Can you quote the BAN and the ALL parts of the link?
There is a say-so by a profesor (whom we are never told why he is relevant) and banning the CDC to do gun research, possibly because of its not being part of their job (of course the NRA was happy about it).
C’mon, at least [try. It took me less than 2 minutes to track down the legislataion, Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill, HR 3610, Pub L No. 104-208.
Introduced initially by Representative Jay Dickey(R-AR) in the 1997 act, it forbade, “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” It also removed the money earmarked for such studies by the CDCP and reapportioned it elsewhere.
In addition, over time the amount of money from the CDCP that went towards such studies has declined 96% and on its grant page the agency states that, “In addition to the restrictions in the Anti-Lobbying Act, CDC interprets the language in the CDC’s Appropriations Act to mean that CDC’s funds may not be spent on political action or other activities designed to affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms.” This has been taken to mean any research that might touch on gun control or gun rights in any way. The net impact has been to largely eliminate gun violence research at the federal level.
How is the NRA influencing things? While making sure that the regulations maintain that no funds can be used to influence gun control efforts, the NRA is now being given preferential treatment by being notified any time the CDC’s researchers are involved in anything that might be related to gun violence or control. Following the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, a story in the New York Times related that such information was passed from the CDCP to the NRA ‘as a courtesy’.
In 2012, moreover, the language essentially banning gun violence research was expanded to include the National Institutes of Health in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ74/pdf/PLAW-112publ74.pdf.
In a capper, former Rep. Jay Dickey has changed his position on the matter of such funding. In a 2012 OpEd in The Washington Post Dickey admits to submitting the original legislation as ‘point person for the NRA’ and that it ‘sent a chilling message’ to those who would research gun violence and the agencies that might provide funding. The OpEd was written in partnership with Mark Rosenberg, the former head of the Center that conducted the original research to which the Dickey Amendment was a reaction. It closes with, “We were on opposite sides of the heated battle 16 years ago, but we are in strong agreement now that scientific research should be conducted into preventing firearm injuries and that ways to prevent firearm deaths can be found without encroaching on the rights of legitimate gun owners. The same evidence-based approach that is saving millions of lives from motor-vehicle crashes, as well as from smoking, cancer and HIV/AIDS, can help reduce the toll of deaths and injuries from gun violence.”
Note that funding that might promote the control of guns is effectively barred by legislative fiat but such is NOT the case for information that might argue the other side. It also conflates - as a practical matter - ALL research into gun violence through the threat of loss of funding of future research. Research is about facts, and honest debate should not fear facts.
Honestly, I’m not a gun control guy. I believe the second amendment clearly allows for the private ownership of firearms. But I do have a bugaboo about honesty and hypocrisy. The simple fact that the primary advocate for gun rights feels a need to supress evidence - even the gathering of evidence - that might work against their legislative goals is a strong indicator that they know the weight of the data will fall against them and that honest evaluation of the data would make their position untenable. Suppression - of almost any form - is highly indicative of insecurity and is a hallmark of abuse of power and all gun rights advocates should be embarrassed by this particular tactic on the part of their advocates.
In adaher’s defense, he was making a Communism reference, not a Nazi reference. “Re-education” camps, not death camps.
And yes, that’s a* bigger* insult in some quarters.
Probably not necessary, more probably not sufficient–even probably counterproductive. A cataclysm might incite factions within the nation to lash out at the “internal enemy.”
Read those recommended posts, and noted that the mod’s reprimand was for EVERYBODY to tone down the rhetoric.
As for the rest of your commentary re: adaher, it’s my opinion that you have an active imagination and simply don’t like his brand of politics.
Nothng I didn’t already know.
Think I’ve found some common ground here - That polls are informative and influential, although flawed and imperfect in many ways.
.
Then do please give us one or two of your favorite examples of the Democrats’ “manipulation and skewing of stats” (your own words).
That was specific to adaher and you know it:
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Direct insults are forbidden in Great Debates.
[/QUOTE]
That was directed to adaher and his insult.
Even if we assume that he was referring to liberals or minorities as communists with reeducation camps that remains a very direct insulting thing to say.
Back to subject: The point stands, it is a big problem when the right in America does not tell the racists or birthers to take a hike as they are **supposed **to be not welcomed among the Republicans. And on this specific case the problem is that the conservative does not even acknowledge that it is an issue, that it should be ignored or hidden.
Fie to that.
The dependance on those elements for sources of information and using their support in misguided lawsuits and then the Republicans telling us that what they are not an issue is a problem, and then to continue to use their help after getting information on what those elements really are is a big reason why this item gets stuck to the GOP nowadays.
