"but the language used can be polite and factual or it can be inflammatory"
I prefer _INFLAMMATORY_. It's more fun.
And that would be MISTER "ignorant fucking bastard".
5345 posts • joined 1 May 2015
"like the War it is not to be mentioned!"
I think I'll mention it.
Apparently new year's eve in 2016 (just 2 years ago) involved a large number of rapes, apparently as alleged by "Beatrix von Storch" in the "at issue" tweet, in which ACTUAL! BARBARIC! GANG-RAPING! HORDES! actually HAPPENED.
but yeah, relevant commentary on REAL events, when the politically-correct-of-the-day classes are involved, is "hate speech" (according to the SJWs).
there's a *HUGE* difference between Mohammed marrying Aisha at 6 and "consummating" at age 9, and Roy Moore's alleged 'chasing after' a 14 year old girl. The definition of pedophila as a psychological disorder, for example, refers to "below the age of puberty", whereas 'chasing after' a teenager is NOT considered a psychological disorder - in fact, in SOME cultures, it's considered "normal". [of course in western nations it's considered "cradle robbing" but that particular distinction is a social issue that's been decided by courts and legislatures, and is NOT considered a psychological disorder - just creepy].
And don't forget Roy Moore lost the election, kicking and screaming all the way down. When faced with two obvious bad choices, between 'bad' and 'worse', voters held their noses and did what they had to. But I admit I woul have preferred to see Senator Roy Moore rather than "that other guy" simply because "that other guy" is going to be a pain in the ass obstructionist for the next 2 years...
[so consider any vote "for" Roy Moore was more likely a vote "against the Demo-Rat"]
"barbaric, gang-raping hordes of Muslim men"
Surely that's covered under fair comment on factual local events?
And I bet if you take out the word 'Muslim' it would be acceptable. *sigh*.
A few years ago there was a case where a couple of soldiers STOPPED an Afghani soldier from RAPING A BOY on a U.S. military base.
"American soldiers and Marines have been instructed not to intervene" "not even when their Afghan allies have abused boys on military bases"
"The policy of instructing soldiers to ignore child sexual abuse by their Afghan allies is coming under new scrutiny, particularly as it emerges that service members like Captain Quinn have faced discipline, even career ruin, for disobeying it."
(yes it's a New York Times link, so you can assume THIS REALLY HAPPENED)
So when someone in Germany comments on "barbaric, gang-raping hordes of Muslim men", I have a proclivity towards BELIEVING IT IS TRUE based on actual EVIDENCE of similar *kinds* of abusive action by a significant number Moslems. IGNORING the facts on this, in the name of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS (and some new FASCIST law that apparently restricts free speech on that basis - and I deliberately use the word FASCIST because I *KNOW* it will *STING*) simply because some poor SJW might feel bad and decide call it 'racist'. When it's NOT. Islam is a RELIGION, not a RACE. And certain practitioners of that religion do things that the rest of the world _SHOULD_ consider HEINOUS.
And NOT being able to talk about it honestly in a public forum because of anti-free-speech laws is JUST AS HEINOUS.
just to point out, this is all about using a TAX to stifle an activity.
I have to wonder if ANY kind of tax would "stifle activity". Logically concludes into an argument in favor of supply side economics (which I'll spare you from). If 'a' equals 'b', then 'b' should equal 'a', right?
"Who would be the other party? Anyone who has a copyright in Linux..."
yeah, it's kinda like suing your neighbor because your dog is NOT crapping in his yard (to prove your dog doesn't crap in his yard), particularly when your neighbor isn't complaining about it, even though the guy 3 houses down wrote about "curbing your dog" in his blog.
I think you have to have an actual FILED COMPLAINT before a court case is heard. Otherwise, what's the point?
IANAL and this is *entirely* my bombastic opinion.
"If no actual GPL2 enforcement cases arise from this then it's going to make Perens (and the EFF?) look pretty toothless"
so, all it consists of is a set of patches?
theoretically this is fine if the end-user then builds the patched kernel from source and does not distribute it to 3rd parties. However, if it's shipped AS a binary, it may be 'questionable' since, as I understand it, shipping source + patches makes the patches part of the source, which then implies it's GPLv2 being "a derived work".
I don't know the details of what they're actually doing, though. Does the end-user have to build the modified source? If you modify source yourself and do NOT distribute binaries, you don't have to publish the modified source. Does GR restrict (in any way) the publishing of their patches? If they do not, then they should just publish the derived kernel source and be done with it...
