Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "ReasonTV"
channel.
-
230
-
131
-
103
-
66
-
48
-
47
-
31
-
29
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
18
-
18
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Hans "That's what i actually said, it CAN be enforced" - the fact that it can means you have no actual right to live. You can be dispatched anytime.
"And i never said so." - then relocating someone does not equal slavery.
"Slavery means forcing someone to do something." - "Slavery is any system in which principles of property law are applied to people, allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals, as a de jure form of property.[1] A slave is unable to withdraw unilaterally from such an arrangement and works without remuneration." making someone leave your property doesn't mean you own them. Someone being evicted could have withdrawn unilaterally by not trespassing in the first place. It's not slavery, no matter which half baked definition you come up with.
"you have to enslave him, forcing him something to do, which is the definition of slavery." - except it fucking isn't. Parents can force children to go to school, it isn't slavery. If I take you by the ankles and force you to dip your head in the toilet I am forcing you to do something but at most that's a form of aggression, not slavery. If I force you to give me your lunch money it's not slavery. Hell, rape is forcing someone to do something, but there's a big difference between a rape and full-on sexual slavery. There's so many caveats to your definition it's essentially worthless.
"And that definition does not change in situation XY." - IRONIC.
How nice of you, you had your own arguments completely obliterated and you're unable to defend them without coming up with your own (incorrect) definitions so you claim I need to be lectured on logic. Priceless.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@SEXWORKERNATION No, there's an old estimate of 300 million guns in the US, which some people claim is about 400 million right now. Even if 98% of those are "legal", that's still 8 million guns in the black market. My point is, just because I've never seen a gun being trafficked doesn't mean those hypothetical 8 million guns do not exist. If we step outside the US, there's an estimate of 850 million guns in worldwide circulation. If we ignore guns inside the US, guns owned by police departments and military forces, and the guns owned legally by civilians, there will still millions of guns unaccounted for in the black market.
My point is, just because I haven't seen one of them, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Boat >"Sure, there's the chance of a hydra but then you cut that head off too"
Perfect analogy. We'll spend the rest of the millennium cutting off heads.
>"Destroy the caliph and the rest will cower"
And go underground so you can't find it to hit America with homegrown terrorists.
Don't destroy anything, and they can't use your actions to justify retaliation.
>"If someone threatened to murder your from another house and you knew who they were, that's called a clear and present danger."
If I kill them, I get charged with murder you idiot.
>"You have the right to have the authorities take out that threat"
Actually the police will tell you they can't do anything until you're attacked but they will investigate. Which is code for "don't hold your breath".
The analogy isn't calling the police because the world has no police.
It's sending men with guns to murder EVERYONE who lives in that house. Guilty of threats or not.
>"Yeah...you're a pacifist, no matter how you try to spin it."
Pacifists can't use violence.
I'm a firearms enthusiast, I support the right to own and carry weapons, Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground.
The NAP, in the Anarcho-Captalist sense, doesn't cover violence used in self-defense because it's not violence - it's common sense.
So how the fuck am I a pacifist if even though I shall never take pleasure in killing, I'd still sleep like a baby if I shot you if you broke into my house?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Michael Haimerl That's not an argument. It's like claiming socialized medicine "works" because there's hospitals and people getting treated in them. Sure, let's forget the fact that it's inefficient, it depends on the stability of the state and on steady birth rates to replenish the Ponzi scheme that taxes are, etc.
I can see streetcars moving down the street, thank you very much. Doesn't mean it's not a ridiculously inefficient behemoth which is a nuisance to drivers, interferes with parking, and is absolutely redundant if you already have subway and bus networks servicing the city's transporting needs.
Now, remove all types of individual motor traffic, and yes, you got yourself a highly specific environment where the streetcar shines as there are no space or traffic issues.
>"Cuba looks more developed than this, no wonder you think it sucks"
So now you resort to insults?
>"from your city (with streetcars)"
Wow, a big revelation! I spent the whole time exemplifying from personal experience how rubbish they are and now you're telling me my city has streetcars?
