Youtube comments of nexus1g (@nexus1g).
-
4900
-
976
-
707
-
543
-
376
-
329
-
239
-
227
-
184
-
183
-
162
-
132
-
125
-
120
-
113
-
107
-
103
-
98
-
87
-
86
-
84
-
78
-
75
-
73
-
65
-
65
-
63
-
63
-
62
-
57
-
56
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
49
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
***** We keep states around for a few reasons. First (and possibly the most important), this is a relatively huge country. Countries this large (Australia, Russia, US, Canada, Mexico) find that dividing its territory into smaller autonomous states helps diffuse the workload of governing. This is similar to cities in smaller countries having a local government. Since we're so large, we have a third layer between municipal government and national government.
Second, each state can enact laws which is effective for its own region which may not be effective for other regions. That is, they're more specialized at dealing with local issues than the Federal government could be.
Third, states do have a wide latitude of how they govern their region: state taxes, local trade, non-Federal crime, occupational safety laws, ecology, wage laws, and many, many more issues more suitable for local government to handle.
In the case that a state law runs contrary to Federal law, the Federal law will win and the state will be expected to step in line with Federal law. This happens on regular occasion. This is why we have the US Supreme Court. It deals with US Constitutional laws that establishes the width and breadth of the Federal government and is the Supreme Law of the Land which no municipality, county law, state constitution nor state law can exceed authority on.
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
38
-
36
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
Frank, first of all, defense takes up about 20% of the federal government's spending. Welfare and entitlement programs take up over half (about $2 trillion a year). Second, $1.5 trillion for the F-35 is actually the cost of the program, including procuring hundreds of battle-ready aircraft. It's not just $1.6 trillion to get metal to the location. A cruise missile is very different from an attack aircraft in capabilities, and that's why there are both cruise missiles as well as attack aircraft.
People need to come to the realization that this planet is fucked no matter what we do, and our only hope of survival in the bigger picture of things is to be on as many hurtling death rocks as possible. Next year, we could be hit by a world-ending asteroid, and then what? We need to get in there and tap this planet of its resources and put as much research as possible into technologies that will make us interplanetary and then interstellar as quickly as possible and as recklessly as necessary while still being able to technically survive it.
Once we're among the stars, and maybe even having taken some local species with us, we'll be doing much better. Ruining one world out of a countless number of worlds is nothing.
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
010FSL101, first, there is ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation. Non-ionizing radiation has been found time and time and time and time again to be harmless. Ionizing radiation is known to cause DNA damage. Most DNA damage is innocuous, but just the right DNA damage may lead to cancerous cells.
Second, we exist and live because of "harmful" ionizing radiation as we ourselves are radioactive beings. One of our fundamental atomic building blocks is Potassium-40. Potassium-40 is a radioactive isotope of potassium that gives off ionizing radiation.
Third, we evolved being utterly bathed in radiation from the sun, universal background radiation, element radiation, and so much more including those own building blocks within us I mentioned previously. Radiation is what allows us to see, what gives us warmth and what allows the universe to exist, fundamentally.
All life on this planet has evolved with amazing ability to deal with radiation thanks to needing a robust protection against it just to continue to survive.
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
AnonEyeMouse, that's exactly right. At first, I honestly thought they were pranks and this single one was just going too far. Then I started finding other videos about them that other people had posted. That's when I realized that these are not pranks at all, and that what's shown here is the least of all their evils. Even then, some kids are just too young or sensitive for pranks ever. Each kid is different, but when you watch Cody appearing with more and more bruises over time, scrapes, bloody noses, etc... It breaks my heart. And Emma, the little girl, broke my heart too in some of the things she's gone through from them. And the older kids started getting in on it, taking right after the mom and dad.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
Ale Titan From the CDC: "Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) have been rising among gay and bisexual men, with increases in syphilis being seen across the country. In 2013, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men accounted for 75% of primary and secondary syphilis cases in the United States. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men often get other STDs, including chlamydia and gonorrhea infections. HPV (Human papillomavirus), the most common STD in the United States, is also a concern for gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men. Some types of HPV can cause genital and anal warts and some can lead to the development of anal and oral cancers. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men are 17 times more likely to get anal cancer than heterosexual men. Men who are HIV-positive are even more likely than those who do not have HIV to get anal cancer."
The best prevention is education. Don't lessen the seriousness of it because you think it's an attack on gays. One of the big issues with anal sex is that even if it's protected, the anus does not lubricate itself. This can lead to condom tearing.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
There was an old woman who was once stopped by a state trooper. When he saw the little, old woman, he joking said, "Ma'am, are there any weapons in this car?" To this, she responded, "I have a .357 in the glove box, a 9mm under the seat, a .44 magnum in the center console, and a semi-automatic shotgun in the backseat." The trooper's jaw dropped and exclaimed, "What in the world are you so scared of?!" The little, old lady smiled and said, "Not a damn thing."
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
+Wrong Hole Senpai What you're saying about butter is correlative data research. And what's high school science tell you? Correlation is not causation! Even the data scientists themselves forget that. Butter is actually an amazing food full of dense energy, nutrients and proteins. I wouldn't recommend it in any appreciable amount to someone who sits at a desk all day, but for someone who burns through calories, it's a great source of energy and nutrition.
"I think it's no secret anymore that a whole food, plant based diet is the best for the human body."
This is actually a diet that's very hard on the body. First of all, our digestive systems are pretty bad at digesting plant matter (on a scale from ruminant to obligate carnivore, we're closer to the obligate carnivore end of the spectrum). Most of what we consume in plants just passes through. This means that you're typically working at an energy deficit, despite the amount being eaten. Such diets also tend to have a higher concentration of contaminants like E. coli that your body needs to handle, which is an inflammation process that's generally best to avoid. There are also holes in nutrition including Vitamin B12 (only found in animal products), complete proteins, direct Vitamin A (as opposed to beta keratin which has to be converted by the liver to usable Vitamin A, which is about as inefficient as the liver breaking down protein for glucose), Vitamin D (especially important if you have a darker complexion and live in a low-UV exposure region), and others.
On the other hand, we have the need just as much for plants. The one thing that our bodies need, is a constant supply of sugars every minute of every day or we'll die in quick order. Specifically, simple sugars (very specifically, glucose). Plant matter is a great place to get this and some other essential nutrients we miss from the carnivorous portion of our diets. I'll leave this paragraph short since I'll just be preaching to the choir on the benefits of plants.
We evolved as a rather unique omnivore in the animal kingdom. Insanely premature birth for a non-marsupial mammal, a little obligation on both meat and plants in a diet with the ability for the body (at a cost) to fill in what's being missed, obtaining a higher level of cognitive function and intelligence than any other creature on the planet), and the ability for to evolve so quickly. The last one, quick evolution is something amazing. Only in the last 15,000-20,000 years, have we come to the Americas by way of Alaska. In that short time the northern natives have developed to be capable of eating a diet that consists of almost all animal meat. This is a diet that would kill you or me (provided you're not a native Alaskan). But in a short 5,000 years or so, people were capable of adapting to such a diet. If they had not, the Americas would have never had humans on them until the vikings landed there. In fact, their unique diet is what allows them to maintain a brown complexion despite being so far from direct sunlight. Typically skin, through natural selection, lightens the longer a line of humans stays away from the more direct sun exposure because a lack of Vitamin D translates directly to higher birth mortality rates. However, since the Alaskan native diet is so high in Vitamin D from all the sea life they eat, they never had a high birth mortality rate from a lack of it and so the darker skin was not naturally bred out. Fascinating stuff what a diet can do, and how the human body is capable of adapting to new diets -- especially considering that there have been many creatures that have gone extinct due to an inability to adapt to a new diet.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that our general view of diet in our society is really skewed. I think that too much importance is placed on what is eaten when we're already so widely adaptable to all kinds of things. In our collective search for "healthy" we've created an entire industry preying on the uninitiated with pseudo-scientific, morally questionable products that promise the world and deliver nothing more than a placebo effect. GMO-free? No hormones? Low fat? No fat? Sugar free? Organic? It's scary how many people think these labels guarantee actual health benefits.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
A victim, legally, is someone who was illegally killed. Unless Rittenhouse is convicted, they are not legally considered victims.
Props that you admitted you were wrong. I think it would be better journalistic integrity to dedicate a headline to the correction, but this was good nonetheless.
Rosenbaum stated earlier at the gas station that he would kill any of them if he caught them by themselves. Rittenhouse was there and heard that.
Rittenhouse did not have an illegal gun. It was only his open carrying it under the age of 18 is a misdemeanor. This fact also doesn't preempt his right to defend himself.
It doesn't matter what the other protesters think. What matters is the objective facts of the case. If it's just based on what people think, the Ahmaud Arbery's death was not murder. However, since Ahmaud Arbery did nothing illegal, he was accosted by two armed men, one of which brought the weapon to bear on him, and with Georgia being a stand-your-ground state, Ahmaud was justified in defending himself. That makes his death murder. In your reasoning, the two men in the truck claiming they thought he was a burglar would be enough to get them off of murder charges, and that's certainly not right.
The charge of open carrying the weapon at 17 isn't so open-and-shut. According to Title 10 Sec 246 of the USC, he's part of the militia which includes all males from 17 to 45. To say he was lawfully armed at an open rebellion is at the very least arguable.
I've noticed you've not been covering this ongoing case the entire nation is watching closely. It's not journalistic integrity to just leave a story alone when it stops suiting your agenda.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
You're right that they need to be training their skilled labor. But regarding the pay, factory jobs around my area pay about twice minimum wage. Typically about $15 an hour these days, entry level. They cap out at about $20-25 an hour. They offer full benefits and on-the-job training also.
But you're an "IT guy," so you're probably looking at those shitty, outsourced call center/helpdesk jobs, right? That's probably one of the worst industries out there. I had a few friends that worked for one of those companies. It went out of business over night and their paychecks bounced.
Factory jobs are much better. More stable. They can't be outsourced, the company has a huge investment in the equipment and property, and they tend to be bringing new money into the local economy so they can afford better than most industries to pay above minimum wage.
In the field of IT, a huge part of it is networking. Not the wired kind, but the people kind. The more people in your industry that you have a relationship with, the better your chance of getting into a decent job. It's like that for all work, really, but IT more-so than most since it's an extremely competitive field which is commonly outsourced.
But that's the life of support staff. As soon as you can be replaced with something cheaper or your job can be eliminated, it'll be done. You're just overhead.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
If I ask you, "What do you think of the police?" and you answer, "I think the police are bad," I get from your answer that your responsibility and traits meter is on the collectivist side of things, and heart comes from a sense of personal responsibility as part of a whole, not a whole with responsibility attributed to the whole. This collectivism also often leads to the formation of nebulous "us vs. them" dichotomies based on any one of various criteria such as level of responsibility within the group, income/wealth, background, etc. which leads to you being an unhappy employee.
Collectivists feel more fairness in a hive environment where the heat comes down on the team, the boss, or the company as a whole versus themselves feeling personally responsible for their part in failures and therefore learning more from those failures. This is just an example.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
We have put people on the moon, we are already visiting other planets in our solar system with probes, we have put an object into deep space, we are seriously considering becoming an interplanetary species soon with a colony on Mars, we are looking at travelling faster than the speed of light to visit other solar systems to look for life, we are mapping planets in other solar systems, and more. Now look at the state of our world. It clearly doesn't require a great amount of advancement in maturity as a species for space travel. This means that if we are being visited, there's no guarantee that these aliens are more advanced than we are, socially, knowledge-wise, or intellectually. That's disconcerting.
7
-
7
-
7
-
Messenger, in 1786 farmers in Massachusetts rebelled against taxes. They armed themselves and took over courthouses, killed at least one public official and engaged in firefights with the militia. Despite this, the Founding Fathers did not back down on keeping and bearing arms being a right. In fact, to the contrary, Jefferson wrote of the incident, "The Tree of Liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Benjamin Franklin likely wrote the letter to the Governor from the Pennsylvania Assembly that included the words (paraphrasing), "Those who would purchase a little temporary safety with essential liberty deserve neither and will lose both." He was specifically talking about citizens giving up their rights to firearms. He went on to say, "Such as those who sought to purchase arms and ammunition but were unable to..."
Your guy who wrote that article is just ignorant of the Constitution and why the Bill of Rights came into existence. I'll break it down.
Prior to the US Constitution existing, the nation was under the Articles of Confederation. This made all states equal and there existed no Federal government with executive and legislative powers. The Federalists felt that a new document was needed to define the nation anew. This included establishing a powerful Federal government that sat above the states. The Constitution's preamble begins by explaining it is to form a more perfect Union. This gave alarm to those who were wary of such power in a central entity. The agreement was eventually made that the Constitution would pass and the Federal government with power over the states in enumerated matters would be steeled with a Bill of Rights, enumerating some of the natural rights which were the first that were usually infringed upon.
Now, when it comes to the Second Amendment, there are indeed two parts. The first part is prefatory and states, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."
This is a reference to a new change in power in the body of the Constitution. Specifically, Article 1, Section 8 now gave the training of the militia to the Federal government. It also, most importantly, put the militia under the control of the Federal government. What before was just armed citizens was now being redefined as a regiment under the Federal government. Today, that militia is known as the National Guard. This major change is what the first half of the Second Amendment is referencing.
The second half, therefore, recognizes that the people have the right to keep and bear arms, not just the militia which was now a select group.
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The Hyundai fab is (and at least to my knowledge still is) in Eugene, Oregon. That was over 15 years ago that I worked for them. It did have full benefits, was nor temp or temp-to-hire work, they trained on the job for most positions (some positions were undergraduate degree work), I haven't a clue if it was unionized or not because at that age I didn't really care about such things. It paid very well, it trained, and offered 3/4 12-hour shifts, so every other week, I'd have 4 days off in a row and 3 days off in a row for the other weeks. When it comes to trade skills like welding, soldering, driving, carpentry, assembly, milling, etc. etc. etc., these should not be offered by colleges, which would then require manufacturers to take on the cost and burden of training if they want to keep operating. But as long as they can outsource that training and not have to invest in their employees, they're going to naturally do that.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
This video shows the entire problem with the nation's working class' financial burden: spend now, expect others to pay later. If you're just out of college and making $35,000 a year because you can't network or negotiate salary for shit, then get the cheapest internet, eat cheap foods, depend on public transportation, only have a cell phone and forgo the home phone, room up with someone, and invest most of that money into a better future. But, no, you have to spend it all now, and then cry about the "system" when you don't have money later.
And then she's checking long-term investments on a daily basis? Really? It's a long-term investment. You are not going to make money off of every penny you put in there, but over 30 years, you will make more money than you lose. Even people that continually invested regular amounts from 2000 to today would have seen a positive return, even with both recessions.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
You open carry a rifle so you don't have to use it. It deters hostile people from attacking you even if they have a much larger force. If you're protecting property they want to destroy, they're going to want to attack you. Others in Kenosha and other similar riots have been killed or grievously injured while doing just that while not armed.
5:40 There were already multiple rioters (sorry, no one's buying the "mostly peaceful but fiery protest" bullshit) with weapons there. The obvious is Grosskreutz (felon in possession of a concealed handgun without a license).
5:54 It wasn't a loophole. The law clearly allows minors to open carry unless they're carrying an SBR/SBS. Even if you think 948.60(3)(c) is just poorly written, there still exists 948.60(3)(b) which states, "This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty." He is part of the militia as defined in USC Title 10, Sec. 246, which includes all males from 17 to 45. To argue that it is not within his line of duty to protect life, liberty, and property during open rebellion is highly questionable reasoning.
14:13 The prosecution was saying that he shot more than was necessary to stop the threat. This was a strong argument against that. The number of shots and time to take those shots matters.
14:52 What Huber and Grosskreutz thought doesn't matter. What matters is the objective facts. Also, even if it weren't, who was Rittenhouse actively shooting prior to being attacked and even after being attacked? Literally no one until he felt he was in serious jeopardy. He gets hit in the back of the head, he continues to run. He falls. A man in a jersey approaches him and gets within a couple of feet of Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse raises his rifle to bear on jersey man, jersey man raises his hands and backs off. Rittenhouse does not shoot. They clearly should have seen that he was not shooting people who were not attacking him, and they were working on incomplete information.
15:06 You can only defend yourself if you are not the aggressor. Simple exercise of a right is not an aggression.
15:57 Ana's suddenly worried about accuracy.
18:00 His dad lives in Kenosha. He spends a good amount of his time living in Kenosha. He also works in Kenosha. We all have a duty "when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind..." (John Locke, Second Treatise of Government.) Even if I give you that he just wanted to go kill left-wingers, he wouldn't have killed any left-wingers if they didn't attack him first.
18:28 Were your things being destroyed? Your livelihood? Your property? Protesting is one thing, go look at the aftermath of Kenosha.
18:40 You have a right to appeal to natural law. The state and those who side with the state have a duty to maintain the civil authority. If you want change, stop burning and destroying. If you really care about all of this you're so preteniously going on about, then preach against the methods used that lead to this kind of confrontation.
Define "need."
19:13 Then espouse peace. And, uh, you brought your guns. Your guys suck ass. Rittenhouse definitely was an operator.
19:43 Sir, lawlessness is what is being caused by these open rebellions. The right-wingers in this case are promoting the civil authority. And, no, they are not taking the law into their own hands. They are performing their duties as part of the unorganized militia of the United States to maintain the civil authority during rebellion.
21:22 There won't be a problem if there are more protests in the future. There will be a problem is there is more open rebellion in the future.
6
-
Nate, the government has already turned on the population, but for some reason, in this one cause, you refuse to see it. Immigration laws, abortion laws, drug laws, anti-terrorism laws and yes gun laws too are all infringements on liberty that we can't seem to get fixed in this country. Yet, you think that without the threat of legitimate resistance, the government's just going to right itself. If anyone's dreaming, it's you.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
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
-
gconol /discuss would be a closing tag, so you shouldn't use it to begin something.
The conversion of the cholesterol layer under the skin is how the body uses the skin to produce vitamin D. Vitamin D production is what determines melanin production of offspring. Vitamin D is an extremely important factor for childbirth. As such, lighter skinned individuals, as mankind spread north into areas that receive less UV radiation had more successful pregnancies than their darker-skinned counterparts. Fast-forward tens of thousands of years and a lot of natural selection and you get white people.
Now the question comes up of Inuit. Clearly in one of the areas that receive, relatively, very little UV radiation. So how have they maintained a brown skin tone? Well, because it's Vitamin D that determines the color of skin, not radiation exposure. UV radiation converting the cholesterol layer is only one mean by which Vitamin D enters the body. The other is through diet, and the Inuit eat almost exclusively fish, seal, whale and the like, all of which are extremely rich in Vitamin D.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
As a feminist, you have to understand that the pangs in changing culture felt today is from 50,000 years of history where the women are the most important resource of a tribe's survival. Men classically go out and get slaughtered en masse for extra territory and to protect their territory, while women stay at home, safe and subjective to their husband while caring for the next generation.
Religion, especially Semitic religion, is about providing a supernatural background for your kingdom and establishing rules and a uniform set of morals that are deemed best for the kingdom. I think that history certainly vindicates those rules, given the great success Israel has had over the millennia.
Look at our culture. If you turn on a television show or pop in an action movie, who're all the nameless thugs being popped by our hero? They're guys. Sure, you may have a female antagonist in a primary role, but you don't see rooms full of women being gunned down. That's because society is more comfortable with men dying than women dying.
You can't shake off 50,000 or more years of ingrained history like water on a dog, when it's suitable to you to do so.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Lephirox, homosexuality is about as old as written history. It's written against in the Torah from some 2,500-3,000 years ago. The Founding Fathers did write about these things, and not favorably. Abortion was written of as a crime against nature in the Vedas. Assyrian law from 3,000 years ago, where a conviction of abortion came with the death penalty. One of the first law professors in the US and one of the first to sit on the US Supreme Court, appointed by George Washington, James Wilson, wrote in his law book, "...human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplations of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb by the law that life is protected."
There are two genders, and it had been lawful for schools (and these schools did so) to require girls to wear dresses and boys to wear pants up until the 70's. That is, no cross dressing was allowed.
So, yes, these issues are all older than dirt and have been discussed longer than any of us have been around.
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
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
That's assuming a whole lot, Kenneth. He did father children with a slave of his, Sally Hemmings, and you assume it's rape. I'm not so convinced reviewing what we know. We know that she traveled with him to France. We know that France would allow any slave to emancipate themselves in their borders. We understand from Hemming's son that she was aware of this and chose to return to the US with Jefferson. We know that the only slaves that Jefferson released in his will were Hemmings' family.
We know that Jefferson never bought slaves. He did not have slaves until he inherited Monticello from his father-in-law. We know that states whose economies depended on slaves, like Virginia, had laws on the books that were punitive in nature for freeing slaves, forcing the emancipator to be responsible both for the welfare, actions, and economic care of such emancipated people.
As far as terrorizing slaves, I'm aware of no such instance. I do understand that there is one recorded instance of significant punishment against a slave, and it was because that particular slave took a smithy hammer to the head of another slave. We have documented evidence that Jefferson commanded of the slave masters that the slaves be treated with all respect.
As the Reverend Fossett explained, juxtaposing being a slave under Jefferson versus being under Col. John R. Jones:
As for the social enjoyment of the men of those days the people of this time do not begin to come up to it. Weddings, parties, barbecues and the like, even the slaves participated in. ´As a master Jefferson was kind and indulgent. Under his management his slaves were seldom punished, except for stealing and fighting. They were tried for any offense as at court and allowed to make their own defense. The slave children were nursed until they were three years old, and left with their parents until thirteen. They were then sent to the overseers' wives to learn trades. Every male child's father received $5 at its birth. ´Jefferson was a man of sober habits, although his cellars were stocked with wines. No one ever saw him under the influence of liquor. His servants about the house were tasked. If you did your task well you were rewarded; if not, punished. Mrs. Randolph would not let any of the young ladies go anywhere with gentlemen with the exception of their brothers, unless a colored servant accompanied them. On July 4, 1826, exactly fifty years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson and Adams died. I was eleven years old.
´Sorrow came not only to the homes of two great men who had been such fast friends in life as Jefferson and Adams, but to the slaves of Thomas Jefferson. The story of my own life is like a fairy tale, and you would not believe me if I told to you the scenes enacted during my life of slavery. It passes through my mind like a dream. Born and reared as free, not knowing that I was a slave, then suddenly, at the death of Jefferson, put upon an auction block and sold to strangers. I then commenced an eventful life.
´I was sold to Col. John R. Jones. My father was freed by the Legislature of Virginia. At the request of Mr. Jefferson, my father made an agreement with Mr. Jones that when he was able to raise the amount that Col. Jones paid for me he would give me back to my father, and he also promised to let me learn the blacksmith trade with my father as soon as I was old enough. My father then made a bargain with two sons of Col. Jones--William Jones and James Lawrence Jones--to teach me. They attended the University of Virginia.
´Mr. Jefferson allowed his grandson to teach any of his slaves who desired to learn, and Lewis Randolph first taught me how to read. When I was sold to Col. Jones I took my books along with me. One day I was kneeling before the fireplace spelling the word "baker," when Col. Jones opened the door, and I shall never forget the scene as long as I live.
"What have you got there, sir?" were his words.
´I told him.
´"If I ever catch you with a book in your hands, thirty-and-nine lashes on your bare back." He took the book and threw it into the fire, then called up his sons and told them that if they ever taught me they would receive the same punishment.'
5
-
5
-
Liza Tanzawa You can do the due diligence yourself, just like I did. Doug McMillon is the CEO of Walmart, and with Walmart being a publicly traded company, they're an open book as far as their finances. We can see through the SEC that Mr. McMillon makes $23 million a year as CEO. $1,278,989 pay, $15,224,706 in stock options, $4,851,561 in incentives, $510,155 increased pension value, spending accounts and whatnot $486,732. Total compensation: $22,352,143. Walmart states they have 2.2 million employees. His compensation for running the company is $10.16 per employee, per year. Now tell me where I'm lying.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
First, simple possession of a gun is not a violent crime. Keep in mind also that the people that may need to keep illegal guns are going to be those in poorer neighborhoods with the school-to-prison pipelines that are disproportionately people of color.
When good people aren't armed, more of this happens. That's Beccaria:
A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniencies, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, who dares say to reason, "Be thou a slave;" who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.
The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons.
5
-
5
-
5
-
Hamilton argued... Yeah, Hamilton also argued against a bill of rights in Federalist 84. Next?
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."
And he didn't want supermajorities or anything close to it you say. As it turns out, they require supermajorities in the Constitution... Just... Wtf kind of twisting of history is going on here? He also wrote in that article that anti-federalists wanted it "because nothing improper will be likely TO BE DONE, but we forget how much good may be prevented". Hamilton trusted government--especially a powerful, central government--far too much for anyone's good, first not wanting a bill of rights and then not wanting an effective system of checks and balances against tyranny of the majority.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
A number of published meta-analyses have shown that there exist statistically significant benefits in both prophylactic and post-infection use of ivermectin. That's not to say you should go down to the feed store and get horse-dosed tablets, but it's asinine that the research is being ignored for the sake of politics in this case. They're afraid that it will lead people to not get the vaccine. The vaccine will not end CV. Despite being vaccinated, people are still contracting, hosting, and spreading the virus. This is here to stay. Given the lack of durability of the immune response (natural with CV's -- see why we don't have vaccines for the common cold which can be caused by CV's), that means that the potential side-effects of the vaccine given the number of boosters that may be necessary may outweigh the dangers of the disease itself. More research will be needed for that in the years to come for that. In the meantime, we need to review how we can lighten the load on ICU's, and ivermectin is showing great promise at keeping those showing COVID-19 symptoms out of the ICU and shortening their stay if they do end up there. This is a travesty to be suppressing this research for fear of further vaccine hesitancy.
And, yes, I have reviewed counter-arguments to the meta-analyses in question. Those counter-arguments tend towards cherry picking out a bit of questionable data (e.g. this study is small and hasn't been peer-reviewed yet), then dismissing all of the data of the one-to-two dozen studies reviewed by the meta-analysis based on that.
And that's exactly what has been happening since day one here: lying for a greater good. "Don't worry about masks, it'll likely increase your rate of infection anyway," was the first lie which turned into, "We lied to ensure that medical professionals had access to PPE." And these lies intended to manipulate for what someone in authority perceives as a greater good continue through today.
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
-
soylentgreenb Heroin dealers? Oh, you mean Operation Cyclone that provided funding to the Afghanistan mujahideen (a group of individuals answering the call of jihad) as part of our proxy war effort against the spread of communism? You know, that thing that happened before the Taliban even existed?
Here's how things went down. Communism started taking hold in Afghanistan. The bloody and forced spread of communism was the US's primary goal during the Cold War. As such, the enemy of our enemy became our friend. We funneled funds through Pakistan to assist those who were fighting against the communist regime in Afghanistan (they were going to fight them with or without our support).
With our aid and the aid of other Islamic nations, they successfully pushed the communists out of their country. This is when we stopped sending financial support to Afghanistan. Following this was a 2 year (it may have been a touch longer, but not sure) period of civil war during which the Taliban and other groups struggling for rulership of the nation were formed. The Taliban was the group that just happened to win that civil war.
During the time that the proxy war in Afghanistan was ending, the Persian Gulf War was starting. Osama, after fighting with the mujahideen wanted to use the mujahideen forces to take up Islamic fights (i.e. Islamic terrorism). Other leaders of the mujahideen in Afghanistan did not agree with Osama's wishes for the mujahideen. Osama, at this time, decided to create a new group that would eventually form into Al'Qaeda.
At this time, Osama returned to his home nation of Saudi Arabia; the leaders of which were concerned about Iraq's aggressive posturing. Osama offered his new-found group to protect Saudi Arabia. The US was also offering their protection. Saudi Arabia chose to have the US protection over Osama's group.
Becuase of Saudi Arabia's choice -- especially allowing non-Muslim occupation of the two holiest cities in Islam (Medina and Mecca) -- Osama spoke out fervently against the Saudi leadership. For this, he was eventually exiled from his home country.
It was at this time Osama found himself in Sudan. It was during this time that Black Hawk Down (aka the Night of the Rangers) occurred along with the US embassy bombings in Africa and the 1992 bombing of the WTC parking garage. This was the introduction of Al'Qaeda as a proper entity.
So, now, hopefully you have a bit better understanding of these two groups and how they came to be. You should also better understand that the statement that the "US funded the Taliban" is fundamentally incorrect.
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
-
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
-
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
-
Amai Puppy, funny you should bring up cannons. During the time of the Founding Fathers, people, in fact, privately owned fully armed and staffed warships. Frigates could carry up to 48 cannons. People abused these too. They were called pirates, and forget about a shooting, these ships would lay siege to entire coastal cities. Still, the right stood. Now you're scared of a weapon which is insignificant next to that firepower, even today, and cry for the government to do what it doesn't have the power to do.
You don't have to win a revolution to get the government back on track. Shays' rebellion wasn't successful, but they were all pardoned and the government was changed nonetheless.
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
-
Michael Mansheim, semi-automatics are used in almost all mass shootings. Handguns are semi-automatics. No automatic weapons have ever been used in a mass shooting. NRA people value not only our natural rights in general, but our right to life. You do not. You want to restrict the best defensive weapons that exist. Arms have always been dangerous in the wrong hands. Private ownership of warships was a thing during the Founding Fathers' time, and they were abused as well -- pirates. They would lay siege to entire coastal cities. The government doesn't have the power to infringe on the natural rights of people -- that includes putting hurdles in front of exercising a right. Finally, most conservatives, or right-leaning people in general, think that liberals are trying to take away guns because they actually say it. "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, picking up every one of them, 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it." -Dianne Feinstein. And then there's this gem, "[In response to the question if an assault weapon ban is just the beginning] Oh, absolutely. I mean, I'm against handguns."
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
-
4
-
"Your reasons don't make sense and it sounds just like a safe space."
This is a summary dismissal and a restating of what you previously said.
"Not hiring someone because they don't believe the police are good is as dumb as not hiring them because they voted for trump."
This is probably what you probably consider to be a supporting argument of the previous sentence, but it's only another claim (the claim that having this question as a basis of hiring is dumb). This is also a straw man. This isn't an argument, but only a claim because you don't explain why this or the idea from the previous sentence are dumb/make no sense. This is a straw man because they are not hiring someone solely because they don't believe the police are good, but because of the underlying, holistic world view that brings about such a wording, as I argued before.
"It says nothing about one's work ethic, skills, experience, why they want to work there, nothing."
Restating again what you already said, but why does it say nothing about these things taking into account the specifics of why I said it does give indication of these things?
"Has nothing to do with heart either,"
Summary dismissal again.
"...just making a safe space of people who agree with you."
Restating again what you already said.
"Hell, they could be lying just to get the job..."
Could be. Could also not be the case. No one claimed it was infallible, so it's a pointless truth.
I'm hoping that breaking it down for you like this can help you make a legitimate argument.
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
-
They're making fun of this, but this is deeply disturbing. I feel like we've gone from robust use of our brains in many different ways, to hamster-levels of "push button; get treat". Yeah, great, you can use a phone. Do you understand the mechanics of a CPU? What a transistor is? How semi-conductors work? What even is a semi-conductor? How does digital memory work? How does an interpreter work? How does a linker and compiler work to translate high-level code to binary? Nah, we don't need to know any of that -- push button, get treat. And that's the only part of your brain that will develop. You won't need as wide of a variety of skills as when you learn cursive and print as well as typing, read an analogue clock as well as read a string of numbers, crunch numbers and use imagination in a game of 2nd Ed. D&D instead of just managing to click buttons in the right order in WoW, less time spent developing a wide range of physical dexterity, and so much more. We act like learning LESS is somehow BETTER. 200 years ago, people could write in such an eloquent manner while also being able to reasonably expect most people to actually be capable of comprehending it. Now, if you don't keep sentences and verbiage as base as possible, you're going to lose most people.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Clayton, I choose to watch it because I don't like living in an echo chamber. I read Huff Post, Washington Post, Mother Jones, The Guardian, I watch TYT, David Pakman, Vox, etc. I actually find value in listening to opinions that differ from my own, even if I don't find them persuasive. You should try it sometime. I don't just watch progressive stuff, I also watch FOX News, listen to Limbaugh, listen to Glenn Beck, and others on the right as well. I take serious time to study history and politics from many different viewpoints. I actually go out of my way to education myself in the widest range possible. You should try it sometime.
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
William Maddock "You see, I only said that it is intelligently arranged, and did not identify that intelligence."
Actually, you did when you aligned with the comment you quoted, "so perfectly organized a structure it was hard not to attribute divinity to it."
"It does me no good to beat you over the head with an assertion that the God of the Bible is real, if you have not even accepted the necessity of some god being real, and even that would seem to be down the road a piece for you."
It appears that you're the one jumping to conclusions. I did not identify "God" as the Semitic deity Yhvh.
"Because of that, I have only spoken to you about an intelligence having arranged and organized life."
There is no need for intelligence when we see that the entire makeup of animal life as we know it is carbon, hydrogen nitrogen calcium, phosphorous, potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, magnesium and oxygen. That is everything that you and I are. Nothing more, and nothing less.
3
-
William Maddock "I have made no such connection in conversation with you, and quoting something said in a video by a scientist does not mean that I said it."
In this thread, you did -- whether it was directly addressed to me or not. Also, when you're quoting it in support of your argument, you are aligning yourself with what's said in that comment.
"The name is not Yhvh, it is יהוה, and Semitic would not be sufficiently specific anyway, since you want to link it to a particular people group. if you're going to make that error, you might as well go the full course. The correct term would be Jewish, or Israelite. It is not a correct thing to do, though, since God does not care what people group you hail from."
Yhvh is the Romanized equivalent for the consonants in יהוה. Also, if you want to get really picky about it, "יהוה" is wrong as well since the name was originally written in Phoenician script as the Hebrew alphabet didn't come along until much later. Correcting me on that ground is just petty and pointless. Yhvh is a Semitic god and one of the Semitic pantheon including Ba'al Hadad, Molech, Dagon, Chemosh and many more.
"Then you are going to have to explain, using only physics and chemistry and nothing else, the accurate execution of the functional information written using those elements."
Actually, I don't. The fact that we are made up of only those atoms is easily verifiable and widely known. You have to prove that intelligent design is the only way life can come from those elements, because those elements, as is self-evident, combine on their own without the need for outside help. Therefore, it's up to you to prove -- through valid argument, mind you, not just "it's really complex" -- that intelligent design was involved or at least there being a requirement for intelligent design.
3
-
William Maddock "...we arrive at intelligence as the only known cause of functional information."
Information exists whether life does or not. It's not something that's created, it simply is inherent to everything. What humans call information is nothing but the organization of occurrences into something we can understand. Unfortunately, your belief that a god created everything, makes it impossible for me to prove to you that information doesn't need a creator.
"Darwin was using selective breeding and applying it to nature, but natural selection cannot generate new, functional information, but only select from what already exists. Therefore Natural Selection cannot explain the origin of anything, but only its modification, which, ironically, means that "On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" only explains the second half of its title, but not the first."
Darwin is talking about speciation, not the origin of life. His thesis was on how there gets to be so many different types of finches -- not how finches originally came about.
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Getting a CWL/CCL is something a lot of people don't do, and so they don't carry their firearms on their person when they go out. However, when tragedy hits, it's not right to say, "Since you didn't do this paperwork, you can't protect yourself." That's simply asinine.
No one has an issue with common sense legislation. The problem is all the politics. Common sense legislation, to me, would be passing individual laws; not some complex single muddied up bill that tries to do everything in one shot. Too much fucking politics -- from both sides -- and not enough common sense from either side is what's keeping back legislation. For instance, if you put in a bill that simply required that all private sales be brokered by an FFL (licensed dealer), it would pass in a heartbeat. Add a bunch of other shit that people won't agree with, and it'll get shot down every time.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
sharper, there are 320 million people in the US. Even if you take a cross section of 2016, 30 people were handed death sentences in the US of 320 million people. That's 10,600,000:1. At 4%, there is a chance that one of those people may be falsely convicted. That raises the chance to 320,000,000:1. Hard numbers show that 1.9% of convictions have been overturned (as I quoted earlier). That means if your number of 4% is right, 50% of false convictions are overturned. That increases his chance of not being executed to 640,000,000:1. It's not my highly informal billion to one, but it's certainly not far off.
And there are no acceptable number of innocents put to death. The ideal number is zero. We do what we can to maintain the society you enjoy while doing the due diligence to minimize the impact on innocent people.
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
-
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
-
For me, I have a problem with specifically the Zionist movement that has all but stated, "We believe Jews are superior to every other race, religion and ethnicity because we are God's chosen." The problem with being against Zionism is that many who are ignorant who equate Zionism with Judaism, and while all Zionists are Jewish, not all Jews are Zionists. The KKK uses "Zionism" as a thinly veiled insult to all Jews, and that makes the stance against Zionist supremacy even harder to maintain.
While I'm not personally a conspiracy theorist who believes in anything that cannot be absolutely proven, what we do know for fact of the history of the Zionist movement, I would not be surprised to one day learn of an intricate conspiracy among elite Jews to control much of the world's economic, information and government systems. Catholics and Jews have the power and wealth to control their own countries, and when you think you're superior to everyone else, why would you not also try to be the puppetmaster?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Well, to begin with the history lesson, I don't think that the Norse left the continent. I think they lived with the native tribes of North America. There's been evidence, scant as it is, of Teutonic runic alphabets being inscribed on stone as far inland as Oklahoma and even evidence of at least one Longhouse in North America. That would definitely indicate these were not short raiding trips.
Christopher Columbus thought that Eratosthenes' 3rd century BC measurement of the globe was too large. He landed in "India" about when he predicted he would. The land was considered to be Asia until a few years later when Amerigo Vespucci was accompanying a voyage along South America's East coast when he realized it extended much further south than it should have. He, therefore, declared it was not Asia but a new continent entirely and named it after himself.
Now onto secularism in the United States... Given the historical context, the intention was clearly never to disparage individual religiousness in any form or fashion. After the Bill of Rights was ratified and George Washington was entering into his second term in office, he swore in on a Bible. If this were not a long-standing tradition, I would think that the secularists of the 20th and 21st centuries would feel the same about that as they do about a high school coach praying with their team before a game. But this gives us indication of what secularism in the US is supposed to mean. It seems it was never intended to prevent individuals, no matter their official capacity, from exercising their religion at any time of their choosing.
Now what the anti-secularist movement has been reaching for is that this is a Christian nation. To me, this is also incorrect. Even at the height of the Barbary Wars (Muslims of Northern Africa who engaged in piracy from the Mediterranean to the West Indies), many of the Founding Fathers wrote that the people and their religion were welcome in the United States. The same sentiments about the same time were extended to Jewish people as well as even religions of the Far East such as Confucianism, as written by one signer of the Declaration of Independence. In fact, Benjamin Rush, who wrote the preceding also spoke out against a person having no religious philosophy. The citizens of Virginia wrote to the Assembly that to remove Islamic people "by establishing the Christian religion lest thereby we become our own enemys and weaken this infant state."
Both of these positions are easily proven false, as you can see. The true answer is disturbing to both left and right wingers, because neither have a proper understanding of the Founding Fathers on the matter.
But then, we don't technically need an understanding of the Founding Fathers' opinions. We have the ability to amend the Constitution for clarity and for modern situations. And this is where I stand. If you want to legislate guns, change the Constitution. If you want a strictly secularist government, amend the Constitution. If you want to prevent hate speech, amend the Constitution. No, it's not easy, and it shouldn't be. It was written to not be easy to do. But it's time we stop allowing the government, through the Supreme Court, to make partisan interpretations of the law and start requiring amendments to make clarifications.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Marshall Dan Alright, let's apply Occam's razor.
Option 1: The man ordered his food, was served his food, ate some of it, got it put in a to-go container and was about to leave when the manager then of his own volition decided to ask for proof of the man's service and for proof that his animal was a service dog.
Option 2: The man was approached by a crusty old racist dude who didn't believe he was ever in the military and told the manager to check him out.
If you want option 1 to stand, you would have to explain why the manager of the restaurant would wait until after he was served his food to be asked for proof of his service if there wasn't was someone else there who reported to the manager.
And if someone else reported the issue to the manager, why is it so far fetched that it would not be a crusty, old, racist Texan?
And if the guy is lying about it, why would he make up some random old guy to be the racist? Why wouldn't he just simply accuse the staff themselves? This story means that no employee from Chili's was racist, just the random old guy whose opinion doesn't even matter. The issue was that he showed his discharge paperwork and that was apparently good enough to be served his food until something happened later.
This is supposed to be a gift to servicemen -- not an authorization to be harassed by other people.
We may not know the whole story, but we can use our brains.
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
***** Gun crime has declined (especially in the types of firearms that are being regularly talked about, AR-15's AK-47 clones, etc. -- what is being billed as "military style assault rifles"):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg/1280px-Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg.png
Violent crime in the US has been dropping: http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/uotxycqc8u6z0k1zh06lpg.png
"...the gun show loop hole and the private sale loop hole." These are the same. They're not two things. States requiring private sales to have background checks: http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html
These states include Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Maryland and North Carolina for handgun purchases. Oregon (my state and a very gun friendly state), California, Colorado, Illinois, New York, Massachusettes, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Hawaii and New Jersey require a background check on private gun sales for all firearm types.
In Australia, since the Port Arthur Massacre occurred and the strictest gun legislation was passed, there have been the Monash University shooting, 2011 Hectorville Siege, Hunt Family Murders, 2014 Sydney Hostage Crisis, and the NSW Police Department shooting in October. The rate of mass shootings in Australia has actually increased since legislation was passed.
