.

9 hours ago, PokerPacker said:

Feminism takes many forms, some of which you may disagree with.  Perhaps you should instead answer her question directly so as to put an end to the ambiguity.

Truth. Which is exactly why I asked her perspective/belief.  For her Feminism is "me" and not "we". 

15 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

Read my signature.  

apparently I had to switch to my laptop for that. 

So when you stop prioritizing men over women - is it to start prioritizing women over men or to view all humans as equal?


PS - when you truly support a cause/belief - you should be able to speak to it, not just tell someone to read your tshirt or bumper sticker. 

5 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Read it and weep. We in feminist circles have been aware of this trend in far right and white supremist groups to restrict rights of females including taking away the right to vote, and not working outside the home (no careers). Please read the entire article, because it recounts actions around the world and in the U.S.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/technology/replacement-theory.html

 

Define feminist circles.

Heck, define feminist. 

7 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Im not really sure what this means

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_violence 

 I know it's Wikipedia, but there is some great information there. The main difference is motive, planning, and other logistics.

Very different criminology than a terrorism, domestic terrorism, hate crime type mass shooting.

7 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Was just a slight joke. But there aren’t any married mass shooters i’m aware of? Coincidence... i think not

Not a coincidence. Again mental health. Many are manic, troubled, extremists which does not sync well with marriage. 

Just now, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

2 years ago when the vb shooter bought the guns I imagine he was a good guy who would never be involved in an act of gun violence.  He didn’t have a criminal record, there were no red flags, he had a successful career.  Kind of points to why mental health isn’t enough. 

Again, this needs to be looked at from the workplace violence stand point and not mass shooting to truly diagnose causation/effect.

And contrarily, this is exactly why mental health can be the answer. Something clearly happened in this person's life that day that lead him to send the email to his employer. 

Hindsight is 20/20 but that email should have lead to extra security on the grounds, a wellness check sent to track him down and evaluate, and immediate alert to at least key employees to BOLO.

Just now, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

OTH maybe if they made the requirement that you need to be married in order to buy a gun... not to many married mass shooters are there?

Statements like this do not move the solution any closer. Again with a clear lack of desire to solve anything. 

5 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

It would obviously have to be paired with some sort of ban.  Perhaps another AWB and only pistols/rifles in apparent working condition would be eligible.  Just spitballing.

I don't consider a pair with a ban to be a "buy back" situation . I consider that eminent domain....

"Apparent working condition" - that requires a lot more than appearance to my limited knowledge. Can anyone with more knowledge speak to this?

Note - this maybe should move to gun control thread. This has veered off the mass shooting topic at hand. 

3 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Also, $25B could buy back A LOT of guns.

I would be very interested in the logistics and metrics of a buy back program. A few hypothesi:

1- those willing to sell their guns are honestly probably folks that would never even kind of be involved in gun violence of any kind.

2- a large portion of the firearms returned would be non-working, old, or otherwise generally useless

3- the amount of $$ offered would need to be significant to motivate participation 

4- if #3 is true, I would anticipate increased robberies (and therefore violent crimes) as folks attempted to steal others' to return for profit. 

Again, just spit firing hypothesi 

15 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Your question necessarily emplies that they are just interesting in lining their profit and are making a “more than fair” profit, does it not? What is a fair profit, then?

Maybe my third time will be the charm?

Again, I'm not stating me, the Government, or anyone should dictate what an allowable acceptable profit would be.

I am suggesting that a company would step up with a solid bid with a goal of doing what's right, in lieu of over inflating costs simply to line pockets.

@TheGreatBuzz was it walk talkies you told me about recently-ish, that you had to procure $1000 ones that were identical to $35 ones at Walmart?

I also had a call center receive $900 desk chairs, and multiple large screen TVs (hooked up to nothing for years) because we had surplus at end of fiscal year to use or lose.

56 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

What is a fair profit?  Do you consider opportunity costs in your profit analysis?  It would seem unfair to me to require a company limit their profit to say... 25%... to install cameras in a school when they could be installing cameras somewhere else at a 50% profit margin.  Do you really want the company that is willing to take less profits installing the cameras and security cameras at your school? What else were they willing to let slip.

 

 

 Why do you only see the world in black-and-white? 

I think you use fancy words and phrases, without necessarily understanding what these concepts really mean.

Have you ever worked in government contracting? Meaning the proposal, quoting, award process? If so, you'd understand how over inflated government contracts are. I would even suggest maybe more so then the private insurance sector!

I am not sure if you are aware, but the new craze in entrepreneurship is social responsibility and being community centric. (Think Bombas,  ThirdLove , Warby Parker, or Parachute).

So yes, I think there are many companies out there that would do so. I would much rather a contract be awarded to USA Joe's Bulletproof Glass Co, where he makes a nice profit and his employees are paid well for installing a superior product in the country's schools. Rather than Dick Cheney's college roommate making an outrageous profit, not passing it on to the employees, and installing a sub par product with no care in the world.

