Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "JRE Clips"
channel.
-
265
-
94
-
44
-
42
-
30
-
28
-
25
-
24
-
23
-
20
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
+Chris McCartney yeah I got turned off from gaming as well in part due to GG among other reasons, but I think that the whole "gamers are conservative" angle is reductive as hell.
Being a hardcore gamer means that you do enjoy games quite a lot, so of course you'll push back against people trying to change gaming. Hating the notion that passionate nerds who make a good job in game development should give up their seat to hack frauds simply because of their gender or ethnic group doesn't mean you're a conservative.
Look at how bikers adopted the Iron Cross, the SS bolts, the Totenkopf, etc. The biker lifestyle was anything but conservative and Nazi Germany would have hated the American rider culture. White there are indeed neo-nazi/white supremacist bikers the fact is that people who were sick of society's norms decided to adopt the symbols of the "enemy" in the post-war period for shock value.
Gamers are conservatives, gamers are liberals who don't agree with the current liberal narrative, gamers are "classical liberals" who these days are best represented by libertarian philosophy, etc. Some of them are pushing back, some of them just want to game without people berating about how they're privileged white males, some of them are all up in the Milo Yeastinfection hype train.
10
-
9
-
9
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
+ionceateapinecone just stop. In the US there are already federal laws to stop prohibited persons from legally acquiring guns. On top of those laws there are a lot of unreasonable laws that don't actually exist in other countries because they're so nonsensical. Calling for "common sense gun laws" is calling for MORE laws on top of those that already exist. That's not common sense.
"because it's not like gun control laws prevent you from owning awesome guns" - Actually, it does. In Canada you can actually get guns which are banned from importation into the US so you can own awesome guns that Americans can't. Americans can also own a few guns that Canadians can't. Just on a surface level you can see that you're 100% wrong. Also, I advise you to look at California and New York's laws. They are very restrictive and that's the model for gun control in America. You have to come down your Canadian high horse and realize Americans are not fighting Canadian gun laws, they are fighting American legislation that could spread to the federal level.
"not too long ago we had a van attack in Toronto, the guy waved his cellphone around claiming he had a gun, because Canadian gun laws prevented him from buying one and saved several lives that day." -
"Furthermore, regarding the NRA, for the majority of their existence, they were pro gun control" - and the NRA are a bunch of cucks who sell out gun rights for profit. Oh an organization changed? The horror! So what they changed? It wasn't for the better. You should look up the GOA, Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, etc. If you think the NRA is bad, these organizations will be the villain you want them to be because they oppose gun control much more effectively than the NRA. Fuck the NRA.
"up until 2008 (District of Columbia v. Heller), every scholarly article and supreme court ruling had been AGAINST the carrying a firearm for personal protection." - who cares? They were all wrong. It says in the damned text that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. If for all those years they thought that the right to bear arms didn't give people the right to actually bear them then that's on them.
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
-
3
-
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
-
@Liam.keenlyside "some crimes are done with illegally obtained guns, but not all" - Then why have a licensing system is licensed gun owners end up committing gun crimes?
"On top of that, that less guns means it's harder to get guns" - Not true. Many countries with strict gun laws are flowing with guns. And many countries with very low numbers of guns have disgustingly high gun homicide rates.
"it's easier for police forces to target criminals with guns." - Why?
"legal gun owners do still commit crimes with their guns." - Again, then what the fuck is the point of the licensing system if it can't even properly vet gun owners?
"australias firearm homicides were in a steady decline, but that decline did take a sharp term down and accelerated." LOL NO it was a straight line. https://libertarianben.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/australia.jpg
"Then for the UK, do you know why it increased? It was largely do to the fact that the afterward any crime involving something that was believed to be a gun was then automatically grouped into firearm crime," - and still they had to sweep the real numbers under the rug https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/3222063/Gun-crime-60pc-higher-than-official-figures.html
How about some evidence of gun crime increasing even after the standards were allegedly changed?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/knife-gun-crime-stats-latest-england-wales-rise-increase-a8177161.html
https://news.sky.com/story/gun-crime-rises-in-uk-in-last-year-with-more-than-9-700-cases-reported-11933150
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-47157967
"even in brazil in Mexico, it is not the easiest thing in the world to get a gun, in most places, if you dont know someone and try to buy it off the street you'll just get robbed" - Cartels have no problem getting guns off police armories, and in Brazil people make submachine guns in garages.
