Artful Dodger: A double barrelled one... scare the poop out of most as they do tend to cut you to pieces if hit by one. More effective than a pistol for home defence, less need to be 'accurate'.

(V): the video demonstrates they are not easy to use. If you know how to use one yes. Biden is still an idiot.

Artful Dodger: The video demonstrates alot of wrong techniques, including cherry picking video moments.

Come on.. I expect better evidence off you!! ;)

(V): They clearly show that using a shotgun isn't "easy" as Biden suggest. He's an idiot.

Artful Dodger: No.... they clearly show people who've never fired one before or have not heard that they kick.

Woooppeeee.

Farmers mums can handle them as this video demonstrates..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ka5pedLmLs

Or as this police training video shows..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cun-LZvOTdw

(V): Biden is telling women who have never owned a shotgun to buy one. He's telling people who've never shot one how easy they are to use. We're not talking about experienced users, we're talking about rookies. He's telling rookies they are easier than the AR15. He's an idiot.

Artful Dodger: stand correctly, point, squeeze trigger.

... Aim big, hit big.

I was allowed to shoot them as a scout of 14.... they are easy.... and at short range far better than a AR15. Which, was designed for the battlefield.

"He's telling rookies they are easier than the AR15. He's an idiot."

Yes they are. One video does not make Biden an idiot.... ... ... that takes years of practice!! ;P

(V): [ One video does not make Biden an idiot.... ... ... that takes years of practice !! ]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWlSX9TT2eo

(V): One video does not make Biden an idiot.... ... ... that takes years of practice!!

Artful Dodger: I hoped you would get it!! lol

(V): Obama and Biden are a team, and it's Joes job to make his boss look good by comparison. Good luck with that, Joe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4-AKcH3eC8

Iamon lyme: we have to remember that Biden told people that the way to pay off the US debt is to spend more money.

To spend more we have to borrow, thus putting us in more debt.

So to summarise, to get out of debt we have to get more debt.

Artful Dodger: "To spend more we have to borrow, thus putting us in more debt. So to summarise, to get out of debt we have to get more debt."

That might make some sense if we were borrowing to pay down the debt, but as you say they are doing it so they will have more to spend. The powers that be don't seem concerned about paying off any of that debt right now.

I tried something like that a long time ago. I borrowed against my next allowance, but then got less allowance on my next 'payday'. I didn't like that at all, but I was only eight or nine years old at the time.

Iamon lyme: if the average man tried to get out of debt and borrowed say, 100,000 to pay off his 100,000 debt, he'd still be in debt for 100,000 dollars. I did that once to lower the interest rate an to go from a 30 to a 15. But when you lower the interest you pay you are lowering your debt. Biden had something else in mind.

Artful Dodger: "Biden had something else in mind."

They always have something else in mind. That's why politicians like him end up becoming confused. The problem is that as they get older the machinations of their own minds become harder to manage... they can literally lose control of their own mental processes. My mental processes on the other hand are quite simple, so there is very little that can go wrong.

I came, I saw, I farted... how hard can that be?

Iamon lyme: Don't worry, there will be plenty of candidates to fill that roll for the Republicans next election.... no need for jealousy that the Democrats can find a better idiot.

... maybe the Republicans need to change from good idiot and bad idiot to 'thinker/idiot'

What do you think??

(V): "What do you think??"

I think regardless of candidates or party, the US will be involved in damage control for at least the next 20 to 30 years.

It takes far less time to tear something down than it does to build it up. We've always managed to reverse or at least slow down our own self destruction, but we may have gone too far in the wrong direction this time.

Iamon lyme: .... there is no quick fix that is a fact. Not for any country.

This has been building for decades. No-one challenging the bosses.....

.... .... demonstrations are getting more common in Europe though. The people want less talk and more action on those who created this mess and allowed it to happen.

N' yes we see America possibly going 'broke'.... Not able to come together as one people and act in the common good.... divide and conquer. :/

(V): There is only one circumstance I can see that could turn things around in the US, and do it relatively fast... like within 10 years. But I also know it's a pipe dream and won't happen.

In order to correct (just one of) the problems we are creating for ourselves, half of the population of this country would need to change its mind about taxation, and insist on limiting government according to the constitution. Some people think the constitution is outdated, but that's nonsense. In order for it to no longer be relevant people would have had to become fundamentally different, and last time I checked people have not evolved into some other species. They still need the same things they've always needed, and still do things in the same way.The only thing that has changed in over 200 years is technology... people are still fundamentally the same.