(I wonder if the reasoning behind some of this issue involves the money being exchanged)
"If no actual GPL2 enforcement cases arise from this then it's going to make Perens (and the EFF?) look pretty toothless"
I'm actually more concerned with the 'SLAPP' effect of the GR Security lawsuits. It makes them look/sound a bit like SCO, throwing sueballs like that.
Apparently the judge didn't see any proof of wrongdoing possible in what was seen as "opinions" in a blog, regardless to its similarity to published works and related libel statutes.
If EFF believes GR violated the GPLv2, they should sue on that basis. That is, if they have sufficient proof... [but I bet they don't]
"RedHat want money for their binaries compiled from GPL2 source code using GPL licensed tools"
As I understand it, RH and other companies that ship linux binaries [either as a BLOB with a wrapper, or as a userland-only application] do so with code that they have the rights to do so with.
And GPL licensed tools don't require that the application you build ALSO be GPL [that would be silly], even though FreeBSD [and probably others] switched from gcc to clang to avoid that possibility. And I'm starting to like clang more than gcc.
Anyway, as long as they're not violating the GPL outright, I have no problems with BLOB and closed-source binaries statically linked with an application that may be 'mostly GPL' [such that you can modify the GPL-covered code and re-build it yourself]. These don't violate GPLv2, to the best of my knowledge, though they may be explicitly "verboten" in v3. But I don't want to argue v2 vs v3 so I'll stop now.
[worthy of note, I am _VERY_ glad that Linux has stayed with v2 for the kernel]
maybe people who are on Faece-b[itch,ook] need to (learn how to) do their OWN fact checking?
OK the intellectual laziness that appears to be inherent with a majority of FB users (the ones that trust FB for news, anyway) probably precludes that possibility. But I can always hope [in spite of the apparent facts] that news readers would be at least a *little* skeptical of *any* news story, and want to dig into it a bit more, do some fact checking, etc..
/me laments that "feelies" feel instead of think, or even CAN'T think, and so do not fact check anything.
It's my opinion that half the fun of a good news story is doing a little online research after reading it, and not simply believing everything it says, simply because it preaches to the choir or fulfills "wishful thinking" or, worse, "panders to the perception". 'El Reg' style comments also fun, but the larger news outlets couldn't handle the volume...
"You and Bob are typical of the current right wing 'snowflakes'"
Let me tell you what the term 'snowflake' REALLY refers to: those who walk around with chips on their shoulders, offended at EVERYTHING that's not politically correct, who THEN whine like babies until the offending stops, desperately seeking for "safe spaces" (paid for by others, no doubt), wearing "vagina hats" in protest, marching to the latest Saul Alinsky style drum beats of protesting and venting their spleens at every possible offense that could be excreted from the bowels of stupidity, in order to BULLY others, CONTROl people, and generally be a PAIN IN OUR COLLECTIVE ASSES.
I think that word does not mean what you think it means...
So when you see a group of early 20-somethings gathering in a college quadrilateral and having a 1 hour long primal scream because Trump was elected, THEY are 'snowflakes'.
People like me are *FIGHTERS* - and I'm figuratively waving my hand in a taunt, like Neo against 'Smith' in 'The Matrix'. We are NOT "snowflakes". We take on the barrage of howler monkeys (and ACTUAL snowflakes) relentlessly slinging their poo, and offer TRUTH in the face of obvious lies, fabrications, and "fake news".
And most of us fighters just want to live our lives WITHOUT a bunch of ACTUAL snowflakes trying to guilt us into political correctness nor in ANY way giving up our FREEDOM.
Hint: those who seek control over others do so out of FEAR and/or EVIL. And mis-using pejorative labels is ONE way to BULLY people. Should *I* do that to YOU (mis-use pejorative labels) ?
And FYI I'm not "right wing" - I'm a libertarian.
well it's apparently at ~300m and that depth requires some very special+expensive gear, trained people, etc..
And the crew is "On Eternal Patrol"
(as for history it might be interesting if the people who found it can also determine how it sank, whether enemy attack or equipment malfunction)
no thanks at letting "the aliens" run things. They'd be worse than the elitist control freaks that typically rise to positions of power in our current gummints, advocating policies that literally "keep us in our place" so that we don't become a threat to "them" any time soon...
At least, that's the way HUMANS would do things. Our best and brightest held down, while the biggest takers and leeches are held up as if they're "special" or somehow MORE entitled to the fruits of the labors made by people who are FAR more worthwhile to society than THEY are, while achievement and desire for personal gain are berated and treated as if they're "evil". Nature itself competes for everything, and the STRONG survive, and then breed to make even STRONGER offspring. Whereas an oppressive controlling force would elevate ITSELF at the expense of the rest, twisting the concept of 'fairness' and DISCOURAGING competition...