Holy shit.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@georgethompson3763 No, it's not the only way and it's the worse way to do it. I don't care about hunting, there's more important reasons to have firearms. If you actually read the Second Amendment there is no requirement to participate in a militia. If you actually look it up the American law actually acknowledges the existence of the militia apart from the national guard, simply being all able bodied men of fighting age. Besides that, multiple states have laws that codify the state militia as all able bodied men of fighting age.
Your study is mostly useless. Semi-automatic rifles do not kill more people, handguns do. Mass shootings are a small percentage of gun homicides, the vast majority committed with handguns. Your link is also so poorly written it just says attacks with semi-autos lead to increased hit rates. It doesn't differentiate between the actual shots taken. It calls out semi-automatic rifles but did not differentiate between pistols and rifles in the numbers. So if I go on a mass shooting with a pump-action shotgun and a semi-auto rifle and actually get more kills than average with the pump-action, will the study chalk it up as a "semi-auto" victory? Or a pump-action shotgun and a semi-automatic handgun, the shotgun being much more deadly, will it get chalked up as a "semi-auto" victory so that the article calls out semi-auto rifles? This whole argument is just a waste of time - banning semi-autos would make the US one of the strictest countries in the world when it comes to guns and they have a right to keep and bear arms you're telling me we Europeans would have better gun laws than the US despite not having a right to guns? Jeez. If you look it up the homicide resorting to blunt weapons/tools/bare hands actually outnumbers the rifle homicide stats. And that one includes ALL rifles, semi-auto or not.
You're using the emotional argument of "children's lives". There are many things that kill more children than firearms. You don't actually care about children, just removing guns.
Again, I don't care about hunting.
"As a compromise" - a compromise means you give something back. Gun owners already gave into so many laws, what do they get in return?
"Again, as I said, I'm totally against confiscation" - which is bullshit. There's like 10 million AR15s in civilian hands, it's cheaper to manufacture than even an AK these days because of all the tooling purchased to fulfill military contracts already being paid off, it's cheaper than competing models so it sells. And there's millions more of other semi-auto rifles. So if you're not for confiscation and you allow grandfathering of ARs you're still accepting more than a century's worth of mass shootings happening with the available weapons without new ones being purchased.
2
-
2
-
@georgethompson3763 "No, since most mass shootings are done with newly-bought weapons" - you do realize a mass shooter buying a gun off someone else is a "newly-bought weapon", right?
"bought their weapons years ago and are responsible" - that's still millions of people who might get fired from their job or divorced or whatever.
"Ban any sale of AR-15s" - you mean semi-auto rifles. Why the hard on for the AR-15? You're gonna ban AKs, Mini-14s, etc too right?
"including private sales" - bruh if you don't confiscate semi-auto rifles how you're going to prevent people from selling them privately, then?
"prevent people under 21 from buying a firearm" - No. No. No. If people aren't responsible enough to own a gun until 21, then they can't vote until they're 21 nor join the military. Rights are rights.
"ban high capacity magazines" - it's a fucking box with a spring. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw0ZGVbyfpk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyYSqBA9BKw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGTriDDUpUk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2KCuymRLMk how the fuck do you ban a box with a spring? Hell you can just take smaller magazines and weld them together: http://www.defensereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Higher_Capacity_32-Round_and_45-Round_SR-25_and-M14-M1A_7.62mm_Rifle_Magazines_Company_Shot.jpg
http://www.defensereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Higher_Capacity_55-Round_and_75-Round_AR-15_5.56mm_Rifle_Magazines_Company_Shot.jpg
http://photobucket.com/gallery/http://s983.photobucket.com/user/44Echo10/media/Gun%20Stuff/AR/AK%20style%20magazine/62dgbix_zpsf21e5b3f.jpg.html
This implying anyone would even need to manufacture their own magazines, because there's millions upon millions of them and they're all unaccounted for. There' no paperwork on magazines.