"Yes killing someone with a gun and a knife is very different, compared to the person that has to pull the trigger and the person that has to personally drive a knife into someone" - I'm sure the victim appreciates the difference.
"Firearms are made to kill, have you heard "you can't fight fire with fire"?" - You can. Controlled burns are used to deplete the fuel and prevent a larger fire from continuing. Even explosions can be used to separate the flame from the fuel and temporarily consume the oxygen in the area in situations like oil fires.
"All it creates is more death- US homicide rate 5.0. 5x the rate of most countries" - And some countries with strict gun control have 5x the gun homicide. But sure, let's compare the US, which has most of its gun crime concentrated in cities that are more similar to the Third World than developed countries, to countries with different conditions and lower gang activity.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Carthodon "A system can be democratic even if you don't vote for every person in the bureaucracy." - That's not the point. The point is that those who determine what should be revealed are not democratically elected (and it wouldn't make sense if they were). An intelligence service has to be undemocratic by design. Those positions you can vote for, they cannot hold the intelligence agencies accountable. What are they gonna do? Have Congress hearings? "No, sir, I do not recall". "No, I don't think I've ever met that person". "That person has never worked for us". 50 years later a FOIA request ends up proving that everything was a lie, nobody cares. That's how it works, and in a sick sense it should be how it works. People say Trump is a Putin asset - if the democracy is so easily corruptible that foreign leaders can straight up get their men elected into the presidency, it wouldn't make sense to let the people elect anyone into office and then let that someone declassify things that other countries might want.
"It is also a stretch to go from saying that the US government, with millions of people working for it, will at any point in time be doing something illegal" - millions of people who don't know anything about things that happen outside their area of responsibility. When CIA agents were involved in Southeast Asian drug trade during the Vietnam war to support local guerrillas, you think the people on the Department of Education were getting reports about how much drugs were loaded onto Air America planes? You think that the CDC was involved in the planning for the Bay of Pigs invasion? The excuse that there's millions of people working for the government doesn't hold up because the vast majority is oblivious to what's actually being done by intelligence agencies.
"the system works fairly well" - Have you paid attention to the news... in the last 50 years? Because it's clearly not.
"In contrast, a system with total transparency in an effort to remove illegality will mean that the intelligent services just can't work at all" - I don't know if you've been paying attention but American intelligence services are responsible for so much evil and so many things that blew back in America's face that it might actually be preferable to gut them. You do realize that it was because of intelligence services that the War on Terror started, right? You do realize that intelligence services, in an attempt to take down Al-Assad, ended up arming insurgents who turned out to be ISIS, right? After trillions of dollars spent on war, thousands of Americans dead, over a million dead, a little transparency would go a long way considering all the shit that the CIA pulled in the 20th century, and also the fact that THEY ARE LITERALLY SPYING ON EVERYONE.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@businessreport "But, you can’t hunt big game with a shotgun" - Not with that attitude.
"If you think you need a handgun, a revolver is enough for whatever you’ve got going on" - Why? What are your credentials?
"Six bullets (for example) is plenty to take out that rapist or mugger." - Why? You keep saying things, but you don't prove them. Example: https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/georgia-mom-shoots-home-intruder-face-article-1.1234400 five shots to the face and neck wasn't enough to stop a home invader, who fortunately changed his mind and decided to flee. He could have just as easily decided to simply kill the woman as his final act instead of running away. There's multitudes of examples of home invasions involving multiple assailants: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdA_5r_Gu-A and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_MRVnR6KI8 for exmaple, there's many more videos like this.
50 Cent got shot 9 times and he's still alive. Now, considering that attacks require multiple shots to bring down, and they often choose to attack in packs to increase their odds, how can you come here and make suggestions when you have:
a) no evidence?
b) absolutely no credentials that give you any authority on the subject of self defense?
"I know you think you need to protect your family, you don’t." - Fuck you.
"But if you do (consider moving)" - Criminals know how to drive too.
"you can take the bad guys out from a mile away with your hunting rifle" - Most hunting rifles are not capable of mile long shots. There's also almost no mile-long sight lines near residential areas unless you live in a deserted area and you can't justify a mile long shot.
"If they are invading your home, there’s nothing better than a shotgun and the revolver tucked in your pants. You know I’m right." - I know you're not because you're unable to prove it.
"These weapons are perfect instruments." - If they are perfect instruments then why have shotguns been phased out off any offensive or defensive use except as breaching tools or a way to deliver less-than-lethal rounds, being relegated to sports shooting where traditionalism, the rules and laws keep them relevant?