And THAT is what I'd expect from any kind of "Alien overlord". Because our OWN gummints ALREADY do that to us, ALL OF THE TIME.
"And once in a very great while, one of those claims will turn out to actually be true"
I suspect it's at least somewhat more often than 'once in a very great while'. But as you pointed out, the burden of proof for ANY kind of paranormal activity is VERY high. Otherwise, claiming Randi's million would be easy.
And yet, sometimes just being able to consistently observe or do things outside of the bell curve of probability may be enough to call it "success", like an unusually lucky gambler that seems to win more often than not... or an unusually UNlucky gambler on the opposite end of the spectrum. Events falling outside of the normal range of expected probabilities, and having THAT sort of thing happen consistently, MIGHT indicate "something else is going on".
And you'd have a hard time proving it with science, using experiments.
So 'paranormal' may be happening around all of us, all of the time, but we hardly notice, because it doesn't deviate that much from the expected normal. Or, perhaps we do not notice because it DOES deviate TOO MUCH from the expected normal, and so our minds filter it out. "It didn't happen" "I did not see that" "That couldn't possibly be what I saw".
"The only proposition more absurd than the big bang is creationism."
We were NOT created by UFO aliens then? What about the Anunaki? "Ancient Astronaut Theorists" believe yotta yotta yotta and I saw it all on the History Channel! (that makes it true)
BBC America has been playing a constant marathon of Dr. Who and it is my pleasure to recognize that in many parts of this article, the author did a pretty good impersonation of The Doctor's thought patterns, at least once or twice, or maybe 3 times... it doesn't matter.
And how many of those UFO pics were of a small blue box that said "Police" on it...
/me queues up theme song
"Of course how much energy you'll need to apply to what minerals you find to get that water is another question"
A well-designed regenerative process could probably do the job. The question is whether or not forming complex hydrates is endothermic or exothermic, and how much energy is needed to release the water.
From what I just read, CuSO4 5(H2O) is exothermic when forming the hydrate, having a negative hydration enthalpy [and apparantly they're ALL negative, so it's exothermic to form the hydrate]. So it requires energy in to release the water. I didn't research very long, so maybe that chemical formula is wrong. I haven't done that kind of chemistry stuff since 1979...
Still, if you have a large enough power plant (nuclear, let's say), producing sufficient heat to have a continuous process of extracting water from [and grinding up aqueous] rocks, and you use an efficient process that includes regenerative heat exchangers, it would probably be VERY practical.
I'd also be interested in seeing what it would take to melt the Martian planet core sufficiently to get a magnetic field back. OK probably WAY beyond our technology level, but still an interesting idea.
"The odd thing about Hindu mythology is that it describes so many concepts about the universe"
yes, if you cherry pick it. Vimanas and all of that. I like watching "History" channel too, quotes because it's sometimes less about history and more about 'whatever the hell they want to put on the network'. "Ancient astronaut theorists" and all of that. Sometimes it's palatable, and sometimes I can't stomach the nonsense. And sometimes they 'get it right' in between the "ancient astronaut theorists" parts SO well that I'm intrigued. So it's worth watching, if you can 'cherry pick' the good stuff from the weird/bad.
[not to say UFOs nor ETs don't necessarily exist, I just don't buy into the Von Donnakinism, and if they ARE manipulating us, they're HOLDING US BACK and not "helping", to 'keep us in our place' and NOT become a threat to 'them' - that would make MORE sense, to me... sort of like in "The day the earth stood still", the ~original~ one, not the re-make, which missed the point entirely]
Anyway... Mars still sounds like a great place to set up a permanent base or colony, if you can grind up and heat rocks for water and oxygen. That could work, using nuclear power. Sci Fi has suggested things like that for DECADES, and I think Sci Fi authors are pretty good at predicting what's possible.
"have you every tried to upgrade Viao"
yes. I installed Debian Linux on 2 of them, about 10 years ago. They worked PERFECTLY for what we needed them for. We chose Vaio for several reasons, including the NVidia displays they used.
And I'd gladly put Devuan on a Vaio. I might just do that, soon [the current OS is Vista on this one... and I've replaced the fan and it needs a new battery, but still works just fine for day-to-day stuff, even with Vista on it].