"make training mandatory" - it would be taken down by the supreme court like requiring a civics exam before voting. It's meant to disqualify lower class people from exercising their rights.
"have a national registration and universal background check" - you're thinking three steps ahead aren't you. Canada eliminated their long gun registry in 2012 because it was proven that it was a useless drain in resources. The only purpose of a registry is not having to allow grandfathering, simply checking on a list who owns what and sending them a letter saying they have 90 days to turn them in or SWAT will knock down the front door.
"create a national tax on firearm sales" - again, using a tax to restrict a right by making it more expensive might be struck down by the supreme court
"reinstate the so-called assault weapon ban. That should curb the number of deaths over time.
" - no, it fucking wouldn't. Mexico and Brazil have much stricter gun laws than you described and they have much higher murder rates. In fact, in Brazil murder rates have risen since their anti-gun laws were passed. The assault weapons ban was proven ineffective because most homicide is not committed with assault weapons and because many manufacturers simply changed their guns to comply with the AWB. You literally have no evidence that what you said is going to happen will actually happen, and the US is much closer to a Latin American country than a European one so you can count on criminals still having guns and killing each other.
Nearly anything you say is either flat out unconstitutional, impractical, unrealistic, or actually doesn't even make any fucking sense.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
JC545X39 I know what you mean. It's not going to work and it's definitely not a long term solution.
Whatever you think you will "end" by going in and out will start happening the minute your boots leave that ground.
>"Oh, and for the record, pretty much everybody here with half a backbone left and a couple of brain cells to rub together for friction just about died when they named that Joke a Nobel Peace Prize winner just for getting elected."
I know. But the point is that you're missing the reasons people outside the US judge their military action abroad.
It's not the ROEs. Independently of the ROE you will kill a shit ton of civilians. It's war, any country would shell innocent women and children.
The point is, it's military action abroad. That's our problem. The way you do it is an argument for the hippies who actually care.
Most people in Europe, etc have bigger problems in their lives. They can't bother to hate another country with the passion you describe.
I just called you out because your speech seemed a little pathetic and borderline nationalist. It's like those people who think all of their detractors are "haters" and they're all like "hurr I love having haters". That's 7th grade shit.
Boat >"Disenfranchised?" My god, you are just making up your own story now. No, the Free Syrian Army is not ISIS.
I was talking about homegrown terrorists in US soil. You know, that thing that just a few posts ago was terrifying you?
How you managed to go from homegrown terrorists to convincing yourself that I was talking about the FSA even though I never mentioned them will forever remain a mystery.
>"their goal is to end western civilization and replace it with an Islamic caliphate."
And until they try we have no reason to intervene.
Let them try.
>"Therefore, we do have a legitimate right to go into Iraq and clean up the garbage."
Me saying that I'm going to cut your neck and shit down your throat does not give you the right to break into my house and kill me.
I'd have to confront you with a knife for my threat to become credible.
>"Assad would probably even love for us to go into Syria too if we have to."
No, because Assad is on Putin's side. If the US enters Syria, Qatar will be able to complete their pipeline and Europe won't need Putin's natural gas.
>"All my active, reserved, and even discharged friends all have said they'd more than happily go back to take these bastards out."
Then why haven't they bought a plane ticket and gone?
Oh wait, because it's better to send others.
Look, I also know plenty of people in the military, not just in my country but also in the US.
Basic is designed to give you morning wood for combat. Even if you're a POG.
If you didn't get it, morning wood is caused by a filled bladder and not arousal. Those kids don't know what combat is, so obviously they're willing to take part in it.
Even though 22 veterans kill themselves every day, which clearly shows how good it is to send people into foreign countries to fight.
Heck, there's probably people willing to sell themsleves into slavery.
If you think it's your patriotic duty, I don't think it's immoral to go.
I think it's immoral for a GOVERNMENT to have some old people making deadly decisions, charging the taxpayer to do it and then sit on their comfortable chairs because they know they'll never have to fight that war.