"They all are made to do one thing and they are perfect for the job. No bells and whistles. Nothing extra." - What job? Getting close enough to an animal that doesn't even know you're there and then delivering a payload that is not optimized for human attackers?
"If you can’t protect your family or yourself with these weapons, then you are just a big pussy" - Prove it.
"Nobody wants to hurt your family!" - And yet, families get hurt once in a while. It never happens, until it finally does.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@workout.matter790 "You made the argument that people will leave the country in droves if we implement a VAT" - No, I didn't. You're mixing two separate events in your brain.
"Or they'll jump to Europe who WAIT! THEY ALREADY HAVE A VAT! LOLOLOL." - this wasn't about VAT, you introduced VAT as an argument later. They already sell products in Europe where VAT exists. It wouldn't make that much difference to move to Europe as long as there was a host country trying to attract business with low tax rates like Ireland did to recover from the crisis. Sell in Europe with VAT, sell in America with VAT. What matters is escaping the high taxes.
"In California, the highest taxed state in the country, do you see any of the tech companies leaving?" - don't they get a shit ton of subsidies, though?
"Furthermore how is Amazon going to get a better deal than their existing 0% tax based on $3-billion in profit, and $6 EPS?" - it's not a matter of a better deal, just a "not as bad" deal.
"Christ, if you're going to make a claim, prove it." - pretty sure the supertax on the rich in France failed miserably because of all the subterfuges involving withholding income or officially moving to other countries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ysz10000 Which is a scam. The extra taxes on companies will be passed down to consumers, companies that can't remain competitive with the extra taxes will move overseas, and the VAT will also affect your purchasing power. All the money you'll get through UBI, you'll be paying it back with the increased cost of goods.
Even if it works out like Yang claims. It's still a scam. For example, with an extra thousand bucks you won't be eating double. You won't be driving twice as long to work. You won't get two netflix accounts and you won't be acquiring two internet or phone services. But people will do things like buy more pairs of shoes, more clothes, drink more Starbucks, order more things from Amazon, etc. UBI will steal money from *all businesses*, even the ones that won't get extra demand, but give it back to corporations that benefit from consumerism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eugger3011 "All of the examples that you stated weren't bad government regulation, they were half-baked government regulation." - so it doesn't count because reasons. Okay.
"A wage increase with a loophole is better than no wage increase at all." - are you out of your mind?
Wage increases were BANNED by law in many occupations because the US govt sent off people to die. And then created an unequal situation where wages were taxed but healthcare insurance benefits weren't, which benefited employers. The measures literally threw the people under the bus while giving employers a benefit and you think this is a good thing?
It's one of the reasons US healthcare is totally fucked and you're defending it.
"Medicare and Medicaid that's partially paid for by the government is better than insurance that you fully pay for" - MY DUDE PLEASE READ READ READ READ WHAT THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T PAY, THE PEOPLE END UP PAYING THROUGH INCREASED HEALTHCARE COSTS
"And the example of employer insurance being exempt from the tax code is an example of deregulation, as they're no longer regulated by tax" - No, because wages were still being taxed. The US govt literally passed a REGULATION that stated they wouldn't tax healthcare benefits. If there was deregulation then the government would allow the employer to choose to give you an untaxed wage increase. Forcing employers to pick a specific form of payment to get the best bang for their buck is a regulation in itself.
For fuck's sake, the government literally BANNED you getting paid more but you call this deregulation.
"but how was the public worse off with these programs?" - I'd be repeating myself but these programs created bad market incentives that took away choice and increased costs.
"Corporate lobbyists want deregulation, not regulation" - then why do they write regulation for politicians to pass? Look at copyright law, Mickey Mouse should be inthe public domain but Disney keeps changing the law.
"They want to be able to do whatever they want, so why would they want more regulation for themselves?" - because de-regulation allows for competition. If you tweak regulations, you can make the letter of the law essentially ban new companies from competing with you. This is widely known.
1
-
@eugger3011 "My original argument was that the free market doesn't work for healthcare" - why?
"And you might be right on the specific examples that you stated, but in general government regulation does not rip off the consumer." - but it does. Most of consumer goods, which are moderately regulated, have dropped in price over the last few decades. Education, healthcare, housing, etc high regulated markets have rised several times above inflation. Hell, the government regulation passed to promote home ownership forced banks to issue riskier loans, one of the reasons for the housing crisis.