For all his faults and despite being the worst president in history, Bush was pretty much free of racism. Some Latinos may have been swayed by his Spanish fluency. But it is pretty safe to say that the Republican Party of 2013 is much more hostile to Hispanics than the Republican Party of 2000. Sure, Bush did fairly well among Hispanics, but since then his party has done nothing but toss turdballs at Hispanics.
I think all of the late invite and scheduling conflicts are telling. In that it’s telling us no one in the GOP was planning to be there just because they wanted to be there. Oh - a last minute invitation to a place I’m already be going - how convenient!
Hell, I speak Spanish better than Dubya. So do a quarter of the kids in any American middle school. Any Latinos who were swayed to vote for him were more likely to have other reasons. You’re right that he wasn’t racist, but that should be a pretty minimal expectation.
From what I’ve read since your post, you have a point, Elvis. Apparently his Spanish was not as good as I’ve previously heard, although most give him credit for trying. I can’t believe I had to correct myself for giving Bush too much credit.
People may be confusing him with Jeb who is actually pretty fluent as I understand it. His wife is Colombian, so that probably helped. I used to love watching him translate the hurricane warning stuff on the fly during pressers (the reporters always asked - I had originally assumed it was also written in Spanish on the release that he was reading, but asked a guy who was on the podium with him for a few and he said it wasn’t - the Gov was doing it himself although that may have changed later).
I’m annoyed on my own behalf. I figure by the last twenty-four hours they must have been getting desperate and would have taken any Republican they could find. I’m pretty sure if I had put my name forth, I could have gotten free plane tickets and a spot on the podium.
Planner 1: Who’s next on the GOP list?
Planner 2: Some guy named Little Nemo.
Planner 1: That can’t be right.
Planner 2: Nope, that’s his name.
Planner 3: Should we try Big Nemo first?
Ironically the same approach applies to blacks and the Republican National Convention.
Bazinga.
Something which is easy to say now that he’s out of power. I remember what kind of rhetoric was used about him while he was President.
Now I agree that the GOP of 2013 could be viewed as more hostile towards Latinos than the GOP of 2000, due to the hostility to increased immigration. The political battle is causing problems for the GOP’s perception in the Latino community. But I think a lot of that will subside once it’s no longer a hot button issue. Thus the Democrats’ desire to keep the issue rather than pass a bill, and many GOPers’ desire to just get it out of the way.
However, I don’t think a case can be made at all that the GOP is racist towards African-Americans, and certainly not more racist than under GWB, when Kanye West famously said, “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.”
But you know, if the perception is there, feel free to exploit it. That’s politics. My side will do the same against yours whenever the opportunity arises. I won’t whine if you won’t.
That second line is not part of my original quote; it appears to be your comment. I’ll assume that this is just another example of your demonstrated lack of quoting skills. However, changing, adding to, or anything other than exact shortening of a quote is a serious offense here. Please be more careful.
This is especially a problem here because your comment is meaningful only in the most trivial sense. The vast majority of public polls are done to create and provide information. And good polls do exactly that, as was seen in the 2012 election, where their predictive ability was excellent. Only those who didn’t want to believe what the polls were telling them thought otherwise.
Common ground exists only if you remember the line that follows that you didn’t quote. “You get understanding out of them only if you understand polling properly and completely in the first place.” Your dismissing of polls as merely manipulative is foolish and counterproductive. Those in 2012 who refused to believe the polls - or worse, cited the conservative “unskewed” poll lunacy - got their ignorance beaten down in a very public way. If you want to set yourself up for that, make my day. 
There are actually two reasons for that phenomenon:
As soon as a Republican no longer has to court the crazy, they seem to revert to nicer versions of themselves. Contrast “campaign McCain” to “present-day McCain”, for example.
Republicans are getting worse. They have to keep moving farther and farther to the right to distance themselves from the left. Don’t blame us if you keep electing Republicans who are worse than previous Republicans.
Exploit it? My dear adaher, the American public will *vote *that perception, just as they have been doing. That’s politics. So why have you spent a hundred posts whining about it?
The ideology isn’t what makes a politician “crazy”, unless we’re talking a socialist or a monarchist or a fascist or something.
If the GOP is moving further to the right, that may make them more wrong, but it wouldn’t make them more awful. Further, parties are like businesses in that they market themselves towards consumer demand. If it was crazy to move more to the right, the GOP would be losing ground by moving to the right. Some seem to suggest that the party should re-embrace Bush-style conservatism, but the public has decisively rejected that.
But that doesn’t always mean democrats win. Racial grievance can be exploited to help Republicans too, and has been very successfully.