So here are a few suggestions for the powers that be to ignore: Empower the politicians (all of them) to reject government funded health care, and institute tort reform to correct the REAL problems with health care. Defund unnecessary government programs (to reduce spending) and stop discouraging businesses from growing and hiring new people.

If government can defer its greed for a few years and stop interfering with our lives and businesses, reduce the tax burdon instead of increasing it, then government coffers would beginning filling up again. Increasing a tax burdon insures there will be fewer sources to tax, but reducing tax burdon means more sources spring up for the government to tax. Grocery stores understand how low price / high volume will net greater profits than simply charging as much as they can get away with. Less is more, but many of the geniuses in Washington can't seem to grasp this simple concept. Taxing less encourages growth, and growth means more taxable income. How hard can this be for anyone to understand?

I remember when there were so many jobs to chose from it was an employees market, and businesses were bending over backwards trying to entice people to work for them... we won't see that happening again anytime soon.

Iamon lyme: It would be fair to say that there are some things that were never imagined of when it was written.

"In order for it to no longer be relevant people would have had to become fundamentally different, and last time I checked people have not evolved into some other species."

Our world has though, especially the way we do business. As you mention technology has changed greatly, transferring funds takes seconds... with little or no paper trail.

"Empower the politicians (all of them) to reject government funded health care,"

Then empower the people to have good access, not just high cost ER.

"and institute tort reform to correct the REAL problems with health care."

Tell that to the lawyers... the same ones that are at the heart of much of the tort problems in the USA.

"Defund unnecessary government programs (to reduce spending) and stop discouraging businesses from growing and hiring new people."

In the UK it has been seen recently that even if the Government gives money for banks to help businesses they won't. Even when they have said they will.

"If government can defer its greed for a few years and stop interfering with our lives and businesses, reduce the tax burdon instead of increasing it"

Same with private enterprises. The UK contracted out to a private company the roll of getting people back to work who've been out of work for a long time because of health problems....... The company made several promises, but it turned out that they were just interested in making a profit. In the end it's gonna cost the UK more.

"Grocery stores understand how low price / high volume will net greater profits than simply charging as much as they can get away with."

Right..... lol... ... ... No. In theory, yes... in reality... it depends. If the store knows it can charge more due to the likes of position... it will. Now adays loss leaders are more used.

"Taxing less encourages growth, and growth means more taxable income. How hard can this be for anyone to understand?"

If the taxation collected was properly collected. Greece got screwed up because no one was paying what they were supposed to and no one was standing up and making sure it was paid.

"I remember when there were so many jobs to chose from it was an employees market, and businesses were bending over backwards trying to entice people to work for them"

Yep.... and then other countries started up factories who's employees would work for a pittance.

China... India... and many others.

Can't expect Americans to work for nothing can you... unless they are prisoners, the only form of '''slavery''' left.

(V): "and institute tort reform to correct the REAL problems with health care."

[ Tell that to the lawyers... the same ones that are at the heart of much of the tort problems in the USA. ]


It's not enough to tell them. If the law says you can file frivolous lawsuits and sue for exorbitant claims then why wouldn't they? It's not just McDonalds that can be forced to pay someone for spilling coffee on themselves. Doctors and hospitals are also forced to pay out more than they should have to, and so the cost of health care naturally rises to cover those costs.

It's not the lawyers who are at fault, it's the fault of lawmakers who have steadfastly refused to fix this problem. Instead, they want to take control of healthcare and completely change how it is payed for and administered. This is what they have wanted to do for a long time, so it's no wonder why they have refused to fix any of the real problems that drive health care costs up.

Iamon lyme: The law doesn't make them do it though does it.

"It's not just McDonalds that can be forced to pay someone for spilling coffee on themselves. Doctors and hospitals are also forced to pay out more than they should have to, and so the cost of health care naturally rises to cover those costs."

That is just one of the factors, an easy one to use to distract you from the rest of the ways health care providers and others in the health care business inflate prices.

"it's the fault of lawmakers who have steadfastly refused to fix this problem."

Why... who's interests are affected if tort reform is made?

"and your government knows better than the banking industry how they should be doing business."

lol... we've had to bail out the banks here. Our government owns substantial shares in a number of UK based banks.
.......... The reason, stupidity by the banks, fraud resulting in billions of refunds to business and private customers.

Why... regulations keeping the 'merchant' and 'high street' sides of the businesses separate were dropped as the banks said they didn't need them. Seemingly common sense principles and morals have no part of modern 'merchant' banking.