"I don't get how corporations would want regulation if they're being negatively impacted" - if you make a product that complies with the regulation but your competitors don't, you essentially got a huge head start.
"An automobile manufacturer won't support regulation that bans cars that don't match up with safety standards because it'll be more expensive to make cars." - read 'em and weep: https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/6/18655820/ford-gm-toyota-automakers-trump-lower-emissions-standards-letter-california
17 automobile manufacturers asked Trump to back off deregulation because it's cheaper for them to have all their products obey the same standards. Deregulating too much would actually cost them money.
"Public healthcare that's free actually reinvigorates competition into the market" - no, it doesn't. Because it's "free", aka the government takes your money, there's less competition. They already have your money. There's no incentive to offer a better service.
"I don't see this as bad government regulation." - you only learned about 7 hours ago that many times government regulation makes things worse for the consumer, and somehow what you think is good or bad regulation matters.... You're still working under the naive assumption that government = good.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Howling-Mad-Murdock "The figures for how efficient the nhs is are freely available" - yeah I'm sure the government figures were never cooked, just like a decade ago the home office was exposed cooking up the crime numbers to protect tourism revenue.
Forgive the nitpicking but I here it goes
In 1955/6 health spending was 11.2% of the public services budget. In 2015/16 it was 29.7%.[53] This equates to an average rise in spending over the full 60-year period of about 4% a year once inflation has been taken into account. Under the Blair government spending levels increased by around 6% a year on average. Since 2010 spending growth has been constrained to just over 1% a year.[53] Many minor procedures may no longer be available from 2019 and the real reason may be to cut costs.[54]
Since 2010, there has been a cap of 1% on pay rises for staff continuing in the same role. Unions representing doctors, dentists, nurses and other health professionals have called on the government to end the cap on health service pay, claiming the cap is damaging the health service and damaging patient care.[56]
The Guardian has said that GPs face excessive workloads throughout Britain and that this puts the GP's health and that of their patients at risk.[61] The Royal College of Physicians did a survey of doctors in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Two-thirds of doctors surveyed maintained patient safety had deteriorated during the year to 2018, 80% feared they would be unable to provide safe patient care in the coming year while 84% felt increased pressure on the NHS was demoralising the workforce.
The NHS is underresourced compared to health provisions in other developed nations. A King’s Fund study of OECD data from 21 nations, revealed that the NHS has among the lowest numbers of doctors, nurses and hospital beds per capita in the western world.[65] Nurses within the NHS maintain that patient care is compromised by the shortage of nurses and the lack of experienced nurses with the necessary qualifications.[66]
Social care will cost more in future according to research by Liverpool University, University College London, and others and higher investment are needed. Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard of the Royal College of GPs said, “It’s a great testament to medical research, and the NHS, that we are living longer – but we need to ensure that our patients are living longer with a good quality of life. For this to happen we need a properly funded, properly staffed health and social care sector with general practice, hospitals and social care all working together – and all communicating well with each other, in the best interests of delivering safe care to all our patients.”[109]
There's a point to all this. You can give me the numbers but it seems to me that it's inefficient as hell. If costs increase 4 percent by year and the NHS had to get its funding cut to keep the cost rise at 1 percent... You're trying to bleed into a hole that leads to the ocean. It's gonna keep costing more and it's already understaffed so if it was actually working properly cost increases would be even worse. And you're trying to tell me it's well managed. I don't think so. If costs almost tripled within 50-60 years what do you think is gonna happen in 2070 and the UK's NHS costs 60 percent of the budget?
”If you’re not American, why defend a system whose sole reason to exist is profit?” - 1. because I'm not. 2. Everything requires profit. Even you require profit, animals require profit. Imagine if you spent more money getting to work than you were getting paid. You'd be losing money. Animals need to eat more nutrients from the animal they kill than they spent chasing prey or else eventually they get malnourished. Even plants require profit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WingsaberE3 "weapons meant to kill a lot of people quickly" - That's like, most weapon designs since the 1840s.