I think Sony gave up on Vaio because of Windows "Ape" and Win-10-nic. Too bad they didn't go with LINUX pre-installed, instead...
I've used an Intel BIOS tool, some time in the past, that booted and updated the BIOS from a USB flash drive. So it was OS-independent.
THAT is the kind of BIOS tool that is needed - not something that REQUIRES WINDOWS to run. Have it boot it's OWN operating system or not even bother with an OS. Even DOS would work for this kind of thing.
the proverbial crap is already hitting the fan regarding the 'dumping' of solar tech. I've heard ads on the radio regarding tariffs next year on imported solar stuff, "get it done now before the price goes up", that kind of thing.
(this was apparently done before, during the Obaka administration, and Trump recently adjusted the tariff amount, but not as much as some people wanted, nor so much that the industry is harmed).
As long as China subsidizes its state-owned business [don't anyone be fooled; it's heavy socialism with a communist influence over there, so "state-owned" is as good of a description as any] and pay their employees 'slave wages' to make things, they'll always undercut EVERYONE on price. So a little bit of protectionism is acually a GOOD thing in this case. Because the NEXT step is to destroy all other competing manufacturers, like the 'Robber Barons' of the late 19th and early 20th century were doing, by making it economically IMPOSSIBLE to compete.
Still there are other problems with domestic production of solar panels, environmental regulations being one of them [these could be made more 'common sense' to alleviate THAT problem].
So there are things that can be done, things that should NOT be done, etc. but we cannot IGNORE that China is engaging in "unfair business practices" in a lot of ways.
You can't blame them entirely, but you shouldn't make it EASY for them to do it, either.
"Presumably he was coereced into doing what he was told, or the other two had something over the guy which acted as an...incentive to continue doing naughty things."
or maybe... JUST maybe... the case was heard before a liberal-leaning "feel sorry for them" judge, and the criminal's lawyers PLAYED HEARTS AND FLOWERS during the trial, to manipulate and "tug at the heart strings" and generate waterfalls of tears and sympathy for the "poor cwiminal, Awwwww" to get him off with a WRIST SLAP and ONLY threat of "kiddy jail" if he screws up again within the next 2 years.
I think my explanation is the more likely one to be correct. It's based on past history.
Using the SAME LOGIC of "he was coerced" or manipulated or whatever, MANSON'S WOMEN should be parolled. But I doubt ANYONE wants THAT...
I think CONSISTENCY in law enforcement is KEY to an orderly society. "We feel sorry for you" should *NEVER* (repeat *NEVER*) be *ANY* excuse for ultra-light sentencing or *ANY* kind of favoritism, just like economic circumstance, social status, or "who you know/blow" should ALSO be excluded from ANY conviction or sentencing.
Here in the USA we're running into a few problems with this last part... "equal justice for all" should be THE ONLY RULE, but you find many (OJ, Mrs. Clinton being 2 examples) who seem to "get away with it" ALL too EASILY! And *THAT* is *WRONG*.
And I don't blame the lawyers. They're actually doing their jobs. If they did not AGGRESSIVELY DEFEND their clients, the system would not work. Prosecutors need to be JUST as good, and judges and jurors need to JETTISON THEIR POLITICS AND FEELINGS AT THE COURT ROOM DOOR (and be TRULY impartial!).
article: "You were taken advantage of by those more criminally sophisticated than yourself"
"As facts are presented, I am not happy with the results."
neither am I. A _reduced_ sentence in "big boy jail" would have been appropriate, due to guilty plea AND maybe some assistance with prosecuting others. that's "standard operating procedure" in law enforcement.
Instead, the judge was subjected to "Hearts and Flowers" played on the world's smallest violin, "Oh, my heart, it BLEEDS, for YOUUUUUU!" etc. and this guy got off with a WRIST SLAP.
Sentencing is SUPPOSED to deter OTHERS from trying the same crap by MAKING AN EXAMPLE. you know, protect society and all of that. FEEWING SOWWY for the POOW CWIMINAL, Awwwww.... that's just *SICK*.
"there are a lot of FOSS projects struggling to get money to survive."
private businesses usually struggle to get money to survive, too. It's just the way things are.
Of course for FOSS there are ways to contribute that do not involve money, such as finding bugs and submitting patches (or at least detailed-enough bug reports that the dedicated engineers can fix it).
Regardless of "who funds Mozilla" there are a LOT of 'customers' out there that rely on Firefox. Many of them run open source operating systems like Linux or the BSD's. And so the success of desktop Linux is "somewhat connected" to having a decent browser that runs on it. Google puts a lot of effort into chrome for 'Chrome OS' and so they compete with Mozilla.