"You are proving my point. The key statement in your reply was "The UK contracted out to a private company...""

Am I...... That private companies are more efficient.... except when they are liars??

"Competition forces businesses to offer better deals than someone else, and what better way to drum up business than to charge less for the same thing?"

The UK is a registered corporate entity. I (as is every UK citizen) am a share holder in such as stated on my Birth Certificate... I think the same applies to US citizens.

My name as registered on my birth certificate is crown copyrighted, not to be used as identification and as such, a legal fiction. All acts and statutes passed as 'legal' laws are by consent in the UK. If we do not consent, they cannot enforce.

To show you do not consent is a process in some cases. But even the police cannot enforce consent in many cases.

"My point was that anyone who understands how lowering a profit per item can translate into more overall profit in a business should also be able to understand how lowering taxes can have the effect of generating more taxable income."

I understand the principle easily. But in reality we do not have a taxation system where it could be said to be true. While blatant fraud and evasion happens, your point is pointless. Not because taxes are high, but because they just like to not pay tax period.

(V): "It's not enough to tell them. If the law says you can file frivolous lawsuits and sue for exorbitant claims then why wouldn't they?"

[ The law doesn't make them do it though does it. ]

No, the law doesn't make them do it. The law allows them to do it.


"It's not just McDonalds that can be forced to pay someone for spilling coffee on themselves. Doctors and hospitals are also forced to pay out more than they should have to, and so the cost of health care naturally rises to cover those costs."

[ That is just one of the factors, an easy one to use to distract you from the rest of the ways health care providers and others in the health care business inflate prices. ]

That's the sort of jibberish politicians use to confuse people. If prices are inflated it's because doctors and hospitals need to cover their costs, and those costs include lawsuits demanding inflated damages. Inflated damage awards, inflated prices. Tort reform would put a cap on awards, and bring them more in line with reality.


"it's the fault of lawmakers who have steadfastly refused to fix this problem."

[ Why... who's interests are affected if tort reform is made? ]

Who do you think! I've already told you how many politicians have wanted government to take over the healthcare industry. That's why they won't allow tort reform, because they want the government to be in control of it. It's not about prices or availability with them, it's about control.


"and your government knows better than the banking industry how they should be doing business."

[ lol... we've had to bail out the banks here. ]

lol... no, you didn't have to do that.

[ Our government owns substantial shares in a number of UK based banks. ]

I'm not surprised by that.

[ .......... The reason, stupidity by the banks, fraud resulting in billions of refunds to business and private customers. ]

Banks and other types of businesses have failed due to stupidity before, and fraud has always existed. Why do you think people are aways being cautioned to be careful in their business dealings?


[ Seemingly common sense principles and morals have no part of modern 'merchant' banking. ]

Well no kidding! So who needs to have common sense these days if the government can be made to pick up the tab?


"You are proving my point. The key statement in your reply was "The UK contracted out to a private company...""

[ Am I...... That private companies are more efficient.... except when they are liars?? ]

That doesn't make sense. Lying is a moral issue, not an efficiency issue. Stupidity is also a moral issue, so how do you figure the UK rates morally when it makes bad business decisions?

~ You want to try that again? ~


"Competition forces businesses to offer better deals than someone else, and what better way to drum up business than to charge less for the same thing?"

[ The UK is a registered corporate entity. I (as is every UK citizen) am a share holder in such as stated on my Birth Certificate... I think the same applies to US citizens. My name as registered on my birth certificate is crown copyrighted, not to be used as identification and as such, a legal fiction. All acts and statutes passed as 'legal' laws are by consent in the UK. If we do not consent, they cannot enforce. To show you do not consent is a process in some cases. But even the police cannot enforce consent in many cases. ]

?


"My point was that anyone who understands how lowering a profit per item can translate into more overall profit in a business should also be able to understand how lowering taxes can have the effect of generating more taxable income."

[ I understand the principle easily. But in reality we do not have a taxation system where it could be said to be true. ]

Both times Reagan did it (as governor of California and as president of the US) it worked just fine.

[ While blatant fraud and evasion happens, your point is pointless. Not because taxes are high, but because they just like to not pay tax period. ]

Apples and oranges. There would undoubtedly be less evasion and fraud under a fair tax system, because fewer people would feel the need to protect themselves. So how do you feel about moral equality? In other words, the government stops stealing and the citizen pays his taxes... and then we can all stop worrying about it and frolic with the unicorns, or whatever else floats our boats.