"We already have gun control in the form of children and other people can't buy them, why not just a little more?" - I can't believe I have to explain this, but gun laws have been increasing ever since they started. I can't write a comment addressing all of them but for example the 1968 gun control act targeted "Saturday Night Specials" (which originates from a racist term) to make cheap guns illegal, in 1989 there was a ban on the import on foreign rifles, and the way you got hold of a foreign rifle was to destroy the receiver before importing, bring them over as a scrapped gun, rebuild it either by making a new receiver or re-welding the torch cut pieces in a jig, then assembling it. But to complicate it, there's 922r compliance. This means that a firearm built off an imported parts kit could not have more than 10 foreign parts. So if a rifle has 11 parts, you'd need to replace one by a US made part (which is easy because you already built the receiver in the US). But what if a rifle has 19 parts? You'd have to toss out 9 foreign parts and find a manufacturer that is making those replacement parts so you could have a legal rifle. Now, in 2005 it was signed into law that the barrels in those parts kits had to come to the US destroyed. So now you'd have to get a US barrel maker to manufacture you a clone barrel for a foreign rifle and you wouldn't be able to use the original. Are you bored yet? This is only a sliver of all the gun laws that exist.
And if you're building a rifle, you have to take care of your barrel measurement and decide if you're going to have a normal stock, a folding stock, or a pistol brace. Because the EXACT SAME WEAPON can be a rifle, a SBR, an AOW, a "pistol" or a "firearm" depending how you configure it. The SBR and AOW require a 200 dollar and registry with the ATF or else they'll come kick your doors in and shoot your dog. Oh, and if you assemble it as a pistol you can later decide to make it a rifle, but if you go from a rifle to a pistol you've just committed a crime.
Not bored yet? Look up a flowchart for the legality of a rifle in California. I can't even describe it through text. You need a freaking PhD to figure out some gun laws.
We already have all these unreasonable, nonsensical and useless gun laws. And you ask, why not a little more? Do you want me to laugh in your face? You think it's not going to affect us if we get MORE of this bullshit?
"We already have gun control in the form of children and other people can't buy them, why not just a little more?" - It NEVER ends.
"Hell I have to renew my scuba license and lifeguard license every couple years" - And if you want to cut other people's hair for money you need a 300 hour course but if you want to cut your own at home there's clippers for sale at Walmart for like $24.99. The equivalent to a lifeguard in the gun world would be like being an armored car company's armed security. Pretty sure that requires licensing too.
"Do you really need heavy machine guns and sniper rifles to defend your house?" - Machine guns are banned. It's almost like you people insist on being wrong on the facts. And then you complain that we're being pedantic by trying to enforce terminology. I couldn't give a rat's ass about terminology, my issue is people taking advantage of terminology to pretend that machine guns are legal. Also, what the fuck is a sniper rifle? Snipers in history have used everything from the first rifled muzzleloaders, hunting guns, heavy machine guns (Carlos Hatchcock used a scope-equipped M2 Browning machine gun to make a kill at 2500 yards) and more modern rifles like the Accuracy International series (famous for the AWP/AWM from Counter Strike) started off with a British guy building custom rifles as a hobby in his literal shed (and got a government contract before he even had a factory because his rifles were so fucking good). You want to ban a gun because it's built too well?
"And if you're going to fight the government that's dumb unless you have the couple million laying around for a SAM launcher." - Those are inflated Military Industrial Complex prices. I can make you a SAM for a few thousand.
1
-
@WingsaberE3 What's messed up is that for 20 years psychologists have warned that media focus on mass shootings and sensationalist pieces push more people over the edge, and around 2016 a study found "contagion" effects in mass shootings confirming that the infamy gained by mass shooters inspires people under similar conditions to take action, but yet only about a year,year and a half ago did some media outlets announce that they were going to stop mentioning the shooter's name. What's messed up is that statistically, one is more likely to get killed by lighting strike in America than in a school shooting.
I mean, after the Madrid bombings, which happened in fucking Spain of all places so had nothing to do with us, police went to schools and gave us a lecture on identifying different types of IEDs. I liked it, I'd assume most kids didn't give a shit, but I found value in gaining a skill that could save lives. But we didn't have repeated drills. Should people be taught how to act in case of a mass shooter? Sure. But when you think that it's messed up that children are being subjected to repeated drills, remember that someone knows that school shootings are statistically insignificant and yet they're knowingly traumatizing kids for no reason.
"instead of a discussion on how to resolve it." - We had that discussion multiple times but since the answer isn't guns nothing gets done. So not only are organizations perfectly willing to mentally fuck up kids by reinforcing their belief that they're gonna die out of a cause of death that is less common than lighting strike, they'll allow that statistically low number of deaths occur and work to cause MORE through media exposure until they get the gun legislation they want.