It's just that Mozilla needs to make sure that FIREFOX HAS SOMETHING TO COMPETE AGAINST CHROME WITH. Making it LOOK LIKE CHROME isn't "that". But the delayed-spyware-load feature? THAT is something! [and they can make it EVEN BETTER by giving Firefox at least an *OPTIONAL* "classic" appearance!!! Hear *THAT*, ASSHATS? STOP it with the 2D FEELING FLATSO, DAMMIT!!!]
"If Mozilla's best still can't handle a simple screen reader for the blind"
You bring up a VERY good point.
I have noticed that the *ENTIRE* 2D FLATSO FLUGLY "pastel color" "poor contrast" UI trend, most likely driven by MILLENIALS who don't even need to use reading glasses (yet), who can stare at "light cyan on bright white" and STILL make out what the text says [while over 50% of the population can NOT, especially those of us who are old], are unnecessarily CRAMMING THIS CRAP-INTERFACE
UP OUR ASSES DOWN OUR THROATS because *THEY* *FEEL* it's better.
[hopefully none of that text I just pounded out works poorly with a screen reader]
The readability and eye-strain issues CAUSED by pastel-contrast FLATSO interfaces really PISS ME OFF. It's a big reason (other than the FLUGLY) why I *HATE* *THAT*.
And MOZILLA needs to PAY FEELING ATTENTION to this. STOP IT with "the Australis", DAMMIT! And oh by the way, DO NOT force people to "upgrade the screen reader" to install. WORK WITH THE OLDER VERSIONS DAMMIT!
(and don't tell us that 'DAMMIT doesn't work here' either).
"the new FF is fast as hell. It's quite an impressive improvement."
I'm glad they spent ACTUAL TIME doing something USEFUL [rather than completely *FEELING* up the UI with 'Australis' and THEN taking away the ability to FIX IT BACK via legacy plug-ins].
I'm still PISSED OFF about the 2D FLATSO, the *FEELING* hamburger "menu", and the inability to FIX it now that the 'legacy' "classic UI" plugins can't work.
if I had time to do it, I'd fork it JUST for the UI elements, and do what those plugins do WITHIN THE ACTUAL CODE. And I'm sure *MY* fork would be MOST popular. it could still track FF's development for all of the security patches and REAL improvements, too.
How come *THEY* haven't figured that out?
If only they also banned:
a) anything with scripting or 3rd party cookies or user-identifiable URLs. Period. [if I click on the link and it tracks me on THEIR servers, that's their business. But the ad itself should be benign].
b) anything that has motion in it [especially flash and *shudder* HTML5 video, even WITHOUT sound]. Animated gifs are just as bad and should never 'autoplay' anyway.
c) anything larger than 100k bytes. yes, I'm being generous.
d) anything that requires a user interaction in ANY form, even if it's to stop the countdown early
e) anything that blocks the content if "not viewed" (including those for sites that give you 'forbidden' or other errors from nginx if you happen to have noscript running)
f) anything requiring downloads from a separate URL [script, CSS, whatever] - see '100k bytes' limit
g) anything that re-directs directly to ANY kind of installer - no exceptions!
h) anything that consumes more than 5% of the CPU over a 2 second period to render on an average device (mobile or desktop). Don't waste my battery either!
I call that "a good start"
[what, you mean shoving it in my face and blowing a loud horn until I press 'OK' isn't making me want to BUY your product??? That practice should have GUARANTEED sales attached to it!]
"The europeans have always had a way of describing each other using a food based item that is native to that country"
/me wonders what Americans would be... 'Hot Dogs' perhaps? But it really varies from state to state.
In Cali-fornicate-you it's easy: Fruits, nuts, and flakes [at least in S.F. and silly valley]. But here in San Diego I guess it could be "Fish Tacos". Rubios. Yum!
"the tax system as set up by FDR was what built America"
WRONG. FUD. CLUELESS.
FDR's socialism actually SLOWED DOWN the recovery from the 'Great Depression'. A few things, like deposit insurance, made sense [this kept most banks from making high risk loans due to regulation involving the insurance requirement, which is what caused the banking crisis of the late 1920's]. But *MOST* of what FDR did domestically was CRAP, and should be ABANDONED, starting with Keynsian economics and ending with the so-called "progressive" taxation of incomes [it keeps people from BECOMING "the rich"].
What ended the depression was the war-time economy cause by WORLD WAR 2, and the massive spending at the end of the war as soldiers and sailors and marines came back home and bought houses and cars and other stuff they'd saved up for.