To anyone who's purchased a gun from a dealer, you'll be familiar with Form 4473 from BATF. If you go to a dealer no matter what state, you must fill out this form and have a NICS (Federal crime database) check run on you.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
TheUhhoh, it actually is objective reality. To say that natural rights are not objective reality is the same as denying climate change. Both are observations of nature where uniform logic and testing can be applied.
Since governments are created by people, and natural law follows that everyone's rights are equal and one cannot morally infringe on the rights of another, then government, created by people, cannot morally infringe on those rights either. Instead, they are morally required only to enforce rights by punishing infringements. It's the punishment of infringements that is the social contract. Otherwise, the bigger, stronger neighbor would always get his way and could be unopposed, through coercion, in infringing on the rights of a non-consensual, weaker party. If the government can infringe on natural rights, that government is the bigger, stronger neighbor infringing on the rights of a non-consensual, weaker party, and the government isn't serving and valid purpose.
And yes, absolutely all governments these days that I know of absolutely infringe on the rights of the people, but that doesn't make it right.
Oh, I gotta say, I'm happy that I'm speaking with someone who actually knows what they're talking about for once.
3
-
So nations that have more respondents that have a positive view of the US are (in order from most positive to least):
Nigeria, Vietnam, India, Philippines, Israel, Kenya, Venezuela, Brazil, Romania, Poland, Taiwan, Peru, Thailand, Hong Kong, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Colombia, Pakistan, South Korea, Indonesia, South Africa, Iran, Ukraine, Japan, Egypt, Mexico, and Hungary.
Singapore is Neutral.
Nations that have more respondents demonstrating a negative view are (in order from neutral to most negative):
Chile, Malaysia, Algeria Australia, Portugal, Argentina, Italy, Norway, Turkey, UK, Spain, Switzerland, Netherlands, Russia, France, Greece, Sweden, Canada, Belgium, Ireland, Denmark, Austria, Germany and China.
It's largely Europe, China and commonwealth nations that have a negative view. I'd be curious what the reasons were since nations like Iran, Vietnam, and South Korea express a mostly positive view. TYT isn't delving into this data, because it's rather interesting and goes well beyond a pithy headline.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Short sound bites of Peterson are always going to be out of context. There's no Peterson thought which can be readily compressed down to 10 seconds while maintaining the meaning of what he's arguing. A person needs to be able to follow a train of thought for longer than a minute in order to understand all the nuances of what he's saying. The entire 5 minutes he spends on this answer is, every moment of it, important to contextualize this answer. When he's done, it makes perfect sense what he's saying.
Peterson is too much of an intellectual to make wide appeal for the actual concepts he espouses, but he's actually surprising succinct for someone who's rather intelligent and knowledgeable discussing matters of epistemology. He's also not afraid to say he doesn't know -- but he won't leave it simply at, "I don't know." He will explain to you why he doesn't know in very fine terms.
I would say that Jesus wasn't a communist. If Jesus were a communist, when the rich man wandered off and didn't follow Jesus, Jesus would have gone to the Roman Senate and attempted to get them to force the rich man to give up his wealth. When that didn't work as he'd liked, he would agitate the laborers of the population into toppling the Roman empire, and establishing a communist state, followed by wresting the wealth from the rich. That coercion is the difference between a communist and Jesus.
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Mr. Blutarsky, first of all, the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right. It doesn't depend on the Constitution to exist, and you're just exhibiting the concerns Adams had when he wrote of the Bill of Rights that "[t]hey would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."
You are the usurper referenced claiming more ability than is granted to you.
Thomas Jefferson quoted, "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."
James Madison stated that the private ownership of cannons is a natural right.
Thomas Jefferson also quoted the phrase, "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
William Pitt stated, "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
anglian, I don't think that has much of anything to do with it. I think that we just need to stop stigmatizing mental health so much, ensure that people are educated on mental health issues, get education out there regarding teenage angst and its understanding, chill out on the "all hope is lost, the economy is in the toilet, this nation sucks, you have no future, half the country hates you, etc." narrative, reach out with messages to at-risk groups offering help and support and letting these individuals who are at risk for committing these acts have a healthy outlet, and more.
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
-
@kubli365 "Inflation" is an utterly pointless measurement on its own. While the cost of education has skyrocketed in the past 20 years, communications, a major portion of a person's monthly bills, has fallen. Apparel, furnishings, utilities, transportation, recreation haven't changed much themselves. A few select geographical areas in the US have experienced hyper-inflation in regards to shelter, while most areas in the United States have not had such an issue. There is SO much more to it than such a simplistic platitude as, "Minimum wage should keep up with inflation." It's just specific enough to seem reasonable and moral, but generic enough to mean anything you want it to.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Panda Knox We do pay a lot. Probably not as much as a typical person pays into the National Insurance Contribution, but we do pay a lot (for instance, I'd pay more in NIC tax in the UK than I do for private insurance here). The other side of the cost in our healthcare system is that we then are, in turn, the largest contributors, by far, in medical research in the world. The US alone contributes about half of the entire world's funding into medical R&D (about 80% of that being from private industry and philanthropy). To put it in other words, the US spends just as much as the other 194 countries combined. If we injure that pool with a single-payer system, we get a brain drain. The brightest and best minds aren't coming together anymore to get a piece of that pie and working to develop cures that the rest of the world is massively underpaying for.
In my opinion, the one thing that definitely needs to be done is the courts getting strict on contract law regarding an insured being kicked off of private insurance for BS reasons because they got expensive, and creating a streamlined process for such claims so as to not require expensive lawyering-up by the insured while also ensuring a quick resolution.
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
-
This_Is_My_school_Account_Don't_Hack_Me_plz, if you think that the Second Amendment in any way gives power to legislate firearms, let me quote Alexander Hamilton from Federalist #84, "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Kenny Cannon, the 1934 NFA, 1938 FFA, the Gun Control Act of 1968, Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Undetectable Firearms Act, Gun-Free School Zones Act, the Hughes Amendment, the Brady Bill, the 1994 Assault Weapons ban (during which Columbine happened which didn't use assault weapons but pistols and shotguns). We've already compromised, and we're done compromising.
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
-
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
-
Anne Onamoose, it's called frangible ammo, and it's what you use in home defense. And there's something wrong with shooting muggers? Shooting troops, cops, and politicians that impose tyranny is stupid? It's lawful and a citizen's responsibility. The Second Amendment does keep the government in check. Troops, cops, and politicians don't protect rights, they infringe on them. Immigration laws, drug laws, gun laws, spying, torture.... Yeah, infringing on people's rights. And your opinion doesn't matter. What you what is objectively immoral and tyrannical.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Devil'sAdvocate, you're very wrong on rights being wholly subjective. Natural rights are objective to the nature of being. It has nothing to do with society, laws, people, but only the nature of existence. The nature of existence means that you must be able to adequately live. Being capable of living is the ability to defend oneself. In the case of humans, this is exercised through wicked and deadly weaponry fashioned and traded for. If we had evolved with poisonous spines, would you feel the same about this conversation should the argument be for the forced surgical removal of said spines from all people? Our continued existence in a life-threatening situation is only guaranteed by our own individual actions -- not the actions of others. If the government takes my right to own guns, and I am killed without that line of defense, does the government get punished? Does my local Congressman lose his life? Of course not. It's only my life lost and no one else's, so it's only my responsibility and no one else's.
"You are completely downplaying slavery and it's popularity before it's downfall."
I don't have to give you my version. Let me simply quote Jefferson in a draft of the Declaration of Independence: "he [King George] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."
"I think something needs to change. We lead the world in school shootings. You may not think things need to change and are fine with our status as the world leader in children dying in school shootings. We will see who is on the right side of history here. I'm done debating this point."
You didn't debate. You just restated your original opinion while completely not addressing my points at all.
"Do you really, really think that your backyard firearms are a match for our military and government technology have nowadays? Really? If our government wanted to subdue us, they would do it with or without your little peashooters. I worked for an entity that dealt with military weapon/technology. Let me just say that a 'peoples revolution' would be quickly annihilated. In less than a day. "
Like in Afghanistan? Here we are 17 years later.
"because 'Murica?"
No, "because it's a natural right."
I thought you were interested in having an actual discussion, but when one comes your way, you shut down awfully quick. You're not just looking to slap around the low-hanging fruit, are you?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
empbac, Parkland had one resource officer that sat outside while he listened to shots going off, knowing kids were dying. More arms, more chances someone will stop the shooter.
When he attacked "the left", the girl behind him said that he doesn't know any of their political affiliations, and that's why he narrowed it to the ones backing this movement and said that he wasn't attacking anyone personally -- which he wasn't.
There are two types of instinctual responses in psychology: fight or flight. No one can look inside you. You have to figure out for yourself whether you're a fight or flight person. That deputy in the school was a flight person.
Why don't we need armed soldiers in schools? Even if we ban all guns, a huge guy with a knife can come into a Kindergarten class and kill young kids, and without some sort of force equalizer, there's not a thing a teacher may be able to do about it. I use this as an example because this has happened in nations where guns are completely banned from citizens. If you care about children's lives, you would want to give them good protection.
If I were a teacher in a classroom during a school shooting, locked in the room with my students, I'd much rather have a gun than not have one. The former gives you a chance, the latter doesn't.
3
-
3
-
3
-
From United:
"The two teenagers, whose ages were not identified by the airline, were notified by a female gate agent that their leggings violated the travel pass dress code. There was 'no uproar, no tears' and the teenagers left the gate area without incident, according to Guerin.
"A second group in line behind the teenagers, including a younger girl also wearing leggings, is believed by United to have seen the exchange between the gate agent and the teenagers who were denied boarding, according to Guerin. A woman in the party took a dress out of the party's carry-on luggage to cover the younger girl.
"Guerin said there was no exchange between the family with the younger girl and the gate attendant nor was there any mention of the dress code to the family, which was believed to be flying on a regular ticket. They departed on the flight to Denver."
Basically, if employees shouldn't wear it on the job, those flying free as employee family should understand that wouldn't be acceptable either.
Sounds like Third Wave feminists strike again, talking about things they know nothing about, using a fallacious appeal to authority in themselves to make national headlines. It's not a matter of sexualization, just quality of dress. I doubt they'd be alright with stained up, old, raggedy jeans on boys.
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
-
My god, what a horrible take on the Oath Keepers. They're less likely to engage in violence because they find that things like being ordered to shoot citizens is an order to be disobeyed.
As far as your slander regarding them being racist?
"Oath Keepers come in all colors, shapes, sizes, ages, and backgrounds with one common bond – the oath to defend the Constitution. If you take your oath seriously, and believe in defending the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic, and of whatever political party (there are oath breakers galore in both major parties), and if you stand for the rights of all Americans, at all times, then you are one of us."
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
-
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
-
prink34320 If we allow illegal immigrants amnesty, then that will open a flood, such as happened with the lone children being sent up en masse from Ecuador (I think it was) when they got the perception that Obama wasn't deporting children.
The solution is to keep deporting them as we find them. With the state of the nation right now, we have stagnated on illegal immigration (just about as many leaving as are coming in), by the estimates. It would be a good time to crack down, deport what is feasible and get tough on the southern border.
It's a shame, though, that conservatives have a hard on for the drug war. It's truly pointless, but there are about 700,000 people employed as pharmacy techs and pharmacists. If they were to end the drug war, all of those people would be out of a job. And pharmacists are basically doctors. Getting a Pharm.D. is very hard and a huge amount of schooling. They're also making typically about $120K a year. That's a lot of tax money and spending that stimulates all markets in small towns and large. So, ironically enough, we're addicted to the drug war.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
michael jordan It's important to note here, I think, that the Constitution protects the right, it doesn't grant the right. These rights are given by nature. Specifically, this is the right to arm oneself with deadly tools.
"Have you ever thought of taking a step back and looking at all the damage it's causing in society?"
Yeah. It's negligible.
about 30,000 die to firearms in the US annually.
-2/3rds are suicides. Right to die.
-About 8000 shootings a year are justified (legitimate self-defense).
-Gangland violence accounts for most of the remaining. These are typically illegally obtained, owned and carried firearms. Current legislation doesn't work for this, and no further legislation against guns would assist in this matter.
-About 100-200 people die a year from AR-15s and the like, which is what most people whoa are for gun legislation are looking at regulating.
Fact: Being on disability and not being capable of handling your own finances does not mean you cannot be a responsible gun owner. For instance, a person with a corpus collosum issue whose conceptual and logical portions of the brain communicate poorly or not at all may not be able to handle money at all, but be otherwise intelligent and responsible. Perhaps they have OCD or severe agoraphobia that prevents them from handling their own finances.
It was a horrible bill.
I say that if you want to legislate guns, repeal the Second Amendment. If you can't do that, then leave it alone.
"If you're a trump supporter I guess you were ok with turning a blind eye to the constitution when banning visitors from those 7 countries because you felt safety comes first. How is that any different than the gun issue?"
They're not US citizens. They are not protected by the US Constitution. Coming here is a privilege, not a right.
2
-
Frederic, you stated, "The only conspirators trying to take away your rights are people who are close to controlling your thoughts, and if they control your thoughts then a gun isn't going to save you. Dumbass"
Senator Dianne Feinstein after passing the patently unconstitutional 1994 assault weapons ban stated, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the senate to pick them all up -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in -- I would have done it."
Senator Jan Schakowski in an interview when asked if an assault weapons ban is just the beginning, she stated, "Absolutely. I mean, I'm against handguns."
Later in the same interview when told that she can't get a handgun ban with the Second Amendment as stated, she replied, "I don't know that we can't."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Heads Tails From what I saw in the response, he made two major points:
1. We're going to have to leave Earth at some point, and that should be our focus for our resources, not addressing climate change which, he argues, would have a negligible outcome at this time.
2. Climate change is going to happen no matter what we do. It is an interglacial period at this point. Climate change is not the end of the world, it's a changed world, and just like it's happened before it will happen again, with or without human activity.
Part of these concepts come from his stances in general, not specifics of the clip in itself, but these long-held beliefs of his are addressed in his response. I just have some context to go along with it.
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
-
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep, and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4. This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game : a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government...whoever examines the forest, and game laws in the British code, will readily perceive that the right of keeping arms is effectually taken away from the people of England."
-George Tucker, Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
mrbadguysan "That's not exactly what you said, because reasonable and valid don't mean the same thing."
Let me quote for you to remind you: "You can have both, and still don't have to agree that the feelings are valid or are rational." Accentuation added.
"An appeal to emotion is a red herring, the contents of the argument are not relevant to the topic at hand. That's why it's a logical fallacy."
If an appeal to emotion was just a red herring, it would be called a red herring and not an appeal to emotion. An appeal to emotion does not have to be irrelevant.
"A perfectly sound argument could also elicit emotions emotions..."
Exactly. A perfectly sound argument. That's the issue. You're not making a perfectly sound argument. You're just manipulating emotions when you ask, "What if that was your daughter?"
"Is making an emotional appeal at all, but more so checking to see if the person making the argument is engaging in special pleading..."
Ha. You know that is the last thing on a person's mind who asks that question. Even if I gave you the benefit of the doubt on that one, there would be no purpose in it because that's not the point of the argument. As I said, all it can lead to is an appeal to hypocrisy. If he doesn't concede because of the blatant emotional manipulation of the question, then you're depending on him making a special plead for his daughter. In such a case you must resort to a tu quoque to make your argument.
"As far as I know, a tu quoque fallacy only exists if the person making the initial claim doesn't admit to being fallible. For example, I can tell you that factory farming is an immoral practice and buyers of factory farmed meat should be ashamed of themselves. If you accused me of having an erroneous argument due to the fact that I eat factory farmed meat; you'd actually be right if I wasn't ashamed of myself."
You have that backwards. The best example I've seen is the smoking argument. Here:
Person A: "Smoking is bad for you."
Person B: "Well you smoke."
Tu quoque fallacy. Whether or not person A smokes or how person A feels about smoking is irrelevant to the actual argument. This is just like whether he would appreciate learning that his daughter was on such a list is irrelevant to the actual argument.
"Pointing out hypocrisy isn't fallacious if the issue at hand is contingent on the absence of hypocrisy."
Unless you're making an appeal to authority, that is never the case.
Hypothetical example:
Person A: "Einstein said the theory of relativity is true."
Person B: "Einstein used Newtonian, not Relativity equations in all of his work."
In this case, person A's authority was undermined because of his authority's related hypocrisy.
"Pointing out hypocrisy isn't fallacious if the issue at hand is contingent on the absence of hypocrisy.
But as I asked before, if asking 'What if your daughter...' is an appeal to emotion, what emotion is it appealing to?"
That you keep asking this shows that you don't understand the fallacy.
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
-
William Maddock I understand what you're saying, but my understanding doesn't make you right.
You see, there's two cases here in this debate.
1. Nature can create "useful information," and the fact that you're here to ask that question is proof of that.
2. Nature cannot create "useful information," and the fact that you're here to ask that question is proof of intelligent design.
Now to determine which of these two scenarios is more likely, we have to first determine if there is anything in the molecular makeup of anything we are is impossible. The answer is that it is improbable (even highly improbable), but not impossible. That is what we've measured.
Now, what about the other way -- is it possible that an intelligence created everything in the universe including life on Earth? First of all, is this intelligence measurable? No, from what we've seen, it's not. As far as we know, no such intelligence exists, because we've seen no evidence of it. Also, from what we understand of intelligence, such an intelligence cannot exist. There is no incorporeal intelligence seen in the universe. All intelligence in every form we know occurs within some corporeal form, because the corporeal form is required to direct energy resulting in conclusions.
The conclusion is that at this point in time, with what we know, it is impossible that an intelligence created the Universe and life on Earth. That conclusion is in no way overridden by an ancient astrological soap opera that is the Canaanite pantheon, the Rig Veda or any number of other religious texts. Occam's Razor: The simpler solution is that molecules following physical properties to combine into complex self-replicating molecules is the simpler solution than an impossible, incorporeal intelligence which cannot be measured forced what could otherwise have occurred without that impossible intelligence.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
NINmann01wiiU If the officer's believe that the suspect is under intoxicants other than alcohol, they may arrest the individual to perform blood and/or urine tests. This is a good thing; however, there should be a supporting figure for such arrests. According to the source video from a news channel, Austin makes 5,500+ DWI arrests per year, and of those, over 1,500+ are thrown out due to a lack of evidence. Clearly, a nearly 30% failure rate in identifying DWI cases by field sobriety test is an opportunity for retraining, development of better field sobriety tests and research into specific "trouble" officers with abnormally high rates of unprosecutable cases.
Doubtless, if we remove from those 5,500 cases the cases in which the suspects blew over the legal limit, we may be looking at well over 50% (or even higher) of unnecessary arrests based on field sobriety tests misinterpreted by the officers. I would also be interested to see a racial breakdown of these arrests.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Lavona Lewis Again, I'm in complete agreement with you. I see that our system, perhaps as part of the human condition that handles change poorly, values individuals who stick to their guns and are predictable. Unfortunately, I think that does a disservice for that individual. We see this no more apparent than in media coverage of politicians where a change of mind is seen as being wishy-washy and weak. However, being able to change your mind and being capable of being swayed by new information is, in my opinion, one of the most honorable and desirable traits in a person and a society. It's something that I try to strive for in myself. Of course, that doesn't mean changing your mind every five minutes, but after exhaustive research into new information for a currently held stance reveals that such a stance is perhaps not the most proper stance, it's noble of oneself to submit humbly to a new view.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
slimjim77M Science will never go out of its way to prove a negative since it's generally nigh on impossible to do such a thing. That is, it will never go out to disprove the existence of any deity or intelligence behind the universe.
But I want to recall why this topic became hotly debated in the first place: creationism versus evolution in schools.
What one believes is one thing, but to enforce a systemic eschewing of facts to ensure that young-earth creationism continues to seem to be a valid answer to why life exists is another matter entirely. It oversteps one's personal right to believe as they choose, and the boundary that should be themselves to universally assert that belief.
Studying the Bible and religion, including any specific religion, in a secular sense is certainly welcome in any educational system worth its salt, but to present these items as objective fact without supporting evidence is highly dishonest.
For instance, science teaches that it is believed that Homo sapiens sapiens is approximately 150,000 years old. When that is taught, evidence found and reasoning are given.
However, when a creationist states that mankind is 6,000 years old and presents the Bible as proof, it's highly questionable and significantly overshadowed by the conflicting evidence we do have.
Furthermore, it is also dependent on there being an omniscient and omnipotent being behind that text which has yet to be proved through repeatable experimentation.
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
-
no way, this is like suing for spilling hot coffee on your lap.
Even after the lawsuit, Purdue is still allowed to include the label, "The first extended-release (ER) opioid with FDA-approved labeling describing abuse-deterrent characteristics and claims
-- However, abuse of OxyContin by injection and intranasal routes, as well as by the oral route, is still possible"
It just makes me roll my eyes that they will initiate such a witch hunt because it's getting media attention because it's negatively affecting upper-middle-class white families.
And it's a significant leap that takes someone from taking something as prescribed to abusing it. I've been on opiates, so I can speak from experience. There was never a draw for me to abuse the drug. Withdrawals suck, yes (it's like having a flu), but it's definitely not going to drive you to drug addiction. If you're going to be an addict, you're going to be an addict. Most of these people who have accidentally overdosed already had addiction issues; notably alcohol abuse. Isn't that the common cocktail? Booze and opiates?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Matthew, when you say, "my opinion," the reality of that is, "my made up fact that fits my bigoted world view."
You stated, "Especially since TYT usually does a better job than the main stream media." This is not an opinion because it can be evaluated as true or false. You just call it an opinion to try to hide how bigoted you really are.
Unless this entire conversation is a figment of your imagination, yeah, I actually do get to come in and expose you. I also don't think you know what the term "strawman" means. I'm only arguing against what you've actually said. I've matched your exhibited attributes to what I see as typical in weebs, not attributing things to you that you've not exhibited.
"It's probably because you have identified me as an American that you think I can't know better than you." This is not a strawman because it's a speculation, not an argument. This is ad hominem, but it's not a fallacious ad hominem because your character is exactly the topic of discussion.
I take it that I'm right that when it comes to Japanese utterly slaughtering foreign words, you're alright with that -- because, you know, it's Japanese doing it, not Americans.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Alice Engelhardt "My uncle once told me about a warrior who had a fine stallion. Everybody said how lucky he was to have such a horse. 'Maybe,' he said. One day the stallion ran off. The people said the warrior was unlucky. 'Maybe,' he said. Next day, the stallion returned, leading a string of fine ponies. The people said it was very lucky. 'Maybe,' the warrior said. Later, the warrior’s son was thrown from one of the ponies and broke his leg. The people said it was unlucky. 'Maybe,' the warrior said. The next week, the chief led a war party against another tribe. Many young men were killed. But, because of his broken leg, the warrior’s son was left behind, and so was spared." -Marilyn Whirlwind, Northern Exposure
The point is that no one knows what's good or bad for the future.
2
-
2
-
Managarmr420 Oil usage now is actually funding R&D for viable later solutions. It's not like Exxon, BP, or other big oil companies are thinking, "Well, darn, I guess we're going the way of the dinosaur now," (pun intended), they're actually forerunners on alternative fuel sources. The problem is that new technology is expensive, it rarely meets up to the demands expected of old technology and it's unreliable.
However, the change is happening. Haven't you noticed the electric vehicle charging stations at your local department store, pharmacy, big-box store, etc? Aren't you seeing more and more solar panels on roofs of homes and businesses? How many more hybrid/electric vehicles are you now seeing on the road compared to 10 years ago?
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
-
***** New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Missouri, and Illinois are where the shades of red are. In the South, the states largely covered by higher than normal racist searches, include Arkansas, Mississippi and the Corlinas. Tennessee and Kentucky.
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
-
***** "That was one hell of a drama queen twist and it is this kind of very silly nonsense that creates the hostilities between other countries about the american people."
Let me quote a letter from Churchill for you from May 15, 1940, "We expect to be attacked here ourselves, both from the air and by parachute and air borne troops in the near future, and are getting ready for them. If necessary, we shall continue the war alone and we are not afraid of that. But I trust you realize, Mr. President, that the voice and force of the United States may count for nothing if they are withheld too long. You may have a completely subjugated, Nazified Europe established with astonishing swiftness, and the weight may be more than we can bear. All I ask now is that you should proclaim nonbelligerency, which would mean that you would help us with everything short of actually engaging armed forces."
The war started on September 1, 1939. The US entered the war on Germany on December 11, 1941.
Neville Chamberlain before Churchill took office was requesting help of the US as early as 1937 with the December 1937 Japanese attack on an English gunboat.
So, yes, years. You just can't suck up your pride long enough to realize that's the reality of it.
If it helps you to think clearly for me to take shots at America, then America begged and pleaded every NATO nation, including England, to get involved in that dumb ass war in Iraq -- and that wasn't even a good cause in hindsight.
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
-
Ronin Dave "I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
"This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
"Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
"It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
"There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume." -General George Washington
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
AlthazarMalthus "Last I checked it was a single plane that crashed into each tower"
A fully fueled 737 ER at near transonic speeds, not a 707 almost out of fuel at landing speeds. The latter is what it was meant to withstand -- the former, not.
The site you linked states, "Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707."
Note that it is just figuring for kinetic energy carried by each aircraft by comparing cruise speeds and plane weight while completely disregarding that the towers were intended to withstand an aircraft low on fuel flying at just landing speeds -- not cruising speeds. So they were arguing a straw man on the site since the force of the impact of the two aircraft at cruising speed was never even an argued factor (or even relevant). You fell for their logical fallacy.
The site you linked quotes the following, "The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."
There are no details of this assessment and how they came to figure that the buildings could withstand a 707 or DC 8 collision which was travelling 600 MPH. Those details don't seem to exist, either.
With that being said, there are many engineered structures that have unexpectedly fallen over the years and inspections found these structures to be perfectly sound.
Case in point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Bridge#Wreckage_analysis
Just because a white paper says something, doesn't make it 100% fact.
"NO PLANE HIT WTC 7"
The WTC tower collapse took a huge chunk out of the south side of it.
"Where do you even get this from? How are you just spouting off all this mumbo jumbo like you had some part in engineering the towers?"
I even provided you a picture. http://www.daviddarling.info/images/cantilevers.jpg
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
-
***** First of all, I'm not arguing that marijuana should be legal or illegal. I'm pointing out that the data was skewed. The vast majority of alcohol deaths are from DUI, not overdose. The chart you link is all DUI cases. It doesn't segregate the various types of DUI -- whether marijuana, opiate, alcohol, legal prescription interaction, etc. So it's not at all helpful.
The point is, however, in order to not be biased, you cannot take the DUI deaths from one substance while not applying it to the other. That's painfully biased. I'm sure it wouldn't make a difference to where marijuana falls on the chart, especially if including both overdose and DUI, but it's patently dishonest nonetheless.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If you came to the United States illegally, then hell no, you can't vote. What the actual fuck? The point is to run the nation the way its people want it to be run, not run it the way that a hundred thousand people visiting from other countries want it to be run. I'd like to see a non-citizen white person go vote in North Korea.
So when it comes to an impoverished family of 3 in the US, the income level is $20,000 a year. They also receive about $500 in food stamps monthly ($26,000), free cell phone/home phone service ($40 a month, $26,480), significantly discounted or free internet ($20 a month, $26,720), free health insurance that equals or surpasses private health insurance for working families ($200 a month, $29,120), assistance with utility bills ($200 a month, $31,520), school supplies and clothing ($2,000 a year, $33,520). There's a lot more services provided by both the government and civil services (e.g. daycare assistance and food boxes) that I won't even bother going into. When it's all done and said, it's as though that impoverished family of 3 is bringing in over $40,000 a year, effectively doubling their income. I wonder what it's like in North Korea for their impoverished.
People keep breaking the fuckin' law. That's not an issue with the State, it's an issue with American culture.
If I didn't touch on it, I agree with it or the talking heads already handled it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Funny how California has draconian gun laws and there was still a shooting there.
Having depression doesn't exempt one from the right to protect themselves.
Yes, the gun is designed solely to kill things, and that's what you want to do. The knife I carry for self defense would do a shitty job at buttering bread. Probably just as well as trying to use a gun to butter bread.
Regarding the terrorist watch list: citizens are innocent until presumed guilty. You talk as though you think that they should be presumed guilty even though they've not yet been charged with a crime.
You'd love nothing better than to see a dictatorial disarmament of the citizens of the United States, and it's becoming more and more clear with every video you do. You're even starting to make the more centered liberals on your channel wonder about your logic on this one.
Talk about the American culture, the actual root of the problem. Not the gun culture, the "me-ism" culture that promotes shootings to occur. As you've reported, empathy is something that's developed, and the "me-istic" culture in the US is stifling that development. That's just one of many examples where our culture is failing as we move away from religion, ethics, interdependability, responsibility and honor, and moving toward the more piratical attitude of take what you can and leave your mark at all costs.
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
-
Monica Weinstein Just admit the punishment is death according to the holy texts of Islam and be done with it.
Surat 26:106 "He who disbelieves in Allah after his having believed, not he who is compelled while his heart is at rest on account of faith, but he who opens (his) breast to disbelief-- on these is the wrath of Allah, and they shall have a grievous chastisement."
Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:260 "Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'"
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ramed95, let me try to explain my point of view for not wanting this system. First of all, my political philosophy is that being healthy is a right but healthcare is a privilege. The reason I view it this way is because if all the doctors quit tomorrow, would you have the right to threaten their life to force them to perform a procedure on you? Of course not. Therefore, having someone take care of you is a privilege that you enjoy.
Now having established the reasoning for why healthcare isn't a right, we have to weigh the good and bad of establishing a single-payer system to see if it's reasonable that we extend this privilege to everyone. Something that concerns me about going to such a system is the finances that currently go into R&D in the US. The US has, by far, the most medical developments in the world. Part of the reason for this is the more than $2 trillion that pass through the medical industry annually. Of course, tax payers can in no way foot the bill for $2 trillion, so the single-payer system would be the only option.
What that means, then, is that we have to gut that $2 trillion flowing through our system which leads to our spending over half of the entire world's budget on medical research and having the results to show for it. I personally don't think this is a valid trade-off.
But what about the needy? I hear you. I'm not cold-hearted. I see the system of healthcare in the US as being adequate and citizen-driven. Those who have the skills donate their time in rotation at free clinics and brand-name drug companies provide life-saving drugs for free. For instance, I have helped a few people now with a cure for Hepatitis C. Before the US company Gilead developed the cure, having this disease would likely lead to death. The regimen costs $60,000. However, this company will provide this medication for free to those who can't afford it. This is a real socialist system (which is often times what conservatives promote and do -- for instance, rather than wanting to provide food stamps, conservatives get together with their church, donating time to raise food (which is typically perfectly good food they throw out because of a "best by" or "sell by" date, which is not the same as a "use by" date, and providing food boxes to the needy). However, it doesn't cost the taxpayer anything extra, it doesn't make the government bigger and more powerful, and it doesn't get in the way of doctors doing their job.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Robbie_Zombie First of all, that's not 4K, but I'll give you that because it's close enough. Second of all, an 870m is not going to drive 4K gaming at 60 FPS.
Here's the proof: http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-870M.107792.0.html
Scroll down to the bottom to gaming benchmarks. That card can't even put out 60 FPS in most games at just 1080p, forget 60 FPS @ 4K.
But you spent, supposedly, $4,000 on your laptop, so I imagine you have SLI and top end cards. So what about 880m in SLI?
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-880M-SLI.109044.0.html
Now it's just barely getting just over 60 FPS @ 1080p.
So, yes, you're lying. Now just admit it.
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
-
Mark IT Geek Statistics like the one you posted don't mean a whole lot at the time something is actually happening to you. Every one of those people who went to the Twin Towers on 9/11/2001 could have said the same thing, or those at the Boston Marathon bombing, or those at Texas recently. Each and one of them were sure that the government was protecting them.
The real problem is this: when things are in the news promises are made, bills are passed, money is promised, training is guaranteed. Then as things die down months or years later, all of those promises, bills and money quickly vanish, and we're back in the same position as we were when it all began.
There are certain statistics you don't want to play with, because there's no need to. Allowing known extremist Muslims to actually have churches here in the US is like saying that you only have a 1 in 700,000 chance to be struck by lightning while running around outside in a thunder storm with a huge metal rod sticking up. Just because the statistic is there, doesn't mean you want to go inviting trouble.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Shaving Pvt. Ryan No, I mean fascist, and I know that it is against standard political philosophic nomenclature. It was on purpose. They perfectly fit the definition of fascism, even though the extreme left is generally, though arbitrarily, edged out of that definition.
The point of contention would be the nationalism that is a part of fascism. Wiki defines nationalism as "a complex, multidimensional concept involving a shared communal identification with one's nation."
But a "nation" does not have to be a bordered country on a map. Wiki defines a nation as "a large group or collective of people with common characteristics attributed to them — including language, traditions, mores (customs), habitus (habits), and ethnicity. By comparison, a nation is more impersonal, abstract, and overtly political than an ethnic group. It is a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its autonomy, unity, and particular interests."
By these definitions, the shared political ideology of those aligning with the extreme left would itself be a nation. They tend to be intolerant of those outside of their nation -- that is, those who have a differing political ideology. They are also fiercely protective of their nation.
By this, they meet all criteria to be fascist.
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
-
Hugh, Benjamin Franklin was a protestant and later a deist. He was never an atheist. That right there undermines your understanding of the writers of the Constitution and your subsequent understanding of the document. A person may proselytize legally in the United States. We don't, at least not anymore, punish Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons from going door-to-door proselytizing. A man should be able to pray or worship whenever and however he would like without fear of legal repercussion.
Let me teach you about the Second Amendment and some history. First of all, the Whiskey rebellion occurred in 1791, after the Bill of Rights were written -- so that certainly has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. Furthermore, in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, the power to control the militia is newly granted to the Federal government, "The Congress shall have Power To ... To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,"
The first clause recognizes that it is good that the Federal government is now regulating the militia because it makes for a stronger nation. It's worth noting here that "well regulated" does not think what you think it means. It means for something "to be in working order." The second clause provides the right of the people, not the militia or only those in the militia, to keep and bear arms. There is no spelled out limit as to what those arms constitute.
Certainly nearly everyone in the fledgling United States had firearms of all sorts, and they were certainly not limited by law. The Founding Fathers even had knowledge that repeating firearms were on the horizon. They were even presented with a design for a repeating firearm during the rule of the the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation.
Now it doesn't explicitly limit what does not apply. However, what it does explicitly limit is what the government is not allowed to do: shall not be infringed.
You're just speaking out of ignorance. Read some of the writings of the time. Look at the laws on the books. Start with the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers.
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
-
jman831 You may not believe in violence, but that doesn't stop it from existing and exerting itself on you.
The link you provided regarding the Founding Fathers' religious views: I have found it to be biased toward a strong secular scope -- showing only the negatives that the Founding Fathers wrote of Christianity and/or religion. While the other characters of history I'm not too terribly familiar with (i.e. have read their personal writings), Benjamin Franklin is one that I'm very thoroughly familiar with. That site chose to leave out the part where Franklin felt that Christianity was the best religion, as Jesus taught it, left to mankind.
A person is free to legislate based on their religious views. However, what they may not do is: 1. Legislate regarding an establishment of religion (e.g. Catholicism now has legal authority or Calvinists may not build churches) and 2. Legislate regarding the legal exercise of one's religion (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses may not legally go door-to-door.)
That's it. Nothing more and nothing less. By your logic, if it's someone's religious principle is that murder is wrong, they cannot, legally, pass laws regarding murder because their driving reasoning is religious in nature. All it is, is a sort of ad hom attack that the source of a thing is religion and is therefore bad. Unless it aligns with what you believe as well, then we can make an exception? That's not how you find objective truths. You're just applying your own subjectivity and calling that objectivity.
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
-
Master Evar "A fallacy is something that undermines the argument. thunderf00t never used authority as an argument,"
He's using his authority to avoid using proper sources while still being taken seriously.
"And no, I don't think your use of "appeal to authority" is correct. Authority is one who has deciding power over someone else. Just becasue you think you are smarter than someone else on a subject you don't have to believe you have any deciding power in that subject. And even then, you don't have to believe you are smarter than someone to make the claim that you are right about one thing they are not."
An authority, in this case, is a person with knowledge in a subject.
"Oh, and a lot of this is based on your interpretation of the video. I didn't interpret it as if he made himself an authority on the subject, and I do not view him as an authority on the subject."
You being persuaded is not a requirement here.
"In order to be fallacious, the argument must appeal to the authority because of their qualification in an irrelevant field"
A biochemist speaking authoritatively, without presenting valid evidence, about structural engineering.
"If you have any other sources, you are free to present them."
John Lock, Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Argumentum ad Veracundiam.
As Wiki sums it up, "...[An appeal to authority] can be misused by taking advantage of the 'respect' and 'submission' of the reader or listener to persuade them to accept the conclusion."
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
-
ComradeWinston "Well it would certainly be a rather distressing situation for the poor cells that hapless appendix is composed of."
Yes, it is quite painful of a surgery, but you're saving a life, not terminating one. Your flowery and verbose choice of prose betrays the lack of logic in your argument.
"The secret but ironic primary argument every anti-abortion protester comes down to the fear of the slippery slopes."
This has nothing to do with slippery slopes, and you're remiss to presume so much. What I see is that a 20-week abortion for an "oops" pregnancy should be, to any rational and reasonable person knowledgeable of abortion, unambiguously immoral.
"I'd sooner support the abortions of ten pregnant women who wish not to bear child than send a single one of their children to an orphanage, simply to be cast aside with no parents into an already overflowing adoption system practically only utilized by gay or sterile couples."
That is, as I said before, an utterly flimsy argument to terminate a life. I've known several children in a seemingly endless stay of the foster care system, and they're talented, smart, wonderful children full of life and promise. One young girl had given my wife and myself one of her paintings that we liked. To say that she should have been aborted is absolute evil.
"To take away a person's control over their body, regardless of circumstances, is almost a crime in itself. But for a child to be born with parent(s) uncommitted to its care, that in my opinion is an even greater crime."
As before, this is an utterly flimsy argument to kill a life. Yes, while there are some cases where the upbringing of a child is less than adequate, it's absolutely no excuse to terminate a life. Rather than at least having a chance as a happy adult, we remove that chance altogether by terminating that pregnancy.
That is the "fear" in this matter that you mentioned earlier. Your fear that the child won't be cared for. Your fear that the child will be stuck in the foster system. Your fear that the child will not be a happy child or happy adult. These are only fears, since you don't know, but, out of fear, seek to prevent by killing anyway.
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
-
Picture Me Trollin' Goes back to the very late 19th century when Japan established diplomatic relations with that country. There has been basically free migration of the two peoples between the two nations. Japanese have not treated as equal and are looked down upon by the local Brazilians, especially the early Portuguese governments. For instance, the Portuguese rulership of Brazil had enacted forced assimilation laws in the early part of the 20th century. Something like the national districts in the US wouldn't be allowed in Brazil. You couldn't have a neighborhood of Japanese individuals. The Minister of Justice of Brazil during World War II said of Japanese immigrants, "...their despicable standard of living is a brutal competition with the country’s worker; their selfishness, their bad faith, their refractory character, make them a huge ethnic and cultural cyst located in the richest regions of Brazil." Today, however, the view of Japanese by the Brazilian population is generally positive, but a fair portion (about 25%) of the population still have a negative view of Japanese.
In Japan, most Brazilians have a status as second-class citizens, and it has historically been the same for Japanese in Brazil. Brazilians in Japan are mostly monolinguistic, speaking Portuguese only and not assimilating into Japanese culture even after multiple generations. The Brazilians migrated to Japan due to economic hardships in Brazil and the economic stability provided by post-war Japan. Most held contract jobs. Now, however, because they tend to not speak the local language and remain steadfast to their own culture, it is difficult for them to find work in Japan, but they consider themselves ethnically Japanese and despise being referred to as gaijin/foreigners by the native Japanese population.
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
-
You'reNotATerroristAreYou? The civil war was an issue of slavery, full stop.
Mississippi: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."
Georgia: "For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic."
South Carolina: "We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States."
Texas: "[Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time."
Are you still going to sit there and claim secession and the civil war to pull the union back together was not about slavery?
2
-
2
-
2
-
Vynjira "Yes, your claim is that Christian Values cause or repulsed reaction to these behaviors.. It's clear that Christian Values cause the behavior itself.. and it's often Christians who ignore the behaviors and say it's just boys being boys."
Don't reply to half the comment with the same thing you've already said while ignoring the other half of the comment. We can't have an honest discussion if you do that. Since you just repeated yourself, there's nothing more for me to respond to this with until you address the other half of the argument.
"It's not anecdotal evidence, it's an example that contradicts your claim..
"If I were to recount a story or personal experience that could not be verified then yes.. it would not be proof of a claim that something happened.. If I had personally experienced a Ghost.. my account would not be valid..
"However, I'm giving an example of how your claim is not true.. and further you even accept that the claim itself is probably true.. which means you're not questioning the voracity of the anecdote itself.. which is why Anecdotal Evidence is not reliable."
No, it's, "I know people who..." That is categorically anecdotal. I later gave you the argument to further the point that your argument is moot even if it's accepted.
"Yes, so Atheists find these behaviors repulsive.. meanwhile Christians aren't always bothered by these behaviors and excuse it.. Which counters your argument that it's Christian Values that cause this repulsion."
"While it's largely true, this is not a universally true statement.. and there are many Christian Norms we know we aren't following. Also overlap doesn't necessitate following Christians Beliefs/Values/Norms.."
"Atheists" don't all as one entity feel anything. We're all different. We don't go by a single moral code. The only connection is that we don't believe in a god -- nothing more and nothing less.