I'll accept the criticism on the "thoughts and prayers" under the condition that you think about the people who say "we don't want thoughts and prayers" but will literally refuse alternative solutions and actively cause more mass shootings through non-stop media coverage.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Badman because the towers "easily" supported the impact, the tower was designed to take severe wind loads (every once in a while the East Coast gets big storms) and even a plane due to the possibility of an airplane trying to land in fog getting lost (although I think it was designed to hold up against an impact of a plane of a smaller size).
I'm gonna try to explain something about engineering - we make things with a margin of safety. And when people are involved, the liability involved with the loss of human lives requires those margins to be pretty high. So when the planes impacted the towers, one lost I think around 15% of the wall beams and another lost around 20% of the wall beams. But, the walls were designed if I remember correctly to take 40% of the load while the core of the building was designed to take 60% of the load (in fact in one of the collapse videos you can see to core sticking out of the smoke because that part of the structure was stronger). So while the buildings had pretty much one face taken out of the equation most of the load was still placed on the cores, and even assuming that one of the faces of the building did not held up to the impact you still had the other 3 faces of the building carrying the remaining 40% of the weight. Back to margins, when the building was designed they figured, assume that the building is filled with the weight of all the people, offices and elevators and now assume that it's going to suffer hurricane winds. How strong does the building need to be to hold up? You then figure out how many beams/how thick each beam is to support that load. The engineering team then says, okay now make it twice as strong. That means the hypothetical project I made had a factor of safety of two.
When the planes crashed, they're mostly made out of aluminum so while the steel got bent and junctions broke off, the plane was heavily damaged and shredded itself on impact. It was like a huge shotgun blast going off inside the building, which tore off fire insulation from the struts and pushed the contents of the office into corners, meanwhile fuel was sprayed everywhere and stuff caught on fire. If the fires were put out the building could have actually been repaired and it would be still standing to this day, because workers could have gone in over the following months and cut off and replaced the damaged steel. But the heat made the horizontal steel sag. The horizontal steel beams were connected to the outside wall and the core. By sagging, the steel started pulling on the walls. This is seen right before collapse, there's sections that should be straight on the WTC 1 and 2 walls but they started bending inwards because they were connected horizontally to beams that were being pulled down. You'd think that the top of the building should have tipped over like a tree being cut but what brought the towers down was not cutting action. It was the side walls that were pulled from the inside until they snapped. When they snapped the building was unable to hold the weight of the top section and gravity pulls things straight down. When a tree is brought down they deliberately weaken one of the sides so that the tree follows that direction and doesn't kill the lumberjack. When the towers came down there was no "weakened" side to make it tip over, it lost support on the whole 4 sides at roughly the same time. You see the top tipping a little when the collapse begins but gravity isn't pulling it sideways, it's pulling things down.
It also didn't drop from the bottom, this can be seen on videos shot from the ground. The bottom is waiting, rock solid, while hundreds of tons of building crash into it. Videos from above do make it seem the bottom of the building is collapsing under it but video shot from the ground makes it clear. If you look at controlled demolitions videos you'll hear explosions going off like Chinese firecrackers but with thousands times the power. They're compromising all the structure simultaneously. The reports of loud bangs do not match controlled demolitions. There would be also traces of detcord spread all over New York and the beams would have had the copper from the linear cutting charges fused to them. There were so many firemen and rescue personnel on the scene, they would have been able to grab some evidence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Badman I'm not sure about Silverstein. The fact is that all-risk coverage before 2001 often included terrorism in their commercial clauses because the assumption was that events of terrorism were so rare that insurers would put that on the contract. In 1993 the WTC suffered a terrorist attack and the insurers paid. After 9/11 he did manage to get them to pay for two terrorist attacks but they still only awarded 4.5 billion with the NY Port Authority having to cover the other 3 billion to rebuild. The story that he made a huge profit... hmmmm it's not like I would put it past him but the story doesn't make sense once you put it into context: he ended up losing money, the insurance policy was actually taken 2 months in advance and the WTC was highly profitable. Before the attacks it was at 98% occupancy, the mall was one of the most profitable in America and the "windows on the world" was the highest grossing restaurant.
"Controlled demos the buildings ''fall from the bottom''" - okay but the WTC 1 and 2 fell from the top.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w 3:04 the bottom of the building is not moving.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4 from another angle 1:02 no movement in the bottom 2:03 again you see the top section coming down while there's no movement in the bottom.