I'll also add, you seem to be quite intent on finding error in anything I post. If you take the time to read what I wrote (and what you quoted), you'll see I in no way suggested any power should limit or dictate what qualifies as a "fair profit". Instead, I posed the question of what those costs would truly be if someone took on this deliverable out of a desire to help communities and not just line their pockets. 

On 6/2/2019 at 2:49 PM, Renegade7 said:

 

I work for federal court system in dc, there are at least 6-7 armed personnel protecting the entrances to the building which involving buzzing in, man traps, and metal detectors.  If schools have lockdown procedures, this shouldnt be a public sector issue. 

 

At this point there needs to be bulletproof glass and mandatory door locking mechanisms standard in public and private sector, this is bare minimum **** that some school districts in midwest are already ahead of the game on.

I mentioned this the other day, but workplace violence and mass shootings are not the same MO. Meaning, it's best to not lump them together and try to do a one-size-fits-both solution. Particularly because in a workplace occurances the shooter is known, has access, time to plan, and direct targets. 

2 hours ago, Llevron said:

 

Real ****. Story time. 

 

CEO of my last opportunity moved the office from Moco to DC. In a....more urban....part of DC and it made them uncomfortable. I was tasked with finding how to make the employees (60% young white women) more comfortable in the setting. Specifically, when they have to work late and there is no parking on site. 

 

Came up with many ideas. Most notably, ****ing lights in the alleyway behind the building and doors that auto lock after a certain hour. The lights, though a good idea, where too bright and hurt there sensitive eyes. The doors, while secure, where hard to get into. So both ideas where scrapped early. 

 

Eventually, as anyone with half a brain could have assumed, **** broke loose and they decided that we needed something. Anything! Kids not going to school would gather in the alleyway to smoke. Cars being broken into on the daily. People being approached by randoms looking for a good time or offering one. People asking for money. The whole deal. Of course no lights and no auto locking doors. So I offered to just put up a chain link fence around the doorway in the back of the alley. You know what this **** told me lol. She said "You dont understand the community and this would be too unwelcoming" @tshile 

 

They ultimately decided to do nothing. We had a "readiness" conversation about disgruntled employees too. Worried about shootings. 

 

Ended the same way. 

Interesting, and sad. I work remotely, but when I visit our huge corporate offices....it def crosses my mind.

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Bruh, two jobs ago someone walked all the way from outside into my managers office accusing an employ of finding her cell phone and keeping.  Her reaction to her brother who owned the company was locking the f'n front doors, buzz people in, all they had to do was enable it.  But no, he wanted the company to be inviting.  That's his own sister bro, we are past the point of reevaluating this whole office space being inviting thing, its not a f'n public park, its private property.

That's not the point, there a millions of soft targets all over the country this would effect, think of how many school killings this could've limited?  How many come in the building and go room to room like this and Virginia Tech?

Yes, which to me is why the mass shooting conversation is much different than gun control. Were mass shootings to be eliminated, I doubt the total number of death by guns would really see much change.

2 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

If it cost that school system 2.1 million to retrofit 8 schools you are looking at around $25billion dollars to retrofit every public school.

 

you could buy back a lot of elephants with that.

Imagine if the companies that provided these services were able to be contracted for a FAIR profit and not get blinded by $$$$. Bet prices could be cut 10 fold.

About time. 

On 6/2/2019 at 1:36 PM, LadySkinsFan said:

What these people are after is not only the outlawing of abortion altogether, the next step is labeling birth control as abortifacients and outlawing them too. They want to roll back to before the "Margaret Sanger" decision that legalized birth control methods. More forced pregnancies will be the result. 

 

Do you want legislatures telling you that you can't use any type of birth control?  

I think the # of folks that truly want that is just as small as those that want recreational abortions at 9 months.

Again, until people are ready for real discussions and negotiations and stop with these extremist mentalities.....nothing gets solved. 

3 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

So what's the over/under on late term abortions a year in the US that aren't necessitated by a negative health impact to the mother if the fetus is carried to term?

 

Let's talk real numbers here. CDC stats show in 2015 that there were roughly 6k abortions (roughly 1.3% of all abortions) that came after week 21 of pregnancy.

 

Those stats don't state reasons why the abortions occurred. 

 

Is there a thinking that a large portion of those 6k weren't for medical reasons?

Here's my thing. If the logic is that it "never happens" and its "always" for medical reasons.....then why not put that firmer language explicitly in the bill?

26 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I prefer "did his feet come down in bounds?" to "was he forced out of bounds?"  

 

Edit. 

 

However, I think the decision on "is the mother's health endangered" is more of a medical decision than one where I want a legislature trying to imagine every possible circumstance. 

This is why I like terms like "physical medical issue to the mother/child" or "likelyhood to medically thrive"