Christians, on the other hand, have a central core moral code that they follow. Therefore, I can say that a moral distaste of lust or sexual attraction or how that is expressed is a Christian societal standard. If you grew up in a society where this were not the norm, then doubtlessly you would feel differently.
"I don't kill people, not because a God will punish me but because of my own sense of morality which is not based on any Christian Commandment but instead objective evaluations of moral codes and their effects on other individuals.."
"You assumed, that my repulsion towards nasty comments is based in Religion.. Now, it could very well be.. but in my case it's not.. because I have reasons of my own.. which are totally unrelated to Social Norms or Christian Values.. (a number of different reasons a person could have outside of religion would be if that person had been sexually assaulted, or if they were Asexual, or if their morality sees the behavior as dehumanizing etc..)"
I'm not saying that a god has to be the driving motivator of each individual. I'm saying that in our society, our norms are established largely by Christian standards, and that includes our view of sex and sexualization.
If someone finds someone else sexually attractive while finding another not sexually attractive, your logic would follow that this person is being immoral. Of course, you don't think that because you've drawn arbitrary lines. Those arbitrary lines happen to be, generally speaking, not speaking your mind about someone outside of a personal situation directly with that person.
"There are people out there that don't follow social norms or get their values from Christianity.. hell Star Trek has taught Atheist values to many generations of Children.. and it largely explains why something is wrong without invoking any sort of moral authority."
And Star Trek is Western society speaking to Western society. Pushing the lines meant accepting premarital sex.
"As long as there are people like that out there, your claim wouldn't be universally true.. and right now.. I don't see that it's true even for most people.. Perhaps most Christians it might be true and some not Christians.. but I'm not really sure to what extent it would be true there."
Well, I'm going to use this opportunity to hit my point home. Living in Christian social norms are like your personal understanding of your own accent. You understand it's different from others, but you simply can't hear it in the same way as other people do.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Aaron, "wow you got a really demented view of the world. Look Abortion is protected under the 14th Amendment 'Liberty' clause where a person has the right to choose."
Someone doesn't have the liberty to kill another person without repercussions.
"Furthermore the reason why a women can not get an abortion after or during the 3rd trimester is becasue that is when the fetus can actually live on its own"
At this point, the earliest a baby has lived is from a premature birth at 21 weeks. That is the second trimester. And there are enough progressives that push for even late-term abortions that arguing against a slippery slope isn't a fallacy.
"Lastly, since the education and use of contraceptives teen pregnancy and the use of abortions have literally dropped, they go up when republican conservatives take away those services proving abstinence does not work."
I agree.
"The final nail int he coffin is that the Supreme court ruled in Roe v Wade that abortion was protected under the 14th Amendment which is the civil rights amendment."
It just makes it legal. It doesn't make it moral.
"It is done, much like gay marriage so stop trying to tell others what they can and can not do."
I was against gay marriage, but only because I felt it was an abuse of the financial benefits of the system of legalized marriage. In fact, I find the institution of legalized marriage in the first place to be outdated. Other than that, I couldn't care less.
"So do you actually want to uphold the Constitution for everything it stands for or just the parts that fit your agenda?"
I have no agenda, but I'm not under any obligation to agree with any part of it. I'm merely under obligation to abide by it. That's something that the left can take a lesson in, considering the infringements they've made on the Second Amendment without issue.
"Also how does someone else getting an abortion effect you?"
Someone else that I don't know being murdered doesn't affect me either. That's not a very persuasive argument.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Lisa Newchange, you're just blind. Australian minimum wage is up to almost $18 an hour. What happens is that $18 an hour is about as equivalent to someone making $7.70 here. There is little to no purchasing power gained -- just more dollars to represent the same value. In Australia, $50,000 there is equivalent to making about $35,000 here. They're paying $200 a month for basic utilities for a small apartment, where we pay about $80 a month. Our primary education system costs about $11,000 per child, per year. Theirs cost $22,000 per child, per year. They spend about $100 on jeans, we spend about $50 on jeans. A small apartment for them costs about $1,700, while here (outside of Cali), you're going to be spending about $900 a month.
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
-
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
-
@Fals3Agent The Founding Fathers wrote things like, "...what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to William Smith, 1787). "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.9 Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition..." (Benjamin Franklin, Reply to the Governor from the Pennsylvania Assembly, 1755). "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Translation: "I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787). "...the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, Federalist 46). That someone has been able to convince you that these people would allow the government to control who owns what arms is what's impressive brainwashing. This level of denial that you have is right up there with flat earthers and climate change deniers.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@treytassin7257 You have a gross misunderstanding of what a vigilante is. A vigilante is someone who takes the law into their own hands after the fact not during the fact. During the fact, every person in the United States retains the right to stop transgressions. It does not matter what position they put themselves into or the legality of the chain of events that got them to that point. For instance, if a prostitute's John attempts to kill her, she doesn't get convicted of murder because she was partaking in an illegal activity at the time she shot and killed him with a stolen gun to stop him. She still has a valid claim to self defense. So, no, character has nothing to do with a self-defense claim. Quite frankly, you're showing a lot of inability to think critically and beyond your bias here.
"He had no business being there."
That's arguable since he is considered part of the unorganized militia per Title 10, Sec. 246 of the USC, as I mentioned in my OP. To argue that a member of the militia protecting life, liberty, property, and helping to maintain civil authority a rebellion/riot is highly questionable reasoning.
"He wanted to shoot looters."
He could have posted on social media that he couldn't wait to shoot looters. While a jury may give such a post a lot of weight, legally, it doesn't matter to a self-defense claim. If he only shot those that a calm and reasonable person believed was about cause great bodily harm or death, then the self-defense claim stands per the law.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Nick G. If the government grants rights, why would the Bill of Rights be open-ended and state plainly there are other rights besides what's enumerated? The Ninth Amendment also does not state it "grants rights not specified". It states, it doesn't "deny or disparage" other rights. In multiple places in the Bill of Rights, it states "the right of the people". That shows these right preexist government, because otherwise it would state, "the people are granted the right".
When it comes to the government, it's a matter of preventing government overreach -- keeping the government within the powers it's been exhaustively enumerated. We have the method by which to petition the government to redress grievances, but when that government ignores those redresses and continues on a clear path to further abuse its position, it must be forced to comply.
"The constitution does give the government the power to make and enforce laws to restrict individual liberties."
You failed to cite where it does this.
"...no rights outlined are limitless including 2A."
An authoritative entity of a tyrannical government authorizes the government to be tyrannical. If that sounds reasonable to you, then... Well, I'm right because rsracrs19 agrees with me, therefore I must be right and you have to be wrong. Does that line of logic still sound reasonable?
How about Federalist No. 84, "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."
This sounds exactly like what you're doing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jimbob3030 Let's say he borrows $100K to live off of for a year and needs to pay $110,471.31. He has to live another year, so he has to get a loan for the principle + interest + $100K for a $210,471.31 loan. Just 4 short years in, he's already paying $48,935.41 in interest throughout the year, taking up half of his $100,000 he's living off of. So he increases his principle to $150,000. In two more years, he's paying $100,000 in interest, so he raises the principle to $200,000. After a couple more years, he's paying $165K in interest, so he has to raise the principle to $265K. Now in the very next year, he's paying $210K in interest, so now he has to raise the principle to $300K. You see the problem here with how you think this is done, yes? I already know what you think I don't know. I'm just here to try to help you get educated.
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
-
@devendrabutthurt What I'm saying for a recourse is that you can personally sue board members, for instance, which you can't now because the government has set up laws to protect them. Instead of the board members themselves having skin in the game, it's just the corporation that pays out of its coffers. The worst that'll happen in most cases today is that someone will be fired, with that golden parachute of course.
And of course there's lax enforcement, because, despite the fact that there's supposedly a limit on PAC contributions of $5,000 from a corporation or labor union, we both know that doesn't happen. And why does that happen? Because it is a loophole that has benefited probably just about every single person sitting on Capital Hill. This government isn't accountable to the people. Both Democrats and Republicans have their constituents completely snowballed.
Tyranny of the majority is direct democracy specifically. That's why we have a constitutional republic, an indirect democracy, not a direct democracy, with a constitution to protect the minority. Read Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, and try to come back with a straight face that they have actually stayed within those exhaustively enumerated powers.
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
-
@YearTrumpReichDealWithItLibs Jefferson wrote in 1817 to John Manners, "My opinion on the right of Expatriation has been so long ago as the year 1776. consigned to record in the Act of the Virginia code, drawn by myself recognising the right expressly, & prescribing the mode of exercising it. the evidence of this natural right, like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason but is impressed on the sense of every man. we do not claim these under the Charter of kings or legislators; but under the king of kings[.] if he has made it a law in the nature of man to pursue his own happiness, he has left him free in the choice of place as well as mode: and we may safely call on the whole body of English Jurists to produce the map on which Nature has traced, for each individual, the geographical line which she forbids him to cross in pursuit of happiness. it certainly does not exist in his mind. where then is it? I believe too I might safely affirm that there is not another nation, civilized or savage which has ever denied this natural right. I doubt if there is another which refuses it’s exercise. I know it is allowed in some of the most respectable countries of continental Europe; nor have I ever heard of one in which it was not. how it is among our savage neighbors, who have no law but that of Nature, we all know."
I don't think that there's any room for you to argue from here against immigration being a natural right, and that just as liberals seek to tread on our natural right to arms to seek safety, the right treads on others' natural rights to migrate here, similarly in the name of safety.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
ac1d, the prefatory clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is referencing a change in definition of what the militia is. The Constitution changed the militia to be a select group trained and at the beck and call of the newly formed Federal government in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution. That's why the Second Amendment was written to ensure that the individual, regardless of militia status, wouldn't be disarmed since the militia was no longer technically the entire body of the people.
There was never even a question among both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists that this was a natural right that would never be under the power of any government to infringe on. In fact, the Federalist Hamilton wrote (recorded as the Federalist paper #84) that he was concerned that writing the Bill of Rights could be construed to give limitations to the rights or power to government to infringe on those rights when there was none. Oddly enough, Hamilton was right in a way, but he was also very wrong, because if it weren't for the Second Amendment we'd be completely disarmed.
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
-
@iankent1665 You made a claim when you said, "TYT will never call them out though." That gives you the burden of proof to prove a negative. It's not being thrust upon you by anyone else.
I see similar arguments from atheists to theists all the time, and it's an easy pitfall to fall into. "There is no god," comes with a burden of proof to prove that negative. "There is no evidence of the existence of a god," does not. If you had said that you haven't seen TYT call them out, then you wouldn't have a burden of proof, but because you made the claim by saying that they won't, also inferring that they hadn't, then that claim comes with it a burden of proof. Sometimes it's possible to prove a negative. In this case, I don't see how you can, however. I believe that you messed up on this one.
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
-
Michael Mancheim, I know you never said semi-automatics. That's why I was correcting you. And there is no difference. Congress nor anyone else has the legitimate power to make any laws regarding this matter. Yes, they already do, and it's a clear usurpation of power. If you think Congress has this power, please tell me in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution where they are granted this power.
In regards to you saying that I didn't read your post, you're clearly projecting, because I gave two quotes from currently seated senators that their goal was to ban and confiscate. I'll copy and paste them with links to the videos even!
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, picking up every one of them, 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it." -Dianne Feinstein.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY
"[In response to the question if an assault weapon ban is just the beginning] Oh, absolutely. I mean, I'm against handguns."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVz2lHODQvs
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
-
Aj Meyer, I wish you knew how ignorant you were. Just because communists haven't done anything doesn't mean they're not the most likely to start a full nationwide rebellion. Also, militias are largely not white nationalist nor white supremacist. Oath Keepers, 3%'ers, Arizona Border Recon, Light Foot Militia, Michigan Militia, Militia of Montana, Missouri Citizen Militia, Ohio Defense Force and so many more having nothing to do with race, ethnicity or anything else.
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
-
Then why did you even bring up unemployment if that wasn't your issue? No one brought it up before you.
Healthcare in the US isn't an issue. If you think it is, get out there and see what's available for the needy. There's already a great system for taking care of everyone out there. The economic policies make the economic growth, and that's why it's important. Specifically, Republicans support supply-side economics and Democrats support demand-side economics. The further you get from the center, the more exclusionary those sides become. It's important to have as much economic growth as possible, not just have growth. Economic concerns are significantly more important, in fact, than social concerns, which I'm not sure why the government is even involved in.
We need to promote growth. We live on loans. If we have no growth, we have no way to pay our bills. The greater the growth the more stable we are. If we stop growing, bad things will happen.
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
-
The solution is to take all humans on a case-by-case basis. Not generalized and unrelated traits based, for instance, on their job or skin color. I thought that would be clearly inferred since I have a problem with these sweeping generalizations and that would be the opposite of sweeping generalizations. If you want to say someone from the KKK is a white supremacist, that's valid because that's the exact reason everyone who is a member of the KKK joins. A person doesn't become a police officer just because they're a white supremacist or only white supremacists join the police force. It's complete logical fallacy. It doesn't matter if it's a majority, a minority, a supermajority, or anywhere in between, the police are not white supremacists and many different people join for many different reasons and just as many will react differently to every situation. Just because we get failure bias through the media (that is, only encounters that end badly) doesn't mean this is every officer.
And when we see successful encounters, on this channel, Cenk is always saying, "If that was a black person, they would have just shot him." Well, Cenk, you don't know the officer in this video. You don't know what he would have done. Maybe it would have been different, but if you're trying to make this officer out who you're applauding on doing his job well seem like a racist that would have shot if the suspect's skin was a different color, then you're exhibiting centuries of the worst way of thinking humanity has to offer.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Bullet Craft, further investment into higher education would likely not be beneficial to the economy, or at extremely diminishing returns. They wish to pay for people's health today at the expense of advancements of tomorrow. Regulating the environment can be worthwhile, but not at great expense to industry. It also will likely not be a "hell-planet" as you put it. In fact, at least one climate model shows much more arable land as the planet warms. And there is the fact that regardless of human activity, the planet will indeed get much warmer than it is today. In exchange for your environmental watchdogging, you slow our rate of getting off this dying rock, and out of this dying system.
Afghanistan was in response to 9/11, and it was the right response. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but 9/11 was used to underscore the severity of the matter since Saddam was not working with weapons inspectors as agreed upon after the Gulf War treaty. If you're not too young to remember, Clinton was even rocketing and bombing Baghdad because of the nation's refusal to work with UN weapons inspectors. But you probably have no idea how it was all connected, just some fuzzy ideas.
A population that is not working but capable of it, isn't contributing whether they're healthy or not. Education is already invested in. We have government-backed loans and grants that give the privilege of education up front for payment in arrears.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You're vastly oversimplifying things. First and foremost, it's important to know that sugars are absolutely necessary for your continued existence. If your body had no sugar, you would slip into a coma and die within minutes or hours. The body can technically synthesize sugars from protein through the liver, but it's very expensive to do and can lead to liver failure. The only people in the world that are capable of living extended periods without access to any sugar are the far northern American natives who've evolved larger livers to handle the workload of converting their nearly 100% protein and fat diet to sugar.
There are two basic types of sugars: complex and simple sugars. Complex sugars are found in starchy foods such as grains, cereals and starchy vegetables such as peas or potatoes, while simple sugars include table sugar and sugar in fruit and milk products. All of these sugars are fine for you, though it requires more energy for the body to breakdown complex sugars into glucose for the body to use. Simple sugars are much easier to process. As with all dietary requirements, moderation is the key. When your body doesn't use all of the glucose you take in, it stores it for later in the form of glycogen which is stored in skeletal muscles and the liver and can lead to fatty liver and also triacylglycerols which is what's stored in fat cells. If you consume enough energy dependent on how much you take in (in caloric balance, so to speak), then you won't suffer these detrimental effects.
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
-
Brandi, I just gave an example of how this video is dishonest. Did you read my whole comment? It's the entire second paragraph. I don't trust news at all. I take everything they write and report on with a grain of salt. I do listen and read a wide variety of news. I watch MSNBC, Vox, Current TV, TYT, FOX News, and CNN, and I listen to various commentators including NPR, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck. I read Huff Post, Washington Post, The Guardian, Al Jazeera America (read/watch), Bloomberg. Those are a sampling.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@professorswaggamuffin7572 That depends on the cost of living where you're at whether it's too low or not.
Yes, they have to raise prices. The food industry runs on a very thin profit margins. They cannot simply absorb the costs of higher pay with profits. The customer must pay more. I've done my due diligence on this including comparing tipping and non-tipping countries, cost of food, employee pay, etc. Without tipping, prices for food is higher, employee pay is generally lower, fewer people are eating out. Even when it comes to a relatively poor country like Chile, where tipping is strong in their culture, a lot more of their people eat out regularly as compared to someplace like Australia where tipping is not at all customary. That means that for a place like Chile, making up for the base cost of operations is spread out over more dishes served, leading to lower cost per dish not just for lower employee pay from the restaurant but also because the cost of operation per dish is much lower.
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
-
For the record, this is what Trump has done to try to lower the costs from drug companies:
"One proposal ... ended the so-called 'gag clauses' that prevent pharmacists from discussing lower-cost drug alternatives with consumers. It was signed into law by Trump earlier this year." -Consumer Reports
"...require companies to include prices in TV drug ads." -Consumer Reports
"Yesterday, the Trump administration unveiled a new proposal to substantially reduce the price of certain costly drugs administered under Medicare, by linking what Medicare pays for these drugs to what other industrialized countries pay." -Forbes
"...the administration has proposed benchmarking at least some drugs purchased by the federal government for Medicare Part B plans against prices in other nations, such as Canada, France, Germany, Sweden, and the U.K. Health and Human Services estimates that prices in these countries are, on average, 44 percent lower." -Consumer Reports
"Limit Hidden Payments Between Drug Companies and Industry Middlemen" -Consumer Reports
"Trump Proposes to Lower Drug Prices by Basing Them on Other Countries’ Costs" -New York Times
You can argue the efficacy or impotency of such legislation, but you can't say he's done nothing.
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
-
@theregressive9978 It's a natural right to expatriate. Borders aren't there to keep people out but to establish a region by which a government operates with its granted authority, and you spat in the face of America's founding values when you talk about immigration in this way. Let me quote Thomas Jefferson, "Our ancestors... possessed a right, which nature has given to all men, of departing from the country in which chance, not choice, has placed them, of going in quest of new habitations, and of there establishing new societies, under such laws and regulations as, to them, shall seem most likely to promote public happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America
This is why Congress isn't given the power in the Constitution to regulate on immigration -- it's a natural right. The result isn't "no country". Hell, for the first 100 years of the United States, there were no immigration laws. Why? Because Congress didn't have the power to limit it.
And the UN? That horrible exemplar of liberty that doesn't even recognize one's own right to arms to defend his life and property? Yeah, you'll have to excuse me if I don't hold them in high regard when it comes to matters related to liberty.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You needed to be instructed on Blackstone's ratio, and how that outlines what's wrong with your desires with how it affects the innocent:
"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape, than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long & generally approv’d, never that I know of controverted. Even the sanguinary Author of the Thoughts agrees to it page 163, adding well, that 'the very Thought of injured Innocence, and much more that of suffering Innocence, must awaken all our tenderest and most compassionate Feelings, and at the same time raise our highest Indignation against the Instruments of it.'— But, he adds, 'there is no Danger of either from a strict Adherence to the Laws.'— Really?— Is it then impossible to make an unjust Law?— And if the Law it self be unjust, may it not be the very 'Instrument' which ought to 'raise the Author’s, & every body’s, highest Indignation.'" -Benjamin Franklin to Benjamin Vaughan, 14 March 1785
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
ufutz, "no, liberals don't want to take your guns. Thats bullshit propaganda."
Oh really? So when Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said in 1994 when she passed the 1994 Assault Weapons ban, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate, picking up every last one of them, 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have," that's just propaganda?
And Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) when told that there can't be a handgun ban passed with the Second Amendment as it's written, she stated, "I don't know that we can't." That's just propaganda, too, right?
Even if one gun were taken from one citizen, it would be too much. If one citizen with full rights (i.e. not on parole or otherwise detained by officials) is prevented from owning a firearm, then it's too much. The Second Amendment is a protection against government intrusion on basic human rights. The right to arm oneself is one of those basic rights. Even when Shay's Rebellion was happening and there were people being shot and killed with the most modern military rifles of the time, the response wasn't to call the Second Amendment a mistake, but it prompted Jefferson to write, "The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Afghan mujahideen was already happening when the US opted to support it. Salafi is the state religion of Saudi Arabia and has been for like 200 years. Islam had already been radicalizing from the fall of the Ottoman Empire in World War I. Osama bin Laden was already talking about hate against the United States during the Soviet-Afghan war. It was right after that war ended that Osama got himself exiled from Saudi Arabia for speaking out against the Sauds for letting "infidels" occupy the two holiest cities of Islam (Mecca & Medina) during Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. This is absolute word salad that is backed by nothing and easily disproven, Cenk. You honestly have no idea what you're talking about.
As far as Iran, the US helped depose Mossadegh. Yes, the half-truth is that he was democratically elected, but he stripped the Shah of Iran of his powers (a friend of the US), took increasingly authoritarian powers for himself, and finally dissolved the Iranian parliament. This was because he reneged the nation's deal with England on their oil, England blockaded their trade and imposed sanctions, the people under him suffered, and he became increasingly unpopular. And this was long before the US even became involved. In fact, we supported Iran in its plight at first.
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
-
A republic is a type of democracy--specifically an indirect democracy. This isn't a dichotomy between democracy and not democracy; it's two different types of democracy: direct and indirect. A republic as well as a constitution serve as buffers to protect the minority from the whims of the people at large--half of which are quite literally dumber than the other half, and in which we have insanity that permeates the smarter half. A simple democracy, on this grounds, is worrisome for large civilizations. A majority of people will always be dumber and/or crazy. Indirect democracies dampen the effects of those people. Our presidential elections that result in presidents like Trump are exactly what's wrong with the popular vote: it becomes a popularity contest among the worst of us.
There are issues with the system that could use adjustment, especially when it comes to equality between the states and the dichotomous pseudo-autocracy, but it is so much better than any kind of direct democracy.
We are a federalist system, but a lot of people seem to lean heavily that we're only a single, national government. The ultimate power in the nation is with the states, but there are those that try to shoehorn the federal government into that position, which is constitutionally improper. As such, attitudes that spawn from that see a broken system. Yes, to their understanding of the system, the system is broken, but it's not broken as it actually exists. The fundamental issue I see is that as this attitude continues to flourish, systems are legislatively put into place based on that attitude. Following this, the Constitution is then reverse engineered ("interpreted") to support it. This leads to a centralization of power which does indeed break the system.
2
-
I'll just copy and paste what I posted to reply to another person explaining more of the nuance regarding sugar:
You're vastly oversimplifying things. First and foremost, it's important to know that sugars are absolutely necessary for your continued existence. If your body had no sugar, you would slip into a coma and die within minutes or hours. The body can technically synthesize sugars from protein through the liver, but it's very expensive to do and can lead to liver failure. The only people in the world that are capable of living extended periods without access to any sugar are the far northern American natives who've evolved larger livers to handle the workload of converting their nearly 100% protein and fat diet to sugar.
There are two basic types of sugars: complex and simple sugars. Complex sugars are found in starchy foods such as grains, cereals and starchy vegetables such as peas or potatoes, while simple sugars include table sugar and sugar in fruit and milk products. All of these sugars are fine for you, though it requires more energy for the body to breakdown complex sugars into glucose for the body to use. Simple sugars are much easier to process. As with all dietary requirements, moderation is the key. When your body doesn't use all of the glucose you take in, it stores it for later in the form of glycogen which is stored in skeletal muscles and the liver and can lead to fatty liver and also triacylglycerols which is what's stored in fat cells. If you consume enough energy dependent on how much you take in (in caloric balance, so to speak), then you won't suffer these detrimental effects.
2
-
lolztou, their fair share? Let me share something from the Congressional Business Office with you: In 2013, households in the top, middle, and bottom income quintiles received 53, 14, and 5 percent, respectively, of the nation's before-tax income and paid 69, 9, and 1 percent, respectively, of federal taxes.
So the rich are the only ones paying MORE than their fair share in these examples. Not the middle class, not the poor, the rich. They are the only ones paying MORE TAXES than their receive as a share of the income.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
JNagarya, you're very ignorant on this subject. The Bill of Rights are all natural rights. They're listed as they're the most frequently attacked natural rights. And you're right that it might not have been necessary. In fact, Hamilton argued in The Federalist #84 that no matter their wording, a Bill of Rights may be used as a "colorable" pretext to grant the government powers that it doesn't have. This is exactly what you're doing.
Furthermore, natural rights has nothing to do whether any god exists or not. Natural rights are objective reality of pre--government human existence.
Gun ownership is, in objective fact, a right. What your example addresses is how government provides justice to individuals' natural rights. Our rights extend to the point where we infringe on another's rights. For instance, if you rob a bank, you have infringed on others' natural right to ownership of property. Therefore, the government provides justice for this infringement by removing the rights of the criminal through, and this is a very important part, due process of law .
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
-
@patjohnston4047 Active shooters don't only aim at people rushing them, and then not shoot anyone who peels off the attack. With the first person shot, Rosenbaum, he was chasing Rittenhouse. After that, when Rittenhouse was attempting to run to police, Rittenhouse was punched in the head, and he continued to trying to run. He fell. The first person to Rittenhouse was a man in a jersey. Rittenhouse brought the gun to bear on jerseyman. Jerseyman put his hands up and hopped backwards. Rittenhouse did not fire and brought his firearm down. That's not the actions of an active shooter, and a calm, reasonable mind can clearly see that. Therefore, there's no excuse for self defense for Huber, jumpkickman, nor Grosskreutz.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Joseph Burchanowski, when I say "very close to viable nuclear fusion energy", I mean within the efficiency spectrum of where we started and our first target of recirculation. I definitely agree with your stance on nuclear fission for today, but it's going to be a lot easier to sell fusion since the media has been going on and on about how it's the Holy Grail of safe, clean energy.
It's very hard to reeducate the public, unfortunately. Many people don't understand that we evolved being bathed in radiation, and our bodies are very efficient at dealing with it. They don't understand that one of our fundamental building blocks is radioactive (Potassium-40)... We've learned so much watching Chernobyl, Nagasaki, Three Mile Island and Hiroshima about the true effects of nuclear contamination, which isn't a huge effect at all, and those are worst case scenarios. I just wish people weren't so close-minded. This whole fear of radiation makes me think of getting people worked up over "deadly" dihydrogen monoxide.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Cokez, liberty and freedom are inherently dangerous. 1984 is safety. We could eliminate 100% of crime, just have a tracking chip inserted into you, wear a body cam 24/7, submit plans for travel for approval prior to leaving your home, expect to be questioned by police if you go outside of those plans, expect to consistently show your documentation and licenses on random police checks, support cameras in every home, submit for authorization for each specific site on the internet you want to access, have all internet traffic monitored, have angry speech tightly regulated -- especially when targeted at another person, allow police to search any residence at any time in random searches for contraband, and so much more.
I will take liberty with all of its dangers than 1984 with all of its oppression. If you want 1984, take it to someplace that is not the Land of the Free.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@WayneMercy You just now learned this law exists, you Googled it because you needed an aid in understanding it, and you're that confident you understand it well enough at this time to determine whether what you found was correct or incorrect? Hold on, let me include the rest of this section of federal law, because I just quoted the portion of it that matters here... You're the first person I've met who has ever interpreted it this way.
In its entirety, it reads...
"10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
"(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
"(b)The classes of the militia are—
.....(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
.....(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
If (a) is only about those in the National Guard, why does (b)(2) exist? Why would (a) not describe those to be included in (b)(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
-
A couple of dozen studies at least have shown statistically significant reductions in general severity of symptoms and mortality in both prophylactic use and post-infection use. See, for instance, "Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19" which is a meta-analysis of 18 studies, finding that "large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified."
I'm not an anti-vaxxer by far. I'm vaccinated in fact: mRNA and both doses and am going to get my booster. However, what I really don't like is being lied to because someone in authority feels it's "for the greater good." If they're worried about further vaccine hesitancy, I get that concern, but people of science can't lie. This breaks every bit of expectation of ethics and integrity that exist, it rightfully undermines trust in the system, and it damages everything science in the long run.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
That's because they use nonsense figures. The source for all of these hundreds of mass shootings per year claims is from one source. This source states that there 1,500–2,000 defensive gun uses per year. Research says otherwise, showing, at the very least, 50,000–80,000 defensive gun uses per year and with high estimates being 2 million per year (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bae4/8265900c8377287ece93852b30c68ac22f38.pdf).
On the source, you have to get to page 8 before you even get to a shooting where anyone died. With 25 results per page, that’s almost 200 of the 366 mass shootings where no one died. I went to look at the first result on page 8 just to get an idea if they’re really reporting on mass shootings as we think of them or they’re padding the numbers. The case I looked at was a shooting in San Angelo. It was a guy that was pissed off because people were calling him out on a hit-and-run. Not what I think of when I think of a mass shooting.
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/incident/1539557
https://www.gosanangelo.com/story/news/crime/2019/11/01/four-injured-during-drive-shooting-near-san-angelo-nightclub/4120719002/
The second one I looked up was the next one down. It started with a drug deal and the killers came back to rob the residence. It was an armed robbery, not a mass shooting.
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/incident/1291779
https://www.kait8.com/2019/01/03/officers-way-shooting-scene/
They are dishonest figures.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Erik, Karen's quintile receives 5% of the income annually, according to the Congressional Budget Office. According to the same source, her quintile pays 1% of the taxes. According to the 2004 US Census, there are 25.1 million households in this quintile. As you said, the US spends about $4 trillion a year, but income taxes collected account for about $2.4 trillion in income. That would be $184 out of each biweekly check of $628, if she's making minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. Now, she's paying for welfare, unemployment insurance and others among the taxes she pays. Let's nix the welfare programs of retirement social security, unemployment insurance and minimize spending on others. We can cut our spending by 30%, so instead of needing to collect $2.4 in taxes we would be collecting $1.7 trillion in taxes. That would reduce Karen's tax liability to $140 every two weeks.
That leaves Karen $976 to budget with in the month. As you've established, she could find an apartment for a median of $750. If she rooms up with one person, that gives her $600 remaining. Figuring about half of $150 a month for electricity for phone, that means she has $525 left over for whatever else. She can put $100 away in a rainy day fund. Get mass transit for about $75 a month. I've budgeted $4 a day on food for two people and was able to eat three times a day very well. That leaves $200 remaining for any incidentals. If Karen is making $25,000 a year, she's going to be doing REALLY well. That's an additional $10,000 a year to work with and no additional taxes since she's still in the lowest quintile. Of course, there can be added granularity beyond quintiles therein so that Karen making $15,000 at minimum wage pays a much lower percentage than Karen making $25,000 -- perhaps on their 1/10th or 1/20th percentile range. The more granularity we could give it, the more fair it would be, and Karen making $15,080 a year pays even less, and the scale goes up linearly, rather than progressively.
Now taxes right now do take from the work of one and give to the non-work of another, but that isn't how it should be. Taxes should go to places that provide essential services (actually getting something for the taxes spent) to our civilization, not to try to lift us up by our own bootstraps. Life is unequal, but that doesn't mean our laws should be. And people still wanting to be successful doesn't undermine that moral concept.
Whether I'm dead or not, I have earned these things, and it is my choice to do with these things what I will. It is not for someone else to swoop in and take the fortune and life I've created for my family and generations to come simply because I died. I find it reprehensible that the government should swirl around my death bed like a vulture just waiting to take the fortune from my survivors that I've worked so hard for. Tell me, if I donate my entire estate to the poor, will the government take it then, because the poor didn't earn it? It's my things, it's my right to choose what happens with it after I die.
So indulge me: what will Karen not have available to her as an opportunity because of her early life? Removing welfare programs is not removing her opportunities. Welfare programs are not opportunities. There should be no equality of outcome. Hard work doesn't always mean success, but no work or light work should always mean mediocrity. As Benjamin Franklin wrote, "There never was a good knife made of bad steel." No, equality of outcome is a ludicrous concept. I don't care if you sit down and play guitar every day of your life, if you have no hands, you're never going to have an equality of outcome. That's just nature and reality. Karen will decide for herself what she's going to do with her life. Her circumstances in no way impact that -- only she herself makes those choices. If you want to argue predetermination from circumstances, then we should be lab-raising children, because that's the only way you'll have the equality you're seeking, since you can't be guaranteed equality with all kinds of differing parenting styles.
Now, I don't think that she should be economically forced anywhere. However, we don't have control over how those cities and states govern themselves. I think it's ridiculous that measures aren't being taken to fix the housing market in, for instance, Los Angeles. Foreign investors coming in, buying up property as a method for laundering money or for investment. Properties all over not for sale and unoccupied. It's tragic. However, that's an entirely different topic. Even people making $40K a year are struggling in Los Angeles. People making $60K a year are struggling in Los Angeles. It's a very messed up place right now because of its fiscal policies.
But if she does move, why would Karen just throw a dart blindly at a map? We're in the information age. Karen can apply for and get a job anywhere in the nation without leaving home, then choose where to move to from there. In fact, if she opens up the entire nation, there's a good chance she could find a very nice job making $15 an hour to start.
Just as a final note, I said that you can get a 2- or 3-bedroom in most places for about $800. You found an example that showed a 2-bedroom for $750 on average. I just don't understand how you think this disproves my point.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@keithwilson1554 Feel free to tell me how this jibes with George Mason's address at the Virginia Ratifying Convention:
"No man has greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valour. But when once a standing army is established, in any country, the people lose their liberty. When against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defense — yeomanry, unskillful & unarmed, what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies? An instance within the memory of some of this house, — will shew us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British parliament was advised by an artful man, [Sir William Keith] who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people. That it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. But that they should not do it openly; but to weaken them and let them sink gradually, by totally defusing and neglecting the militia. [Here MR. MASON quoted sundry passages to this effect.] This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed?"
The Founders were familiar with repeating arms. The Belton flintlock, for instance, could dispense of 10, 15, or 20 rounds in as little as 5 seconds, which would be pretty close to the output of an AR-15.
"A person who actually goes Hunting for his food again doesn't need an Automatic Rifle with large Magazines to pump his Prey full of Lead"
Try hunting hogs or bears sometime. The AR-15 and AR-10 are very good for such hunting.
"No one needs pistols as more people are harmed by them (Suicides, Shooting Innocent bystanders or themselves) they offer little protection and if they were banned in urban areas and say you were jailed for 5 or 10 years if caught with one you wouldn't need much protection."
I would feel for the women who are nowhere near as strong as their rapist/murderers, those victims who were hopelessly outnumbered, those victims who are infirm, those victims who are simply not as strong as their attacker for whatever reason, etc. But then, it's not really about saving lives, is it? It's just about not having your nose rubbed in the lives lost.
Also, firearms are used in 55,000 to 2.5 million defensive cases a year -- so more often than they are used to take an innocent life or for suicide. I find it dubious that suicides would decline a great deal.
"They get their Arms from the Super Corrupt Arms Dealers who buy off the Manufacturers who don't care where they end up."
They get their arms largely from Russia and a bit from Operation Cyclone.
"Take the FEAR out of your Life then Guns will seem to be Overkill like most Countries do."
Without fear, there's no life. You don't accept your fear, your fear rules you. Look to the authoritarian extreme it's taken you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
George Washington predicted Trump. And what is the cause? The damn parties you stupid fucks can't help but constantly promote.
"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
"This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
"Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
"It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
"There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."
-George Washington's Farewell Address 1796
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MrMarca4444 Why do I watch this channel? Because I like to keep my finger on the pulse of extremist views. I watch/listen to TYT, Vox, CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, Rush Limbaugh (or whoever happens to be hosting the show for that day now), Glenn Beck, and some more minor "journalists" that do more opining and narration than journalism just so I understand why a large portion of the population thinks what they think. If I want actual journalism, I go to the Associated Press.
Trump should be a lesson on why populism is bad. As far as the conspiracy theories, I'm familiar with the claims, but claims are not proof of anything. If one seeks conspiracies, they will find them. I don't see evidence sufficient to prove anything. As far as left-wing/right-wing violence, I really couldn't care less. I live in Portland, Oregon, and for me, it's not the right-wing that has my wife and me in fear.
Also, if you listen to only left-wing media, you will believe Trump was worse than he actually was. Incompetent, absolutely, but not evil. I'd done a search one day on Google some time back, and I saw the three-levels of journalistic integrity in the top three results, from no journalistic integrity to full journalistic integrity:
CNN headlining, "Trump -- once again -- fails to condemn the alt-right" Aug 13, 2017
Reuters headlines, "Trump denounces white supremacy after shootings, cites video games and internet" Aug 5, 2019
AP headlines, "Trump again disavows alt-right, white supremacists" Nov 22, 2016
The dates are important there. Notice that back in 2016, AP was already writing "again". CNN outright lies almost a year later. Reuters omits any indication that he has done so in the past, making it seem at first blush to be the first time he did it in 2019.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
A well regulated militia: males between the ages of 17 and 45 by US Code, armed and trained. Trained? Article I, Section 8, Item 16 of the US Constitution: "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia"
So why does the Second exist? As George Mason said at the Virginia Ratifying Convention:
"Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British parliament was advised by an artful man, [Sir William Keith] who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people. That it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. But that they should not do it openly; but to weaken them and let them sink gradually, by totally defusing and neglecting the militia. [Here MR. MASON quoted sundry passages to this effect.] This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed?"
So he fathered the Second Amendment to ensure we could maintain our own arms even if our new federal government did to us what the English government did to them.
Maybe you should get off YouTube and go read some history. I don't mean pre-digested shat out history feeding you a narrative. I mean things like the Federalist Papers, John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, Addresses at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, letters of the various Founders and Framers, that kind of thing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Part of regulation of markets is that, much like libertarians, the markets have not demonstrated competency at self regulating any facet of their function."
You don't mind that Bob buys a few of lawnmowers, maintains them and works to get yards to mow while making an agreement with some people to share with a mutually agreeable amount of profit, with healthy worker competition due to many other people trying to run the same businesses, to help him mow more yards. That's capitalism.
What you hate is when Bob creates a legal entity which uses other people's money to buy a huge amount of lawn mowers, that he pays people with others' money to operate. He then neglects the maintenance of these lawnmowers so they're injuring employees and damaging the environment with oil leaks and the like, while he's free from legal responsibility for that neglect. Then he uses the laws established try to to fix what is due to his neglect to make it artificially harder for competition to enter the market, because while it's easy for Bob's volume to absorb the extra cost to be up to code, the red tape overburdens any new competition in his market. All the while, he's getting more money from new people to expand his corporate empire more to be keep happy the people he initially took money from. That's corporatism, not capitalism. It's a top-down, publicly-funded entity with little-to-no individual responsibility in leadership or member. In short, it's a quasi-socialist institution disguised as a capitalist entity.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Jrsydvl, that's very inaccurate and warped. Being stuck behind a slow person has nothing to do with a law. If you want to drive down the highway the wrong way (highly unlikely to happen but let's say you do), you bear an extra burden of responsibility because of what happens due to that choice. So if you're going the wrong way down the road and you kill someone, it's negligent homicide rather than a tragic accident that you're not criminally liable for. If I were in charge, I would state that speed limits and rules of the road must only be guidelines to objectively determine criminal negligence in case something goes wrong and an action results in an infringement. To enforce those rules would be infringements on the natural right to move about. No one would be pulled over for infractions, but people may be criminally responsible for what happens because of their actions which had exceeded the limits of those rules. If you want to drink and drive, go for it, but know that if you kill someone while past the "legal limit", then you will be charged with murder. It's about accepting responsibility for choices that lead to an undesirable outcome and working to promote people to make better decisions -- not force people to do anything that infringes on their natural rights.
You haven't figured it out, but this is a libertarian society that shares my values. It's codified in the writings of the Founding Fathers, including the US Constitution which lays the foundation for all laws that can legitimately be passed in this nation. You're the one that needs to move to a society that values collectivism over liberty -- and you have a huge number of nations to choose from. This is the only nation of this kind around. I have no other options but to try to spread education on the fundamental philosophies of the social contract of this nation to try to get it back to what it is supposed to be -- true to the Constitution. Leave us in peace if that's not what you want, but don't try to change our oasis of our ideals to be like everyone else when you have the option of going to, literally, anyone else.
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
-
That's not at all what it means. The Bill of Rights is a short, incomplete list of the most important natural rights. Natural rights do not come with any qualifiers. The preamble of the Second Amendment is referring to Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution which enumerates the power of Congress, one of them being the training and funding of the militia. The Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that this wouldn't be used as a pretense for disarming people who were not part of that select group.
But you're exhibiting exactly what Alexander Hamilton warned about in Federalist #84 when he wrote, "They [a bill of rights] would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."
Learn your history.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@thomasridley8675 I've never shot anyone, because that's what you're asking. I have broken up knife fights and fist fights in the course of my work, but not with my gun, with my cell advising they need to split up and go their own ways or I'm going to call the police. If it ever comes to the time when I do need to shoot someone to preserve my own life, then it's a little late to take a jaunt down to the gun shop, isn't it? I carry because I'm humble enough to know that I'm not the strongest guy around and I know I'm not invulnerable.
It's not guns I'm too concerned about nearly as much as knives and shivs. I'm also not one who gets entangled with police very often, but I'm practiced on what to do if I have to shoot someone in self defense or if I, for instance, have a tail light out and do have a run-in with an officer. Officers are generally supportive of people carrying arms for their defense. They just want to get home at the end of the day, too. Just let them know you're concealed carrying and ask how they'd like to proceed. Make slow, purposeful movements. It's very simple as long as you're not a shifty crackhead.