>"maybe even worse considering Dems and Repubs agree on attacking ISIS
Maybe because Dems and Repubs are both shitstains. Do you think the Founding Fathers would have approved of the current state of affairs? Political parties controlling public opinion, foreign intervention?
>"When ISIS does toss an airliner into a skyscraper or drops a dirty bomb in the middle of a shopping mall, I want you to think long and hard about your defending their sorry asses."
You know that dirty bombs are ridiculously easy to clean, right? Thanks for proving you've been brainwashed into fearing something that can't kill more than a regular bomb.
Wasn't the biggest bomb massacre in the US caused by a "patriot" in a militia?
I won't think long about it. It was you guys who funded and trained the "moderate" rebels who would then become ISIS. It will be the US government with innocent blood on their hands.
In fact, you're probably itching for that blood to be spilled because it would justify the invasion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ike Evans Thanks for misinterpreting my argument. Of course I support carry rights and the right to protect yourself.
But does an intruder have the right to carry arms in (say) your home? Does he have the right to defend himself if you try to stop him?
By going abroad, you're the outsider. You don't have the right to defend yourself in other's land.
>"Because of the military, conflict will be less likely, not more"
Except both contemporary and historical evidence say the opposite. You can't apply "good guy with a gun" logic to a situation of military intervention. Military intervention leads to conflict.
The longer the US stayed in Afghanistan, the more people were willing to join the Taliban.
Heck, Afghanistan asked for the Soviet Union to intervene and pacify the country. What happened? Rebellion. Then the US supported the Mujaheddin against the Soviets. More outside intervention - what did it lead to? Civil war. What did American and Pakistan intelligence do to stop it? Create the Taliban and send them to rule Afghanistan. Do you understand that for every action there is a reaction?
By sending the military, even with the approval of local governments, you are automatically picking the government side, It just may happen that people don't like it. Even if conflict doesn't happen initially at one point the military will leave and then what?
>"Meanwhile the doctors can get around to not only saving the lives of thousands of people in Africa"
You can only be healed if you consent. Thanks to the bastards who spread around rumours that white people created Ebola and other beliefs stemming from religion or tribal traditions, more lives will be saved by allowing the people from Africa to provide security and everything else is needed to get the people who do consent to be treated away from those who don't.
The more outsiders we send there, the more it becomes neo-colonialism and the harder it becomes for treatments to be administered.
>"but also preventing a further outbreak that could pose a threat to our own national security later on"
Or we could be sending American citizens to be unnecessarily killed or infected and start an actual outbreak on US soil.
Didn't the origins of Libertarianism make it pretty clear that getting involved in other countries' bullshit is wrong and costly?
1
-
Ike Evans >"First, we are not invading thses countries. We are there with the permission of the existing governments of those regions."
1. Like the locals give a damn. Would you enjoy the Chinese or the UN being all up in your shit at the invitation of the US government?
2. Again, their governments are not to be trusted and for all we know pre-deployment, it's possible for military presence to cause a rift between government and populace. Are you on the side of the people or the side of the government?
3. It will still be the US taxpayer footing the bill.
>"Second, the military doesn't always lead to more violence, especially when the mission is peace keeping in nature. "
Afghanistan and Iraq are really peaceful now.
>"He said, "the military showed up and everyone stopped fighting.""
Because the fighting had already started. If you arrive at a tense but peaceful situation with a foreign military force you release the tension into violence.
The Balkan situation was a far cry from an African Ebola outbreak.
>"My point is that after the invasion was complete, whatever measures of peace was attained was the result of the us military presence, no despite it"
Except there wasn't real peace.
Were insurgent/taliban activities suppressed during the invasions in the middle east? Sure. Did it cause the number of people willing to join to drop? No. Did it prevent them from simply rolling back and gaining the control they were losing? No.
Which leads me to the next point:
>"nothing is happening"
Hindsight is 20/20. It could have just as well resulted in a shitstorm and for all we know the US might be using this as a bargain tool for African resources (not necessarily for the US but as favours for other countries) or strengthening America's foothold in the continent.