Iamon lyme: No. When Raygun started off dropping taxes the US debt started rising. Nice cuts for the rich, but no way for the economy to absorb it, this was left untreated for decades.

"There would undoubtedly be less evasion and fraud under a fair tax system, because fewer people would feel the need to protect themselves."

LMAO.... LMAO .....

"I've already told you how many politicians have wanted government to take over the healthcare industry. That's why they won't allow tort reform, because they want the government to be in control of it."

No, that's paranoid. Our Gov just tells our NHS trusts that they have standards to live upto, and that they are accountable if those standards are not met. The hospitals pretty much are run by themselves or the local NHS trust.

"Tort reform would put a cap on awards, and bring them more in line with reality."

Who profits from the current tort laws.... lawyers, insurance firms and the middle men. Each wanting to take their piece of any payouts. One gets a million.. the other has to get 1.5 million, because it has to be bigger or better.

"Where does the UK get it's money? Does it earn it engaging in private enterprise or from taxation?"

........ ..... both.

"We could have delt with the problem of over inflated prices by dealing with the cause. But now we will have to deal with less accessibility and poorer health coverage."

You have been for years already.

""[ Seemingly common sense principles and morals have no part of modern 'merchant' banking. ]

Well no kidding! So who needs to have common sense these days if the government can be made to pick up the tab?""

Small problem with one bank in particular failing. It'd caused a domino effect in the rest of the industry.... With the amount of lending done interbank.

" Lying is a moral issue, not an efficiency issue."

Really... It can cause a great deal of inefficiency in the business world. Especially if you end up with a deal worth far less because of the lying. Or, like in the case of the Madoff investors.... screwed.

(V): "I've already told you how many politicians have wanted government to take over the healthcare industry."

[ No, that's paranoid. ]

Then what is your explanation for why those same politicians have always resisted tort reform?


"No. When Raygun started off dropping taxes the US debt started rising. Nice cuts for the rich, but no way for the economy to absorb it, this was left untreated for decades."

Ohhhh, I get it now! That explains why our country suffered under Rayguns administration, until Buck Rogers saved us all from Emperor Mings Economic Death Ray apparatus. So where was Dr Who when all this was happening?

"Who profits from the current tort laws.... lawyers, insurance firms and the middle men. Each wanting to take their piece of any payouts. One gets a million.. the other has to get 1.5 million, because it has to be bigger or better."

Exactly, so you can add them to the list of people whose interests would be (negatively) affected by tort reform. But as I indicated before, they are not the ones who institute law... it's the lawmakers (politicians) who do that. And as I've already pointed out the law does not MAKE them do it, the law ALLOWS them to do it.


"We could have delt with the problem of over inflated prices by dealing with the cause. But now we will have to deal with less accessibility and poorer health coverage."

[ You have been for years already. ]

According to the same politicians who have resisted any effort to reform healthcare... in other words, the same liars who have claimed that if they are in control there will be greater accessibility and better health coverage. If you believe that, then I guess I should believe it too... (?)


"Small problem with one bank in particular failing. It'd caused a domino effect in the rest of the industry.... With the amount of lending done interbank."

As I've already said "Banks and other types of businesses have failed due to stupidity before, and fraud has always existed. Why do you think people are aways being cautioned to be careful in their business dealings?"

When the government here forced banks into making bad home loans it created a bubble that was ready to break at any time. Banks and other businesses have failed before without government intervention, but in this case government intervention was the catalyst.


" Lying is a moral issue, not an efficiency issue."

[ Really... It can cause a great deal of inefficiency in the business world. Especially if you end up with a deal worth far less because of the lying. Or, like in the case of the Madoff investors.... screwed.]

I didn't say lying doesn't cause inefficiency. I said they are not the same things. Just because one thing can cause another doesn't mean they are the same.

Believing lies can also cause inefficiencies, but being a fool who believes everything he hears is not the same thing either.

I am on lyme: "Believing lies can also cause inefficiencies"

I should have just left it at that. I've been trying to avoid saying anything too inflammatory...

Inflammatory, maybe... but not TOO inflammatory.

(V): "The UK is a registered corporate entity."


You pointed out the difference between England and the UK, but as far as taxation is concerned it may be a difference without a distinction...

Where does the UK get it's money? Does it earn it engaging in private enterprise or from taxation?

(V): "who's interests are affected if tort reform is made?"