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
-
@petercrites9311 George Mason, father of the Second Amendment, shuts down your argument within his address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention:
"No man has greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valour. But when once a standing army is established, in any country, the people lose their liberty. When against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defense — yeomanry, unskillful & unarmed, what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies? An instance within the memory of some of this house, — will shew us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British parliament was advised by an artful man, [Sir William Keith] who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people. That it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. But that they should not do it openly; but to weaken them and let them sink gradually, by totally defusing and neglecting the militia. [Here MR. MASON quoted sundry passages to this effect.] This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed?"
Also, the Continental Congress knew guns like the AR-15 was coming. They were presented with the Belton Flintlock for review. It was declined because they couldn't afford the price. It was a musket that could dispense with 20 rounds within 5 seconds without having to be reloaded. Sounds very close to an AR-15 to me.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@audimaster5000 You say the Second isn't about checks and balances, but you're sorely misinformed in what you actually take from it. Here's a quote from James Madison from Federalist 46 (accentuation by me):
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
George Mason has a mic to drop on you too:
No man has greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valour. But when once a standing army is established, in any country, the people lose their liberty. When against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defense — yeomanry, unskillful & unarmed, what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies? An instance within the memory of some of this house, — will shew us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British parliament was advised by an artful man, [Sir William Keith] who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people. That it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. But that they should not do it openly; but to weaken them and let them sink gradually, by totally defusing and neglecting the militia. [Here MR. MASON quoted sundry passages to this effect.] This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed?
Oh, and Benjamin Franklin:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition...
Jefferson of course can't stay out of the argument:
and can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. they were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. god forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. the people cannot be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it's natural manure.
Hamilton also had a bit to say:
A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped...
I could keep going on, but the point is that people were supposed to be armed to make it easy for them to turn to natural law to correct their own government as much as anything else.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Trump has made it rather clear he doesn't want anyone who isn't white to have any rights, much less living here."
Oh my. That has to be the most ignorant thing you've said so far.
"Also why should they be deported? Have they done anything to you specially? Did an immigrant shoot your dog? Steal your car? Rape your man? Or are you just jealous that they are more successful than you are?"
ILLEGAL immigrant. I have no issue with immigrants, and to many conservatives chagrins, even if they're from a gasp predominantly Muslim nation. We're a free nation. We don't want 1984, and that's why we support freedom and rights as a matter of strong principle.
Now did they do anything to me? No. But they are stealing opportunity from their fellow countrymen and others who want to come here to go to school, work, attain citizenship, etc. and are going through the process and paying the fees to do it legally. By their actions, they also promote others, families even, to partake in the highly dangerous activity of having themselves smuggled into the nation rather than having the opportunity to come here legally stolen from them.
"Unless they are a criminal then there is no reason to deport them..."
If they stole opportunity from someone paying and doing work to come here as an alien by illegally entering the US, then yes, they are a criminal.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
A couple of dozen studies at least have shown statistically significant reductions in general severity of symptoms and mortality in both prophylactic use and post-infection use. See, for instance, "Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19" which is a meta-analysis of 18 studies, finding that "large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified."
I'm not an anti-vaxxer by far. I'm vaccinated in fact: mRNA and both doses and am going to get my booster. However, what I really don't like is being lied to because someone in authority feels it's "for the greater good." If they're worried about further vaccine hesitancy, I get that concern, but people of science can't lie. This breaks every bit of expectation of ethics and integrity that exist, it rightfully undermines trust in the system, and it damages everything in the long run.
2
-
2
-
at $4 more an hour over minimum wage, that's $23,400 a year. Assuming you're paid biweekly and you're currently getting exactly $20,000 (which is higher than what you said), that's an additional $140 per paycheck. Chances are you're single since you're talking about a studio apartment. Typically, you'll pay around 20% in taxes. That's about $4,500 a year you pay in taxes. That's almost $190 on each biweekly paycheck, or an additional, close to, $400 a month. I don't see why you think that's not a problem. On top of it, as I said, without payroll taxes, your dollar goes even further, so its value is more than the nominal value of $400 today.
There has only been one time in history when the purchasing power of minimum wage was higher, and that was a very short period after a minimum wage hike in the late 60's and lasted only a couple of years. You're not taking any risk, so you get a fixed amount for your role. You don't share profit with those who took all the risk that made the job that is just one in a million for you. If you want a bigger share of the pie, take the risk. That's open to you. If you don't want to take the risk, then accept the smaller piece. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
2
-
Ha, no, your slice is not smaller. In fact, as I said, the purchasing power of minimum wage is higher now than any other time period in the history of minimum wage bar 2 years. You're being told things are harder for you, so you believe things are harder for you. It's an easy lie to sell to you. I'm 40, and I can tell you that it's no harder now than it was 24 years ago when I started working at Pizza Hut at 16. The major difference I see today is that you have more to spend your money on -- like cell phones, Netflix and Amazon Prime.
I've heard of ancap, but I don't know much about it in detail, so when you say you're not touching that ancap shit, I have no idea what part you're referring to.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheMisterGuy We don't have mass shootings several times a week. We have an average of 17 a year and about 56 people die in them per year on average. Handguns, shotguns and targeted murders account for over 2/3rds of all gun murders per year. Of known firearm types, handguns make up 90% of all gun murders. Given the sample size, I'd say that likely that translates just about as well to unknown firearm types. More lives are lost to knives or cutting instruments, blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.), or personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) -- not altogether, each separate category has more deaths -- than "military-style weapons". Now that you're aware, start to work to undo the effects of the propagandization that has occurred to you because of the media you choose to consume.
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-20-year-review-2000-2019-060121.pdf/view
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
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
-
I stepped through the video frame by frame and watched it multiple times. There's no evidence in the video showing Rittenhouse recharged the rifle. His hands appear to by by the pistol grip and barrel shroud the entire time.
There's no evidence that Rittenhouse was an active shooter, especially not from Grosskreutz's perspective. After Rittenhouse fell, the first person to reach him had Rittenhouse point the rifle at him. That individual put his hands up and backed off. That person was not shot. Grosskreutz surely saw this.
After Rittenhouse shot at the man who jump kicked him in the face and Huber who thrusted the end of a skateboard at Rittenhouse's head, Rittenhouse sat up, pointed the gun at Grosskreutz at first, then when he saw Grosskreutz had his hands up, did not shoot, and lowered his weapon, quickly after Grosskreutz brought his hands down, took an aggressive step towards Rittenhouse, and brought his handgun to bear on Rittenhouse. It was then that Rittenhouse brought his rifle back up and shot Grosskreutz in the biceps.
2:25 You made a life out of protecting and preserving life, not taking it? Is that why you slapped your grandmother? Is that why you threatened your girlfriend? Is that why you, as a convicted felon, were in illegal possession of a firearm while driving at twice the legal limit of blood alcohol content? Because you made a life of protecting and preserving life? And what he says at the close of this interview... Grosskreutz is the epitome of a piece of human trash.
"Why did you point your gun at him?" I'm all for the Second Amendment. That doesn't answer the question. 2:51 - 3:28 What that word salad man. This man is stressed beyond stressed with the telling of this lie.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Let me start by saying that I believe immigration and emigration is a basic natural right. You can maintain sovereignty and a nation without having to, at will, choosing which people can or cannot enter the country. Limits should only be placed upon the completion of due process. Yes, it's more dangerous, but it's what's right.
With that being said, Trump was right that the act of separating children from their parents is is Democrat law. It's not a bad law per se, as where adults are kept isn't really any place for children to be kept. However, as I stated above, this law shouldn't even have to exist as there shouldn't be such immigration control as we have. The children are provided a dormitory with education, playtime and food, all with their peers. ICE did nothing to expedite the death of that child, as tragic as it was. If you don't know the whole story go read around at multiple sources to get it (I don't think the entire story is there in any single source still). I believe that there was a high chance the child would have died whether there was an immigration policy or not.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It legally is as the Federal government doesn't have the legitimate constitutional authority to make laws governing immigration. The Founding Fathers had open borders. They knew it was a person's natural right to migrate to a land of their choosing to work and live. They viewed only citizenship of a nation as a privilege. Jefferson wrote plenty on the matter. I think this paragraph he wrote in 1817 in a letter to John Manners sums it up pretty well, "My opinion on the right of Expatriation has been so long ago as the year 1776. consigned to record in the Act of the Virginia code, drawn by myself recognising the right expressly, & prescribing the mode of exercising it. the evidence of this natural right, like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason but is impressed on the sense of every man. we do not claim these under the Charter of kings or legislators; but under the king of kings[.] if he has made it a law in the nature of man to pursue his own happiness, he has left him free in the choice of place as well as mode: and we may safely call on the whole body of English Jurists to produce the map on which Nature has traced, for each individual, the geographical line which she forbids him to cross in pursuit of happiness. it certainly does not exist in his mind. where then is it? I believe too I might safely affirm that there is not another nation, civilized or savage which has ever denied this natural right. I doubt if there is another which refuses it’s exercise. I know it is allowed in some of the most respectable countries of continental Europe; nor have I ever heard of one in which it was not. how it is among our savage neighbors, who have no law but that of Nature, we all know."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Totah Sam, you're completely ignorant regarding what the Second Amendment is. You also clearly have no understanding of what natural rights are. If I were to answer the teacher's question, I would have said, "As an AP history teacher, you should know what natural rights are. You should also know that the accurate answer you get from this question will not agree with you." Then I would continue, "I'll give you the proper answer, but you don't want to hear it. The preamble of the Second Amendment is referencing Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution which enumerates the powers given to the Federal government. Included in that is training, funding and having at its beck and call the militia. This was a completely new definition of what a militia was. The reason the Second Amendment was written was to ensure that this new definition would not be used as a pretense to infringe on anyone's natural rights to keep and bear arms and would be untouched by the government. Untouched."
Finally, I would explain, "In The Federalist #84, Hamilton wrote of the Bill of Rights in general that he was concerned that any wording they chose could be used as a 'colorable' pretext to grant powers to the government that it doesn't have. You are doing exactly what Hamilton feared would happen."
Anyone who has actually taken time to study these matters in an unbiased fashion have no question regarding the intention of the Second Amendment, and indeed the entire Bill of Rights. Your homework is reading the political philosophies of Locke and Rousseau in regards to natural rights and the social contract. That is your fundamental reading. Then you're to pick up and read the Federalist Papers, keeping in mind the political philosophies of the previous two authors.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@caelanj6788 Like I said, figure out how to do the R&D and cover everyone, and I'm alright with that.
There's, of course, more things though. Here's a list of things that I would require before I support single-payer nationalized healthcare:
1. No loss in medical research pay (not just funding, but the individual pay is what brings in the brightest minds).
2. Government is not involved in authorizing care. A doctor should not have to fight with a bureaucrat (even a medically-trained bureaucrat) to get paid for doing what a patient needs. Yes, there will be abuse there, but I'd rather see abuse than have a single person be denied or delayed care. The government can investigate a doctor's practice as a whole if they are suspicious, but to micromanage each patient's care is inefficient and messy.
3. Doctor, nurse and other professional pay does not suffer so as to maintain saturation needed to avoid wait times.
4. Run the system as efficiently and as lean as a private company.
I know that there are numbers out there regarding the administrative costs showing Medicare to be so much better. However, this is only because old and sick people use a lot more claims than people on private insurance, and administrative costs are given as a percentage of claims paid out. It's also worth noting that it's not uncommon for private insurance companies to manage these plans, not the government, further skewing these numbers. Medicare also has the benefit of being able to not include collection of premiums in its overhead as that's handled by the IRS. Anytime someone tells you the government is more efficient at something, look for how they're manipulating numbers to lie to you -- bureaucracies are never more efficient. So it's very important we don't just trust that the government will manage itself.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
America's killing people of color, God and the environment, while it distracts you with entertainment and the only way above it all is to be rich.
"But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God--
having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people. They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth." 2 Timothy 3:5
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
-
"Why do you think that men's rooms have toilets also? Some men pee sitting down, just like women."
Well, that point went over your head. You can't shit in a urinal.
"Yeah, it's funny how words mean different things. Again, you are comparing two separate things and trying to say they are the same. Gender dysphoria is not a mental illness. Look at the DSM-5 for confirmation."
Gender dysphoria is a symptom or manifestation of an underlying mental illness. They are mutually inclusive, so it's disingenuous to simply say, "GD is not a mental illness."
"It's not my fault that what you want to see happen with "curing" us is already happening, just not in the way your sick mind wants it to."
Except happiness doesn't improve with all of that enabling. er. I mean "curing."
"The problem is it was written by a guy with an admitted bias who is no longer a part of John Hopkins and whose OPINION on the matter they do NOT support."
Political pressure can easily affect decisions. He still makes a very valid argument with plenty of supporting evidence that you're summarily dismissing as though you have the authority to do so.
"Look freak, you are not going to talk me out of what I'm doing. You are not going to convince me it's wrong, because I already know it's right. I've been living as a woman for over a decade, and there is ZERO chance that I am going to change back. So please go away, think about my genitals in private, and leave me alone."
Just don't expect to be happy when you're done. Studies show otherwise.
1
-
Angela, "Your stupid argument is the equipment should dictate who uses the room." Yep. You still don't understand.
"However the DSM-5 does not classify gender dysphoria as a mental illness, this is just your moronic opinion."
Maybe you should actually read the DSM.
"Even if it did, so what? I don't know if you know this, but we no longer lock up the 'mentally ill'."
Yes we do. We also treat them to help them be better with medication and therapy. We don't fulfill the delusions of a paranoid schizophrenic.
"Except it has. Now you have to lie. That's awesome! :)"
No. Studies show otherwise.
"Except his "argument" is not supported by the community, the actual authorities on the subject."
He is an authority on the subject. He supports his arguments with peer reviewed research, and he himself has been published over 150 times, in the field of psychiatry.
"Spoken like a man who is not happy with his life. What a pity your own sadness drives you to try to bring others down. Sad, sad, little freak."
You have a problem with addressing your own feelings. All you can do is project. All you think about is your sex organs and how they are not the "proper" form, so you project that obsession onto me. You are dysphoric with your sex, so you project that dysphoria onto me. You do not understand why you have the obsessions you have regarding gender identity, so you project that ignorance onto me. Perhaps you should think about you for a while, and not the you that "you" perceive in everyone else.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Toxic,
"I read whatever I can find, I've based my opinion on hard data, not other people's opinions"
That's a bit ignorant for you to say that. Generally speaking, data science includes opinion in its data. The interpretation of the data isn't the only opinion. For instance, it is an opinion regarding what is statistically significant, it's an opinion regarding controls, and it's an opinion regarding what is a reasonably random selection.
I'm not a big fan of data science. I believe when compared to causal science, it can hardly be regarded as a science.
"as an example I didn't think crime was quite the issue with the black community, but after looking over the data, being that black people make up about 13% of the total use population according to the US census, yet make up just over half the murders in the country according to the FBI crime stats for murder, there is a very clear issue with crime in the black community."
Or maybe they're just caught more because of over-policing due to Clinton's policies, and promoted more into violence because of the school-to-prison pipeline which generates a lot of kids who've received juvie time in school who have a lot higher chance of eventually committing murder as adults. And this is a perfect reason why I hate, utterly hate, data science.
"I've pointed that out when you finally provided the source where you got your claim, after asking you several times to provide it, yet I highly doubt your opinion has changed, you're still here arguing against trans people based on what evidence now?"
I'm not arguing against trans people, I'm arguing against the chosen course of treatment.
"...you're here to either troll or just spout your opinion that's been proven at every point to not be based on any facts or very poor facts with very limited data samples over and over even though it's been pointed out that it's false..."
You find my evidence unconvincing, and I find your dissenting opinion of my evidence unconvincing. You're a hypocrite.
"Then you spout conspiracy theories about how political pressure shapes the scientific data, no... what's true is true because it's true and is able to be proven as true, not because political pressure can some how make lies and falsehoods true."
Boy, are you naive. I've seen it happen a hundred times that political ideology seeps its way into the data.
1
-
"If a study includes an opinion it should be informed by the facts and data in the study..."
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if I'm performing data gathering and analysis, I can make that data appear to fulfill a narrative simply by the methods used and still pass a peer board.
"...but good data is fact..."
Perceived fact is not always (in fact, I might even dare say often) reflective of reality.
"Science is science there is no such thing as 'Data science and causal science.'"
Yes, there is. The paper "What is Data Science? Fundamental Concepts and a Heuristic Example" states, "Data Science is not only a synthetic concept to unify statistics, data analysis and their related methods but also comprises its results. It includes three phases, design for data, collection of data, and analysis on data."
Causal science seeks to find an exact cause. I never intended to say that there was no data portion of causal science, but data science has become its own beginning and end instead of being in its proper position as a simple tool in a box to help localize an answer.
"In what way am I being a hypocrite?"
I find your evidence unconvincing, and therefore I'm a troll. You find my evidence unconvincing, but you do not perceive yourself as a troll. It's a clear double standard.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** Haha, that's funny how you put that. If you live on a farm, you're lucky if you're allowed to own an air rifle for varmint control. Of course, only after a thorough background check and submitting all your vitals to be on record. A thing that's considered to be an older child's toy in the US. Of course, forget owning a handgun, those are strictly prohibited. In fact, you can't sell a non-lethal Airsoft toy to a kid in the UK.
The point is that all of this is supposed to stop gun deaths. Does it? See, you banned guns in the UK, and it resulted in little to no difference in gun violence.
In the US, we have 35,000 gun deaths per year in the US. Over 21,000 of those are suicides. There are an unknown number of justified homicides per year. The Violence Policy Center came up with the number of about 250 private citizens using firearms in a justifiable homicide. This does not include police or others in official capacities such as armed security. Of the almost 14 thousand deaths remaining, a hugely significant portion of that is gang-related violence from the some 33,000 gangs with some 1.4 million members in our inner cities.
And here's the kicker: Gun deaths in the US have been declining since the 90's regardless of no significant legislation. In fact, most of that reduction of gun violence was thanks to task forces focusing on gangland violence.
What people are all up in arms about in the US are those mass shootings using semi-automatic rifles that result in a number of deaths per year that equate to about what the UK has in gun deaths per year. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
1
-
1
-
***** Your reading comprehension simply needs work then. Did I say they banned all guns, or did I only say they banned guns? Check again.
Your last, school massacre, yes, but not your last shooting spree. Differentiating them simply because of their setting is being dishonest within the scope of the debate.
"Post numbers of gun deaths in each country in your next reply."
Why? Was there a large number of gun deaths in the UK prior to legislation? Or in Australia? UK has remained steady in the number of gun deaths prior to and after legislation. In Australia, the decline in gun deaths started sharply before legislation and has since experienced less of a decline.The US had a sharp decline in the 90's and has been slowly dropping since.
Seems like they're all equal to me, with or without legislation. Violence, whether gun or otherwise, is typically a socio-economic issue, not a tool issue. That's why when the world's socio-economic outlook is bright, everyone's rates go down, whether they've passed laws against the tools used in the violence or not.
1
-
***** Sure you "know what I was doing." You just jumped to conclusions is all. And, yes, there are legislators that would ban guns just like in the UK, so they are something to guard against. In fact, if there weren't such fanatical gun-grabbers, your side would probably get a lot more cooperation. But even then, there is questionable gain to be obtained from such legislation since, like I said, a significantly large portion of gun murders are committed by the 1.4 million members involved in gangland activity who have illegal guns anyway.
Now do I think that if UK legislation was like the US that gun deaths would be higher? I would argue it would be the same. I also find it questionable that they knew what web sites this guy that did the Orlando shooting went to, but then didn't know he bought guns or did not know he was planning on committing a shooting? It's also worth noting that it's apparent that if terrorists want to use guns, they can. See the Paris shootings, Charlie Hebdo and the attempted train shooting for examples of firearms used by terrorists in a nation known for its strict gun legislation. For whatever reason in the UK cells, explosives are more popular instead -- even before gun legislation (IRA terrorist attacks).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** Alright, we're going to dive into the common talking points now I guess? These have been done to death already by everyone else. I suppose I do need to address your entire post, however, so here goes.
First: The well-regulated militia. In Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, Congress is granted the ability to train and fund a militia that is at the beck and call of the Federal government. Today, that militia is known as the National Guard.
That is quoted from the Section as "The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
That is the well-regulated militia necessary for the protection of a free state which the first clause discusses. The second clause is the right to keep and bear arms recognized for the people. Not only people who are in a militia, not only certain people. Not certain arms. Finally, it concludes that this right shall not be infringed. That right is being infringed today, and every time a little is given of that right, the government continues to press to take that right away more.
Now, yes, the Founding Fathers' most common weapon of the time was a musket; however, repeating firearms were not unheard of and examples of them can be found in Europe and the Americas as early as the 14th century. But, even then, let's look at their time. At their time, the choice was between a bladed weapon with a relatively lesser amount of killing potential and a musket with significantly higher killing potential. Were the people in 1781 only limited to weapons that had a limited killing potential? Were they limited to only bladed weapons and bows? No, they were expected and allowed to have the most advanced infantry weapons of the time. You can't even say that's true today.
In regards to how the Founding Fathers viewed rights in relation to individual lives, let's review some letters.
Thomas Jefferson to William Smith. 1787, 6 years following the ratification of the US Constitution and Bill of rights. Regarding the Shay rebellion which had seen the death of farmers and at least one government tax collector: "What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?"
Of course, Benjamin Franklin has a more popular quote from 1755's Pennsylvania Assembly reply to the Governor "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition..."
Now that the talking points are out of the way, and, I believe, very successfully rebutted, let's move on to the last point of your post. You think that less would die if we had tighter regulations? If we give up our rights to firearms, as what Franklin observed happened, when things go bad, it could have a cost much higher than those numbers who would not die every year with tighter gun laws. Indeed, it's possible to lose our entire autonomy as a nation with hundreds of millions of lives at stake. I do find that more important than thousands dying over the year.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"That was a rhetorical question. The Jews were supposed to just kill everyone, and then what? They obviously would lose. The Jews were a hated scapegoat minority who would've had to shoot at trained soldiers. They would've failed, plain and simple, and nothing would change."
Kill everyone? Hardly. What makes you think they would need to kill everyone? Many Germans hated Jews, yes. Not all. Many Jews were hidden away by German nationals, in fact. Did you not read The Diary of Anne Frank? It would have not only been Jews fighting against the Nazi party as there were many people who were against the Nazi party.
"You're saying Jews should've been able to defend themselves. You can't shoot a political climate unless you're suggesting you kill everyone who has bad ideas. Should black people in the '50s and '60s also have shot at policemen? Should slaves have shot or stabbed the slavemasters? Would that have ended slavery? Should we ignore the political climate in North Korea too?"
It's better to be dead fighting for liberty than to live without it. If you don't agree with that, fine, but don't get in the way of those who do.
"Anti-semitism was all over Europe at the
time. Guns weren't enough to stop Hitler by the time he took control, why would an army of minorities be able to? Rhetorical question. Youre just delusional if you actually try to say they'd stop them."
And antisemitism still is widespread. Hitler took control peacefully through democratic process and a false flag attack. Insurgencies and guerrilla warfare are a lot more effective than you think. Look at Vietnam, Afghanistan (both in the US war and the USSR war), Iraq and much of South America.
"Youre ignoring literally everything in history but that. Youre ignoring political climate, cultural beliefs, how minorities are treated, the history of anti semitism, the sequence of events that led up the holocaust, everything."
I'm not ignoring anything. You act like any of those things matters. If you don't have liberties, you're already dead.
"I hope you get shot, and then shoot back. Thats all you're worth"
I'll be out there fighting while you're being marched to a gas chamber. You'll be waiting for my kind to save you from extinction. And even after that, I'll always support your right to be an ignorant dumb ass.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Russia is for their own interests in oil, which is against our interests. While the US and Russia quibble over the Greater Middle East and its oil supplies, China is aggressively capturing the South China Seas for themselves for oil, as well as taking over parts of central and southern Africa for precious resources with intrinsic value like diamonds and gold. There's also a significant political struggle between the US and Russia in South America as Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world, though it is largely untapped.
With world consumption at 34 billions of bbl per year, our 1.7 trillion of bbl current available supply to the world will run out in 50 years. Since oil usage is only on the rise, this will happen sooner. Within even my lifetime, in fact, and I'm not terribly young.
There's a dark horse player in the world that the media doesn't talk about, though. China used to also be a dark horse to most people, but the media more recently started covering what's going on over there.
But it's easy to convince a Western audience to be against China or Russia. What's harder to convince people to be against is the EU. Between the US, China and Russia, their goal is to be the biggest dog in the park when it's all said and done. The EU wants to bring every nation into its folds under one union. They are pushing their member nations to be more reliant on oil if they're not. For instance, France gets almost all of its power from nuclear fission. The EU is requiring that it step back its fission program and move more to oil and gas. They are actively pursuing the splitting up of energy giants because they are a threat to the EU's power as the oil crisis comes to a head.
The US, Russia and China each do not trust the other countries with that power. That's appreciable to a people who want to keep their sovereignty. The EU, on the other hand, seeks to politically conquer the world and thereby dissolving all sovereignty but its own.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
homer23422000 "Citizens in this country have been able to vote for around 200 years without providing proof of identity with few problems."
The size of our civilization and the ease of travel presents new issues that need to be dealt with to preserve the democracy from being usurped -- regardless of whatever party
(or the followers thereof) does the usurping. It's simply been a matter of laws not keeping up with technology. That doesn't mean it's not something that should be addressed.
"It was only legal for Republicans to make these laws after the Supreme Court deemed the Voting Rights Act unnecessary, proving that the law is discriminatory by nature."
I think that there's a valid argument to be put forth here, though I would argue against it. Ideally, a fingerprint would be much more preferred, with photo ID required only in the case of no fingerprints being available (double amputee).
"Adults vote at around a 52% rate. That's too low to put restrictions on voting participation."
This I don't agree with. The issue of voter fraud (whether it's actively being committed or not right now, it is a very real possibility) need be addressed in some way.
"These new laws will restrict some poor people, not just poor black people from voting. Poor people vote less than middle class and wealthy people; their representation is already lower than it should be."
I believe that this, getting more people out there to vote, is another issue entirely.
"Republicans never work on placing additional requirements targeting wealthy white people to vote, so it's not acceptable to place additional requirements targeting poor black people to vote."
You can't bypass voter ID laws by showing proof of your income if you're white and wealthy, so this doesn't make sense to me.
"Their policies aren't good, that's why they work on hindering likely Democratic voters, even if they do sacrifice Republican voters."
The fact of the matter is, is that both Democrats and Republicans have put up a row over voter fraud when the opposing party is in office. A stance can't readily be taken about voter fraud one term, then say there's no issue with voter fraud the next and seem credible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
enigmaPL I'm not defending religion, I'm attacking hatred.
"But your best bullshit statistic pulled out of your ass by far, was 95% of worlds population is religious...."
That was a typo. It should read 85%. It doesn't, however, change the validity of my statement. When you hate what 85% of humanity does, when almost all of them are causing no one harm, you're not a very compassionate person. About 1.1 billion identify as non-religious or otherwise secular. That means that you hate about 6.4 billion people in the world.
"Why would I replace 'religion' with 'black people' ?"
To show you that you posed literally no argument. You merely assume as fact that religion "[strangles] the human species from evolving" or that accepting those who are religious "has only ever hurt people."
"What part of that phrase didn't I understand specifically? 'Do you actually expect me to dignify you with an answer?' , followed by, your answer. What a clown."
The entire thing. First of all, I asked if you expected me to dignify it with an answer -- I didn't state I was going to one way or another. Reading comprehension: get some. Even then, I didn't address your claims and dismissed them as hollow, hateful and ludicrous rather than responding to them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
jim short You're ignoring the tens of thousands of contacts between a white police officer and black individual that go smoothly. All you're focusing on is the few that are poor examples or any that result in a death. You also ignore that these very few examples are independent of race, and that any violence against an unarmed white person gets a few days of news coverage and is forgotten.
Now I'm white, and my wife is black. I assure you that as a long-married couple, we get enough unwanted attention from both races -- and not nearly as much you would think but once is more than enough for a lifetime. However, we also see a huge trend toward interracial couples (especially black and white), and that makes us happy.
As a researcher, I would love to explain to you why the DoJ numbers in their report on Ferguson are questionable, if you're truly interested in learning something. I'm not going to bother to go into it, though, unless you actually desire, because I'm not here just to waste my time typing for you to ignore it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
DAK4Blizzard "Your 'logical' argument ultimately is if we relax security against guns, there will be less shootings. It's a leap of faith to believe that shootings on planes, which have been approximately 0, will not increase in frequency."
You're making a straw man argument here. My logical argument is that each person has the fundamental, natural right to choose how to defend himself. One person is overstepping his boundaries of acceptable governance when he tells another that they can't use a certain tool to defend themselves.
"What about the many, many other locations with security that deterred a shooting or arrested a potential shooter/bomber? Do those not count because it doesn't fit your narrative?"
Cases?
"As a percentage, security screenings have worked nearly all the time. Your argument against security because a few weapons got through is like trying to argue against regulating meat because a tiny percentage of contaminated meat managed to make it to market."
And you're making another straw man here. My argument isn't against security, it's the idea that security isn't infallible, and when it comes down to it, you're the one who is ultimately responsible for your continuing to live -- no one else.
"In both cases, the response should be to enhance security/regulation, not encourage more of the unwanted to enter."
By your logic, no one need cook their meat properly to ensure for themselves that all bacteria are dead before consuming, because enhanced regulation will ensure your safety. The carrying firearms is to ensure that every opportunity and tool of survival is available. It doesn't preempt security, just like cooking your meat thoroughly doesn't preempt regulation of the meat industry to provide as clean of a product as possible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1989Nihil A "right" is something that, without outside intervention, a human may do. This includes building himself a shelter, eating, living, defending himself, etc.
However, if a man does not build a shelter, he does not have a shelter.
If he does not hunt, forage or farm, he does not eat.
If he does not take measures to create tools with which to defend himself, he will fall prey to stronger predators.
If he doesn't accomplish all of the above, he does not live.
While these are fundamental rights, we each have an individual responsibility to ourselves to exercise these rights.
It is not right for someone else to build a house and you live in it without providing the builder compensation for the time he has taken away from exercising his own rights.
The reception of charity is not a right, but it is an important part of a thriving civilization. However, when charity is forced by legislation, it is no longer charity; it is dictatorial -- that is the government dictates my charitable actions.
In the United States, doctors, nurses and other medical professionals donate their time at free clinics. Hospitals also forgive bills for those without coverage and lack the money to pay. These individuals may donate this time and forgive these bills -- which is so much more efficient than a bureaucracy paying for healthcare -- because they make a significant profit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
trackstarpat151 That's right. In fact, the idea was to have the government not be capable of interfering with the people's militia, and, as such, the People being well-regulated by their own designs.
As Noah Webster wrote in 1787 in the pro-Bill of Rights pamphlet An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** Well, it seems that Kikara Vaeindon ignored me. Childish. So I will start a new thread. I will post here what you last posted on Kikara's thread for continuity:
"You're trying to say that you have a right to determine what is 'too intrusive' because it's a republic and you have the right to 'examine and pick apart'. You seem to think this gives you the right to call 'too far' on the government forcing fertility tests, but not 'too far' on forbidding same sex couples to marry due to not being able to reproduce. 'Because I said so' seems to be your meter for this, there is certainly no other reason why one would be worse than the other.
Damn right I care if things go my way, because the other way is irrational and discriminatory, and enforces a social divide where same sex relationships are not considered as legitimate as heterosexual relationships. Worse, there seems to be no unbiased, reasonable basis for this. I have already pointed out that reproduction is a flawed basis.
Exactly what kind of bending do you expect? That we say 'oh okay then please continue to encourage society to consider us 'other'? And where have you demonstrated compromise? Because you're okay with people having sex as long as they don't try to demonstrate the love and commitment side of things? It's like if someone said to black people 'okay well, we'll let you marry and make slavery illegal but you still have to sit in the 'colored' section of the bus'. Sitting separate in the bus wouldn't cause them physical harm, but it would have enforced the divide between races.
I was saying that 'too intrusive' is dependent on the person being intruded on. It is incorrect to say one is too intrusive and one is not because unless you are in the opposite circumstance you can't measure the degree of intrusion."
You're setting up a strawman here. First of all, no form of "because I said so" has crossed my lips at any time. I provided clear and articulated reasoning for my stance that goes well and far beyond "because I said so." You're simply conveniently ignoring the arguments I made and setting up a strawman in its place to argue again. Most likely because your argument is emotionally charged and would have no chance of defeating sound and articulated reasoning.
Perhaps I should give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you simply didn't read my argument and that nothing so underhanded is going on. Very well, I will quote my argument from the previous thread here for you. Though since you initially responded directly to this post, I don't see how that can be the case...
"Equal things should get equal treatment. Various sex pairings, however, are materially different. This isn't a matter of skin color that in no way affects what a person can do. This is a matter of sex-pairings that does affect what they can do. For instance, two males will never ever be capable of becoming pregnant, so why should that sex-pairing be extended discounted insurance or tax breaks? Now, before you start asking about infertile couples as always comes up, there is a level of interference in ones life that the government can really reasonably go. Fertility testing and forcing couples to have children is too far. Recognizing that sex-pairing X can in no way suffer the burden and infirmity of pregnancy is not intrusive to individual couples' lives."
So now if you actually want to argue my point rather than some strawman you've set up, feel free.
1
-
Alan G Not really. The charts you see that shows over 50% of the US budget being spent on military is dishonestly only the portion that's discretionary spending. The reason the military budget is so huge in that chart is because all military spending is discretionary.
If you look at both discretionary and mandatory spending, 2.2 trillion is on medicare/medicaid and other healthcare, social security, welfare, unemployment, debt interest, government pension, etc.
About $660 billion a year is on the military of the remaining $1.3 trillion in spending. This includes ongoing wars, intel, contracts, R&D, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 Doc Why are you engaging in ad hom and requesting that I justify a loaded, irrelevant question, which at the very least presents a false dichotomy? I'm an American. I don't live to classic Japanese culture, so what I would choose is highly irrelevant.
Your link proves me right, so I don't know why you would link it. The link only argues that "bushido" is a relatively modern invention (which I never said otherwise), and that there was no uniform code (which I also never said otherwise). The write up supports the idea of honor and shame being behind harakiri, but that's just talking about times between about the 14th through mid-to-late 19th centuries at the start of the Meiji period.
The man in this video was brought up in WW2-era, and shortly thereafter, Japanese culture which saw a huge rise in the romanticization of feudal Japan in film and book such as the adaptation of the 47 ronin to film or what amounts to the Western romaniticization of the Old West in westerns and spaghetti westerns in Akira Kurosawa's series of samurai films. That media has done a lot to have shaped Japanese shame culture the past 5 decades or so, and still holds a rather powerful sway to this day.
So when I say you don't understand honor, you don't. You don't understand how it's been shaped, how it has affected the population of Japan and how the affected population fed back into the concept of its culture as being one of honor. Therefore, you don't understand why this man apologized.
And yet you think you know everything, and you take is as a personal attack when I said that you don't understand. You also think that fluffing up your tail feathers and strutting around like some horny peacock is not boasting and is a good way to prove a point. The fact is that you still don't understand, so I remain right that that level of personal responsibility is something that someone like you can't understand.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We are nowhere near the political usurpation that would call for the use of arms. And there are those with arms that have acted in a way that they see fit to the grievances they perceive, including the killing of police.
Jefferson had written, "Prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light & transient causes..."
Here's a list of the grievances that caused the Founding Fathers to use their arms (I used Jefferson's rough draft because it's most accurate to the Founding Father's issues):
"he has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good:
"he has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate & pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has neglected utterly to attend to them.
"he has refused to pass other laws for the accomodation of large districts of people unless those people would relinquish the right of representation,[6] a right inestimable to them, & formidable to tyrants alone:[7]
"he has dissolved Representative houses repeatedly & continually, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people:
"he has refused[8] for a long space of time[9] to cause others to be elected, whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise, the state remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, & convulsions within:
"he has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither; & raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands:
"he has suffered the administration of justice totally to cease in some of these colonies, refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers:
"he has made our judges dependant on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and amount of their salaries:
"he has erected a multitude of new offices by a self-assumed power, & sent hither swarms of officers to harrass our people & eat out their substance:
"he has kept among us in times of peace standing armies & ships of war:
"he has affected to render the military, independant of & superior to the civil power:
"he has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitutions and unacknoleged by our laws; giving his assent to their pretended acts of legislation, for quartering large bodies of armed troops among us;
"for protecting them by a mock-trial from punishment for any murders they should commit on the inhabitants of these states;
"for cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;
"for imposing taxes on us without our consent;
"for depriving us of the benefits of trial by jury;
"for transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences:
"for taking away our charters, & altering fundamentally the forms of our governments;
"for suspending our own legislatures & declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever:
"he has abdicated government here, withdrawing his governors, & declaring us out of his allegiance & protection:
"he has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns & destroyed the lives of our people:
"he is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation & tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty & perfidy unworthy the head of a civilized nation:
"he has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, & conditions of existence:
"he has incited treasonable insurrections in our fellow-subjects,[10] with the allurements of forfeiture & confiscation of our property:
"he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce:[11] and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.
"in every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered by repeated injury. a prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a people who mean to be free. future ages will scarce believe that the hardiness of one man, adventured within the short compass of 12[12] years only, on so many acts of tyranny without a mask, over a people fostered & fixed in principles of liberty."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** Of course guns do not stop bullets. Of course guns are not shields. Of course they do not work like Neo in the Matrix.
What they do, however, is give a 90 lbs. 5'1" girl a fighting chance against a 250 lbs 6'2" rapist-murderer. For a 6'2" 250 lbs. guy, it gives him every chance possible to survive a bad situation so he can go home to his family instead of them crying over his grave. As a man, I have a responsibility to my family to make it home safe and sound every day to continue to provide the support they need, and I don't take that responsibility lightly like yourself.
Benjamin Franklin wrote that one should hope for the best and prepare for the worst. I wasn't referring to firearms. Of course, given your sophomoric attitude in this thread, I'm not surprised you didn't recognize the quote.
With that being said, Benjamin Franklin, and the other Founding Fathers and framers of the US Constitution and various state constitutions, saw the advancement in killing power go from the bladed weapon to firearms. This was the largest jump in killing power available to people ever seen since projectile weapons were invented in prehistoric times. Going from a single-fire, smooth-bore firearm to a cartridge-based rifle with a detachable magazine is a quantum leap (that is the smallest possible movement) by comparison.
And, no, you're still focused on the guns, and that's your fundamental flaw to finding a solution to the problem.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 Toastboy "According to a recent HSBC report, the average cost per year of study in the UK for international students is £18,759 (US$30,325), which breaks down to £11,933 (US$19,291) for fees and £6,825 (US$11,034) for cost of living.
However, tuition fees for international students can be as high as £38,532 (US$62,294) per year – which is what you could expect to pay for a taught clinical postgraduate degree at a leading university in London."
Also, US universities take up over half of the top 100 list of Universities worldwide and has the #1 ranked university in the world (Cal Tech). Maybe it's because they have the funding to lead significant and multiple research projects. People come from around the world to attend college in the US.
As always, if you want quality, you're going to pay for it.
So what were you blabbing?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Johnny Fishfingers Where are you getting this information about health insurance companies from? Yes, Americans pay much more for healthcare than you. But the reason that we do is that we're footing the bill for you. Why is a brand name medication $300 here? Because a bunch of governments refuse to pay more than $50 for the same medication. So rather than everyone's insurance paying $100, a bunch of people's insurances pay $50 and ours pays $300.
Someone will always pay in one way or another. For instance, in the UK, middle-class pay 40% in taxes (45% if making 150K or more), with a minimum of 20%. In the US, the minimum is 15% (a portion or total amount of which is often returned to the tax payer once a year) and a cap of about 35% when making over $335,000 AGI.
Paying for healthcare through taxes isn't free healthcare, and it's highly inefficient. First, the tax office gets the money. They take a share of it to process the tax. Then the treasury gets the taxes and takes a share to process the money in preparation to send to states and insurance companies (insurance companies often carry medicare/medicaid patients for subsidy). Now the insurance companies and states have to do their reporting and whatnot for the federal government which means more taken out for the government and some for insurance companies to provide the necessary reporting for subsidy. So when it's all said and done, only a fraction of each dollar actually goes to providing care for patients when it's taxes paying for it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
hcheyne National Insurance is a tax. It is at its very base a compulsory amount taken from your check by the State. We have pretty much the same thing here. We call it a Social Security tax. We don't have higher payment options is the only difference.
Honestly, you say it's not a tax, but it's listed under personal taxes. How daft can you be?
I already explained to you why 27K GBP is not equivalent to 41.5K USD. 41.5K USD takes you about 20% further in the global market than 27K GBP does. And you think your grass is greener?
In the UK you pay just as much taxes for your health care as someone may opt to pay in the US. Health insurance isn't compulsory here. Or at least it hadn't been until ACA.
Sure, we pay more for college, and we also have over half of the top 100 colleges in the world.
"Your xbox currency equivalency doesn't work btw, because the xbone is an american console. The EU has weird VAT, the UK has some other import fees etc."
Yes, it does work. That's your dollar on the global market. People in some countries live off a buck a day and eat well, own property, etc. They ain't buying no Nike's though. If your income can't compete with another's in the global market, no matter what excuse you have, then it's simply not as good. Full stop.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
dee nunyofukinbidness Thanks for your condolences. We had him for 18 and a half years. It still hurts both myself and my wife pretty bad. It was only a week ago now. I'm also sorry for your loss too. How old was your chihuahua?