What if it causes a shitstorm when the US leaves? Maybe not getting involved was the best option to begin with.
>"We have our guys over there providing security for the doctors while they save lives"
Africa has soldiers and guns, you know? Why does it have to be the Americans?
If the doctors need protection, does it mean the doctors are wanted there?
This neo-colonialism thing got old really fast.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ben borg The shooter from Sandy Hook killed his own mother to gain access to firearms that were secured. Sure, he did have his own gun and used it to kill his mother, but he could have killed his own mother some other way. It was an unfortunate situation because the kid manipulated his mother and she was only trying to bond with her son by taking him to the range.
You're wrong because alcohol is related to a) car crashes; b) arguments, which is a common source of homicides; and c) tearing families apart, which not only leads to youth criminality but also domestic violence and even partner homicide between couples. These are three reasons out of the top of my head for why alcohol influences more than just the individual. In fact, the reason mental illness doesn't correlate to violence is because substance abuse is factored out. If you ignore alcohol and drugs as a factor, then mentally ill people tend to be violent - mentally ill people are especially vulnerable to alcohol.
My point was also that certain items can't be controlled. I mean, stills, plantations and RVs used to cook meth leave evidence behind and occasionally have fires/blow up so they end up getting caught, but a gun is just metal. Any machine shop in the country can manufacture guns, no need to bring anything from Mexico or deal with drug sniffing dogs. Metal is virtually untraceable.
Again, even extreme cases of schizophrenia do not correlate with violence if you factor out substance abuse. Mix schizophrenia with alcohol or drugs and you get someone who can be unstable and become violent.
1
-
1
-
ben borg >"Urm robbers don't usaully kill their victims"
Actually in the US some robbers started raping their victims because they'd feel embarrassed reporting the robbery. But either way, who said anything about a robbery? Criminals who want just to steal stuff break into your house during the day while you're at work and there's less neighbours. Many times home invaders attack people they know to have money, so they can ask for safe combinations or take them to their place of business to open safes while holding the family hostage. They're home invaders, they are a danger to anyone inside the house, not mere burglars.
>"40 minute wait time where?"
A ton of people live outside cities in the US.
>"first needs to actually get in wothout waking up teh whole neighbourhood"
It's better to just break in. If you're looking for stealing property it's better to plan a faster robbery that gets you out of the scene than spend more time in the area than you need, even if it's noisy.
If you watch CCTV of robberies you often see them using crowbars on window frames.
>"comes in needs to find the valuables at least 5 mins then needs to grab it and leave thats at least 15-20 mins."
5 minutes to find the valuables? So you mean that criminals, knowing that cops arrive in 4 minutes or whatever, simply walk around the house for 5 minutes? Anyone who takes that long is already in jail. The criminals who aren't in jail are the ones who haven't been caught yet, so clearly they are faster than the response time.
And where do those 15-20 minutes come from? You can't count time before the actual entry. If it's a silent entry you can't predict you're going to be robbed, you're bullshitting by adding time.
You enter a house, take the TV, console and laptop and get in a car.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DublinDapper the people who move, and I know several cases, are most often engineers, medical workers, teachers or researchers. It's not doom and gloom, it's just that all the people "looking for a better life" have no reason to go to the US. The common man, born and raised in a welfare state, has no reason to look for a better life in the US considering that the entry level jobs are actually worse and although the pay is higher, you give up all the government benefits the Eurocuck countries give you and rent eats up most of your wages.
There's a reason why the people coming to the US are from shithole countries. Because life is actually pretty bad where they used to live.
Also, that's a misuse of averages. You're not the average, because the average is based on the collective. You're one person. Averages deal with everyone in the sample pool.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ponraul1221 "but it isn't true for the vast majority of people getting into libertarianism" - because it's a joke. If you found it funny it's because you see why my original comment has validity. Most of the people I've been with in the journey into libertarianism simply got more and more fed up. Ron Paul was sabotaged, Gary Johnson turned out to be an absolute buffoon.
"Dr. Paul never said he thinks anarchy is a great idea" - Except that he did.