During the 1950's tax rates were INCREASED with the top marginal rate being 90% (yes, 90%) and *TONS* of loopholes for tax shelters "for the rich" to go with it [to 'stimulate' certain pet areas of the economy], so as to *SLOW* *DOWN* the U.S. economy, most likely [from a 'globalist' kind of perspective] to "allow Europe and Asia to 'catch up' to the USA after having to repair all of that war damage".
By the 1960's, JFK saw how this was STIFLING the US economy, and basically laid out supply side economics and TAX CUTS to the New York Economic Society in December of 1962. This actually made him the BETTER choice over Nixon, who was pretty much the same as Kennedy on most points that were important to people at the time. [yes, I _JUST_ praised a Democrat!]
And so I conclude: FDR's policies *STIFLED* the US economy, by putting more gummint control over it. JFK's, and Regan's, and now Trump's policies *UNLEASH* the economy, by lowering the marginal tax rates.
Our current income tax was implemented (after the approval of the relevant constitutional amendment) during the time of Woodrow Wilson, a globalist, socialist, "chicken in every pot" type of Demo-Rat politician who NEVER should have been President of the USA. Only the top 10% of income earners were affected by the 2 percent tax. Now, look where it is _NOW_ !!!
And America was MOSTLY built without an income tax. BIG GUMMINT was built WITH it.
" there will be few left who will be able to afford the increased rates for health insurance that will result. "
WRONG. FUD. CLUELESS.
more like this:
Insurance companies will offer plans that people CAN afford and are willing to buy, because they do NOT have to comply with some ridiculous federal requirement. This includes "emergency only" and high-deductible catastrophic plans. Trump says he LIKES those. So do I. But you can't BUY them with OBAKA-CARE individual mandate in place. You _HAVE_ to pay 10 times as much for things you do NOT want, to "cover everyone else".
I say *NO* to Obaka-care mandates, and give it my upright middle finger. It's a "financial hardship" which allows me to NOT purchase it under THAT law [as it turns out] so I did NOT have to pay "the fine". And I did NOT buy it. And now, I won't EVER HAVE to! [I may get a high deductible catastrophic policy, now that I can, maybe like the old style 'blue cross' plans - for 1/10 the price - and for anything else, I'll just go to the neighborhood "doc in a box" or pharmacy where they can do things like flu shots without an exam first, things like that].
"Murder rate US - 4.88 per 100,000"
Trump still needs to un-do DECADES of failed policies that result in inner city high unemployment rates, to deal with the murder rate and crime problems. Yeah, he got BOATLOADS of good things done in under a year, but still has a long way to go.
But as for actually ARRESTING and INCARCERATING these bozos that commit crimes [like murder], a good portion of that problem falls in the hands of STATE and local governments, not the Feds.
Recently, Cali-Fornicate-You "relaxed" the crime level (felonies becoming misdemeanors, for example) of certain "non-violent" crimes, causing prisoners to be released, among other things. The 'petty crime' increase predictably followed. We had a 3-strikes law that was WORKING. Not any more. Thanks, Jerry "2nd time around [like eating vomit]" "Moonbeam" Brown and corrupt state legislature.
Trump can't control governors or state legislatures. MOST crimes involve state law, not federal law, and are prosecuted by individual states.
And don't forget about cases where ILLEGAL ALIENS (including MS-13) are the CAUSE of the murders... like a recent high profile case in San Francisco where the perp was ACQUITTED on B.S. technicalities, "the bullet ricocheted" or some such nonsense, when HE! FIRED! THE! BULLET!! Trump can't control THAT, either.
I think the NRA _ALSO_ has some interesting statistics involving states where gun ownership and/or concealed carry permits are being INFRINGED upon... showing that restrictive anti-gun laws actually INCREASE the murder/crime rates.
So, blame where blame belongs, please?
rich people (and corporations) don't just stuff their mattresses with extra money when they earn it [exception: expatriated money stuffed into offshore banks, waiting for lower tax rates so it can be re-patriated].
they SPEND IT! You know, on houses, cars, boats, planes, vacations, "things"... and they HIRE people! "Hey I have more money this year, let's hire a contractor/butler/cook/driver/gardner/whatever - or invest venture capital into a NEW BUSINESS, because I can RISK IT now!"
(and of course, THAT creates JOBS and boosts the economy). So let rich people KEEP what they earn, because it's GOOD for EVERYONE when they do!
Do you get it now?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019