"is becuae no fetus of that age would surivive long outside of the body."
It's like I said, it's an exercise to help someone see things from another point of view. Absolutely you can't overthink it. The idea is that if you did to this fetus what is done while it's inside the body while you can actually see it and see what you're doing to it, would your opinion change?
The reason this is important is because it's easy to have a comfortable barrier of either knowing you'll never be in that position to find out or that what comes out won't be recognizable at all as a baby,
Now this is why I feel the term cosmetic abortion is so important. Because, sometimes, there are very good reasons for abortions. Morning after contraceptives, rape, finding out you have HIV and you don't want the child to suffer, medically significant abortions that are vital for the mother's survival, etc. However, to allow a cosmetic abortion (that is an abortion that's not for a significant medical reason, and it's because you're poor, had an "oops" moment, don't want stretch marks, don't want swelling boobies, or whatever the superficial reason is) 20-weeks is way too late for it to be an unambiguously moral abortion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
John, why are you so apathetic? Just go sip your cappuccino.
"If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty." -Thomas Jefferson
It is American for things like the LA Riots, Ferguson, Boston, Bundy Ranch, Waco, Oregon, etc. to occur. You're so angry that they're exercising their white privilege rather than applauding them for having the guts to do what this nation was founded to support. That's where TYT hypocrisy is. Black people doing the same thing are freedom fighters. White people are whiny lunatics with guns. Hell, when the Oath Keepers showed up at Ferguson to SUPPORT the black folk in their plight, TYT cried about how they're a white militia (which they aren't) and about how this is a perfect example of white privilege. That's your hypocrisy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** Liam J You're both confusing the two different and separate institutions of social marriage and legal marriage. Anyone may be socially married to anything they choose. However, when it comes to rational marriage, which makes the basis for legal marriage, it's intended to foster and support couples undergoing the infirmity of pregnancy and to assist in creating a healthy and stable household to ensure a growing, solid population for a nation.
In the case of two men, neither are in any way, through medicine or otherwise (at this time), capable of procreating. As such, they benefit from lowered cost of insurance and possible tax breaks when the definition of rational marriage does not fit to them. If they choose to adopt, the dependent is claimed by one parent and tax breaks and medical coverage is handled.
People view this as a matter of bigotry toward homosexuals, but the institution of rational and legal marriage does not only prevent homosexual couples from being legally married. An example of this is with traditional polygamists. While they may socially or religiously be married to as many women as they would like, they may only share in a legal marriage with one other woman.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Klingonmastr Minimizing voter fraud through a free ID program is not a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination.
"Then you have many of these same people supporting laws that require welfare recipients to be drug tested."
I definitely don't agree with this stance for multiple reasons. First of all, it is an invasion of privacy. Second, there are people on welfare programs because they are disabled and may be taking narcotics to ease symptoms. Sometimes people need to be forced to get help, though, so I think there should be some sort of system to empower social workers to force addicted individuals to get help. It is both a matter of public safety and health, so it's not just a matter of a price tag, though that is part of it. A person on welfare with Hep C or AIDS costs a lot of money.
"These conservatives are all in support of the death penalty despite the fact it cost more money than having those people serve life in prison."
This is a point of contention. On one hand, it is more expensive to handle all of the appeals typically taken for death row inmates (though, this is more a cost of overburdening an already overburdened judicial system versus actual cost). However, on the other hand, lax laws for appeals and death row detractors who provide pro bono legal help and money for the purpose of making it as expensive and burdensome as they can may be considered responsible for this. I think when it comes down to it, it's half a dozen one way and six the other.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Who Cares Are you unaware of what a "militia" is? It is armed citizenry. As George Mason wrote in regards to the Second Amendment, "Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation? I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes..."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
C/Gw Apparently being free to eat whatever you want, versus the government issuing CDC-approved, balanced rations is more important than the hundreds of thousands of people who die a year from heart disease.
Rather than worrying about the causes of death that are in the top ten of causes of death, you immediately attack a right that isn't even near the top 10 causes of death. And, yes, many of those deaths in the top 10 are preventable, including heart disease, stroke, diabetes, flu, and pneumonia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
gbnz53 "There is probably no right or wrong side in the debate, but at some stage there needs to be a consensus on how the country should move forward to at least minimise future deaths and injuries caused by firearms."
Plain and simple, the Democratic party in the US is a gun-grabbing party. That's not to say if you ask an individual Democrat voter if they want to take guns that they'll answer in the affirmative (in fact, it's common that they're advised to lie about that fact), but there are many in the party who would take all guns if given the chance. To quote Dianne Feinstein, a Californian democratic senator, from c. 1994, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the senate, I would have rounded them all up. 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in. I couldn't do it. The votes weren't there." She continues to be a senator today.
If it were up to me, I would create a public safety panel who would study and profile those likely to commit such crimes and create a campaign of public service ads and programs that are targeted to affect those in danger of committing such acts of violence.
You can't strong arm violence away. It has never worked before and it will never work in the future. You have to win hearts and minds. You have to convince people that violence is the lesser option to them, among a plethora of options.
In the inner cities when gangs were such a problem in the 90's (in fact, in many countries this was so), programs which took young men and women off the streets and put them into clubs with a good environment provided a safe haven for inner city youth to escape the pressures of gangs and worked to great effect. They had a better option and they took it. That's what people in almost every scenario will follow. We just have to figure out the profiles of these individuals and start winning their hearts and minds.
1
-
***** To our window of time, all of this seems so important. But when you think outside of the day, the year or even this century -- all of which are just a blink of an eye in the bigger picture -- we're all going to die, and it doesn't matter to anyone outside of our immediately surrounding timeline.
If I were shot and killed in a mass shooting tomorrow, my wife, grandfather, mother, uncles and aunts and cousins would all be beside themselves with grief. But then that's it. My death, nor its cause, don't extend into eternity, affecting in such a far-reaching way as disarming every person because of my death. In the so-called "grand scheme," my death is not as important as people's rights, and my life will never trump anyone's rights.
1
-
1
-
1
-
gbnz53 Your sense of security, in my opinion, is false. Consider this: The only reason you may feel secure is because nothing has happened to you.
Many people in the US are lulled into the same false sense of security. It's arguable, then, that people in the US feel at least as safe as you do since they have the option of carrying a firearm and the majority don't. It's also arguable that your natural right to self-defense has been stripped from you for a sense of security that you would have felt anyway.
Imagine this: A young, 5-foot-tall, 90 lbs. young woman is raped and murdered by a 6-foot-tall, 250 lbs. man. It is possible, then, that she died for your sense of security. In my opinion, that's blood on your hands because her death was fostered by accommodations made for your sense of security.
In the case that the young woman at least had the option but chose not to exercise that option, then it is her choice and her life with which to make that choice, not someone else's.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jared Knight If they want to cover all circumstances, then fringe cases have alternative legal methods by which they may have full rights in tandem with another individual. However, as a fringe lifestyle, it is not the responsibility of the government to assist in their handling those issues.
This isn't my opinion on the matter, but this is the rational view of marriage in the law -- its purpose as a legal rather than just social institution. As I had said, a gay person may feel free to be married, just like polygamists, but you may only legally be married to one person of the opposite sex for the reasons previously stated. Not even the protection of a Christian religion is valid to overturn this strict definition of legal marriage.
The government's job is not to validate you as a person, but manage the business of running a nation. There is no business reasoning for allowing legal gay marriage, and there are valid business reasons, stated here, for not allowing it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Matthew, it's not typical of Americans more or less than anyone else to pronounce foreign words in their own accents. Do you flip your shit whenever you hear a Japanese pronounce a computer file as "hwailu" while speaking their own language? I bet you don't, and that's about as much butchering to a foreign word that you can do. No, you're the typical weeb I spotted you for right off the bat.
My saying, "You can't win," is not synonymous with my saying, "I win." My saying, "You lose," infers that I believe I have won, but the reason I specifically choose the words, "You can't win," is because I have identified that you, despite being faced with the clear evidence of your error, still are trying to eke out some small victory rather than just learning. It's probably because you have identified me as an American that you think I can't know better than you.
And what do you mean that TYT usually does a better job than the mainstream media at pronunciation of foreign words? That's just laughable.
Oh, on an aside, calling you out, accurately, for your issues with reading comprehension is not trolling. It's bluntly showing you your own shortcomings since you apparently suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect when it comes to language.
1
-
The US is the largest producer of wind energy by MWh, if not percentage of power consumed. "As of September 2014, there were 46,600 wind turbines operating in the U.S. with a total generating capacity of 62,300 MW – enough to provide power for 15.5 million average American homes. A total of 1,254 megawatts have come online so far in 2014 and there is currently 13,600 MW under construction across 105 projects (of which 7,600 MW is in Texas)." -"New analysis: U.S. is world’s number one wind energy producer, leading China and Germany," November 11, 2014, American Wind Energy Association
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"That still doesn't stop people from being arrested and charged under SB1142- which is the problem you choose to ignore."
Then that doesn't stop anyone being arrested for anything at any time. Why can't you follow the logic of what you're saying and see how ludicrous it is?
"Wrong- protesting should not result in mass arrests of all in the group just because of the actions of a few- that's what's breaking the constitution. "
That's NOT what this would result in. And that's also NOT what I was even saying. You are arrested, charged and you have your day in court. That's the way it ALWAYS works.
"So according to your logic, a person walks down a crowded street and throws a rock through a window - and that "crowd" of random people going about their business is the SAME as a group organized to appear on that street to protest? "
That's the logic you're applying to this bill, yes.
Here's this bill in action:
Email from Protest Director: "We're having a peaceful protest in the park this afternoon."
People come, and some people riot. The protest director is not guilty of conspiracy to riot.
--- On the other hand ---
Email from Protest Director: "We're having a peaceful protest in the park this afternoon. But if someone decides to not be so peaceful, there's nothing I can do about that. *wink wink, nudge nudge*"
People come, and some people riot. The protest director is now guilty of conspiracy to riot.
--- As it is currently ---
Email from Protest Director: "We're having a peaceful protest in the park this afternoon. But if someone decides to nto be so peaceful, there's nothing I can do about that. *wink wink, nudge nudge*"
People come, and some people riot. The protest director cannot be charged with a crime.
"Do you understand that cops can confiscate money from you if they suspect it has an illegal source and you are basically guilty until you can prove innocence? They don't have to show jack about your guilt while you have the prove the money came from a legit source."
This is just flat out wrong. The State or Feds, as the prosecutors, have the burden of proving that the funds or items were part of illegitimate activity. That's how it always works, and it applies to forfeiture of assets as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hal Jordan "She posted this video to the public, and it was already viral, before TYT touched it."
So you think that excuses people to laugh and point at her? I don't think it does. I think that people will laugh and point at her, but it doesn't excuse them for their behavior.
"To pretend TYT spread this is ridiculous. To pretend that TYT is what made this vid hysterical is ridiculous."
I never stated this nor implied it.
"The safe space you advocate for is a killer of joy and growth."
I never advocated for a safe place. I said TYT was having a double standard.
"We get it. You're high, upon a golden pedestal, and you never crack jokes on anybody. Your heart is just one, giant safe-space, that envelops the world, except when it's my parents for some reason."
Your mom not raising you right (or at the very least you not honoring her by showing she tried to raise you right) is a serious matter, not a laughing one.
"Child With Mental Disability =/= Adult Buffoon That Throws Hilariously-Ignorant And Hypocritical Tantrums In Between Reads Of Gangsta Rap Lyrics"
I think that you would be in agreement if someone said she had a mental disability had I not put you into the position to defend her mental state, so I'm going to say that you most likely only drew this line of distinction because it suited your stance at this moment. You speak about it being important to have your ideas challenged because it keeps you more objective and honest, but you keep solid to your beliefs against all reasoning and try to mold an objective truth around your subjective stance like a cocoon.
1
-
Hal Jordan "You lied, and tried to cast blame on TYT for why everyone was laughing at her"
Quote me where I did this.
"BS. You want everyone to coddle this woman, which would create a safe space for her."
Me not being happy with people pointing and laughing at her does not imply the complete opposite. You're presenting a black-and-white argument. There are a lot of gradients in between, including a gradient where you can criticize a view maturely without laughing and pointing.
"Oh, totally, breh. She tried her damnedest to set me on the right path. I went from being a 3rd World kid, to being an incredibly-fit, multi-lingual adult with no record, a STEM degree, and many hours set in, serving the community in schools, hospitals, and hospices. Where did everything go wrong?!? I'm practicality Jeffrey Dahmer! Oh, woe is me! TwT"
Where did everything go wrong? The point where she didn't instruct you on how to treat other people properly.
"The irony of your statement here is so thick and rich, I can use it to butter my toast."
Just because you say so, right? I don't think you even know what the definition of irony is, because that doesn't make a lot of sense in the way you used it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Zashiki Warashi "I don't fantasize about using my pepper spray. I have it because it is the best method of self defense in a terse situation."
So why do you think that's so different from gun owners? It's almost sociopathic how you seem incapable of identifying with people who carry firearms as though they are not much different from yourself. I hesitate to say it is sociopathic because I know it's a lifetime of "us vs. them" programming. I'm sure you identify with your "tribe" as human beings just fine.
"If everyone around him also had a gun and didn't see the context of the situation, that so-called 'good guy with a gun' would also be dead."
Again, no one was worried about him. They were busy running from the guy that was actually shooting people. Not the guy who was aiming at the guy shooting people.
"Better yet, if that mall didn't sell .22s, he wouldn't have stolen a gun."
He stole it from a friend, not the mall. Now I know you're going to say that if his friend didn't have the .22, he couldn't have stolen it and killed people. That's true enough of a statement. I don't doubt that one bit. What I do doubt is that the incident and the lives lost will even be remembered in 100 years. So what do they matter? It may seem nihilistic, but that's the fact of the matter. In the end, hardly any of us really matter. What matters is securing our future generations. Taking away options of how they may protect themselves is counter-productive to that end.
You keep trying to say that I, and those who support gun ownership, live in a fantasy. That's ironic because I think the one who lives in a fantasy is the one who feels so safe that he chooses to gimp his ability to defend himself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ace Diamonds I concur that background checks are unconstitutional. The only reason you should not have a firearm is if you're in prison or parole. Once you've served your time, you're supposed to be whole again, not a half-citizen that can barely get a job and has been stripped of other basic rights.
But that's another conversation.
I digress. The Founding Fathers saw the weapons of the battlefield go from the bladed weapon to gunnery including canons and repeating firearms. They knew better than we could ever know today the awe-inspiring leap in technology that personal weaponry can take.
The Supreme Court has also ruled that the Second Amendment applies to weapons in common use. That means we're already being infringed upon even by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment, stating in Heller vs. D.C., "Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
1
-
Ace Diamonds If a person is that dangerous as to be considered a second-class citizen in regards to basic, recognized, unalienable rights, then they should not be out and about by themselves.
And I'm all for education and creating a culture of personal responsibility. But that isn't what the corporate body of liberals are asking for, is it? Maybe not you specifically, but the liberal agenda is to eventually completely ban firearms. As Dianne Feinstein stated quite plainly in the 90's when she successfully passed the assault weapons ban, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the senate, 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn em all in,' I would have." Hypocritical, considering that she herself was partaking in concealed carry.
Furthermore, liberals are interested in the government being a nanny (the easier path), versus working to win hearts and minds to improve the overall maturity and knowledge while maintaining a great deal of liberty of the people of the nation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ace Diamonds "right people will see the errors of their ways and just get training on their own..."
And that's why I have a problem with several liberal policy stances. It seems to tend toward, "We are better. The unwashed masses can't be trained and must be forced, through legislation, to align their view with us."
I'm liberal on many points. I'm conservative on many points.
But conservatives denying climate change, wanting to legislate against abortion, and supporting the banning and regulation of narcotics is utterly retarded.
And liberals wanting to constantly babysit the public by preemptively legislating one's right to self defense or by peer pressure affecting freedom of speech by forcing PC verbiage is bullshit as well.
And with the points I agree with the final outcome of, I don't necessarily agree with the method by which that end is attained or the way that point is argued.
I never said that the government can't force people to do things. What I am saying is that, in many cases (especially when it comes to individual rights), they shouldn't.
The firing speed is the same with any semi-automatic weapon. And there are several options for pistols, without having extended magazines, that includes 20 rounds or more (specifically, there's a 9mm Glock with a 33 round magazine capacity, though around 20 rounds is far more typical for 9mm).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
vegeta ss You're talking about vehicles, not personal arms. Your argument hinges on the fact that if all personal arms are allowed, tanks and drones (presumably with significant firepower like rockets, because you can own a drone) will be next. That's a classic slippery slope fallacy.
"If a mentally ill person goes to a movie theater and shots me but doesn't kill me, I should then be okay with that."
At what point did my argument infer that you should be ok with that? Of course you shouldn't be. You should pursue criminal charges against the person who committed the act.
"The gun only has one purpose (unless its sports related) and that purpose is to kill."
Of course that's its only purpose. Is there an argument in there?
"And the last part of your argument doesn't make sense. 'Unless I'm aiming a gun at you then I'm not infringing upon your rights.' Well, when you are pointing a gun at me, its too late to bitch about it."
Again, is there an argument here? I don't see one. It concerns me that you think there's an inherent argument being made in these last two statements.
Your argument breaks down to, "If it's designed to kill, and there is the amazingly outside potential that you might misuse it, no matter if its a right or not for you to have it, you can't have it because I'm afraid of dying." Do I have that right? Then you should be able to sympathize with me, if that's the case. I'm also afraid of dying.
The difference between you and me? I take personal responsibility in the preservation of my life by arming myself. You shirk that responsibility and put the burden of your protection on every other person out there. From my point of view, you start infringing on my rights at that point, and I've done nothing illegal or morally wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** It's notable that income level of respondents scaled directly with how those respondents feel the wealth should be distributed. In short, it shows that everyone felt that their wealth bracket should be greater.
The study states, "We used Sweden's income rather than wealth distribution because it provided a clearer contrast to the other two wealth distribution examples; although more equal than the United States' wealth distribution, Sweden's wealth distribution is still extremely top heavy."
So they used Sweden's income distribution against the US's wealth distribution. Now do you think if they showed that in the US, averaged out, the top 25% of earners make 9 times as much as the bottom 75% of earners, don't you think it would change the outcome a bit?
$13.4 billion is the amount of income for everyone in the US (est. 2012). $4.47 billion of that goes to the bottom 75% of earners in the US. With a total approximate of 144 million earners, that means an equal distribution of wealth of the bottom 75% (108 million earners) of earners would allow for every one of those earners to be paid $41,300 a year.
The top 25% of earners in the US make $8.84 billion of that $13.4 billion. Equally distributed, would mean that everyone in the top 25% of earners have an equal share of $372,000 a year. This means that, on average, the top 25% (this is where you'll find the top percentiles of paid skilled labor, business owners, CEOs, entrepreneurs, bankers, hedge fund managers, etc.) of earners in the US make about 9 times as much as the bottom 75% (generally where you'll find skilled and unskilled labor making about $90,000 a year or less).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
rixxon "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep, and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4. This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game : a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government...whoever examines the forest, and game laws in the British code, will readily perceive that the right of keeping arms is effectually taken away from the people of England."
-George Tucker, Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
bittercottoncandy "Actually it's who seems to be having a problem with that word. 'Relatively' does not mean 'considerable'. The fact that they have more compared to other european countries does not mean it's overall relevant, quite the contrary."
It is relevant, however, to how people identify with their group in this case, and that's what makes all the difference when classifying ethnicity.
"The germanic people's became 'latinized'"
What? No. The Germanic languages are still alive and well and spoken by a third of Europeans including UK, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Findland, Austria, and more as well as many outside of Europe including those in the US and Australia.
"Before the arab/moorish invasion the peninsula was under german control, for the most part."
Before the Moor invasion, it was under Roman control, with Latin being its official language -- unlike the other Germanic peoples who retained their own language and culture. Gothic language had died out in the Iberian peninsula by 500 AD.
"in the the nortwest of Spain and in northern Portugal there were regions conquered by vikings, who never left. Shall we say Spanish and Portuguese people of those regions are scandinavian?"
Do they speak Germanic languages? No. They're not Germanic.
"Finally, Sofia Vergara has a very typical central/southern spanish look to her."
Absolutely. I don't refute that. What I refute is that these are "white" features, and that they're actually Middle Eastern features introduced into the gene pool of that region, and is common in the area and very uncommon in the rest of Europe we consider "white."
Consider this: where would she most likely be capable of blending in, in the middle of Ireland or the Middle of Mecca?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TTV5 "Yeah, what I meant was that you said that the diets in question don't work. Not all diets. My bad."
I didn't say this either.
"I'm not sure quite what you mean here. I think vegans have more to show for when it comes to caring than most people. I mean, they have taken the steps to change their diet."
They don't care that their eating practices are destroying the environment, but they'll call me a murdering psychopath for hunting and having a truly limited impact on the environment.
"Also, lack of data isn't really the main problem here (although, it can be in specific cases). The main problem is that it's extremely difficult to isolate the exact effects of eating specific foods."
Yes, lack of data is a problem. Almost all of our knowledge on nutrition is correlative.
"That doesn't mean we don't have a fairly good idea of how different items affect you."
Correlation doesn't mean causation, but when it comes to nutrition, it's been taken as that way.
"It's also important to not conflate studies carried out by the food industry with scientific, peer-reviewed studies."
Many of these fad diets use The China Study as their basis or as arguments for their diet. It wasn't a real study, and it wasn't peer-reviewed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** You stated, "There is never a need to consume sugar at all."
That is flat out false. Period. End of story. If you consume no sugar, you will fall into a coma and die in short order.
The body doesn't synthesize sugar, it breaks down sugar consumed to simpler forms of sugar (read: shorter molecular chains) usable by the body.
"Well, that is what it measures, or indicates."
"Measure" and "indicate" are, medically, two entirely different things. Indications are what the measurement tells you, and is not necessarily related to the specific measurement being taken. For instance, a measurement of blood calcium measures calcium in the blood, but the levels may be indicative of other issues such as parathyroid problems. How could you have a degree in physiology and confuse these basic terms? It's more like you took Health 101 or maybe a basic biochem class.
So, with that explained, I'll ask again if you know what blood sugar indicates.
Now, onto your other post. Yes, you have to multiply the protein labeled from brown rice. Nutritional labels do not take bioavailability into account.
Regarding the protein obtained from meat sources rather than plant sources, the rest should be evident with the data I'd given. Most of a cow's protein comes from grass grazing. But let's say that it's all dry hay from farming and it eats about 30 lbs. per day.
https://beef.unl.edu/cattleproduction/forageconsumed-day
An average field can produce about 5 tons per acre.
http://extension.oregonstate.edu/question-of-the-week/hey-how-much-hay
That's about 11 tons of hay for feeding a cow for two years, or about 2 acres of hay for two years worth of beef per person.
6,000 lbs per hectare (2.5 acres, or 2400 lbs per acre) on average is what's gained for cereals that humans actually eat.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.YLD.CREL.KG
Now when it comes to cereals for human consumption, we're looking at about 50% protein bioavailability. So it takes over 6 acres of cereals for humans to get the same protein as a single cow eating 2 acres of hay, and that's giving a huge benefit of doubt by stating that cows are getting all of their protein by hay, not mostly by grazing on grass and is eating a few pounds more per day than is necessary.
Even with your questions of nursing and breeding, it's nowhere near as efficient for humans to get protein from plants than it is from animals.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** Starches are carbohydrates. They are long sugar chains.
You seem a bit slow on the pickup here, though I reason that you're a normally rather intelligent individual. I suspect that it is simply your ego making you appear dumb. Unfortunately, that means that I have to recap to help you understand the scope of the argument.
Your argument was, "In general we know at least to avoid salt and sugar as much as possible..."
My argument was, "Salt and sugar are necessary for life."
You responded, "Sugar is not a nutrient your body needs you to consume." To support this argument, you stated, "It can synthesise [sugar] all on its own."
The response to this argument is that you will die, so, no, within the scope of this argument regarding good nutrition, the body cannot simply synthesize its own sugar without an intake and survive.
On a more global scale, it technically can, but at great injury to itself. Typically hypoglycemia is avoided by the body by using sugar which has been consumed and stored in the liver. The one exception that I'm aware of being the Inuit who can eat a diet that would kill the rest of us. But since we're not talking about specifically Inuit and they make up a vast minority of the set being discussed, it is still a no.
"'Blood sugar is an indication of the effectiveness of the body at absorbing sugar that is in the blood plasma into the red blood cells.'
That's not all it indicates."
Are you serious right now? You know, if you're a know-it-all who actually knows things, I can forgive you. However, if you're a know-it-all who doesn't know jack shit and talks from his ass driven by his ego, then you are possibly one of the worst people in the world.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** "This is so annoying. I've used starches as an example of carbohydrates myself. Did you forget, or are you writing that as a deliberate attempt to make me look foolish? You write a response as if you're correcting me. You're either forgetful or juvenile"
At this point, I don't trust you to get anything right, even if you had in the past, because I'm wholly convinced that you honestly have no idea what you're talking about.
"Why are you tacking on "without an intake" now as if that's what you've been saying all along? So, wait. You're telling me that when I said that the body can synthesise glucose, you thought I meant that the body manifests matter from nothingness? I don't believe for a second that's what you thought."
The body only synthesizes sugar from amino acids. That means the body does not have any sugar reserves left, there is no sugar being ingested, and therefore enters ketosis to break down tissue to synthesize sugar. That's the only time that happens. Otherwise, complex sugars are broken down to simple sugar.
I presumed you knew this when I had a modicum of respect for you that you wouldn't be talking about something you know nothing about.
"Why are you tacking on 'without an intake' now as if that's what you've been saying all along?"
Because that should have been evident through context. Since I have no respect for your level of knowledge anymore, I'm spelling every little thing out for you now.
"However, it has nothing to do with my advice regarding a healthy diet. Very early on I clarified that I was talking in context of what applies to most people. People today in a western diet get far too much salt and far too much sugar. 'Almost nobody dies from too little salt, and nobody dies from too little sugar'. Those are pretty much my exact words."
And my exact words were, "Now if you're talking specifically about too much salt and processed sugar, then I'm 100% with you."
"Within a few hours of not having eaten, the body begins to break down non-carbohydrates to produce glucose. There is no great injury."
No, within a few hours after eating, the body begins to create simple sugar from the sugars it's stored.
It only begins to break down non-carbohydrates when there is none left in storage and there is none being ingested. It is the body's last ditch effort to survive by eating itself. That is called ketosis, because your body is depending on ketones to create sugar from amino acids.
In other words, a normally functioning body is in a state of glycolysis when it has sugars to work with. An abnormally functioning body with no sugar to work with enters a state of ketosis. A low-level ketosis state is fine, but if you have no sugar, then you quickly enter into ketoacidosis which is a toxic build up of ketones in the blood.
#1 I agree with.
#2 you are wrong about. See the most recent paragraph. Glycerol is a sugar, meaning it is a carbohydrate, so you shouldn't have listed it under non-carbohydrates. And lactate is what the glucose is transformed to for muscle energy, so it doesn't belong anywhere on that list. Just stop. With every post, you just show more ignorance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"for some reason to you updating the 2nd Amendment is the same as abolishing are violating it."
Technically it's not violating it because it would be done by a legal process, but, seriously, pay attention. Trump just got into office. You think that he's a racist, misogynistic, fascist evil entity. Remember how Second Amendment advocates say that having these weapons are, in part, to be capable of fighting against the government? And you still talk about giving up your right to defense from the government and self defense.
150-200 people dying a year to the rifles that Dems are always looking to ban is not an existential threat. Government run amok is. If Trump limits your freedom of speech, makes political prisoners and does all of the things you fear most, what are you going to do? Nothing, because you won't have the tools to do anything.
1
-
1
-
gm92845 Sorry, but you're wrong. The well regulated militia referenced in the first clause is a reference to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution where it states the following:
"Congress shall have the power...
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
The second clause then gives the right to the people, as opposed to the aforementioned militia.
It also says the right to "keep and bear arms..." Since we know that the people kept whatever firearms they wanted and whatever ammunition they wanted up until 1932, we have a very long track record showing that the Second Amendment covers loaded firearms.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, Cenk, let's talk about the Second Amendment being for a well-regulated militia. First of all a militia is ARMED CITIZENS.
Second of all, well-regulated in the 18th century means "in working order." That means that the militia has weaponry ready, functioning and is expertly used by the owner.
And if we went by Supreme Court rulings, the question of AR-15's shouldn't even be on the table, and the citizenry should have a right to selective fire (read: burst fire or fully automatic) M4's, M16's, AK-47's, submachine guns, and light machine guns.
With that being said, liberals have taken enough. Stop eroding our rights.
1
-
It seems as though you depend on adding a lot to the very generalized definitions in order to make your argument. For instance, when it comes to sovereignty, it implies that a nation self-governs. Self-governing includes how it chooses to handle situations -- that an outside entity does not dictate how it handles a situation. For instance, the Federal government may opt to not punish states for legalizing marijuana against Federal law, but that is its own choice; an act of self-governance. However, if a foreign entity exerted power over us (e.g. colonial rule where the states were essentially autonomous but still under the ultimate control of the Crown), then it would not have sovereignty.
For defined territory, you base your argument on this implying that the territory can never change, it must be contiguous, there's a distance limit from the continent and the government can never willingly give land to another entity. Territories and states outside of the US are in US waters. It is within the territory of the United States no matter how much control the Federal government chooses to exert in those places.
I think the criteria given are accurate enough to define a country. While I haven't watched the video yet, I'll say now that the EU can't be a country because the EU is not a government. It is an association of states where each state is its own highest form of government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I checked out your link, and those numbers really don't tell anything. For instance, this list could show companies that are struggling and therefore get a refund from the government are having to lay people off to stay solvent while companies that end up paying their average of 40-50% (federal and state taxes) are naturally healthy and add new jobs. We have to review each case while not ignoring everything in between the extreme outliers in order to get something that comes close to truth rather than loosely interpreted numbers where we cannot determine bias.
Industry and corporation are what make a nation. I would even go so far as to say that they are the backbone of civilization. Without those, there is no nation. When I consider topics of economics and politics, I like to simplify the problems as much as possible. So here's the two scenarios as I see them:
1. You move into the middle of a forest and set up a home, farm for yourself and live your life. Nothing notable happens.
2. You move into the middle of a forest, set up a saw mill and begin selling boards. You need repairs and replacement parts, so you move a blacksmith in to sharpen blades, fix ax handles, weld broken pieces, and all the rest of the things a blacksmith does for a portion of your sales. People coming in to purchase lumber bring money and need a place to stay and eat and drink so an inn opens. Provisions are needed for the businesses and the people coming through and residents so a general store opens. Farmers begin coming in producing food for selling in the new town since it's cheaper for the town than importing and keeps the farmers with some money.
Now when you tax that saw mill, everything that has sprung up around it takes a hit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It depends on this department's individual force policy as to whether or not this officer did not perform his duty as per department policy.
There are definitely some questions to be answered here. First of all, we're unsure if he's being tasered the entire time the popping sound is heard. It seems like the shocks were coming in bursts due to the suspect's reaction. However, the popping sound did continue, so it's a possibility he was being shocked the entire time.
By the time this video starts, the suspect was already tasered once. Before the firing of the TASER that's heard in the video, you can hear the popping of the first TASER and see him fall to the ground, after which you hear the loud pop of the firing of the second TASER. It may be that he pulled one or both nodes out from the first TASER.
The point is, we can't tell from this video, and the investigation is ongoing.
Now according to this article: http://news.fredericksburg.com/newsdesk/2013/11/12/fredericksburg-police-launch-internal-investigation-after-apparent-taser-incident/
It states the department's policy allowing less-lethal options includes the following circumstances:
"Under the directive, officers are authorized to use less lethal force to:
Defend themselves or others from assaults and other threats.
Arrest, detain, subdue, control, and/or restrain a noncompliant (active resistance or active aggression) suspect.
Prevent the escape of a suspect.
Bring an unlawful or dangerous situation safely and effectively under control."
In this, the officers did use the TASERs under the terms of this directive to detain a noncompliant suspect.
However, CBS News shows in this article a different story: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57612385-504083/video-of-suspect-being-tased-by-va-cop-prompts-internal-investigation/
"According to Fredericksburg.com, the police department's use of force policy states that, 'A subject fleeing from an officer, by itself, is not justification for the Taser to be deployed and is prohibited.'"
It is arguable that this quote from CBS News applies only to an instance, for example, that one sees an officer and for no apparent reason bolts in the opposite direction, and that an incident such as this one is entirely different as the subject was detained as part of an investigation.
What I think the officers definitely did right in this video was that they did not put their knees on the suspect, dogpile on him or try to forcefully restrain him in any way. This is good considering the number of deaths and reports of positional asphyxiation associated with such actions.
The officers allowed the TASER to do its job of incapacitating the subject. However, as I presented here, there's still a lot of unanswered questions that I believe a lot of people are jumping the gun on to presume the officers have done something improperly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
tedtrash Thank you for the name of the Pennsylvania Militia Act of 1755, but I'm unsure how this bill would be unpopular conservative position these days, to be honest. Perhaps you could explain further why you feel it would be an unpopular conservative position these days.
I don't believe the argument is circular as you claim it to be. "Conservative" is merely a label that represents a way of thinking. That way of thinking existed long before the word "conservative" did. A US conservative, however, would not be able to exist prior to a US existing, of course. I would feel secure in saying that the Founding Fathers felt what they were doing was the best for the nation and would like to have their vision for the nation conserved.
For instance, by the time we get to the mid-19th century, the conservatives were seeking to end slavery to conserve the Founding Fathers' wishes that it end.
Conservative is a very narrow, well-defined thought process, though different people may have different opinions on how such conservation of the nation should go.
A conservative simply and plainly strives to maintain the Founding Fathers' vision for the nation. Nothing more, nothing less.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TigrisRex14 It took you so long to respond, I forgot you went off topic from the video. Anyway, you asked, "In Australia, where they don't have guns?"
Yes. Monash University shooting, Sydney hostage crisis, Hectorville siege, Hunt family murders, Sydney police department shooting. And, yes, all of these were after the Port Arthur massacre and the gun buyback/strict legislation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
4:17 Mark 7:21-23 "For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come— sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you put the numbers in the same proportion, 1 in 4 people are skeptical about climate change which isn't that much different than 1 in 6 scientists being skeptical about human activity being a factor in the change in climate. I personally think that human activity is affecting the climate, whether it's ranching (methane), fossil fuels (CO2), or any number of other human activities, but that human activity is a significant factor in climate change is a theory and can never be proven -- only debunked. We can support it with many proven hypotheses to establish it as a generally accepted fact, but we're not even close to doing that, and there's a number of questions that still need to be answered.
But then again, the climate has changed dramatically in the past. At some point, no matter what we do, we will have to deal with other ice ages or warm interglacial periods with little to no ice. We'll need to deal with such things sooner or later, whether we reverse our changes or not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** What makes you think that I don't believe in the Constitution?
"Well, hopefully no one ever decides they're afraid of YOU and guns you down in cold blood."
Someone being afraid of me isn't grounds for them shooting me. As such, if they commit such an act, it's murder. I'm ok with that.
"Yes, because to the tiny, little brain of a conservative, if a single crime is committed, that proves the law doesn't work."
First of all, I'm not a conservative, nor am I a liberal. Party politics prevents critical thinking and results in people like you. A critical thinker should realize that since we do live in a dangerous world, guns or not, we should be capable of protecting ourselves how we see fit. In short, if there's crime, you shouldn't take my gun. If there's no crime, you don't need to take my gun. It's the paradox of gun control that is conveniently ignored.
"Which means, according to their peculiar brand of "logic", we may as well simply eliminate all laws and regulations since people don't obey them anyway."
When I break the law, I will be subject to prosecution. That's the way it should be. I shouldn't be prosecuted proactively against what is a civil right in our nation when I've done nothing wrong.
"Better yet, we should simply force all such people out of civilized society and make them live in the wilderness with the rest of the animals."
So you would be the animal that you imagine a gun owner to be. That's an unfortunate line of thought.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1:52 "[The quesetion] asked respondents to identify themselves along a continuum covering the following six points: Very conservative, Conservative, Moderate, Liberal, Very liberal, Radical. As shown in Table 2, and also as illustrated in Figure 15, there is a fairly steady increase in amount of drug use as one moves from the conservative to the radical end of the scale."
"Correlates of Drug Use, Part I: Selected Measures of Background, Recent Experiences, and Lifestyle Orientations" by Jerald C. Bachman, Patrick M. O’Malley, Lloyd D. Johnston, Institute for Social Research The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 1980.
"In addition, those with attitudes more tolerant of political liberalism and drug use preferred abstract art the most."
Abstract excerpt from "Openness to Experience, Non-Conformity, and the Preference for Abstract Art" by Gregory J. Feist and Tara R. Brady in Empirical Studies of the Arts 2004
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ChrisMathers3501 " First off you know precisely jack shit about me. You say I made "generalizations about an entire occupation." WHAT occupation?"
You stated, "...and the intelligence of authority figures who were obviously unqualified for the positions of power they wield," and, "just because I don't want my college educated ass arrested by some C student high school graduate." Clearly you're generalizing everyone who performs police work.
"Whereas you made a generalization about my level of education, like I'm supposed to have a PhD by now like three of my immediate family members."
Nope. I asked a question about your education and stated the reasoning for the question. I'm actually wondering now if you even have a college education.
"If my words strike a nerve, perhaps you're simply too susceptible to butthurt..."
"Meanwhile somebody COULD be out there getting stabbed, raped, shot, robbed or beaten the fuck up, but they're on their own because some cuntface snitch like you decided to pick up the phone."
Oh, the irony. Sounds like you're the butthurt one. What, did you get a class C felony and now have a problem finding your "college educated ass" a job?
1
-
ChrisMathers3501 Deducing is not generalizing. Perhaps you need to look up the words to understand the difference. If I were generalizing, I would have to generalize something you're doing to an entire group or something a specific group is stereotyped for doing to you without any evidence that it applies to you. Since I'm questioning only you as an individual based on the evidence you yourself are providing, it is a deduction.
"If you really must know, I'm a junior at Marshall University."
So I was right all around. You're an undergraduate who hasn't even completed his coursework. You don't understand how to really think critically. I highly recommend that you get a post graduate degree, because you really need to learn these things. You should learn a lot regarding how to think critically, logically and clearly by the time you complete your thesis. It will also help you in how to form arguments as you prepare to defend your thesis.
"Currently.
So no, no felony on my record."
Your being in college currently has nothing to do with whether there's a felony on your record or not.
"But I have a LOT of friends. Some of them just might have a felony or two on theirs. And it's because of scum fucks like yourself who support our laws and our system, such as they are, who I hold almost as accountable as the mentally subnormal turds enforcing them, that they won't be able to get decent jobs like the graphic design positions I have open to me."
Not just over smoking marijuana they don't. They either had enough on them to successfully garner an intent to distribute charge or were within range of a primary education school. Just smoking marijuana is typically, at worst, a misdemeanor with a minimal fine of something like $100. More often than not, it involves just dumping your weed and you're free to go.
"We shouldn't even be having this conversation. This shit should have been legal since the nineteen fucking sixties. But don't worry. It's more legal now than it's ever been. It just got legalized in our nation's CAPITAL. I'll bet that really pisses you off. And hey - if you look at public opinion polls you'll realize not only just how alone you really are, but also how many people out there hate people like you."
I really couldn't care less if it becomes legal or not. I stand against it, and that's my stance. Whether my stance is the one that the people choose is completely irrelevant to me emotionally. So, no, marijuana legalized in DC or in my home state of Oregon really doesn't bother me one iota.
Also, people who willfully imbibe intoxicants are hardly the people I care to win a popularity contest with when it comes to the effects of intoxicants on society, personal health, public health and individual lives. I have even less respect for those who would willfully break the law just to intoxicate themselves. Perhaps there are definitely times when a little civil disorder is good to challenge establishments; however, the ability to poison oneself is hardly that important.
1
-
1
-
ChrisMathers3501 "Okay, so an undergraduate can't think critically. I need an accredited university to give me a certificate before I can be qualified to think, question, investigate, research or experiment."
Considering you're demonstrating a lack of ability to think critically here, I would say you need further education in that area, yes. A certificate is irrelevant to the situation that you're doing a poor job of critical thinking here. In fact, this conclusion of yours that I pasted and am arguing against is proof of that inability to think critically and logically.
"I hope you never have to have your life saved by somebody who's not a qualified firefighter or paramedic. You'd probably die of shame."
Law is neither medicine nor emergency response. A medical tech will not decide to give me subcutaneous IV fluid because of political pressure. A firefighter wouldn't advise me to breathe in smoke because of a large group of people who believe breathing smoke is good. On the other hand, a lawyer will make judgments based on public opinion -- especially if that judge is elected or appointed by a political party or association.
"Well, I'm glad you don't care about popularity because you're unpopular with at least 78% of the entire country."
I'm sure you're talking about a poll, not the entire country. I'm not aware of any marijuana study that has surveyed everyone in the nation. So 78% of the couple thousand polled disagree with me. Again, your ability to think critically is lacking.
"When it comes to the effects on society, look at Colorado and see how well they're doing. Everybody's happy and the state is rich."
Increased animal poisoning from marijuana consumption, significantly increased drivers caught under the influence specifically related to marijuana consumption, acute marijuana poisoning, two deaths possibly related directly to marijuana consumption.
"Personal health? Cancer patients, people with psychological problems, vets with PTSD, and children who won't stop having seizures until they get their medicine can all get the medicine they need now."