"he said the idea of anarchists peacefully exercising personal responsibility is great" - Again, if Ron Paul said car racing was great, but you shouldn't be street racing near schools or behaving recklessly, being a threat to people, you'd be here saying he never said racing was great, it's all the personal responsibility he thinks is great.
"isn't an argument and pure condescension" - you're the condescending one. You literally went "nah this thing totally doesn't happen" when it does.
"that doesn't make them have the responsibility of that outcome" - I simply stated that Rand Paul has the uphill battle of trying to appeal to normies but also the people who supported his father. When people saw how the political process screwed with Ron Paul you don't mellow out and drive towards the center, you get outraged and become even more against the government. You trying to make this about "responsibility" has fuck all to do with the initial statement - Ron Paul was a major influence to many people and Rand doesn't want to carry the torch. Which is fine, but like I said is an uphill battle.
"Your argument is akin to a kindergarten teacher who taught Einstein to add 2+2=4 claiming she was the reason he came up with the General Theory of Relativity." - no, my argument is more akin to seeing your kindergarten teacher getting absolutely screwed over by the school board over some bullshit and you vow to homeschool your kids because of what you've witnessed.
"I put the responsibility upon communists advocating communism" - but if those people had never been Bernie supporters, and never got to witness how the DNC screwed him over and still managed to make him bend the knee, they could have been basic-bitch liberals. Again, I'm not pinning Bernie with the bill for the burnt cars and broken windows. Just stating cause-and-effect.
"you're the one ignoring REAL human responses to events and pretend the world is linear" - except I'm the one using nuance while you flat out say "that doesn't happen lol" but okay
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Saeronor we don't use the public healthcare system in my family anyway (military benefits, paid for by the lower income one gets by working for the government rather than private sector)
"other people going through college" - which they also paid for, thanks for missing the point.
"Even if it really is true in its most absurd form (the obligatory purchases part)" - way to miss the point, it's not a matter of signing a contract and being legally obligated to buy from X, Y or Z. It's a matter of a complex web of regulations, benefits and other small things that push the buttons and pull the levers of the market in order to benefit some types of industry over the others. What ends up happening is that fishing is better in one place, agriculture is better in other, industry is better over there, etc. The worst part is when foreign investment buys up the industry when the EU is trying to promote it by giving freebies and they profit massively. When the welfare runs out, and after they have crushed the competition, they pack up and leave for other country where the EU is giving handouts. We're chasing the problem rather than recognizing that this "free" market where the only freedom is in the flow of capital is crushing the smaller countries.
"they could use it to fund tax breaks" - you don't fund a tax break.
"Perhaps... it's something about job security or other wonderful perks of shitty "pro-business" short - term legislation, which empowers all kinds of dicking?" - I thought the grass was greener on the other side.
"if it affects every business equally and they all do it, then they are going to cut into their own profits, because how exactly a massive population is going to keep up their own spending if their bosses cut everything?" - that would happen in a world where business is a hivemind. It's more of a contest of who blinks first. I'm fairly sure that a business forced to carry the risk of paying someone for no work while having to retrain replacements will not dig into their razor thin profit margins. In the end CEO Joe Schmoe will laugh all the way to the bank as he gives up a couple of billions but completely crushes all the small and medium businesses.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
False. The West tried to help, but former Soviet apparatchiks ignored them and continued Soviet era policies. The crook oligarchs stole from Russia, not the West. That was Yeltsin's loans for shares plan.
Russia never made any real attempt to standardize their military to NATO specs or convince their population to support NATO. In fact when the Russian military had joint training with NATO militaries, the Russian population protested against it. Russia also had a history of using military force to solve their disputes while NATO has a requirement to solve them diplomatically instead of using force as a first resort.
14,000 were not killed by shelling. That number includes 5,000 separatists and 3,000 Ukrainian military. They were legitimate combatants. So no, it wasn't 14,000. It was around 4,000 killed, most in 2014-2015. The conflict then become more or less frozen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1