"so it does not impact the surrounding areas" - but it did... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSQYOq71io8 6:45 if it was a controlled demolition then it was the worst ever considering how many buildings it damaged. The Marriott Hotel was destroyed, the Verizon building suffered heavy damage (but the masonry facade protected the internal structure), etc. The Deutsche bank suffered so much damage it had to be taken apart despite not collapsing.
When there's a controlled demolition they set off small charges that weaken the building so that it can come apart. Then they blow the load bearing struts to take away the support, the building crashes into the ground, since the building is weakened it crumbles floor by floor and you see the building "vanishing" into the ground with a cloud of dust forming at the bottom. The WTC 1 and 2 did not have that first sequence of weakning charges and when it started coming down you see that the bottom stands, but the top of the building is coming down. The smoke cloud formed on the top floors crashing into the bottom section and accompanied the crash, didn't form at the floor level.
Again, in WTC 7 the firemen heard creaking sounds at 2:00, started evacuating at 3:00 and let the fires burn until it collapsed at 5:20. If the firemen predicted that fires would bring the building down why were explosives used 3 hours and 20 minutes later?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@b1bbscraz3y that's not true. They actually paid very little because the bracket for high income wages was so high, very few were rich enough to get it. And the rich weren't even rich enough for the 90% to be a lot. For example if the 90% was on the 100,000+ bracket, then a very wealthy man earning 110,000 (which used to be a lot) would only be taxed 90% of his 10,000 dollars. So that bracket was nearly useless. When the tax cuts were implemented more people became more wealthy and although tax rates were lower, they paid more through taxes. If you make a million but pay 30% taxes, the government pockets 300,000. That's more than 9,000.
"also no one has called for taxing anyone at 90% so you're lying" - don't you EVER call me a liar. OP said tax the rich 90% and you said, like almost the majority of the 20th century. I simply corrected your history knowledge and never claimed anything about anyone wanting to tax 90%. I just responded.
"go look up Sanders' tax plan and stop being a bootlicker for people with more money and more power than you" - LMAO sanders has more money and power than you, and yet you act like a bootlicker for him
1
-
1
-
@b1bbscraz3y Several things you've shotgunned at the wall and many of them wrong.
"I believe the 90% tax applies to those making millions" - oof, this discussion has been happening way before people were earning millions per year. If you made 100,000 in the early 1900's you were Great Gatsby level rich.
"when the tax cuts were implemented more people also became more poor, and wages became stagnant" - and employment went down and government revenue increased as well. Wages becoming stagnant is the natural effect of a recovering Europe and Asia competing with America. Want higher wages like in the 1960's? Start WWIII to curbstomp Europe and Asian industries and tell women to be stay at home moms. It's not the 1960's anymore.
"trickle down economics is a fantasy" - because it doesn't exist. Trickle Down Economics was a smear invented by butthurt historians to get back at Andrew Mellon. There is no economic theory called trickle down or that works like trickle down is said to work. Andrew Mellon's stated goal during the Coolidge era was to shift the burden of taxation towards the wealthy and it worked, while also shedding four and a half billion from the national debt.
"I call people whatever the fuck I want" - then that makes you a liar, and by being a liar you're already forfeited this argument. Thanks for playing, you already lost. But I'll keep beating you to the ground.
"OP was obviously being sarcastic" - It is completely irrelevant. You implied that taxation was high in the 20th century and I countered that rhetoric because I have seen hundreds of people parrot that incorrect factoid. What number he said or whether he was sarcastic or not has absolutely nothing to do with the argument.
"the fact still remains the nominal rate was 90%
" - which matters for absolutely nothing considering almost nobody paid that rate, and the bracket was so high most rich people only barely earned above it, meaning that the 90% tax barely contributed to government revenue.
"apparently you don't understand how lobbying, political donations, and bribery works" - Irrelevant. You've giving me corruption talking points when I simply flipped the script - you can't accuse others of being bootlickers and then shill for a career politician.
"yet he is the most grassroot funded politician in the country donated to overwhelmingly by working class people" - and he threw it all away when he bent the knee to the DNC. No refunds.
"he just simply has the most amount of fact-based data and evidence on his side to back his positions" - you mean like his support or breadlines or claiming there's too many deodorants? Or when he kept claiming Scandinavia was socialist and even the prime minister of Denmark or whatever had to respond? I understand people putting their foot in their mouth when they talk for a living but Bernie's position is hardly the FACTS and LOGIC kind. He's an idealist and he'll pick the facts and data that supports his side, just like everyone does.