There are medications available through prescription that are better controlled in dosage and offer more effective use of the active ingredients. Having the raw plant available for medical use is a disservice to further medical research on the various compounds in marijuana by offering the substance independent of medical supervision and tightly controlled dosing of specific compounds.
"Public health? Crime in Colorado dropped like a ton of bricks."
This is misleading. When you legalize something that people were getting in trouble for, yes, crime will naturally drop significantly. I'd rather have more people getting misdemeanors than a large increase of those driving under the influence.
"Individual lives? Hey, if you have a friend who's a drug dealer (and how would you even really know, since he obviously wouldn't tell someone like you), he doesn't have to risk getting thrown into the rape showers if he gets bagged."
People who take advantage of communities by committing crimes to make a fast buck belong in the rape showers.
"People who smoke pot don't poison themselves. That's already legal. Just ask any alcoholic."
Yes, people who smoke marijuana poison themselves. Furthermore, the discussion regarding alcohol isn't related to this discussion.
1
-
bioman123 I'm not ignoring the word supplementation, because supplementation is required for survival if you are otherwise incapable of producing the compound through standard biological means. Therefore, whether or not it's supplementation is irrelevant. Furthermore, even if it did make a difference, you're just changing the goalpost as your original post of, "We certainly don't know the full effects of vitamins on the body. Vitamin D, for instance, regulates thousands of genes. It's extremely complex," did not mention supplementation. I honestly hope you don't expect me to get scope from TheDkmariolink's joke regarding his "adult gummy vitamins."
To further my argument that you're taking an illogical stance from even a supplement perspective is that we consume vitamin supplementation in every single thing we consume to survive. This again defeats your logic that if we need to be worried about the possible unknown dangers of marijuana consumption, we should be equally cautious of the unknown dangers of vitamin supplement consumption. This is true even if you disagree with me regarding either the scope of this conversation being about supplements or the fact that the requirement of consumption to live making any possible negative side effects irrelevant.
"[You] are now implying that when I highlight the logical error I am being illogical."
I'm not stating that you are being illogical for pointing out the logical error of TheDkmariolink. I'm stating that you are being illogical for your original statement comparing vitamins with recreational drug use.
If you'd stop thinking so much about how to reply, perhaps you'd take time to actually think about what someone else is saying to you; especially when someone states that you're blind to your blunder.
1
-
1
-
ChrisMathers3501 I set the scope of lawyers, not law enforcement. These are two entirely different things.
"THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. As marijuana poisoning."
This is inaccurate. Do a search for "acute marijuana toxicity and poisoning."
"Not one single person. EVER. Has overdosed on marijuana."
This is very probable to be inaccurate. When you do the search I suggested for you, you'll see that you're mistaken.
"http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/highlight/hundreds-of-military-veterans-just-got-free-pot/54203612fe34446a3c0006cc?cn=tbla
Not having the plant available at all is a disservice to our veterans. You don't want to be the kind of person who stands in the way of our veterans, do you? Look, I have a sister who works at the VA."
I'm not persuaded by emotional nor intellectual blackmail like what you're trying. I'm far too smart for that. The false dichotomy that I'm either for pot or against veteran care is hardly a valid nor persuasive argument. The fact is that veterans have a plethora of choices. Offering a substance (marijuana) that has been proved to exacerbate mental disorders to veterans with mental disorders (most notably paranoia, a major issue in severe PTSD cases) is hardly a positive thing.
"It's because of your bullshit regulations that the VA's in the sorry state that it is."
I have no idea what you think are my "bullshit regulations."
"Uh, hey dipshit, driving under the influence is STILL. ILLEGAL. It doesn't matter if pot itself is legal, driving stoned is not legal, and you will get arrested for that."
I never said it wasn't, but there has been a significant increase in DUI arrests made. That means a significant increase of people driving under the influence. This is not good, whether they get arrested or not.
"But I wasn't talking about misdemeanor possession charges. Actual crime has gone down. You know, the violent kind. With victims."
Really? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-a-sabet-phd/crime-is-up-in-colorado-w_b_5663046.html
Still, it's impossible to make a positive correlation at this point between marijuana legalization and its effect on crime.
"I'll remind you of that when your kid brother gets caught selling some pot brownies to his friends and wakes up with a big black murderer up his ass with no lube."
His being in prison would be his debt to pay to society. Also, I'm not sure how old you are, but I'm quite old enough to not have a kid brother.
"If you want to talk about people taking advantage of communities by committing crimes to make money look no further than the government."
Do you really expect me to address such delusional ranting?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ChrisMathers3501 "Yeah I have. I'm just above that petty 'post each and every part of what the other guy said and counter every irrelevant detail' nitpicking shit."
Again, you think you have, but you haven't. You've not presented a single valid argument, in fact. You use outlying circumstances, misrepresented information, and outright lies. These prevent your arguments from even being remotely valid.
If you need more than an ounce on you to make sure you don't run out, you've got problems.
"And possession is only a misdemeanor on a first time offense if the fine is paid up front. Try $300."
It varies by state. Most every state is about $100 and a low-level misdemeanor or less. You said that people were in prison for smoking pot. That means that you're saying that it's a felony to smoke pot. It's not. You can try all kinds of mental gymnastics to try to make your statement right by some circumstances, but it's not going to fly.
"So why do people like you insist on inconveniencing the FUCK out of literally just about EVERYBODY? Why do you support prohibition? All it did in the 20s was create peaceful criminals, dangerous gangs and cartels, and dangerous alternatives."
There will always be people looking to make a fast buck. If it's not drugs, it'll be something else.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
BollocksUtwat "But the whole point of this video was that people do not agree with your views."
Actually, this video is about an online poll of 1,884 people, about 1,000 of which said that they feel a political revolution is in order. It looks like their sensationalism has dulled your ability to think critically. Presidential election results spats right into the face of this poll's numbers.
"Nobody is factually wrong about their political values."
In this case, that's simply not true. No one is coerced to work for someone else. There are endless opportunities available for a smart, hard-working individual to retain all the wealth of their production. The thing is, even if they complain, they prefer a steady paycheck and giving up part of their production to building a business the means of production which they own, and that is their own personal choice whether they realize it or not.
"Freedom to be a slave is not freedom. A coercive relationship cannot be the source of an ethical contract. Before the advent of laws protecting labour rights labour was widely exploitative on a scale most people today can't even imagine, much like it is in developing nations."
So building your own business is being a slave? Anyway, this is after the advent of laws and labor unions, so there's really no valid argument here. If it were before that, and you were saying that it would be a good idea to implement, I would agree with you. Also, the power of labor unions have been eroded thanks to Republicans, and that's a huge misstep -- especially if they want to question the legitimacy of minimum wage.
"Again, you assume that you're taking it from people who worked to build it, or who deserved to take as much as they did in the first place. What if the ones who had their shit taken were the ones who laboured and received less than they deserved?"
You have to prove that they have been receiving less than they deserve.
"Productivity in the west has gone up greatly since the 1980s but the proportion of wealth distributed to the majority has not increased with it."
You're right about this, but I don't see the problem here. If the purchasing power of the worker is about the same now as it was 60 years ago, why do you think there's an issue in there? The same amount of time is being put into production between the two periods, so why should they be getting more purchasing power?
"In your opinion do you believe that somehow in the last 40 years the vast majority of people in the United States became lazier and far less productive while a very very minuscule portion of the population became exponentially more productive to make up for them? That doesn't make a lot of sense."
Partly, yes. Many more households are holding college degrees and there are more households now than back then where both adults in the household are working. This is a lot of the "disappearing" middle class. It's not that the middle class is disappearing, but that the middle class is making more than the questionable upper cap used by Pew of $140,000 a year. It is not difficult for a basic degree holder with 5 years of experience on the job to be making 70,000 a year, and if both adults in the household are working class people but earning more than that each, then they're not considered middle class.
1
-
BollocksUtwat "Oh this is a fun game. Watch me play it with you: Yes they are.
Wonderful."
You know how paragraphs work, right? I set the premise, I compose the supporting statements for that premise and then close that point.
Taking my premise out of the paragraph as though I intended it to stand alone as the argument itself is highly dishonest of you and I would say qualifies as a strawman fallacy on your part since that wasn't even my argument but merely the claim that I argued in the rest of the paragraph.
"Is this where you render all complexities of the dynamics of capitalist economies into the idealized buzzwords surrounding the canonization of the prototypical small business entrepreneur?"
No, this is where I argue against the idea that people are coerced to work for others.
"Sure there is, because number 1 western economies are hugely dependent on a supply chain involving exploitation of labour akin to the early days of the Industrial Revolution and number 2 its not simply a binary threshold which you can be on one side of or another. The inequities of the economy are very fluid and on a spectrum and in particular since the 1980s regression of the progress made since unions and labour rights have been stark.
"Ultimately however the laws which define the protection of union rights are a form of wealth redistribution because it protects the rights of people to hold businesses hostage to negotiations. Its the same with minimum wages which effectively enforce a minimum distribution of wealth. Of course taxes towards services again are a form of redistribution.
"The entire reason we have these laws is because when this economy organized as it is and when left to its own devices leads to horrible exploitation and unfair division of wealth."
You call it an exploitation of labor without qualifying this. This is the second time you've done this, and yet you, in a very hypocritical way, presume that I'm using buzzwords and oversimplifications. Labor is going to happen. People are going to work. That's an inescapable fact of life no matter what, and that will never change in any foreseeable future. Perhaps in the future we'll have creations that completely free humanity from work, but that's a far-off pipe dream that we're not even close to accomplishing. But I digress.
The point here is that working people are not forced to struggle. It's rather easy to get a job making $12 an hour or more, even with a limited education. It's possible to make up to about $25 an hour with a limited education which is a very livable wage. People live much better and more stably working than they would on their own in their maximum capacity which would most likely qualify as a state of subsistence or just above. So, no, there is no argument there that you have.
The issue I mentioned with labor unions is not laws that protect them, but the essential dismantling of the unions by the right. That's wrong.
"In economics growth is everything and you don't see a problem if there's null growth in 90% of people's share of the economy they all participate in?"
You're answering a question with a question. Just answer my original question straight.
"So basically the middle class is disappearing because they've all become upper class and the crisis of the middle class is that the middle class is doing too well?
"Amazing...,"
I didn't say all. That's why I specifically said "partly." While above I was a little fuzzy on whether or not what you did was a strawman, here it is unquestionably a strawman. However, more to the topic, more have moved up out of middle class than down. The reason that economists are concerned about the disappearance of the middle class is because these are the primary consumers. The "middle class" has been reduced by 11 points (measured in percent) since 1971, according to Pew. There has been a 7 point increase in the upper middle and highest incomes. There has been a 4 point increase in the lower middle and lowest incomes. That increase on the low-end would doubtlessly be helped with a healthier economy with a lower unemployment rate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Frinkles Kai I'm sorry, but you're incorrect. , Not just the US but China, India, The UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and other English-speaking nations teach that North America and South America are two separate continents.
From your cultural perspective, it may be like France equating itself to Europe, but not from others' cultural perspectives. Being culturally sensitive means understanding and accepting cultural differences as just that: differences, not right and wrong.
With that being said, it is taught that there are anywhere between 4 and 7 continents (and in some cases with Antarctica not being viewed as a continent). They're not wrong, they're different.
Like I said, the concept of a "continent" is deprecated, and there are much better defining terms in respect to the study of geography, but it is still a widely used cultural designation of land areas of the Earth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hal, here's the "same damn thing" that happened: "Jacobs entered the office without permission, aggressively shoved a recorder in Greg’s face, and began asking badgering questions. Jacobs was asked to leave. After asking Jacobs to lower the recorder, Jacobs declined. Greg then attempted to grab the phone that was pushed in his face. Jacobs grabbed Greg’s wrist, and spun away from Greg, pushing them both to the ground. It’s unfortunate that this aggressive behavior from a liberal journalist created this scene at our campaign volunteer BBQ."
When asked what the "same damn thing" was directly to The Guardian, they said, "The Guardian is deeply appalled by how our reporter, Ben Jacobs, was treated in the course of doing his job as a journalist while reporting on the Montana special election. We are committed to holding power to account and we stand by Ben Jacobs and our team of reporters for the questions they ask and the reporting that is produced."
How canned.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sendoh Jin "how do you increase transparency or develop a better culture?"
I'll handle both of these in two sections.
In order to increase transparency, you first need to stop having stupid laws that impact campaign contributions -- who can make them and the amount maximum that they can make.
Instead, make elected hopefuls follow a stringent reporting requirement to make transparent any proceeds they receive.
In order to develop a better culture, you need time, but it has the most powerful impact in the direction and health of a nation more than anything else. A culture of a nation begins in the home -- not on the news or in politics. As Gil Scott Heron wrote, "The revolution will not be televised."
Speaking to many different people from many different walks of life and convincing them of wholesome goals and culture is the hardest job there is, but it is more important than anything else in our nation. Our social culture has been declining at a rapid rate since the turn of the century, and even faster in decline since about the 70s and 80s. A nation's culture is fundamentally at almost every single core of its problems.
I'm not sure when the Founding Fathers wrote, "We the People," they realized the implications of what that can mean. Namely, the social structure of a nation's people make that nation what it is. Whether it's what one experiences when they go out into the world and interact with others or when the government governs in response to their nation's social structure.
Where does it start? In yourself, in your home, at your work, during leisure time. It's what you talk about, it's how you present yourself, it's how well mannered you are. It's how you raise the next generation to be.
1
-
1
-
jsgdk It's not fluff. See Benjamin Franklin's thirteen necessary virtues for a nation to succeed.
Temperance. Eat not to dullness; drink not to elevation.
Silence. Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself; avoid trifling conversation.
Order. Let all your things have their places; let each part of your business have its time.
Resolution. Resolve to perform what you ought; perform without fail what you resolve.
Frugality. Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself; i.e., waste nothing.
Industry. Lose no time; be always employ'd in something useful; cut off all unnecessary actions.
Sincerity. Use no hurtful deceit; think innocently and justly, and, if you speak, speak accordingly.
Justice. Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits that are your duty.
Moderation. Avoid extremes; forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.
Cleanliness. Tolerate no uncleanliness in body, cloaths, or habitation.
Tranquillity. Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable.
Chastity. Rarely use venery but for health or offspring, never to dullness, weakness, or the injury of your own or another's peace or reputation.
Humility. Imitate Jesus and Socrates.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
prallund feucht There is no comma that would cause that sentence to make sense. Maybe you should take a lesson from a person whose first language is English. You use phrases like, "now explain me," and expect to be able to get away with telling me that you understand English better than me. I can mud through most of your poor English (though it is rather good for a person whose second language is English, but far from perfect), but that sentence simply doesn't work like you think it does. Explain what you were trying to say in different terms.
A single person who makes minimum wage pays about 18-20% in taxes. When they turn in their tax papers at the end of the year, they will typically get all of that money back, giving them a check for a thousand to two thousand dollars. With that being said, you pretty much have to go out of your way to get a job making minimum wage in the US. The conditions the person is living in can be pretty decent. A portion of a rented house with a share of the utilities can allow a person to live rather well on minimum wage. There's also Section 8 housing which adjusts rent based on a person's income. I don't know what you mean by "influence." You can participate in a legal "insurance" program that provides legal services. Tased, shot and disowned? That just makes me roll my eyes at your ignorance of what it's like in the US.
"what was socialist about the nazi"
"what were the ends as described in the founding literature"
Alright, I'm patient in many ways, but I don't like repeating myself. I already explained both questions fully in my previous post. Read up on the völkisch movement and its effects on the ideologies of the Nazi party.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Terra Silverspar "This is sort of a red herring argument, as El Salvador swapped to the US Currency in an attempt to spur economic growth, since it was believed since it worked for Ecuador it could work for El Salvador. Unfortunately, El Salvador's economic growth has remained neutral even after adopting the US currency, and in fact saw higher economic growth before adopting the dollar."
The argument I'm making a point against is Sandra's claim that it is breaking "international finance law" to use another nation's currency. I've not claimed that Texas would use US's currency or that it would be successful -- only that it's a possibility.
In fact, the whole point of my argument that the hypothetical idea that Texas as a nation would utterly fail is not a foregone conclusion, but Sandra Balvert is stubborn in her belief that is the only logical outcome.
"If they continued to use US currency, then they would still be beholden to the US. Plain and simple and sort of defeats the whole secessionist point of view."
Texas would not be beholden to Federal legislation, however, which would be the reason for secession.
"And of course if Texas separated from the Union, then you are talking about border patrols from the US, and thus Texas, which would lose military support from the US, and thus have to supply its own military (IE all former US military bases would undoubtedly be decommissioned and dismantled) well"
Like Sandra, you're assuming Texas would establish a standing military, rather than using something like the Swiss militia system. You're also assuming that Texas would not have good relations with the US after secession.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Terra Silverspar "Actually neither one of us have said we absolutely know..."
That's exactly what this statement Sandra said: "...Texas could not handle it on their own..." That is an absolute. There are no qualifiers.
Perhaps you didn't intend to align yourself with such an absolute, and, without knowing the conversation, you jumped in on the wrong side aligning yourself with such a ludicrous and arrogant stance. If that's the case, it was just a miscommunication between us, and I realize you've personally said nothing as brazen as Sandra did. However, when you came to her defense, that is the argument you aligned with. If you only intend to argue why you think it may go sour, then by all means, you're entitled to that, and I would agree to everything you've said. What I don't agree with is Sandra's absolute "this is the future and nothing else" claim.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** Lincoln, in a speech given at Peoria in 1854 regarding the attempt at the Kansas-Nebraska Act to give a resurgence to slavery before the Civil War, he stated of the Founding Fathers, "I particularly object to the NEW position which the avowed principle of this Nebraska law gives to slavery in the body politic. I object to it because it assumes that there CAN be MORAL RIGHT in the enslaving of one man by another. I object to it as a dangerous dalliance for a few [free?] people---a sad evidence that, feeling prosperity we forget right---that liberty, as a principle, we have ceased to revere. I object to it because the fathers of the republic eschewed, and rejected it. The argument of 'Necessity' was the only argument they ever admitted in favor of slavery; and so far, and so far only as it carried them, did they ever go. They found the institution existing among us, which they could not help; and they cast blame upon the British King for having permitted its introduction. BEFORE the constitution, they prohibited its introduction into the north-western Territory---the only country we owned, then free from it. AT the framing and adoption of the constitution, they forbore to so much as mention the word 'slave' or 'slavery' in the whole instrument. In the provision for the recovery of fugitives, the slave is spoken of as a 'PERSON HELD TO SERVICE OR LABOR.' In that prohibiting the abolition of the African slave trade for twenty years, that trade is spoken of as 'The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States NOW EXISTING, shall think proper to admit,' &c. These are the only provisions alluding to slavery. Thus, the thing is hid away, in the constitution, just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death; with the promise, nevertheless, that the cutting may begin at the end of a given time. Less than this our fathers COULD not do; and NOW [MORE?] they WOULD not do. Necessity drove them so far, and farther, they would not go. But this is not all. The earliest Congress, under the constitution, took the same view of slavery. They hedged and hemmed it in to the narrowest limits of necessity.
In 1794, they prohibited an out-going slave-trade---that is, the taking of slaves FROM the United States to sell.
In 1798, they prohibited the bringing of slaves from Africa, INTO the Mississippi Territory---this territory then comprising what are now the States of Mississippi and Alabama. This was TEN YEARS before they had the authority to do the same thing as to the States existing at the adoption of the constitution.
In 1800 they prohibited AMERICAN CITIZENS from trading in slaves between foreign countries---as, for instance, from Africa to Brazil.
In 1803 they passed a law in aid of one or two State laws, in restraint of the internal slave trade.
In 1807, in apparent hot haste, they passed the law, nearly a year in advance to take effect the first day of 1808---the very first day the constitution would permit---prohibiting the African slave trade by heavy pecuniary and corporal penalties.
In 1820, finding these provisions ineffectual, they declared the trade piracy, and annexed to it, the extreme penalty of death. While all this was passing in the general government, five or six of the original slave States had adopted systems of gradual emancipation; and by which the institution was rapidly becoming extinct within these limits.
Thus we see, the plain unmistakable spirit of that age, towards slavery, was hostility to the PRINCIPLE, and toleration, ONLY BY NECESSITY."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** Actually, it's not her reproductive system -- it's a separate life altogether that is a separate entity from her reproductive system.
Let me ask you this: when a murderer kills a pregnant woman and the fetus dies, does he get charged with one count of murder or two? If you don't know, it's two; one for the mother and one for the fetus.
What doesn't make sense to me is to reason that the answer for an overpopulated and attacked (though you didn't qualify this) postnatal system is to legally allow the ending of prenatal life.
"Also, supporting abortion does not preclude fighting for reestablishing help for needy children."
No, but that's what's being argued is a valid solution, at least in part, to the problem.
"Pro-choice advocates do not support it because the policy is easy, rather because a woman's physical sovereignty will always trump the whims of invasive politicians."
A person always has sovereignty over themselves, but there are times we lose that sovereignty as consequences for our actions -- what we choose to do with that sovereignty. If a woman chooses to use her sovereignty to end an unborn life, then I think there should be stiff consequences to that abuse of her sovereignty.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** "are you comfortable with merely asserting them as fact?"
These are my opinions on the matter, not fact. You'd do well to understand the difference.
With that being said, my argument does not need to support that unborn life trumps born life. For instance, I support medically significant abortions. What I am saying is that unborn life trumps the whims of anyone wishing to terminate that life.
Everything we view as socially forward thought is toward the preservation of life: reduction of war, longevity with higher quality of life, more equal distribution of wealth, reduction of violence, support and aid to suffering nations, etc. As such, it is socially backward to support the termination of life on a whim.
"So far, all you've given are:
● poorly applied analogies
● falsely attributed demonizing labels, and
● distortions of biological fact"
What distortions of biological fact? The other two are just your opinion of my arguments stated as fact.
1
-
***** "And yet you seem to think your opinion proves solid grounds for enacting anti-abortion legislation?"
No, the rational and reasonable arguments I provide to support my opinion, I feel, provides solid ground for enacting anti-abortion legislation. Doubtless, you disagree, but that's why we're having this debate.
"Repeating the position nearly verbatim does not serve to support that same position."
While there were a lot of words in common, there's a very large difference in the comparative valuation of one life to another versus the comparative valuation of one's whims to a life.
"This does not show that the choice to abort is a whim and ignores the considerations that actually do take place before a woman might choose to abort."
Perhaps "whim" is, in fact, too unfair of a word to use to get my point across. When I say "whim", what I mean is making a choice to abort an unborn life that is not related to a medically significant abortion, rape/incest -- an "oops" pregnancy abortion.
"It also ignores the fact that bringing a new child into the world when either the mother, society or both is unable to care for it, reduces the quality of all the social ideals you just mentioned."
That is a good argument to improve our culture and systems, but not a good argument to terminate life.
"You stated that a developing fetus is an independent form of life, which would imply that it is biologically viable apart from the mother. This is simply not true."
I never said that. Maybe that was someone else. It is its own life, but it is wholly dependent. Hell, we probably wouldn't be having this argument otherwise.
"The other two are just your opinion of my arguments stated as fact.
You just said:
These are my opinions on the matter
and now you're surprised that I'd take them as such when considering them in your argument to establish legal control over a woman's procreative practices?"
Sorry for the dangling participle. I'm bad about those. What it was intended to read like was, "The other two are just your opinion, stated as fact, of my arguments."
1
-
***** "The problem I have with this is that it begins from the assumption that you've adequately demonstrated that abortion is always an unacceptable response to accidental pregnancy. You haven't, and thus It begs the question."
I haven't to you. I've objectively made a valid and reasonable argument. It doesn't mean you have to be persuaded by the argument.
"That aside, as I've argued before, there is room to retain the right to abort or not and improve social support systems."
That's not the point.
"...perhaps your time would be better spent fighting for the improved systems you allude to instead of demonizing the women who already find themselves making a difficult decision."
So you're saying to forego attempting to save lives to improve systems when I could do both? This isn't the same case as just a paragraph before where I don't want the support for abortions, just the fixing of systems and culture -- I don't want the "and".
"The former creates an society where a woman can choose to give birth as an option."
She already has her option and choice. It's not like women regularly become asexually pregnant through no choice of their own.
"The reason that this doesn't work is because it establishes a double standard. Essentially you're saying that, when it comes to making your case, opinion is good enough, but then you flip the script and argue that that my opinion of your opinion invalidates my argument."
No, you listed what I've "done so far" in an objective fashion. Since those are your opinions, it was disingenuous of you to present and list them as objectively as you did.
"Like it or not, the burden of proof is on you."
I would argue that the burden of proof is on abortionists to make a case on why women shouldn't be held to the same level of responsibility as every one else.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Aeroldoth3 Jefferson fought against the banking system (in retrospect, perhaps quite wisely) in the early 19th century. One of his primary concerns was that the banks "will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
Codified in the Constitution, we have the protection that "private property [not] be taken for public use without just compensation." That alone is a codified right to private property.
James Madison wrote that "as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights."
James Otis wrote, "One of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one’s house. A man’s house is his castle."
John Adams stated, "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."
James Madison again wrote, "Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own."
Thomas Jefferson puts the cherry on top that this all includes one's business when he wrote, "A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's a fact largely accepted among the top political science and financial minds that Republican policy grows the economy better than Democratic policy does. This is an example of one of those policies that you have to scratch the surface on to understand the benefit.
TYT, of course, continues with their simple demagoguery of the rich vs. the poor. I'm tired of this. Here's what will really happen over a long period:
A company invests to fix a road and puts up tollbooths. This alone creates jobs. Even if the booths are unmanned, someone has to collect the money and perform maintenance on these units.
The working people already pay the large portion of the taxes that pay for roads. Those taxes currently come from gas taxes. It's the exact same as the toll we see now. Now that there are more and more electric vehicles on the road, that's causing a concern for how roads will be paid for in the future. Having roads tolled only makes sense.
This policy will also increase the rate that infrastructure is upgraded. You're going to make more money, faster allowing 8 lanes of vehicles through than four. This is something that a local road in our region really needs, but the state simply can't afford to do it. For 16 hours out of the day, this road in particular is stop-and-go traffic. Yes, from about 5 am to 8 pm, it's gridlocked. That is certainly not good for working people and commerce. I'd rather pay to use a road that I don't have to spend an hour and a half on to go 20 miles.
Such things will also make gas itself cheaper since the primary source of taxes for road maintenance will be gotten by people who use those roads.
Of course, the company who has the rights to toll that road will also have more money to expand projects. And don't tell me they're just going to pocket the money. That's not how a businessman works. He wants more and that means more and broader interest investments which means more jobs and more money flowing.
A businessman only "pockets" money (and by "pocket" I mean save) is when they're unsure of the economic climate and are afraid to invest and worried about their current ventures surviving.
1
-
Correlation is not causation. You're offering too simple of an explanation about a very complex topic. There are a number of external factors which the executive branch has little or no control over which affect the economy greatly; greater than executive and legislative policy can accomplish. It's also why not every single political scientist and financier are in 100% agreement. But then the truth doesn't make convenient soundbites, does it?
The presidents receive too much credit and too much blame for luck. Clinton didn't cause the dot-com boom that created hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs and made overnight millionaires by the thousands. Is it Bush's fault that the bubble burst just as he came into office? Is Trump responsible for the current huge increases in the stock market? Of course not. It's coincidental. However, this doesn't go well when a public uneducated in political science and finance
And what about others who deserve credit? Clinton is often lauded for balancing the national budget. We don't applaud the notoriously hawkish Republican congress at the time that shut down the government almost annually until a balanced budget was offered up by Clinton for that given year.
Instead, we have a government that talks down to people, promoting this idiocracy we're becoming. For instance, the JEC actually directly contradicts itself, unapologetically, when it writes, "It has often been suggested that Republicans are better at overseeing the economy than Democrats. ...that Republicans are better at managing the economy are simply not true." Then they follow this up immediately with, "While the reasons are neither fully understood nor completely attributable to policy choices..." So they negate their own opinion and findings right out of the gate, but people actually are gullible enough to buy what's being sold there.
I'm certainly not saying that all Republican economic policy is good or that all Democratic economic policy is bad. That, again, is far too simple of a conclusion. Our world's education system does an excellent job at preparing the general population for working, but not for truly understanding the immense depth of the world we all live in.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Anchor Senjaro Affirmative Action is the legal promotion of equal opportunity. It is, as the Nixon Administration wrote as part of the Philadelphia Order, "goals and a timetable, not a quota."
Legislation will never get rid of institutional racism. That can only be done by winning hearts and minds. That's something the government has, apparently, forgotten how to do. Which is sad, because they used to be very effective at creating changes in culture through targeted ads and programs.
By the time that the so-called "Final Solution" was enacted, the US had been in the war for a very long time. Even then, the world wasn't aware of what was going on until after the war and the Allies occupied Germany. Furthermore, there were Japanese-Americans put into concentration camps in the US. Concentration camps were a common practice at the time in both North America, including both the US and Canada as well as all over Europe and also included countries in other continents such as Africa and Asia.
The reason that the US was reticent to become involved in World War II is because we were still reeling from our involvement from the Great War (World War I), and this was another war in Europe over primarily the same issues that we couldn't afford to be involved in. It's also worth noting that we weren't getting involved in the issues in the Pacific either as the Japanese Empire expanded into China, Korea and the South Pacific Islands, and that wasn't a question of whether the nation liked Jews or not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Leonard Greenpaw "'The WRA recorded 1,862 deaths across the ten camps, with cancer, heart disease, tuberculosis, and vascular disease accounting for the majority.[93]'"
The internment was two years. 120,000 interred and 1,862 deaths. That's a death rate of 0.7% per year. So even if the fraction of deaths that were preventable were prevented, you're talking about a fraction of a fraction of a percentage difference.
Like I said, the internment camps were no good, but to liken them to a death camp is just laughable.
1
-
Leonard Greenpaw "And on a different but related note, around the same time, america was also into eugenics"
Most of the western world was "into" eugenics. And, honestly, eugenics makes sense to a point. It's artificial selection or the domestication of man to promote certain traits. Moral implications of government involvement behind eugenics aside, people are not running out to find the ugliest, most toothless, disease-ridden, unintelligent person to be their mate, so the basic concept of eugenics is practiced by pretty much everyone to some degree. It wasn't eugenics against black people. There were those who argued that the top 10% of each race should intermix.
"BUT this all deviates from my point that in the scale of a country, with ever shifting policies, their past should not define the country in the present."
Then you should make that point directly, not in such a round-about way that is based on easily controversial claims.
And for what it's worth in regards to the Native Americans, they brought on themselves the wrath of the settlers as much as it was put on them. Check the grievances in the Declaration of Independence for an example of how this is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
pyrattjax To put it as simply as possible, I'll pose a question:
Why do you not get withdrawals or side effects when endogenous opiates are released, but you do when you take exogenous opioids?
Exogenous opioids basically shortcut and fool your system by inhibiting certain neural pathways to promote the release of neurotransmitters.
On the other hand, endogenous opiates work as neurotransmitters themselves that promote the release of other neurotransmitters.
This fundamental difference between the two is what causes exogenous sources to have deleterious effects while endogenous sources do not.
For instance, when endogenous peptide endorphins are released into our bloodstream, they actually increase awareness and decrease reaction time (a skewed perception of time that makes it seem like it's passing slower), and lucidity, whereas exogenous opioids impair cognitive function by increasing reaction time, reducing awareness and causing a narcotic (sleepy) effect.
It's been so long since we've started this argument that I'd like to point out that your original argument is that endogenous peptides are just as dangerous as exogenous substances because they interact with the same receptors. As such, you posed the argument that if we're to outlaw exogenous psychoactives, we must also outlaw activities that cause our bodies to produce peptides that interact with the same receptors.
I attempted to simply state that the pharmokinetics/dynamics are completely different, but you maintained belief that you were correct.
This comment, the facts within being easily verifiable by someone with your level of education, should suffice to prove that your conclusion that skydiving and other activities should be banned was non sequitur as an extension of my original logic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
pyrattjax I was right that those activities are not psychoactive compounds. When you argued the point that those activities cause the release of endogenous psychoactives, I responded, "The difference is that your body isn't going to overdose you on endocrine secretions and cause significant impairment of judgment."
I acknowledged your argument and provided a valid counter-argument. So, no I wasn't wrong, and when you pointed out a different viewpoint, I countered that viewpoint.
As someone who's studied pharmacology, you should know that the only thing the brain uses is glucose. Everything we eat contains glucose in some form or fashion.
An argument can be made for caffeine, but I would presume it would be a weak argument at best when compared to arguments that can be posed for the legislation of alcohol, tobacco and Schedule I & II controlled substances.
"You want to legislate public safety and health?"
It's already legislated; quite heavily, in fact. Child Protective Services; Adult Protective Services; city, county, state and Federal public health services; Environmental Protection Agency; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; Bureau of Labor and Industries; Department of Public Safety; etc.
Survival has everything to do with how our bodies work. What we are comes from hundreds of millions or maybe even billions of years of natural selection. If such secretions were detrimental to judgment as you claim, and by extension survival, such alleles would not exist.
1
-
pyrattjax In the comment to which I replied that you're talking about, you only mentioned energy drinks, and I forgot to separate that with tobacco when I was typing my post.
Glucose is a sugar. Are you sure you studied anything even remotely related to health?
"Man made sugars (cane, beet, etc)) are not naturally occurring compounds and are thus exogenous..."
Exogenous is anything that is produced outside the body, whether the matter is naturally occurring or not. In short, no sugar is endogenous. Again, are you sure you studied this stuff?
Also, those are not "man-made" sugars. They're processed, yes, but they initially come from nature. The detriments of their use come from the high glycemic index processed sugars have. Basically, it's concentrated, and that's what causes the issues. Corn is sweet, but it isn't that sweet; however, when it's processed and concentrated, high-fructose corn syrup is very sweet. It's still a naturally occurring sugar, though.
"Both of which studies have shown to cause short term and long term effects as well as an impairment in judgment. This goes against your 'evolutionary' argument as humans make irrational and flawed judgmental decisions all the time. And will continue to regardless of policy."
This is really incoherent. I have a feeling it's because you misunderstood my argument regarding the effects of endocrine secretions and survival.
"The reality here is that you can't admit you're wrong. You picked some of my statement to rebut but ignored the parts that conflicted with your ideal. You tap dance around splitting hairs instead of admitting wrong. You're dishonest. And a moral idealist who's morals only apply to your ideals."
I wasn't wrong, though; you were. As far as I know, I responded to all of your arguments. Beyond the typographical error I made, you've proved nothing I've said wrong. My thought that alcohol and other exogenous psychoactive substances should be banned are my opinion, and I can't be wrong on an opinion.
1
-
pyrattjax "Sugar is listed as a psychoactive compound."
Where is it listed as such? Sugar doesn't affect us in any psychoactive fashion (i.e. it does not alter mood, perception, consciousness, cognition or behavior).
"...are not naturally occurring inside the body."
Please note that "naturally occurring inside the body" is very different from just "naturally occurring".
Part 2 of this is, no shit. Sugars are one of those things, like essential and semi-essential proteins, that we need to intake to survive. Our bodies do not produce sugars on its own, but glucose is necessary for us to live. Hypoglycemia will put you in a coma and kill you.
"Anything that passes the blood brain barrier is considered psychoactive..."
No, it must pass the blood-brain barrier and affect mood, perception, consciousness, cognition or behavior.
Again, it was an honest slip up on my part to not divide energy drinks when rebutting your argument. You may stop harping on that now.
"You know as well as I do you were picking and chosing which ones you wanted."
The "ones" you mentioned, I imagine, means arguments. If that's the case and you feel I didn't address specific arguments, feel free to point me to those arguments you made that you feel I didn't respond to, and I will happily either respond to them or copy and paste where I did already respond to them. If I missed any arguments of yours, it was an honest error and not cherry picking. Whether you want to believe that or not is your prerogative, and I really don't need to know.
"I am also entitled to the opinion that you are a right wing nut who wants to legislate peoples lives and tell them what they can and can't consume. Or whether or not they can abort a baby for that matter. GET THE FUCK OUT OF PEOPLES LIVES!"
The hypocritical part here is that you most likely support hundreds or thousands of other laws that control what others can or cannot do, but since you're in agreement with them, they're ok. These are not ok solely because you don't agree with them, not because you want the government out of people's lives.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
NotTotallyHopeless "huh? how does sexual orientation happen then, in your mind?"
Unknown. There have been plenty of studies focusing on genetic, epigenetic and instinctual aspects of sexual orientation, and they are ambivalent at best. Most likely they are indicative to none of these being the underlying reason for sexual orientation.
My personal belief is that it is developed at adolescence through numerous life experiences filtered through a complex combination of conscious and subconscious processes that lead to a person's sexual preferences (sex, hair color, skin color, psychological preference, physical feature preferences, etc.) that all relate in some way from those previous experiences to sexual satisfaction or desire. Basically, it's a higher thought process.
To give an example of what I mean, look at a dog. It will hump anything. It doesn't care if it's a leg, a boy dog, a girl dog, a rabbit, a tree stump, or whatever; it just does what instinct tells it to do. We have that same blind drive, but then we also have the higher thought which dogs lack to develop a preference. So if we see a rabbit, we're not just as likely to go hump that rabbit as we are a human.
Now you argue that if you had a choice, you'd probably just choose to be straight and not deal with all the crap. I've heard this argument before, and given the unique human condition of a staggering large portion of the population that chooses to torture itself with drugs, alcohol, food, horror movies and haunted houses, rollercoasters, BDSM, or any other of the plethora of options humans have developed to torture themselves for pleasure, I find it hard to say whether you would definitely choose a different path. I will say that once you've developed a strong sexual preference, it's likely to be a rather rigid wiring -- such as when a BDSM progresses to requiring BDSM to get even turned on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Are you saying that without your 'help' those people would been unable to afford to access the HC they needed?
If so then your HC system stinks."
Why do you think someone couldn't do it on their own because I helped them? I never said I had to help them, but that I did. It was the nice thing to do to do my part to get them started.
"The fact remains that for over 50 years interferon was the most widely available, high success rate, cost effective drug on the market."
50% is not a high success rate. And it's worth noting that this is not even an option for those with compromised immune systems, because it depends on the immune system to work.
"First you are wrong to say it has 100% success rate , it does not."
I didn't say that.
"...the cost of the drug in the US makes its limited to those whose insurance will cover the cost or you have to beg like a dog to some charity that might or might not condescend to pay for your treatment."
Gilead gives it for free or at low cost to those whose insurance doesn't cover it or the needy. There is no need for a charity to pay for it when for Gilead, as a privilege, it's the cost of materials, which is minimal to them.
"plus full medical costs"
Not sure where you're getting that from, and, yes, it's $60,000 for insurance companies or those who can afford it. I would be for better pricing if patent laws were stronger for brand-name pharmaceutical companies and other countries, like yours, actually carried their financial weight. $200 per treatment, regardless of income, for billions in research and development. You may feel good about that, but I find that to be completely dishonest of you.
1
-
"That implies you directly help tin the cure of Hepatitis C when what you actually did was to help a couple of people fill in a form."
First of all, I let them know the cure exists, I let them know about the program, I got them the form they needed. What I said doesn't imply anything like what you got from it. I was making an argument from authority that I know people who are needy get taken care of.
"If someone can do it on their own why should they need anybody to help them?"
There's nothing about "need" here. You keep throwing that in when I said nothing of the sort. My elderly neighbor can carry in groceries by herself. That doesn't mean I'm not going to help her if I see her carrying them.
"I never said what the success rate was for interferon..."
You said it has a "high success rate."
"I’m not disputing Havoni is not a big step forward in treatment just that it is a very costly drug and from what I rad most Americans, even the nominally wealthy ones cannot afford to pay unlimited in surname cover. "
Pay attention to your autocorrect. It's hard to decipher some of the things you're trying to say. State this again when you reply to me, because I'm not 100% certain what you meant here and don't want to talk past you.
"not the insurance companies, they pay nothing"
Uhm. Yes they do. They pay the drug manufacturer for the treatment. For instance, let's say I have a cold. I go to the doctor's office and pay $20 to be seen (the visit costs $120 total, and the insurance pays the $100 I didn't pay). Now I get a prescription for medicine and go to the pharmacy where I pick up a prescription which costs me $5 (the prescription costs $50, and the insurance company pays the remaining $45).
"Now tell me a your system is better than a UHC system, which is more cost effective and humane?"
I think that your myopic view of what you get while sacrificing future development is selfish and inhumane.
1
-
"What authority do you represent, are you medically trained?"
The authority of someone who's personally helped people get treatment for no cost to them nor taxpayers.
"Why don't they simply make an appointment to see their own Doctor and let him explain what is needed and let him arrange it? Why should you be involved in any way?"
Often times, in case you didn't know, those with Hepatitis C are people who are down and out, such as recovering alcoholics and drug addicts. Sharing needles is one of the most common ways to contract Hepatitis C, since it's bloodborne. It's nice for them to know someone truly cares about them and is in their corner, and that's what you're showing when you're helping them with a silly form they could easily do themselves.
"That's strange because what I wrote is perfectly clear and easy to understand , perhaps the fault is yours."
"...pay unlimited in surname cover," makes sense to you?
"Get real, WHO PAYS THE INSURANCE COMPANY?
YOU DO, THATS WHO."
Right, and some people use more than they pay in and some use less. That's how insurance works.
"Pity you lack the integrity, honesty not to mention courage to admit you are wrong the US health care is recognised has being by far the most expensively bureaucratic in the world, however if you are happy paying exorbitant prices for HC while your own citizens have to beg and plead to hopefully gain access to HC that is your problem and your shame, church goer or not."
I don't lack anything -- I have a different perspective from yourself which understands that for everything I get now, there is a sacrifice later. You turn a blind eye to that, and you're far enough removed from that alternative reality that you don't feel bad or responsible if someone dies of a disease that may have had a cure had you not received things for free now.