Politicians interested in seeing healthcare nationalized would have been negatively affected by tort reform. Their argument was based on some made up ethereal morality that says everyone has a right to healthcare. The way it will work now is if you don't get health care a fine can be levied against you. So apparently this "right" to healthcare will be mandatory. But if the problems with healthcare were actually fixed, they would have had no reason to say it needed fixing... this is why some politicians have always opposed tort reform. Their eyes were on the prize of gaining control of that industry.

The average citizen on the other hand would have been positively affected, because competition would cause prices to fall after the need to insure against exorbitant claims is no longer a concern. Availability has never been an issue, but it probably soon will be.

I say "would have been" because now that government controled healthcare has been made law, the point is moot. We could have delt with the problem of over inflated prices by dealing with the cause. But now we will have to deal with less accessibility and poorer health coverage. And on top of that, health insurance probably won't cost any less than it did before. So what exactly have we gained? We've taken a relatively small problem and made it much worse.

(V): "In the UK it has been seen recently that even if the Government gives money for banks to help businesses they won't. Even when they have said they will."

Well, you have to understand that our government knows better than anyone else how to run healthcare, and your government knows better than the banking industry how they should be doing business. I mean seriously, is there nothing government can't do better than you or me?

Iamon lyme: Oops, I meant to say --- Is there anything government can't do better than you or me?

"Some people think the constitution is outdated, but that's nonsense"

[ It would be fair to say that there are some things that were never imagined of when it was written. ]


Of course, but no one needed to imagine a fundamental change in people... why would they? What worked then works now, and what didn't work then still doesn't work. This isn't news, we have thousands of years of history proving out what works and what doesn't, and why.

(V): "Empower the politicians (all of them) to reject government funded health care,"

[ Then empower the people to have good access, not just high cost ER. ]


The people are already empowered, but maybe many of them don't know that. Real reform hasn't happened for a few reasons... lack of awareness of the problem, push back from legislators who would rather take over health care for themselves to control, and not enough people who know they are already empowered to pressure reluctant lawmakers. What I meant by "empower the politicians" is by putting pressure on the reluctant ones and encourage those who have been trying to get tort reform off the ground and passed into law. In spite of this being the most practical way to lower costs and increase availability, it never gets enough traction in either house of representatives to come to a vote... there are too many who either don't understand the need for it, or want there to be problems with healthcare so they will have an excuse to step in and take over.

And like it or not access to healthcare is not a God given right, even though we are constantly being led to believe that it is. Do you believe access to healthcare is a God given right?

(V): "If government can defer its greed for a few years and stop interfering with our lives and businesses, reduce the tax burdon instead of increasing it"

[ Same with private enterprises. The UK contracted out to a private company the roll of getting people back to work who've been out of work for a long time because of health problems....... The company made several promises, but it turned out that they were just interested in making a profit. In the end it's gonna cost the UK more. ]


You are proving my point. The key statement in your reply was "The UK contracted out to a private company..."

Most private companies aren't so gullible when contracting out to other companies, and will take great pains to insure they won't get screwed. If they didn't they wouldn't be able to stay in business very long. On the other hand, a governing body such as the UK can afford to make mistakes with money collected from taxes. It's the same over here... our beloved president can make bone headed business decisions without suffering any long term consequences for himself or his beloved political party.

(V): "Grocery stores understand how low price / high volume will net greater profits than simply charging as much as they can get away with."

[ Right..... lol... ... ... No. In theory, yes... in reality... it depends. If the store knows it can charge more due to the likes of position... it will. Now adays loss leaders are more used. ]


Loss leaders can spice up the deal, but I think most people consider what the total cost of buying groceries will come to. It's all driven by competition, which btw is something governments don't have to contend with... they don't spend their own money, they spend yours.

Competition forces businesses to offer better deals than someone else, and what better way to drum up business than to charge less for the same thing? The higher volume comes into play when more people choose to buy from you instead of someone else. A lower profit per item can add up to the point where you end up with more overall profit than if you were to charge more per item. I'm not sure what you mean by "In theory, yes"... it's done all the time, and has been going on for a long time. Some people weren't happy about losing mom and pop stores to the larger chains, but so what? I don't know anyone who intentionally pays more for the same product they could get for a lot less somewhere else. Do you know anyone like that?

That wasn't my point though, I assumed it was a given how that works. My point was that anyone who understands how lowering a profit per item can translate into more overall profit in a business should also be able to understand how lowering taxes can have the effect of generating more taxable income.