"[some strawman bs]" - Irrelevant, and also your personal opinion. Blog it, don't post it as an argument.
1
-
@b1bbscraz3y in 1921 you were taxed at 73 percent if you made over 100,000.
"so tax cuts made employment go down and government revenue increase. so why do you support tax cuts then? the logic is inconsistent" - stop being asinine
"if that's the only way you think wages can be raised" - it's the way it worked in the 1950s and 1960s. I'm just stating the facts.
"an accurate term" - it isn't.
"to describe the fantasy economics of the Reagan era" - except that it doesn't come from the Reagan era, please stop being wrong about history
"don't like the term, that's your problem" - by that logic I can call your ideology Asspoop and it ruins the country. It doesn't reflect reality, your problem.
"that is just a term to use to more quickly name the Reagan-era economics that ruined the country" - except that the tax cuts, AGAIN, pulled America out of a crisis, increased government revenue and solved unemployment. And the kicker is, Reagan's problem is that HE INCREASED GOVERNMENT SPENDING. That's what fucked him over and caused the deficit.
"that's actually not irrelevant. because I said no one is calling for 90% taxes, and your response to that was saying that OP is calling for 90% taxes." - except I didn't.
"the nominal rate was still 90% and the effective rates were higher than they are today
" - except that lower nominal rates increased government revenue.
"you don't know the difference between getting money from the citizens of your country which is and should be what a public servant does" - no, it isn't. They get paid more than enough through the government. The taxpayer already funds these leeches, the citizens shouldn't be compelled to fund them even more.
"Sanders was opposed to the Reagan foreign policy of intervention" - but supported the bombing of Yugoslavia and had anti-war protesters evicted from his talk.
"all fact-based data and evidence show to be the best systems in the world" - but also the worst.
"universal healthcare systems are consistently the best ranked and most efficient systems on the planet earth" - but the US ranks 37th, right? There's like 170 countries in the world. You don't get to toss out 140 test tubes and say yeah these 40 test tubes confirm my hypothesis. That's not science.
"I don't know what this refers to" - exactly, because it was so unimportant you don't even remember
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NuEnque "so you're saying conservatives should just quit? If you fail you get up and try again." - I'm not making this about conservatives, I could hardly consider myself one but my opinions go against the left so by default I am "right wing", my problem is defending anything that goes against the status quo. You know the definition of insanity? Trying the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. This is not Rocky Balboa getting up after getting hit. This is running into machine gun fire in No Man's Land and after a failed attack, blowing the whistle again and sending more men out of the trench. I am convinced it will come to a point internet will become the new TV and the lack of freedom and choice will force people to go into the deep and dark web, encrypt data and use untraceable payments that are completely decentralized and do not need banks (speculators fucking ruined crypto). I'm not quitting. I'm just telling people "see you on the other side".
"Enlist help from the NRA and FOX News." - FOX News is a cog in the machine, they are mainstream and will side with the mainstream. The NRA is basically a front for the PR firm Ackerman McQueen. They're a money-making business that panders to boomers. They're not interested in freedom.
"Liberals control social media but the president is a racist republican with zero experience." - he's a lifelong New York Democrat who simply predicted the pendulum swing and became Republican when he saw popular opinion turning on Obama. Also, in the politics business, having experience is exactly what I don't want. I don't want a "Frank Underwood" character in office. I don't want a guy who knows all the tricks, has dirt on others, has been corrupted to the core for decades, etc. "Experience" in politics simply means you have done what it takes to survive in that world while the honest people get the boot.
You keep bullshitting about republicans and conservatives and racism and hate speech, this conversation is a fucking poisoned well. You think there's no racism against white people? Sexism against males? You think one side is guilty but there's plenty of hate from any sector, my only problem is that it's clear that one side is allowed to err while the other gets instantly deplatformed. We're rushing towards a 1984 world where anything can be redefined as a thoughtcrime or wrongthink and rather than address the issue honestly you pretend this is all about creating a racist website. This is about information and how it is accessed. What happens when a government or corporation decides that WikiLeaks cannot be indexed on google or mentioned on youtube/twitter/etc? Only the people who know about wikileaks would know how to access it, and it would be impossible to warn anyone that new leaks dropped. Create your own website, but you can't talk about it anywhere. The inconvenient has to sit "outside" of the web 90% of people don't step out of. But sure, let's make this about being racist online. Not that long ago the Defense Distributed website was blocked on several states because it distributes gun blueprints. I guess gun blueprints are hate speech now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1