"Seriously anybody who thinks all that is needed to feed its Nations poor with give them unsellable post-dated supermarket rejected stock has no right to assume moral superiority over anybody."
Why not? Is there something wrong with that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cane: I would say that it's psychological to keep the cane from falling, but since this is specifically about physics phenomena, I'll say that it's because of differences in friction between the two fingers from increased and decreased weight over the individual fingers.
Phone: Conservation of angular momentum I would suspect is playing at least a part in this. I think it's interesting that the phone seems to become stable at its apex, but during its ascent and descent is when it seems to become unstable. It's also worth noting that the ascent sees the phone spin around the long axis in the opposite direction when compared to its descent.
In the case of the phone, we not only have the angular momentum of the spinning phone, but also the vector along which the phone itself is traveling through the air which seems that it may play a role. I'm unable to articulate what the relationship is.
Cup & Water: Since create an abundance of electrons on the cups, there is going to be a difference in charge between the water and the cup. As such, when the two come close together, electrons are going to try their best to balance out between the water and the cup. Electrons start flowing from the more negatively charged cup to the more positively charged water -- a static discharge. Prior to the discharge itself, however, the two opposite charges will be attracted to one another.
Cereal: Most cereals are fortified with iron.
Teabag: The teabag is porous. As it burns, it is releasing lighter-than-air gases. When it reaches the bottom of the teabag, the mass left is light enough to be lifted by the gases that happen to get trapped in the remaining meshing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
MadJackal, sperm cells don't self-replicate. lol Women would be pregnant 10 years after having sex if that were the case. No, sperm cells are manufactured as one-time containers of DNA. A sperm cell does not undergo any kind of cellular mitosis. Sperm cells also do not develop into adult animals. Sperm cells do not contain the DNA necessary to manufacture cells.
And even without having a child, our bodies manufacture cells every moment of every day. Very few parts of us contain any of the same cells we were born with when we die. These few organs that do not grow new cells include the lens cells of the eye, and central nervous cells for instance.
"Also, multi-sperm fertilization is also a thing,"
When I was typing my post, I thought to myself, "Should I really have to spell out that on offhand cases there is more than one sperm cell that can fertilize an egg?" I really took time to think that, because, well, it's the internet and people do tend to focus on some dumb things. I thought you would clearly see that it's not relevant to the discussion. That was just arguing to argue on your part.
When would you draw the line of life, then, if it's not at conception? When would you consider it acceptable to terminate a pregnancy? If you're saying we're wrong, you must have a right answer.
1
-
1
-
MadJackal, "As for 'Where to draw the line.' Perhaps philosophy will help you understand me. Zen teachings hold the idea of Mu-koan. Without going into the details, I say to you; It is not the answer, but the question that is wrong. The idea of drawing a line, is what is wrong."
We're talking about the practical application of philosophy here, so you're avoiding the question. Is it moral to have an abortion? Is it immoral to have an abortion? Are there circumstances in which an abortion is moral? What are those circumstances if they exist? You can't lean on the vagary of philosophy to not answer a question of practical application without looking bad in the process.
All things that are a life are alive, but not all things that are alive are a life. "Alive" is a state of being which is opposite of being dead. You yourself brought up mu-koan and it applies here (this is simply the equivalent in the Zen philosophy of a false premise). For instance, if you ask if a rock is alive, then you have asked a question on the false premise that it could even have a dead state. We biologically define "dead" as a hydrocarbon that we know to autonomously perform an action that has no energy to perform said action. In that, a sperm cell can have two states: alive and dead. However, defining it as a life is entirely different.
Biologically, we have a set of expectations of a hydrocarbon before we generally classify it as life. To classify something as alive, an object must meet criteria that are much less stringent and more colloquial. More can be understood on this by reading up on the debate on whether or not viruses are living things.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Let's get on the ball on fixing this socioeconomic problem that's making the weaker-minded among us want to kill others. Let's bring religion back to the people, instill again a sense of honor and self-respect and respect for others, provide businesses with better infrastructure and lower taxes so the money stays here, give a shot in the arm to the exportation of goods, raise minimum wage, lower individual's taxes, eliminate dependence on the government for a single parent that works full time, promote more so families stay together, promote good pre-marriage sexual morals and responsibility to ensure family units are strong, promote one parent being a homemaker to more effectively raise children to be true adults instead of man-children, initiate programs to raise violence awareness and opportunities in inner cities, ...
I could go on and on...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Daniel Gardiner First of all, I'm not making a straw man argument.
Second of all, the burden of proof isn't on me; it's on the researchers making the claims. I am the one challenging the claims as being based on fairly useless data.
You're, however, not saying the grass is green and the Earth revolves around the sun. You're saying the conclusion which I am questioning. For instance, in a word where just you and I existed, I'm color blind and you tell me grass is green but I say it's not, it would be up to you to prove to me the wavelength being reflected by the grass is an area of the spectrum which I cannot see. If I say the grass is gray, and you say it's not, it would be up to me to prove to you the claim.
The fact of the matter is that with the faults in the data I already pointed out, they are taking shots in the dark, by a scientific standard. Such loose use of cross-sectional data would never make it in any other field. They are entirely jumping to conclusions. In other fields, such cross-sectional data would be indicative of the worthiness of further research and nothing more. It certainly wouldn't be what a thesis would be defended on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Daniel Gardiner The third study you linked summed up soundly what I've been saying about nutritional guidelines: "It is an article of faith..."
Regarding the first study, if you actually look at the data, you'll see some interesting points. For instance, the percentage of a quintile with high cholesterol ate less red meat. Each quintile showed this relationship. This was also true for both the male and female patients, and it seems independent of rate of diabetes. Looking at the males, the first two quintiles had a 2% rate for diabetes, but there was still a drop in those with high cholesterol from the first to second quintile.
They also did not control for the amount of exercise in the multivariate model. You see as the quintiles goes up, there is less exercise and more caloric intake, let alone simply more red meat being eaten. That this wasn't controlled for should raise a red flag regarding their conclusion and opinion of the data (which is not peer reviewed, so they can conclude anything they want from the data and still be published as long as the formulas and methodology is sound).
In the data on women where the exercise is more even among the quintiles with little change (unlike the men), the multivariate model percentages showing an increase in incidents is also significantly more compressed.
This is why I think learning to read research should be primary education subject matter. People are constantly mislead by sensationalized newspaper article titles and biased synopses and conclusions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Richard Chan You see the effects of the cultural failing in in the US in the extreme rates of crime, gang activity, drug use, mass shootings, rioting, racism, bigotry, greed, vanity, abuse, and more.
What's funny is that I highly doubt you'd be saber rattling and hollering in agreement when TYT brings up "America's gun culture" being a problem, but as soon as you partially share that responsibility as America's culture itself being an issue, then you suddenly want it spelled out exactly.
1
-
Richard Chan I'll invite you to read what I posted earlier:
"Let me have you read a little comparative criminology.
'An important factor keeping crime low [in Japan] is the traditional emphasis on the individual as a member of groups to which he or she must not bring shame. Within these groups--family, friends, and associates at work or school--a Japanese citizen has social rights and obligations, derives valued emotional support, and meets powerful expectations to conform. These informal social sanctions display remarkable potency despite competing values in a changing society.'
-Crime and Society: a comparative criminology tour of the world
Published by the San Diego State University
Actions are performed by people. Change people, change their actions -- for better or worse.
But our society is all about challenging tradition on principle alone, and when someone disagrees -- we tell them to fuck off and do what we want anyway. There is no accountability, and when one person doesn't take responsibility for themselves, it promotes others to follow suit."
And regarding who exactly is part of the problem -- everyone is responsible. That's not to say that everyone is part of the problem, but every single one of us is responsible.
As far as what I mean by cultural failing, let's first define what I mean by culture. The Wiki author(s) put it well in their Sociology of Culture article when they say, "Culture ... is analyzed as the ways of thinking and describing, the ways of acting, and the material objects that together shape a people's way of life."
Perhaps you forget that a nation is solely its people. In order to change a nation, you must change the people. To change the people, you must change their culture. To change their culture requires gentle persuasion, patience and time. Lots of time and patience. We have not come to this self-defeating culture overnight, and it will not change again overnight.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
RichOrElse You're off in left field. None of that makes you exceptional.
Benjamin Franklin was not from an affluent family, being one of 10 children with parents not capable of affording to send him to the school they wanted to. He owned a total of two slaves in his life which he freed when he became an abolitionist. Still, he managed to be an influential scientist, start the postal service, was the first Postmaster General, Ambassador for the US in France, ran a successful newspaper, built the first library in the US -- The Library Company which still operates today, published the first German-language newspaper in the US, achieved the rank of Grand Master with the Freemasons, published the first Masonic book in the US, published Poor Richard's Almanack in which he coined many wise phrases used today (a penny saved is a penny earned -- at least close enough), made several inventions including bifocal glasses and the Franklin stove among many other things, first mapped the Gulf Stream, kickstarted the research of modern refrigeration, was an accomplished musician playing several instruments and improved the design on the glass harmonica, created one of the first volunteer fire brigades in the US, devised anti-counterfeiting measures in currency, set up what is likely the first US academy, established the first hospital in the US, founded the American Philosophical Society, served as president of Pennsylvania, and SO much more...
I think you're just a wee bit jealous.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Revenge of Bcraig5 "No, because you have more demographics other than black and white voting democrat and republican. One demographic isn't going to determine an election. "
As Heffron said, this is a judgment. It is not an observation and nor is it a conclusion. It is your judgment that the black vote cannot upset the result of this swing state.
Here's the overview as I understand it for Ohio: Hispanic votes can easily go either way and account for 2.8% of the state, so each party is going to gain close to a point for that demographic. In Ohio, white votes count for almost 90% of the votes and have a greater number of republican votes. The black vote is a defacto 10-point advantage to the Democrats in that state. That is significant. They discussed the two most significant voting demographics for a swing state.
"Let's try this again, when a man say hooray black people are not voting and that's it's good news they're not voting, if you think that it isn't racist or that a statement determining about a race of people not voting doesn't have any relevance to race, then you might need to get your head check."
This is just ignorance on your part. The only reason that's what you distilled the information down to is because you're either incapable of understanding the situation or have not done the necessary work to understand the political climate and how those demographics come into being very important in that region in regards to the upcoming election.
"The comprehension test isn't mines to take because I understand what words mean even put together in sentences, unlike you."
Actually, you can't answer because you know what you have to answer. You are racist by your own standards. It's time to reevaluate your logic.
"Also, 90% percent of black people don't vote democrat. 71% do, dumbass."
Hell, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by saying 90%. You shouldn't have pushed that. Now you're playing fact-checker to your own chagrin. In 2008, 8% of black voters were found to be right-leaning. So it's 92% that vote Democrat, not 90%. Good job at defeating your own argument.
http://blackdemographics.com/culture/black-politics/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, the officer is not required to have his vehicle clearly marked.
If the dumb ass actually read the legislation he's quoting he would have read, "It is unlawful for any public officer having charge of any vehicle owned or controlled by any county, city, town, or public body in this state other than the state of Washington and used in public business to operate the same upon the public highways of this state unless and until there shall be displayed upon such automobile or other motor vehicle in letters of contrasting color not less than one and one-quarter inches in height in a conspicuous place on the right and left sides thereof, the name of such county, city, town, or other public body, together with the name of the department or office upon the business of which the said vehicle is used. This section shall not apply to vehicles of a sheriff's office, local police department, or any vehicles used by local peace officers under public authority for special undercover or confidential investigative purposes."
Cenk states, "By the way, as a cop you're supposed to. You're supposed to show that you are, in fact, a police officer."
Read statutes sometime before you talk stupid (though I honestly don't expect this to happen, because you think your audience is stupid and refuse to make cohesive arguments that stand up to critical thinking and research). Uniform and badge serve as identification that a person is an officer.
And then cue the race baiting.
Using an unmarked police car is not entrapment because it is not goading someone into doing something they would not otherwise do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** Human health is actually better with animal products included than without, all other things being equal. Vegan diets require supplements and exotic foods.
Also, cows do eat grass, but they cannot live on grass alone. They will become malnourished doing that. That's why they need plant matter that includes a good amount of nutrients as well as plenty of roughage from grass.
If the average American eats 209 lbs. of beef a year (significantly more than necessary, but that's a separate but related matter of nutritional education), then 1 beef cow feeds two people for an entire year. Realistically, an average person who doesn't work very hard only needs a pound of meat for an entire week. A person who works very hard would need more. But the latter (working very hard) doesn't exactly describe your average American who sits behind a desk most of the day.
Now I'm not a big fan of ranching or farming for that matter. I believe that they're both ecologically disastrous methods of obtaining energy. That's why I'm for the hunter-gathering method as much as is reasonably possible. A weekend out in the wood and at home cleaning a kill can feed an average family for an entire year with, in a well-controlled environment, only positive impacts to local ecology.
A small garden growing fresh vegetables (raised and covered if possible to reduce run-off of nitrates and the necessity for pesticides and varmint killing) is much better than endless fields of grains (wheat/corn) which have, in the US, destroyed habitat throughout the Midwest. Let alone the ecological disaster that other plant foods are in other parts of the world such as peanuts destroying jungle and orangutan habitats.
In addition to this, being vegan requires an entire supplement industry to stay healthy, and that comes with its own ecological impact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Taxtro I think you try to put too much rigidity into a philosophical topic which includes arbitrary classifications and definitions. Yes, it's supposed to be "wrong" to get people to think, but you're coming along like someone with OCD saying, "Oh no, this isn't right," and putting everything right back in its box in its perfect way as you view the world rather than taking the opportunity to see the usefulness, if any, in a different philosophy. You're instead too focused on book knowledge that you forgo thinking differently.
If you disagree, I'm all for that, but if you're simply trying to correct me to your knowledge as though it is the only correct view, you're missing the point.
I'm not embarrassed that I have a different philosophy from what you learned, nor should I be.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Meteor "I know a guy that is a bus driver, has been for 10 years and was smoking weed before then and still is today, he has never had a single accident."
Anecdotal evidence fallacy. There are plenty of people who drink and drive and have never had an accident. That doesn't mean anything.
"False as well. It has been shown that it can stop brain growth if consumed before the age of 18."
No, it actively reduces IQ. This happens in all people when they smoke it, and it's been shown in at least one study to be permanent in minors.
"It is far easier for a minor to get illegal drugs like marijuana and cocaine rather than legal drugs like cigarettes or alcohol..."
You have to prove this claim.
"Marijuana has shown to do close to no damage to the lungs, it only damages the cilia. In fact the largest study done to date on the lung capacity of marijuana smokers shows that moderate marijuana smokers' lungs have more lung capacity than average people (the inhaling and letting the smoke rest in the lungs for longer periods of time leads to greater lung expansion than not doing it at all) while heavy marijuana smokers' lungs have about the same capacity as non-smokers."
Heavy smokers have a decline in lung function that is less than that of non-smokers. It does not just damage the cilia, but it causes inflammation of all of the mucosal layers in the mouth, lungs, trachea, esophagus and stomach.
So how about you shove your half-truths up your ass and fuck off, hm?
1
-
1
-
Meteor "Also, prohibition doesn't work, the government is wasting billions for puting people in jail for having fun and smoking a joint which is far less harmful than alcohol or tabacco."
No one is in jail for smoking a joint, unless it was near a primary educational institution.
"Your confirmation bias is unbelievable, there is far more research and far more reliable research towards the positives of marijuana, and the debunking of the negatives than there are for the negatives you have mentioned."
No, there hasn't. You're simply making an argument from ignorance. A lot of people I see make this argument typically link me different news articles that all point to the same two or three studies.
"The fallacy you identified was not actually a fallacy, because I never said that the example disproved your conclusion."
Anecdotal evidence. Evidence is the keyword here. It does not have the to be only argument presented to qualify as an anecdote fallacy.
"Regarding the proof you said i lacked here it is: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/teens-pot-easier-to-buy-than-beer/"
First of all, this is just a survey of what teens feel. It is not actual data of sales, arrests, fines, citations and other unbiased information. In this study, three quarters of the respondents had stated that they never even smoked marijuana. These numbers have also varied wildly over the years from almost equal across the board to drugs being super low on the totem pole.
http://www.casacolumbia.org/addiction-research/reports/national-survey-american-attitudes-substance-abuse-teens-2012 (page 29 has the relevant table)
This is the same annual poll that you linked a news article for, but it is the most recent one I found. As you can see, except for one year in which it was even, cigarettes have been considered by the teens surveyed to be easier to obtain than marijuana or other drugs. And you want to preach to me about confirmation bias? This one poll in this one year agreed with you. That's all you needed to see to figure you were right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Will, "The Truth is hard to believe for some" "You seem to misunderstand. I was simply ridiculing your argument."
Trust me, I understand. What you're missing is that no matter your intent, it still doesn't stand to reason.
"My argument for legalization is simple, it's not economically viable to continue prohibition."
You've yet to make this argument. You've stated your thesis, but you're not proving it.
"'Sugar is not addictive'
Yeah, and Obama is a white guy, oh wait.."
I guess you're unaware of how sugar works with our bodies. First of all, sugar is the only thing that our brains work on. No sugar going to the brain, you're dead within a day. Why do you think diabetics go into a coma so fast?
"Lol, sure, but I've never met someone on a high who wasn't too lazy to get up off their own ass, let alone drive a car while they were high. Good luck finding an epidemic of people that drive cars high."
There are more than a few out there that I have myself known.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/drugged-driving
"After alcohol, THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), the active ingredient in marijuana, is the substance most commonly found in the blood of impaired drivers,"
I'm sorry, what were you assuming?
1
-
1
-
rasfilmon "WTF? Are you a troll? That ain't my stand; that is a fact, reality, truth. Once again I'm not saying nobody died from marijuana."
Really? Did you not state "did you know the humble toaster is literally 700x more hazardous than weed."
If 700 people die a year from toasters, then the most people that could die from weed in a year is 1. I'm sure you're not saying that just one person is dying from weed per year. If there are even two people that die in a year from marijuana, the deadly toaster would be 350x more dangerous than weed. Or are you too dumb to realize that's what you said, just in different words?
"Not only that marijuana has many health benefits."
So do many things that are controlled substances.
But then there's this: "After alcohol, THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), the active ingredient in marijuana, is the substance most commonly found in the blood of impaired drivers, fatally injured drivers, and motor vehicle crash victims."
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/drugged-driving
So I'm really questioning what biased source you get your deadly toaster from.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
usfdave10 "Can you explain to me where you are deriving 'there is no secondary secular law here'? And why you think it doesn't pass the Lemon Test."
What secondary, secular law is the coach breaking? It's part of the Lemon test. "The statute must have a secular legislative purpose."
The statutes which go against the coach praying is second on the list "The statute must not advance nor inhibit religious practice." In this case, the statute is inhibiting religious practice.
The statutes and interpretations as of late have all not passed the Lemon test.
"I really wish I knew more about law, but from all the extra research it appears that only christian religions have the issue with overstepping compared to other religions. Especially with the mass brainwashing that some people to this day still think the US was based upon Christian values. What are your thoughts on all this?"
The United States is overwhelmingly Christian, so that's who is going to raise most of the issues regarding the First Amendment.
The US is based on Christian values. It is not a Christian nation, however. There's a very distinct difference between the two. Every Founding Father believed in a creator. Even Mr. Franklin, who was a deist later more than a Christian, said that Christianity, as Jesus left it to us, was the most perfect religion. These beliefs they held were central to their policy and character. It is also their beliefs that was the driving force behind the First Amendment, because of the treatment of protestants in the Old World. They wanted to ensure that no church would have legislative power like had occurred in England.
This was to be a nation where everyone was free to practice their religion without fear of repercussions by the government -- the exact opposite of where we're at today. Where we were at in 1962 when the Lemon test was put down, we were doing really well. Now, it's out of control.
1
-
usfdave10 "This is where perspective is involved. You see it inhibiting religion, where the other view is it promotes religion."
However, the only law is the one preventing the coach from praying. Therefore, the only law exercised is serving to inhibit religious expression.
"The application of the these tests to me are only applied outside of a govt tax public servant etc form, so if this teacher in this example wanted to pray on the grass outside of the church, then they cannot prohibit that. And since they do not own nor operate the church then they are also not promoting it either."
But that isn't why the Lemon test was even established. It was for the gray areas like this, not the painfully clear-cut cases.
"Agreed. They were overwhelmingly Christian, they have not been since early 2000s. With numbers dropping each year. Maybe that correlates with why these issues keep happening, the media plays it as a war on Christmas, religion is losing its grip on society and people are growing and adapting increasingly to their surroundings."
The US still is overwhelmingly Christian. 70% with a far distant second of 23% for no religion. Regardless, hand-wringing is human nature. It doesn't matter what camp you're in, there are those who will feel attacked if numbers of that camp decline.
"Do people sign up and a random order of speakers are allowed to talk for X minutes? Does a random schedule of locations that each religion/non-religion get to practice?"
Why would that be necessary? Let each in the class have his or her own religion and practice it with promotion of respect and tolerance to their practicing it.
"Do people get to exempt from attending?"
Why should they be allowed? Conscientious dissension has long been a right in the US, as those who did not accept Draft orders due to religious-based conscientious dissent fought for after being jailed.
"What happens when fights break out (as shown in the past) are the guilty parties charged with hate crimes or if its verbal is considered free speech or a threat?"
If fights break out, then secular laws take over as they would for any other thing. Such instances also underscore the need for the promotion of intimate knowledge of all religions, rather than promoting disrespect for all religions.
"How do public schools now differ from religious academies?"
"How do public schools now differ from religious academies?"
There's no change in curriculum and standards, so I don't understand this question.
"Do other religions/non-religious get to attend and/or get time to speak at religious academies now too?"
Why would that even be a thing?
1
-
1
-
usfdave10 "Wait so you have a problem with laws that balance peoples understanding of Freedoms and prevent those who would take advantage or harm others?"
When those laws only directly impact the freedom with no secondary issue at hand, yes.
"And I have asked you to explain why you’re okay with Kim Davis and FR and verbal threats and FS but not okay with this."
You're making a straw man. I'm not alright with any of that.
"That questions was not defending the country with building a forced military, it was in regards to public school system and forcing minors. The question was about setting a precedence to cater to any religion for any reason."
The question you posed was about whether or not people would be forced to do something they don't want to do. I answered unequivocally that they may dissent, as is law, to anything.
"Special interest is not the coach. You’re confusing who the victim is. One
person who is till capable of praying based upon how even the bible recommends it in private is not losing his freedom and especially does not supersede everybody else's freedoms."
Could you explain where it's noted that people have the freedom to not be exposed to different cultures and religions while in public?
"If anything they are doing exactly what you want too, acceptance of all cultures and religions/non-religions."
How do you come to this conclusion? "We respect all religions by preventing people from expressing their religion sometimes," is absolutely non sequitur.
"But you have not addressed again the teacher or public servant is leading the prayer in public."
Because this wasn't the issue. The issue is whether or not a person on government payroll has the right to personally exercise religion while on the clock.
"That your reasoning is conflicted when applied to other areas history, law and government."
Actually, history is far on my side on the matter. What has each President of the United States under the Constitution sworn in on? The Bible. From George Washington on. Jefferson, while serving at the third president, wrote to the Danbury Baptists (in his letter where he mentioned a wall of separation of church and state, of all letters) stated, "I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem." He wrote this from the highest office of the Untied States. Congress has always and continues to open each session with a prayer which started even under the Continental Congress before the US Constitution and continued through the ratification of the Constitution. The US House of Representatives has had a Chaplain since 1789. And I could go on and on and on. Clearly, you have the very wrong idea when it comes to what the Founding Fathers had imagined when penning the religious part of the First Amendment.
1
-
1
-
usfdave10 "Okay so we both agree with the SC telling her to issue secular licenses against her religion, which is different but to her it’s the same."
Exactly. That's just her religious perspective, and not an objective, secular rationalization of the situation.
"I believe I can see where you are coming from. What if any other religions also came and made their speech to you and/ your kids and when/if do we draw the line (like with FS)? Because it is a school of minors does that change things? Does their need to be respectful warning given prior? Just looking at it from transitional phase and welcoming of other culture."
I agree that it seems you are wrapping your head around my angle now. It's certainly not an easy road to promote diversity. Then again, nothing worth while achieving is ever easy. I respect all religions -- I'd respect an atheist wanting to explain why they don't believe in religion (provided it isn't tantamount to hate speech as some which have a much more... jaded... sense of atheism than my atheistic view can be).
Such a setup promotes diversity, and intimate knowledge, in cultures and religions (intimate being not just reading about it in a book that has digested the information and provided it in a narrative), but living it and getting to know the people behind those big, conglomerate cultures and religions. The moment we run into issues with such a setup is when a school starts actively running interference to block any religious view from participating in the school. At that point, the one petitioning the school may file a grievance, so there is recourse for any feeling left out.
Are parents and people going to get upset? Oh yeah. But their being offended that there is diversity in the world doesn't supersede anyone's rights to practice their religion. After all, look at all the upset people throwing a fit over the desegregation of public schools during the civil rights movement era.
"The SC has limitations on speech and expression that are based around harm. To protect society from people who would take advantage, like child pornography, verbal threats or even defamation. Maybe my mistake for using the work ‘clause’."
Yes, I understand what you mean now. However, they punish the outcome, not the exercise itself. Let's say that I practice Santeria which has historically included human sacrifice. Regardless of the aspect of human sacrifice, I can practice Santeria all I want, but as soon as I perform a human sacrifice then I'm at the mercy of the secular laws against murder.
Just like the classic example of not being able to yell, "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. I still maintain the right to do that, but that right doesn't exempt me from the consequences resulting from such an action. Let's say someone yells "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, then there are multiple outcomes. No one really responds to the alert and he's kicked out of the theater for being a dick without any other legal repercussions. On the polar opposite, it can cause a stampede of people in which some are hurt and killed. In that case, he would receive a much stiffer punishment. The simple act of yelling "FIRE!" isn't what's legislated again, but the responsibility of the reasonable subsequent outcome is not able to be shirked because of the freedom.
"Still not answering the original question; If you are against the courts forcing people to do something they do not want to do (which we all would be if we felt threatened), does that mean more or less to you than other people being forced to view and/or participate in a public servant’s religious activity during and at a secular school activity? Does that mean more or less to their FR?"
In the very short of what I've been trying to say is that a person naturally has the right to choose to not participate.
"You stated “What has each President of the United States under the Constitution sworn in on? The Bible. From George Washington on". I stated with proof that was not the case."
I'm sorry, I misunderstood what you meant. By "fallacy," I thought you were invoking a specific logical fallacy. You're right. I even knew that not every president had sworn in on a Bible and there are even a number where it's not even known how they swore in. I'd call it a slip of the tongue, but I'm typing... so... a slip of the fingers?
"I agree with you expressing religion on payroll is not and should not ever be an issue, as stated also with the secular Chaplain we discussed. We both agree with that yes?"
I misread what you meant then. I thought you were in disagreement on those points. Consider me corrected on that matter.
"But the issue people had with Keith Ellison and with society claiming that these are truths and you must use the bible are no better (this is not a dig on you by no means)."
I'm absolutely in 100% agreement here. It's like all the idiots going on about Obama being secretly a Muslim. Well, so what if he is (or even was at one time)? There's no religious test for office, and doing so would be the most egregious offense toward the Constitution and everything the First Amendment stands for. Just even thinking about that makes me angry.
"History as shown people cater to a majority religion out of fear or thinking it is the norm, which is just as bad."
Well, here's where, in my opinion, we leave the bounds of the government. People, in general, just want to "belong." Should such a fundamental drive in people supersede others' rights? Let's say I'm in a room full of Christians, and they pray. Well, I'm an atheist. Is it their responsibility that I choose to pray along with them because I didn't want to feel separated from the group?
It's funny, because at home I actually have a little microcosm of just that. My wife is a very religious woman (Christian). You couldn't convince her that God does not exist if you had all the time in the world and knew everything there was to know in the Universe. Naturally, she prays. Out of respect for her beliefs, I take her hand, bow my head and stay quiet while she prays. I say "amen" when we're done, and tell her what I liked about her prayer. To me, that's what respect is. And I absolutely have every right to just start eating while she prays because, hey, her religion isn't mine, but that doesn't promote a positive, respectful environment, right?
But the reason I bring up this anecdote is to illustrate that I understand what you're saying in regards to coercion. However, I feel that the only coercion which is present is that which the individual allows the other person to have. To bring it back to my anecdote, my wife doesn't coerce me at all -- my good manners and moral compass coerce me to be respectful. For others, their desire to be a part of a group or at least not stand out is what coerces them. Others may have other reasons, but it always starts within that person being coerced.
Now, of course, there are reasonable limits to coercion. For instance, the threat of punishment or harm or the use of physical force is clearly a level of coercion that goes way too far. But I think that if a student on that team decided not to participate in the prayer, and was afterward treated the same as those who participated, there is no issue.
"Do you think any other religion will really want to pray after their coach or any govt paid leader showed favoritism towards a religion or after getting booed by the public or even receiving threats?"
The first part, sure, I can see them wanting to exercise their religion after such things. From the part of getting booed on, I agree that would be a significant hindrance to diverse exercise of religion. But here in these two aspects, we have secular issues at hand which can be punished to promote a more respectful environment for all beliefs (I think I'm going to use "beliefs" in place of "religion" from here on out when referencing all beliefs and non-beliefs, since we are talking about both beliefs in various religious schools as well as those whose belief is that no god or gods exist -- it just seems more proper). I would expect it would be the school's responsibility to ensure that all such matters were dealt with using distinction and reason and with utmost responsibility, including up to expulsion of offending staff, players and spectators from the game and legal pursuit in regards to threats. All beliefs should see and know that the government is here to protect all within its borders from such animalistic behavior.
"It is a mess and we need a plan if this is ever going to work and not continue to lead to violence, segregation and ultimately war."
I don't think it's as much of a mess as much as it requires a different way of looking at things and thinking than what we, as society as a whole, are used to. It seems to me that the two opposing majorities in this case include the camp of those who believe that this is a Christian nation, which is clearly wrong, and those who believe in not just a secular government, but an atheistic one, which I think is taking the original intention of secularism in the US to a point of atheism and not just secularism.
Then again, I may have come to a unique conclusion from my experiences in life. See, I grew up in rural Texas, and the small town I grew up in was effectively segregated. There was a major highway that bisected the town. North of the highway, was the affluent white neighborhood. Just around the highway were most of the town's businesses, creating what was effectively a demilitarized zone. Then south was the poor neighborhood where you found anyone of color, whether they were Hispanic, black, or other ethnicities which were not white Baptist. Of course, there were some white folk south of the tracks (there were railroad tracks that ran right by the highway through town), but they were the poor and socially ostracized whites.
Well, the one thing that growing up in such an environment taught me is that ignorance is a very powerful tool for promoting hate, and segregation is one of the best ways to ensure ignorance sticks around. I look at the world in which we live here in the US, and I can't help but wonder how much more social progress we could have made had the government fostered the integration of diversity rather than pandering at first to the Christian majority and then the far swing to the other side with the homogenization, and essentially whitewashing, of diversity. I think somewhere between these two extremes is the proper mixture of secularism within the US.
Sorry for the super long post.
1
-
1
-
usfdave10 "just saw that i said '...to write that I wrote every word of what you said' what I meant was 'read' not wrote. Hope you saw that and know what I meant."
Oh yeah, I saw that, and I figured it was safe to assume that you meant you read it. :)
"We agree on alot, but we do disagree on where that line is crossed."
I'm seeing the same thing. I think the primary difference between you and I is that I feel that the religious portion of the First Amendment also protects government employees, specifically while they're on the clock, whereas you think it doesn't.
"FS can be just as difficult, but FS and FR affect 100% of the population and is a very important topic that needs to be able to be discussed, freely and without fear of hate from opposing sides."
Again, we're in total agreement here. Freedom of Speech is a real hard one for me, because I'd love nothing more than to limit some people's freedom of speech. However, I can't help but think that's just not the proper way to handle it. I would think, effectively, it wouldn't fix the issue at the root of why I want to limit their freedom of speech, but instead it would just remove it from my sight. Personally, I'm a "fix it right the first time," kind of guy. It may take longer, and it may be more difficult, but when you do things properly, they remain fixed for a much longer period of time. So I integrate that policy to my political views as well, and while simply forcing people to shut up in your presence easily sweeps the problem under the rug, fighting the ignorant views being spouted with knowledge actually works to fix the core issue.
"Promoting diversity has always been an uphill battle. Now with Trump in the news talking about a federal tracking database for all muslims and closing mosques is leading from fear and what sets this country decades behind. My fear is that the message is not fully sent and people follow blindly."
And this is why I think ignoring ignorance is so dangerous, unfortunately. When you keep sweeping it under the rug, you eventually have a huge pile of lint just waiting for that one little spark to burn the whole place down.
"A) allowing the public servant to pray with his/her minor students AND addressing that any religion can pray if they choose and will be protected by the law. If the message is only the 1st part it will continue to empower a single religion and lead to further diversity. Media plays a large role with this. The cover title will be 'Coach is allowed to Pray at school' which is accurate but misleading since people would think Christians get their way again while Muslims are being tracked and having their mosques closes. A better title is 'All Religions can pray at school'."
In my world, a teacher would be free to lead in prayer, and the children would be free to decline to participate or have their own faith exercised in the way they choose. I think something like the Miranda rights would be a very good thing in a situation like this. A state-designed lesson plan which explains, educates, engages and encourages the children to be proactive for their religious rights.
"All Religions can pray at school" <- This exactly. Media is very powerful in our world. In some ways, I think it's become far too powerful. On the other hand, it could be used for such good, if we could just deliberate and distill the most neutral, fundamental truths about our nation that is possible.
Our government has been so good in the past at addressing issues, not just through strong-arming, but appealing to the greater population's better senses. You seem old enough to remember the TV commercial that had the Native American standing on the side of the highway with a tear running down his cheek after having a big bag of fast food garbage thrown at his feet. I can tell you that I never threw another thing out of a window again. Such appeals to the good nature of people can be so effective, but the government has greatly declined in this effort in the last 25 years.
"B) continue to not allow the public servant led prayer to minors at a secular public school. But with emphasis added to why and that chaplains/priests/etc are and continue to allowed to visit. The law will protect all religions access."
I think logistically this one would be more difficult. Of course, it dooesn't fix the grievance I have that preventing teachers from exercising their religion while on the clock goes against the First Amendment, but for the sake of promoting a healthy discussion, I'll address it as a compromise for each of our sides.
The issue, I think, comes to be the amount of time spent on religions at that point. Given how much children already need to learn in school, giving so much time to religion is edging into not giving enough time to the more traditional educational requirements for the children. I would personally prefer to see religious exercise simply "be there" through the day wihtout being an interrupting interjection. Something like in life outside of school -- where religion is just a thing that's there. I can't quite place my finger on a solution for this, though. I'd have to give it some thought.
"It really comes down to is what is the 'harm' being done? The harm is not the act of him praying (that is legal), but the outcome of the possible coercion & segregation due to pandering to a majority religion."
Well, you seem like a fair person, so I have to say that I think you would probably still feel the same way whether is was a majority religion or a minority religion in question here.
But you're right. Coercion and segregation (or ostracization) is an issue that needs to be nipped in the bud. Coercion is easy, because quite simply, it's not acceptable to use a threat of force, punishment or violence to get someone to partake (or even not partake) in a religious practice. If the coach is doing any of these either directly himself implying or giving the threat, then that's cut and dry.
On the other hand, if the child's peers are taking on that role, the coach should be responsible as the victim's protector in such a case, ensuring that religious preference is not inhibiting the social growth of the victim in any way. And when I said the coach should be responsible, I mean responsible to the point of answering for any legal repercussions in the case. If the child cannot find solace in the coach, then he can try another teacher to help. If that fails, he can try the vice principle. If that fails, then the principle. If that fails, then the state's Board of Education and if all of that fails
the student then appealing to the Feds' Department of Education.
"Does that mean more/less 'harm' than avoiding the problem(s) entirely which to can lead to intolerance and loss of cultural growth (like Trump example above)."
I think that tempering our children with some wisdom (that is a diverse, real life experience) can only come up roses. You could try looking at it this way: Will you have better knowledge of the Amazon River if you either only read about it for a month or you only visit it for a month? Personally, I think visiting the Amazon River would provide more knowledge than a lifetime of reading about it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** "You realise George Washington was sworn in before the first amendment, right?"
He was elected for two terms. One before and one after the Bill of Rights.
I also realize what Thomas Jefferson wrote. I also understand the context of that letter, which you left out. The letter was written to a congregation of Baptists who were concerned that Congress would make legislation prohibiting Baptist worship. As the letter from the Danbury Bapstists of Connecticut said, "...no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor."
Furthermore, in the case of Mormon bigamy, have you not noticed that it is still not legal? That is because the Supreme Court unanimously upheld Reynold's conviction and sentence for bigamy, despite it being a regular religious practice. That is because the letter that Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists wrote were regarding the distinction between religious belief or opinion and religious action, and that the former was able to be legislated while the latter was not. That is to say, for instance, that someone practicing Santeria cannot commit child sacrifice without being up on charges of murder, but they are free to otherwise follow the religion Santeria.
You simply cannot look up a few things and think that you understand. The hubris with which you approach me while your understanding of the situation is highly limited is very questionable. I have no respect for your knowledge on these matters, because it is so incredibly limited.
1
-
1
-
1
-
darkmantlestudios "I enjoy that tried to preemptively head me off at the pass, but it still stands that women are not part of the militia as you defined it, and as such should have their 2nd amendment rights stripped away."
It's something that should be determined in the SCOTUS.
"I didn't tag you as someone in favour of physicals and testing before you are allowed to own a weapon. They do a physical before they draft you after all..."
I'm not. And they do not perform a physical when registering for selective service.
"So lets stick to the strict 2nd amendment and get those guns back out of the hands of the unfit non male population just like it says in the second amendment."
However, women can sign up for the selective service, and any age and shape can fight for their country. What I gave you was a dictionary definition, not a definition that encompasses everything that a militia can legally be. And, yes, legal definitions are typically very different from a dictionary's definition of a term.
"But it's okay to bend the Constitution a little when it benefits your agenda, but interpreting the first amendment away from the strict letter of the law, oh now that's a travesty! Blasphemy even!"
You're the one doing this. You should be persuaded by the evidence, not making half-truths and ignorance your stance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If someone straps you to a chair and shoots you up with heroin for a month, is it your fault that you're addicted to heroin?
That's what England did to the Southern States with slavery.
What Jefferson wrote in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence shows what happened to the Southern States who were just as much victims as they were responsible: "he [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."
It's also worth noting that blacks sold blacks into slavery to (primarily) the Dutch back in Africa.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
loki2240 "Do you think that all of those things are constitutional just because they've been done nor done for a long time?"
If it was being done by the writers of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, yes.
"Despite their pressed noble ideals, the Framers created a government that benefited them at the expense of women, black people, Native Americans, and even all white men who didn't own real estate. They said one thing and did another, like almost every other politician in the history of the world."
This is merely an ad hominem.
"The Constitution prohibits the government from promoting or condemning religion..."
As it reads, it prevents Congress from passing laws in regards to religion. Nothing more, and nothing less. By the very words of the First Amendment, making Federal law that prevents teachers from leading prayer in school is unconstitutional.
"But you keep falling for politicians passing themselves off as good Christians or people of faith to get your money and votes..."
What kind of red herring is this? This has nothing to do with the subject. I'm not a Christian, and I'm not apt to vote for someone based on their religion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** "You want to go the other way? Okay: it's illegal for coaches to lead prayer groups. I guess we're done then, eh? Or we can talk about merit, instead."
The First Amendment doesn't say that, though, and I'm showing that you have to perform mental gymnastics to have such laws make sense. I think it's clear you're just pushing bias and emotion, instead of using logic and reason.
"By a government employee?"
By anyone or anything.
"But, if you want to go with legalities, the 1st amendment as decided by SCOTUS."
Again, that is mere opinion, and an incorrect interpretation as I've already argued.
"Fine. So the soldier gets court-martialed and the teacher gets fired. I'm fine with that."
And are therefore coerced from exercising their religion. That's against any interpretation of the First Amendment.
"You can't think of a counter-argument to this? Really?"
If you have one, present it. Don't ask silly questions.
1
-
***** "SCOTUS says it does, and it is law. Hey, don't blame me. I wanted to go by the way of merit."
"So, you question its merit. Well done, you're now doing what I'm doing."
That's the understatement of the year. We both have several SCOTUS justices backing up our individual interpretations.
"Alas, it seems you just want to 'win' or avoid conceding."
There's no need to win nor concede. We disagree. You're just slinging insults now.
"If your goal is to just fling as many arguments my way as possible in the hopes that I don't notice how shitty they are"
Another insult.
"You said the teacher should be free to speak as long as the curriculum is not interrupted or negated. So, you have conditions as well."
You keep forgetting that I have said, multiple times now, that secondary matters can and do impact freedoms. The course curriculum the teacher is to teach is a secondary matter. Saying someone working for the school can't openly pray is just a legislation against prayer with no secondary law involvement.
"What about a racist teacher? They could spend 10 minutes every day bringing up misleading facts about human races. Should that be allowed as well?"
If a teacher is instructing students as to inaccurate facts and/or conclusions, then they are not meeting curriculum goals. Again, this is an articulated secondary issue.
"Your next response had better be impressive in its intellectual honesty or I'm out."
You don't seem to understand what "intellectual honesty" means. If I were to be intellectually dishonest based on how I personally feel about religion, I'd be agreeing with you all over the place and then pushing the idea further.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
4y6857 "The only external source you've referenced is Jefferson's letter, which is not a legal decision."
The letter was used, in part, as a fundamental reasoning in a landmark case judged by the SCOTUS.
"Otherwise, in reviewing the discussions in this thread, you've given YOUR opinion several times, then referred back to those opinions for support. Unless you're one of the Nine Supremes, your opinion, though it may sound more learned and erudite than the rest of the rabble gathered here (and, indeed, it may be) it is still just your opinion."
My opinion is shared by many justices who have served on the Supreme Court over the decades, and that's why I refer to their opinions as a form of legitimate appeal to authority on the matter.
"Granted! But until they do, the District is justified in following the guidelines given them by the Dept. of Ed."
I'm giving my opinion and justification for that opinion. I've never once said the District is going against the SCOTUS' interpretation of the law, but that the SCOTUS' successful judgments (largely marginay, by the way) were improper interpretations.
1
-
1
-
4y6857 The SCOTUS's decision is a matter of opinion. As Souter wrote in the very case I quoted from, "I join the whole of the Court's opinion..."
"There is no mistake with Coach Kennedy. He doesn't look like he MIGHT be engaged in prayer. His intended, stated, declared, published and broadcast purpose for his very public excursion to mid-field is to engage in prayer. Not a generic, watered down, namby-pamby, limp-wristed prayer, but a pointedly and specificly Christian prayer. By any definition you want to use, that IS PROMOTING a specific religion."
The quote is about a conscientious dissenter, not the individual initiating. Also, the coach prayed silently, so he could be reciting a quiche recipe for all you know.
"'The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law RESPECTing an establishment of religion...'
"I am almost dumbfounded by the juxtaposition of the dissenting opinion's terminology (maintaining RESPECT is a fundamental civic virtue, and the Gov't's interest in fostering RESPECT for religion) vis-a-vis the First Amendment."
Respect has multiple definitions. The definition Scalia used of respect is not the same as is found in the First Amendment.
The definition intended in the First Amendment: "avoid harming or interfering with."
The definition intended by Scalia: "have due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of."
Oxford definitions
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
loki2240 "That's your interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. "
That's not an interpretation, but the very meaning of the specific words in that sentence. Interpretation is only required when we're trying to figure out the Founding Father's intentions for those words, to apply them to novel situations.
"What you propose makes no sense, as the executive and judicial branches would be free to promote and condemn religion..."
So giving people freedom of religion, according to you, "slippery slopes" down into a complete annulment of the First Amendment? Mind explaining how, exactly?
"And as I said, it's the U.S. Constitution, through the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits public school personnel from promoting or condemning religion in their official capacity."
The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under law -- however, public school teachers, while on the clock, are not receiving equal protection under the law per the Supreme Law of the Land.
"Also, you characterized my comments on the Framers as being ad hominem, but you missed the larger point. We are a nation where the rule of law prevails, not the whims of those in office."
Except for the fact that when interpreting the US Constitution, the court frequently reviews what the Founding Fathers did or wrote in order to better understand their stances. Even in interpretations of the First Amendment, for instance, Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist's was quoted. Therefore, what the Framers did or did not do is very important in Constitutional Law.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Steve Smith "OK, here we go again - I did NOT say you got tax credit for putting money aside. This is the reason you believe that Obama lied - you're ability to comprehend what you read is totally lacking. I said you can get tax credit for what you SPEND on healthcare, not what you put aside for it."
No, you said, "Also, if you itemize deductions, you can still get credit for that 20.00 a month anyway." You didn't say anything about having spent $20 on healthcare, only that the $20 a month you talked about being put away. Apparently, you can't communicate what you really meant or you don't remember what you even said.
"And yes, I would expect you to read the bill you are so upset about."
From the time it was available to the public to the time it was voted in, did you study it in its entirety? Not just read through it, but study it. I didn't think so -- I doubt you even read through it in its entirety before it was voted in. No one did. Not even Congress did. I didn't want it voted in on this basis alone, so, yes, I still have a right to complain when it's voted in on the honor of the highest office in the nation, and it turned out we were flat out lied to.
"The point with Cruz lying - why should he even expect to become president when he can't tell the truth prior to getting elected!!! And the other point is that he has convinced his followers that he never lies and so they believe whatever he tells them without question. THAT is the problem, just like you do."
I keep saying I don't care about Cruz, but you keep coming back to him. Why?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lowell Cox "...most Americans are hooked on prescription pills, most of which are benzodiazepines (which are petrol based, not opioids)." That would be news to me. Pretty sure that it's opioids. http://www.drugabuse.gov/national-survey-drug-use-health
The US-Afghan SOFA states the following:
-The United States' commitment to support Afghanistan's social and economic development, security, institutions and regional cooperation for 10 years
-The commitment by Afghanistan to strengthen government accountability, transparency and oversight, and to protect the human rights of all Afghans, both men and women
-Access to and use of Afghan facilities by US personnel beyond 2014
-Granting the United States the possibility of keeping forces in Afghanistan after 2014 for purposes of training Afghan forces and targeting al-Qaida
-Non-Commitment by the U.S. to any specific troop levels or funding levels in the future
-Commitment by the U.S. to seek funding from the U.S. Congress on an annual basis for social and economic assistance for Afghanistan as well as to support the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF)
As such, I'm confused why you brought it up.
"Did this video not discuss the fact that our government is discussing a long term plan to remain in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future against the will of the American public?"
America is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. There's small but very significant differences between the two. The better you understand what this nation is as a constitutional republic, the better you'll understand how the country is run.
"Now why exactly would we go through all of that trouble if there wasn't some type of incentive?"
There was incentive. I think what you're referring to, though, is financial incentive for special interests. I personally think it was a good enough incentive to say that 9/11 was the straw that broke the camel's back, and that terrorist groups and those that harbor them will not be tolerated in the world.
Osama bin Laden was already at the top of our wanted list for the US embassy bombings in Africa among other things. Ties were made to Al'Qaeda and the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, and in the years since those first suspicions, those ties have been confirmed time and again.
We had even given the Taliban the chance to do the right thing and give up Osama to us for trial. They refused.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ronin Dave You're a fool.
Jan Schakowsky interview:
Interviewer: "...is it time we had a serious conversation not just about assault rifles but hand guns as well?"
Jan: "We want everything on the table. This is a moment of opportunity, there's no question about it." [Note, that "moment" is following Sandy Hook.]
Interviewer: "But, see, most of the murders, though, are committed with hand guns, so why is that not on the table?"
Jan: "Because we're not going to be able to win that. But back-ah-not now..."
Interviewer: "So the assault weapons ban is just the beginning?"
Jan: "Oh, absolutely. I mean, I'm against hand guns.
Interviewer: "I don't think we'll get a hand gun banned with the Second Amendment as stated."
Jan: "I don't know. I don't know that we can't."
And look at what Ed Koch said on Piers Morgan.
Just a couple of examples with more if that's not enough for you. No matter what you try to be an apologetic for, their end-game is obvious. Well, maybe not to you, but it's clear.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 new link is for Chinese adoptions, not American adoptions. The issue is the adoption of children in the US's foster care system to relieve the US's burden, not China's.
"Bottom line, they both make a choice, both have expenses for those choices, yet you think only straights should get the benefits regardless of the choice."
You're distilling the argument because it doesn't suit your point that pregnancy and childbirth are far more expensive than state adoption, which is where the greatest relief is needed. Furthermore, there is the fact that these children being adopted are already born. It is not a new body in the world, it is only a repositioning of an old body. By simply entering the foster system in the first place, this burdens the system, no matter when they're adopted. It is not adoptions that we need, but children simply not going into the system in the first place that we need. Homosexual marriage won't fix that portion of it. It can be considered damage control at best, and very little at that.
"If I bought a house and you hired a team to build the exact same house, what makes our houses different when they achieved the same exact goal in the end?
You had different expenses to build and I had different expenses to buy, but we ended up with the exact same thing."
We both ended up with a house, but since I took time to build mine, it increased property values in the area, it widely distributed the local economy with funds, it provided work and business to many local establishments and people, it provided the city/county with finances from new permitting, it is a new source of property income, and more.
You just bought a house that already existed.
It is most likely that your money left the local economy except for the realtor's commission, which just goes to one person.
Everything that you do with that property is not new to the economy, but just a continuation of what someone else built.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** You act as though that no legislation was ever passed. Yes, the biggest legislation was stopped until it was fixed that both parties could abide it (or simply stopped in the case of gun legislation), but Obama and the democrats passed significant amounts of legislation such as the free cell phone program, the killing of the F-22 project, Obamacare, the economic stimulus package, Wall Street reform, repeal of "don't-ask, don't-tell", stealth climate policy, ended NASA's Shuttle program and stopped another landing on the moon, among many other things. These are just some of the high-profile items.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Kenzie, under no circumstances are police required to read you your Miranda rights, whether you're in custody or not. But the case of Miranda does have to do with specifically people in custody.
Police departments have varying policies of how they handle the reading of the rights. Typically, reading of rights is only done if a subject in custody is going to be asked questions. Otherwise, it's typical that you're not read your rights. Some departments, though a minority, do read the rights immediately just to cover all bases, but it's not necessary.
In all cases, if a person's rights are not read to them after being in custody, any answers they give to questions are not permissible in court. It's notable that if you just start giving up information after being arrested, having been read your rights or not, what you say in that case is admissible in court. The Miranda warning only applies to answering direct questions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
fourdeck, "As you ignored the whole me having to be a psychologist in order to 'diagnose' a cognitive bias and the now deleted comment showing which part of the Arizona bill is unconstitutional."
I didn't delete anything. Google's fucked up YT again. I didn't ignore anything.
"I never wanted to get into a huge debate which will achieve nothing but I did and this will be the last thing I say on it."
I suspect you just wanted to troll.
"The school district argued that students could feel coerced to participate in religious activity when they see their coaches lead or endorse it and I agree with that position."
That's a ridiculous position for the government to take. Congress is not supposed to infringe on the free exercise of religion. Stopping someone leading prayers is doing exactly that.
"The fact that congress have chaplain who engages in prayer is somewhat disturbing to me and I disagree with the court ruling which upheld it and I find it's highly hypocritical, petitions and challenges go back to the 1850's and I'm sure there will be more in the future."
The point here, then, is that it's clear that you don't have the same vision of secularism in the United States as the Founding Fathers did.
"'In September 2000, guest chaplain Venkatachalapathi Samuldrala opened a session with a Hindu prayer sparking protests from some Conservative Christian media figures'"
No matter what you do, you're going to offend at least one person. I couldn't care if Pat Robertson was offended, and neither should anyone.
"...and in order to get rid of it I would try to bring in permanent representatives of other faiths, if I ever had the chance, which I'm sure would get the position abolished in no time."
Probably, because far-right conservatives seem to generally be convinced this is a Christian nation. And far-right conservatives tend to break their toys rather than let someone else play with them. That still doesn't make you right because the Right's position is wrong. You're both wrong, and the true answer is in between.
"Look at the comments from others on the right in this thread, it's a shame you only get worked up about issues affecting one side, unless you're about to explain to Alex why Jews don't hate Christians and white people."
Unlike your troll, Alex's troll is too low brow to bother with. Well, maybe he really believes what he said, but that's the kind of comment where the only response of worth is an elicited look that's comprised of a mixture of despair, confusion, disgust and pity that just can't be relayed properly over the internet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Stefan, "...it's fine if the school is a private or charter school run by religious institutes but in public schools that just can't fly. In Public schools, there has to be a clear divide between religion and education."
No there doesn't. You just think there does. Unwavering agnosticism of its individual members was never the Founding Father's stance on secularism in the US. The Founding Father's know that different people believe in different things and every one of them should be free to express their religion as they see fit without fear of government repercussions. That's the complete opposite of what's happening today. Today, you can't be a teacher and say, "Merry Christmas!" or "Happy Hanukkah!" or "Happy Kwanza!" without fear of repercussions. That is not the freely religious utopia that was in mind. What was in mind is that a Jew can say, "Happy Hanukkah!" while a Christian responds with, "Merry Christmas!" without having to worry about anyone being offended, in any arena.
"It would be okay if the team agrees with the coach to pray."
Not according to the US Supreme Court. Marcus Borden was banned from even showing solidarity with a team-led prayer.
"But if members of the team don't feel comfortable praying outside their own religion, they shouldn't feel pressured into doing it because everyone else is."
It doesn't matter who's comfortable with what. Just because a skinhead is uncomfortable seeing a black man on his team doesn't mean his rights are greater. And I'm pointing this out for a reason: this is where I force you to begin to draw arbitrary lines of whose comfort is more important. Clearly you'd say, of course the black man's rights are greater to be on the team, but then that goes against your "comfort" and "pressure" test that you're alluding to.
"It's not hurting them to skip a religious thing like prayer of everyone can't agree. It doesn't violate anyone's rights."
It violates the free exercise of religion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Peter S "Dronabinol is synthetic delta-9-
tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-9-THC)." -FDA
longhand, it's "(6aR-trans)-6a,7,8,10a-tetrahydro-6,6,9-
trimethyl-3-pentyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol."
It is described exactly the same in the plant as well as in dronabinol. However, comparing the two molecular diagrams between dronabinol and the isomer found in the plant, you can see the significant differences in the links and placements of those 21 carbon atoms, 30 hydrogen atoms and 2 oxygen atoms.
Dronabinol is also not the "generic" of Marinol, it's the active ingredient in Marinol. Marinol's patent exclusivity ran out quite some time ago, but it is patented.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** You're surly, rude, vulgar, childish and unpleasant. Apparently, you don't know how to let things go either, given that, according to you, you're posting here about a completely different post from the past.
In the best case scenario for you in regards to this, you apparently enjoy spending your free time shaming people for their mistakes online.
But I asked you a question, and you answered it. You agreed to be in this conversation with me, so keep in mind that you opted in. I can't force you into a conversation.
Now that the conversation isn't necessarily going you're way, all you can do is respond childish name-calling and lies about what you feel. If you're that ashamed about how you feel that you have to lie, again, perhaps you should reconsider your stance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** When I asked you why the government should get involved, you didn't tell me I was under an incorrect understanding of that account, and proceeded to make an argument.
You didn't say, "I don't think the government should be involved," you said, "Why not?" That means that you're seeking me to provide you with reasoning why the government shouldn't be involved and that your default stance is that there is no harm in the government being involved. The argument you also presented at the time included an apparent jab at pharmaceutical companies for being able to hold patents on drugs for 20 years, causing your anecdotal families to not be able to obtain such medications until they go into generic.
Clearly you think there's something wrong there with the current system, including big pharma since you specifically targeted it in your argument, when you feel it would be at least some additional benefit to offset the cost of implementing government coverage.
See, I know that it's typical to easily trip people up on YouTube, and that's probably what you're used to; however, I'm not one of those people. You don't have to type a "quotable quote" for me to understand and follow your argument.
In some cases, I've believed people to honestly be not very smart, in that they simply didn't understand the consequences of the arguments they put forward.
You, however... I think you're smart enough to know to be oblique on purpose. I think that ambiguity allows you, generally speaking, to trip people up when you ask for a quote of where you said something. This is just a trap you lay early in order to have a "get out of jail free" card if you come across someone who successfully challenges you.
I have to wonder, though, if this is the first time you've failed at pulling this off. I would suspect it is. I'm definitely one step ahead of you on this one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If those guys were in my restaurant, I would have gone up to them and asked them about their rifles, how long they've been into the hobby, if they're activists, how they feel about the feasibility of open carry, etc. That's why people get so scared -- they don't know how to talk to people anymore.
"When was the last time someone with a gun stopped a situation? When was there a last time that there was a school shooting that the person was stopped by a random, you know not law enforcement, but just a random person with a gun."
Seriously? Schools are gun-free zones. You libs like it that way. You dumb fucks even have taken issue with the idea of armed security in a school or trained and armed teachers. How fucking stupid can you be to ask a question when you set up the system so when it happens, there's no one armed within any reasonable distance. I just want to slam my head against the table at the level of stupidity of this question.
For places we can have guns -- tons of crimes are stopped thanks to people that have them and know how to use them:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/09/15-Year-Old-Boy-Uses-AR-15-To-Defend-House-Against-Burglars
http://www.kswo.com/story/7272451/another-would-be-burglar-stopped-by-gun-wielding-homeowner
http://www.news9.com/Global/story.asp?S=11696830&Call=Email&Format=Text
http://articles.courant.com/2010-09-27/news/hc-bridgeport-restaurant-shooting-09220100927_1_armed-robber-restaurant-shot-bridgeport-police
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2009/11/post_199.html
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3982722&page=1
http://www.wtvy.com/home/headlines/101882973.html
Do you need anymore, you dumb asses?
"I saw a Quentin Tarantino movie, so I think everyone who carries guns must be like that."
Wow... Just wow...
If Chipotle were interested in being "moderate," they would have advised their customers that they may only carry concealed weapons into their restaurant, rather than just denying all weapons access and then stating they hope people who oppose carrying firearms agrees with them. Yeah, they're as moderate as TYT.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Braden Scott July 24th.
"Gov. Bobby Jindal said...shooter John Houser 'should have never been able to buy that gun,' Jindal told NBC News. 'That should have never been able to happen.'
Houser had been...denied a concealed weapons permit in Alabama in 2006 because of a domestic violence complaint..." -MSNBC 7/27/2015 "Lafayette shooter John Houser should have been denied gun: Gov. Jindal"
The part that really doesn't make sense is that this guy was from 500 miles away, and the gun was purchased in Alabama a year prior. No one knows why he was in LaFayette -- he had no connections there.
This was a few months after Louisiana passed their HB preventing domestic abusers from purchasing guns.
In an article by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence titled "HOW THE NRA ARMS CRIMINALS" (date of post unknown, but comments on the piece go back as far as Sept 2013) they state, "The NRA has already accomplished this goal [strict scrutiny of gun laws] in Louisiana with Amendment 2, which was passed by legislative ballot referendum in November 2012. Amendment 2 subjects gun laws to œstrict scrutiny, which is the highest level of legal scrutiny."
They continue on to say, "The NRA doesn’t shame easily, however, and is pushing similar legislative ballot referendums in Minnesota, South Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Alabama."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** "Nice try but you're full of shit"
"Then don't use my tax money to fund something that's none of my business."
It isn't your money. It's the State's money, rightfully due, to pay for the public debts.
As Benjamin Franklin wrote, "The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.
"All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."
1
-
Left Is Best My first suggestion: "State-paid, optional abortion"
I'm a right-wing psychopath, how?
"promote worker unions and protect them"
This is right-wing now?
I think for myself, son. Sometimes I agree with the left, sometimes the right. Sometimes neither, and sometimes both. I respect the Founding Fathers' visions for the nation, without holding onto anti-Federalist sentiments which were quashed in 1781 with the ratification of the US Constitution and the elimination of the Articles of Confederacy. Perhaps you are angry you're trapped in your cage, and when you see me roam free on the outside, it stirs in you feelings of jealousy and desire. Step outside of your political spectrum cage, sir. Join me in thinking critically and for yourself.
As George Washington wrote of political parties in his farewell address following his second term in office, "I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
"This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
"Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
"It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
"There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."
Those words seem almost prophetic now with how close he hit the nail on the head in regards to what party politics have done to the nation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
UltraSWG Your comment is unrelated to the video, so I will handle this in two parts to try to keep people from getting confused.
First of all, the actions of the officers are suspicious; however, we do only have one side of the story in this video. I think deaf-mute individuals as well as police and other authorities would both benefit from having a simple, safe universal signal which a deaf-mute individual may use to alert the authorities to their status. Not only would this be important in situations with police, but also with firefighters, EMTs, and other first-responders that would need to know the civilian's deaf-mute status.
Second, we always have to verify our innocence to the police. The alternative is if the police are under any suspicion that you're committing a crime, they arrest you with the suspicion of a crime, book you, and hold you until a judge can set bail in every single instance. I'd much rather provide an officer investigating a crime with my identification (whether documentation or verbal) and explain why I'm at a place than just being taken into custody under suspicion of a crime. There's no other valid alternative than those two scenarios for officers who are trying to keep the peace.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Quikie93 I don't think you're evaluating the situation deeply enough. In all games there are things you have to do in order to do the things you want to do. For instance, in Skyrim, if you want to buy a house, you have to save up money. If in Deus Ex HR you want to be able to hack any consoles, you have to spend 4 points into hacking upgrades. If you want to expand your house in The Sims, you have to make money.
What you disagree with is the method by which WoW went about that at end game. You found it droll and boring. However, I'm sure if the content was perhaps varied, more interesting, more involving, maybe weeklies instead of dailies, you'd have enjoyed the obligatory "have to" a little more than you did.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 democratic liberals have largely gotten their way since the founding of our nation. From the formation of the party systems, against which George Washington himself warned us, to the centralization of power in the Federal government, the democratic liberals have bent this nation over and had its way with it for a rough, long and hard time. In one instance, democratic liberals almost tore this nation in two with its hubristic disregard for history and the intention for this nation as they refused to give up slavery as the Founding Fathers had intended to be done.
This expansive gulf of dichotomy means that neither side are making sense any longer -- republican conservatives nor democratic liberals. If you're far left, like Cenk, you're an idiot. If you're far right, like Limbaugh, you're an idiot. The fact that people have become so insane (there is no more apt a term to describe this) is worrisome to say the least. The fact that any of these people think they're doing anything good is mind boggling.
I look to my favorite conservatives in the world, the Native American, for inspiration. Their rites and ways of life are based on tradition so heavily that for various tribes, things may not have changed much in the last 35,000 years. They largely respect their elders, not call them "old geezers with outdated views." They believe deeply in their religion and seek to honor it with every action. They seek to bring honor to their families by living well per tradition.
Wake up and stop buying into party politics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Gatesealer89 Wow. You make it sound like this huge issue that people have to get IDs in the US. npr States, "A new report by the Brennan Center for Justice finds that more than 10 million potential voters in states that require photo ID at the polls live more than 10 miles from offices that issue such ID. Nearly 500,000 of these voters don't have access to a car or other vehicle.
Many of these people presumably already have a photo ID, but for those who don't, the new laws pose a special challenge, according to the Brennan center. The center, which advocates for wider citizen participation in government, opposes many of these new voter ID laws."
So we're talking about a fraction of 500,000 people. That is 0.1% of the population. In short, not enough people to make any kind of difference in the polls. There has to be sufficient argument that they're not being represented, and you can't make that argument with 0.1%.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
K4316 You're mistaken on this account. I'm not sure where you've learned this history that you've come to understand, but Mosaddegh took emergency power over the Iranian parliament, stripped the Shah of executive powers and centralized decision making to himself.
This is a simple timeline:
1: Mossadegh attempts to nationalize Iranian oil, removing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company's (AIOC, now BP) privatization of the Iranian oil resource.
2: England pulls all AIOC workers, leaving inexperienced Iranians to work the fields. This caused a drop in oil production, but since the oil was now nationalized, the country was still obtaining greater wealth.
3: After England worked to try to recover the deal over Iranian oil, Mossadegh declares England an enemy of Iran and cuts all diplomatic relations.
4: England imposes sanctions on Iran, setting up blockades to prevent Iranian imports and exports. England captured at least one oil tanker, citing the oil as "stolen goods." This stopped the export of Iranian oil.
5: The British look to US help to resolve the matter. Then Secretary of State in the US Dean Acheson rebuked England's "rule-or-ruin policy" in regards to Iran. It was also stated that the new nationalization agreement in Iran benefited the US greater than the AIOC did.
6: In the background of all of this, local Iranian politics were coming to a head. The relationship between Mossadegh and Kashani (Islamic cleric and backer of Mossadegh) became strained; Kashani blaming Mossadegh for not adequately establishing an Islamic state and Mossadegh for causing political instability in the country. This caused an erosion of support from the Islamic nationalist community for Mossadegh -- one of the biggest, if not the largest, supporters for both his position as PM and for oil nationalization.
7: Mossadegh had successfully obtained privilege from the Iranian Parliament for emergency powers. He continually eroded the Shah's influence in politics by banning the Shah from engaging in foreign diplomacy, limiting funds and continually removed political power from the Shah.
8: The people of Iran, both Islamic nationalists as well as anti-nationalists were against him (and even the less polarized citizenry against him with the economic hardships that the nationalization of Iran's oil had brought on the nation). This was, in part, due to key Iranian citizenry and politicians cooperating with British intrigue as part of Operation Boot. The larger issue was the British sanctions and blockades.
9: Mossadegh had his emergency powers extended for another 12 months.
10: With Einsenhower now taking presidency, the English leadership was finally able to convince the executive branch in Washington to join in Operation Boot.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I see you're uneducated, and you overestimate your own knowledge. Yes, one may be both agnostic and atheist. I am an atheist in that I believe there's no god, and I'm agnostic in my knowledge that there is no god. It is the rational, unbiased, thinking man's stance.
For instance, Benjamin Franklin here in my profile pic would be a theistic agnostic, since he most frequently, according to his letters and writings, prescribed deism. This means that he believed in a god, but did not claim to understand or have knowledge about such a god.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cy83r,
From Vox: "In fact, the very first time Trump appeared in the pages of the New York Times, back in the 1970s, was when the US Department of Justice sued him for racial discrimination." They never proved their case. The Trumps sued the government for the charges.
Of course, the bias of the NYT is clear when they wrote, "One early red flag arose in 1973, when President Richard Nixon’s Justice Department — not exactly the radicals of the day — sued Trump and his father, Fred Trump, for systematically discriminating against blacks in housing rentals."
They, of course, ignore the fact that the Civil Rights Act of 1957 was mostly voted against by Democrats and voted for largely by Republicans. To prove this, Govtrack shows that in the Senate 0 Republicans voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1957 while 18 Democrats voted against it. 43 Republicans voted for it while 29 Democrats voted for it. In the House, 150 Republicans and 129 Democrats voted for it. And here's where the divide really occurs: 82 Democrats voted against it while only 15 Republicans voted against it. Sounds like they have it backwards about racial equality radicals.
The numbers are similar for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Now what they don't talk about is when he housed Jennifer Hudson, free of charge, in the Trump hotel after her family was murdered. They don't talk about his purchase of a white exclusive club, Mar-a-Lago opened it to everyone and had to sue to have restrictions lifted because, as he claimed in the lawsuit, the city was “discriminating against Mar-a-Lago, in part because it is open to Jews and African-Americans.” This was in 1985.
This is just a couple of examples of the witch hunt that is being levied against Trump.
And I mentioned Bannon by name, so let me address that. I had never heard of Bannon or Breitbart before his appointment to the White House. I looked up information. I found a site that listed a dozen or so articles to "prove" that he was racist. One of the articles was titled, "The Racist, Pro-Nazi Roots of Planned Parenthood." Clearly they were using this article to try to show how misogynistic the site is, but in that, they completely disproved their other claim. I also looked on Breitbart's site at the types of people commenting on the articles they posted. I noted one person in my reading of the comments who posted a racist diatribe. This person was quickly shamed and shut down by the rest of the commenters, so it doesn't even seem to be a safe haven for hateful people.
The DAPL doesn't even enter into the Sioux sovereignty. It is entirely Federally-owned land. The Standing Rock Sioux voted overwhelmingly against allowing the protesters to stay on their land. The Army Corps of Engineers were in constant contact with any native nation that the pipeline was going to be even close to -- almost 400 specific meetings, in fact, to ensure that the nations as an entity would be accepting of the project.
Obama made an even worse political gaff regarding immigration when his amnesty sent the wrong message to Central and South America that saw thousands of lone children sent to the US, without adults, who sat in camps for months on end while his administration tried to figure out what to do with them.
"also I don't like the idea that my tax money is going to his Security in vacations vacations that he's taken every week"
You don't have to like where your tax money is going. I would like to know where you got your information. I bet you just read a headline or, at best, skimmed an article -- maybe watched a video. Then, of course, you think you understand the whole of the situation. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am saying that you're likely very gullible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Master Evar "Which is nowhere"
Oh, excuse me -- not debunked, he titled his video, "The Hyperloop: BUSTED!"
Close enough.
He even goes so far as to assume that they, and I quote, "...haven't done even the simplest expansion calculations." His assertion is that an entire team engineers just simultaneously and inexplicably forgot about their high school physics classes. But thunderf00t remembered because he's just awesome like that.
Of course, the more likely alternative, apply Occam's razor here, is that they have a solution for this issue, but they're keeping the method and/or materials proprietary.
"Then I think you accidentally wrote the wrong name when you responded, because I'm very sure I've only responded to comments who have responded to me."
Yeah, that was my bad. It was a response to you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Master Evar "No, it wouldn't. Please explain why."
For instance, you say that what I stated isn't authority but independence from authority. Well, then you're just establishing yourself as a better or, at the very least, alternative authority.
"What if his dad was not Troy Aikman, but he had a little brother who believed in him a lot and thus put higher credence on his big brother than the professional football player? Or what if his dad was a high-ranking politician?"
If he's persuasive based on that authority, he's implicitly using that authority to support his arguments. If his authority is irrelevant to the argument, it's a fallacious appeal to authority.
"By your logic, anyone who has something impressive in their life can't make a claim without making an appeal to authority. What if some movie star claimed that 1+1=2 because they learned that in school. They make an argument, and they are no an authority on the subject of math but they they still are some sort of authority."
If they used their notoriety in a way that persuaded people that they were right, it would be a fallacious appeal to authority. A valid argument would have to be made for why 1+1=2 is true.
A celebrity simply claiming that 1+1=2 is true, with an expectation to be taken on their word is a fallacious appeal to their authority over their audience.
"He's using tools (mathematics and physics) that he has studied up on in order to make his argument."
He throws out finished product numbers and assumptions. It's entirely his authority that sells these points.
It's worth noting here that you don't have to be wrong to make a fallacious appeal to authority.
"So people who knows how to speak are always making appeals to authority as well?"
Again, only if they are persuading using their perceived authority.
It's important to note here that there are valid appeals to authority. For instance, if you get a doctor saying that they think you have the cold, not a flu, they are validly appealing to their authority as a doctor.
"Yes, but then it's THOSE PEOPLE who are making an appeal to authority, not thunderf00t."
No, they are both making an appeal to authority.
"If someone cited your comments here because they thought you were right, does that mean your comment suddenly becomes an appeal to authority?"
Clearly I am appealing to myself as an authority here. I'm not comprising my argument of anything but my opinion. I haven't even quoted a dictionary definition. Absolutely I'm making an appeal to my own logical authority. If I weren't, I would be presenting external resources from globally-recognized authorities on the matter for proof of my conclusions, not arguing my own conclusions using my own logic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Aeroldoth3 The material issues stem from rationalizations for legal marriage. Primarily, legal marriage comes with tax breaks as well as discounted insurance coverage.
Tax breaks provide a household with additional income to promote a family to undergo the infirmity and cost of pregnancy and childbirth. Discounted insurance rates are provided to assist with the same benefits.
The government isn't in the business of love, who's sleeping with whom or anything of the like. The government promotes the nation's interest of growing the population and therefore increasing production.
So, when it comes down to it, homosexual marriage only takes benefits which do not apply, at this time, to that specific sex pairing.
Now, I already know where you're going in your head -- "What about the elderly? What about couples that are infertile? What about couples that just don't want to have babies?"
All of these questions are easily addressed by reminding you that the government can only probe into individual lives to a degree. Requiring fertility tests or forcing couples to have children is well overstepping what is acceptable of the government.
The next issue you may have thought about is, "What about adoption? Gay couples can adopt."
You're right. They can. They also don't need to be married to adopt, and they receive a tax break for the independent once the child is in the house.
Another one I hear often is that we're already overpopulated. The issue with that line of thinking is that we are not China. China regulates how many children people can have. Furthermore, we borrow against future production. We are required as a nation to increase production to meet lending needs.
You may say that it's hardly at all a hit to the bottom line in the overall view of things, and that's a fair enough of an argument. I disagree with it, because no matter how small a hit there is, there is still an unnecessary hit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Aeroldoth3 "I must admit ignorance here. I'm unaware of mere interrracial relationships being punished by the laws at that time. Can you give a very brief summary of what those punishments were?"
Check the landmark case in Loving v. Virginia.
"Clearly the states do NOT believe that marriage is about raising children."
As I said, this is a matter of reasonable government intrusion, not whether marriage is to promote and foster future relationships.
"Even if, somehow, I were convinced of that, there is still the fact that there is no difference, legally, between a couple having a child through heterosexual intercourse, or adoption."
Except pregnancy and the related specialized costs and issues therein.
"Saying that gays can adopt without marriage is simply countered by indicating that heteros can have sex without marriage."
Legal marriage has nothing to do with whom you're having sex. If a pair choose to enter into the agreement, they receive those benefits in hopes that those benefits spent will see returns.
"Gvmt was under no requirement to create marriage laws, but having done so, it is utterly ridiculous to accept that it can be limited based either upon the gender of the individuals..."
To me, it's equivalent to give someone making $80,000 a year food stamps.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Aeroldoth3 "Gvmt does not require couples to 'meet certain reasons' while married. Gvmt never divorces people on its own for not 'meeting certain reasons'; the dissolution of marriages is always initiated by the participants."
I didn't say these things are requirements, but that they are the intended outcome of the benefits offered. If such a general pairing can be construed to not meet those ends, ever at this time, then the benefits shouldn't extend to those individuals.
"...they are NOT free to, in tandem, pass laws replicating the tenets of a religion."
As long as a secular purpose can be argued for such a law, then, yes, it can.
"Non-sequitur. Praying before a session is not passing a law."
It is not non sequitur. It is a demonstration that, even while on the clock as a government employee, it has always been acceptable for a person to exercise their religion freely.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Aeroldoth3 "With that said, I'll repeat my initial question to you. Do you think legalizing IRM was wrong? It was entirely possible for the Court to strike down laws prohibiting IR sex, while retaining prohibitions on IRM."
Since interracial heterosexual couples generally have the opportunity to produce offspring, then I agree with interracial marriage.
"Is the entire basis of your opposition to SSM based on copulation?"
Based on the general knowledge of sex pairings that can and cannot produce offspring with one another, yes.
"...with no REQUIREMENT that they have children, NOR any requirement that any children they might raise, be bio children instead of adopted children."
Exactly, because such requirements are too intrusive to individual lives -- not a general observation.
"This child argument for marriage is... barren."
I see what you did there. Good one, really.
"Separate is not equal."
Provided there are no material differences, you're right. In the case of there being material differences as I'm arguing, you're incorrect. There is a fair amount of legislation in existence for which a person must meet criteria for the legislation to apply, and therefore, it does not apply to all people all the time and some people none of the time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Aeroldoth3 "It is not illegal to use a different gender bathroom, people do it all the time. At most, you might be charged with loitering."
That's inaccurate. In most jurisdictions it is a petty crime up to a misdemeanor. So, yes, there is legislation which are based on what's between your legs.
"Proving that religion was the real cause for opposing SSM, not reason."
It doesn't matter if it was or not.
"You keep asserting a requirement that doesn't exist. People are not required to have children; gays can adopt."
This isn't a requirement, it's an outcome which is hoped for. Why extend such benefits when the general pairing of male-male or female-female will never at this time produce the hoped-for fruit no matter how many benefits they receive?
Adoption comes with its own financial benefits. Adopting abridges the pregnancy and birthing process.
"Again, is copulation your only justification for opposing to SSM?"
I thought I answered this, but yes. It's the only rational reasoning for legal marriage to even exist.
"The issue you two were discussing was about passing religious laws on the nation, and you offered praying founders. Non-sequitur."
We had two discussions going. One was regarding the coach currently being investigated for praying at the game. That was the scope of that reply.
"*but there were objectively rational arguments presented.*
"By whom? Care to repeat them?
I'm echoing the same arguments here, so your desire is already being fulfilled.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Krip My opinion is erring on the side of caution for a moot point. It is not deriving an "ought" from an "is."
"That is not an argument against gays raising children, moron. If heterosexuality was a 'social construct' that wouldn't make it wrong for heterosexuals to raise children, now would it?"
Due to the nature of homosexuality being a detriment to the growth of society while heterosexuality is a boon to that growth, they are fundamentally different and therefore the converse argument doesn't apply.
The reason I didn't address your other points is because I feel they were already adequately answered or just wrong to the point that I didn't feel like going into it... But fine.
"Even going from such a view (which is wrong, since we perfectly allow people who cannot or will not have children get married) there is such a thing as adoption, which many gay couples do."
Adoption is not childbirth. Marriage isn't necessary to promote adoption. It also is irrelevant given my argument that erring on the side of caution is to not allow homosexuals to raise children.
"...I find it hilarious that, not a few comments earlier, you were referring to the lack of research in how homosexuality might be choice or not (which, again, you should look at the research of epigenetics)."
I'm aware of one paper on homosexuality and epigenetics which is an open hypothesis with no conclusions.
"'Because of the abuses suffered that led to homosexuals and transsexuals to have a protected status. The community as a whole, just like with race and religion, have lost the privilege through abuse of that privilege to choose to not serve certain demographics based solely on said protected demographic.'
What privileges are these? I never recall getting special treatment, rather it was worse treatment for my sexuality, so pray tell, what are you refereeing to?"
You've misread what I said, and have asked questions that are non sequitur to my paragraph.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Krip A moot point, in this case, being one that is yet to be determined.
"The fact that sexual orientation is or is not a social construct has no bearing on their child raising capabilities."
It does have bearing if it raises the rate of homosexuality.
"This is just utterly false and a perfect example why we need empiricism. I would ask that you look up Richard Dawkins on homosexuality, but suffice to say there are theories (like the gay uncle theory) that show homosexuality helps propagate the species. Also, all you would need to do is look at the examples of homosexuals adopting to realize this is false."
The "gay uncle" is a hypothesis, not a theory, and one that is untested. When it comes down to it, homosexuality is, at best, a deleterious allele. At worst, it's a choice of sexuality for which people are seeking special treatment.
"Child-birth is a small fraction of the smaller part of the picture of propagating the species, which is the ultimate goal of your insipid view of what we ought to look for in marriage. The birthing part (if you include pregnancy, which is generous on my part) is only 9 months of the larger picture of child-rearing, which is an even smaller part of the above stated goal. Considering that the actual care of the child is the most considerable part of the actionable stage of your goal, this should then be the focus."
The thing is that after childbirth, there's no different between a legally unmarried homosexual couple and a married heterosexual couple, so your argument falls apart. The child itself would still be a dependent for tax purposes and as well eligible for insurance coverage. Furthermore, to me it's still a moot point (irrelevant to this argument) given that I still feel it's an unnecessary risk to allow homosexual adoptions.
"Even worse, I can quote where you seem to understand those key areas:
'Legal marriage is, rationally, intended to foster the raising of future generations by easing the financial burden of pregnancy, birth and child rearing.'
Ah, to be young, stupid, and contrary at heart."
The State has no other interest in its involvement in marriage.
"An open hypothesis? First off, you wouldn't need to use the word "open." Second, it's a theory, they have performed tests on rats experimenting with the epimarks responsible for sexuality. Suffice to say, they were able to change the rats sexuality by activating and deactivating such marks."
Yes, it's an open hypothesis. A proven hypothesis still maintains its status as a hypothesis, but it is proven through experimentation. I'd also like to know the title of the article or paper you're citing from.
"'You've misread what I said, and have asked questions that are non sequitur to my paragraph.'
How am I misreading? You clearly said:
'that led to homosexuals and transsexuals to have a protected status.'
What protected status might this be? I've never received such."
You stated earlier 'privileges', which was a word I used unrelated to anything given or taken away from homosexuals. With that clarified, over 20 states and many cities have sexual orientation as a protected status.
"'The community as a whole... have lost the privilege through abuse of that privilege...'
And, what is this privilege?"
The privilege of choosing to not serve a customer such as in the case of the wedding photographer. You're confused -- I can tell. Most likely you presume that because I'm against gay marriage and child rearing, I'm against everything gay, and it confuses you that I should promote a pro-gay standpoint. But I'm a little more complex than being all for it or all against it. I'm not a blind follower, and I still think for myself.
While I view homosexuality as a non-issue in general, there are points that I feel do overstep reasonable bounds.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Krip "'A moot point, in this case, being one that is yet to be determined.'
It is not 'yet to be determined;' the fact that epigenetics, twin studies, physiological differences, animals displaying such behavior, etc. means your idea of homosexuality being "a social construct" is entirely wrong. The fact that you don't listen is not a basis for your irrational opinions."
Epigenetic causes for homosexuality has not been proved yet -- it's just a model of prediction waiting for more studies. Twin studies are suggestive of homosexuality being a choice, not genetic, or are inconclusive at best. Animal acts are just an appeal to nature fallacy -- especially keeping in mind that dogs hump legs.
"'It does have bearing if it raises the rate of homosexuality.'
I'm seriously almost crying with laughter; I wish you could see my face. The fallacies that abound. 'It's bad, because there will be more homosexuals' is a circular argument; your assertion that homosexuals raising children will cause more homosexuals would be an argument from ignorance (in the literal sense and slightly in the actual meaning, if only for the fact that you are an ignoramus that won't do his research; the APA has already done research disproving such idiocy, but you don't bother to look, so it's only slightly the ignorance fallacy). If all you do is resort to fallacies, I can safely say you have never seriously studied philosophy."
The APA's decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM was a decision made by political pressure, not one driven by proof of any kind. Homosexuality is apparent sexual dysfunction, and the burden of proof is on those claiming otherwise. That burden of proof hasn't yet been met, regardless what opinions are.
"'The "gay uncle" is a hypothesis, not a theory, and one that is untested.'
No it is not, you moron. Don't pull things out of your ass. Also, this is one of many, which show that homosexuality helps the species."
All of them are just random, untested hypotheses to try to explain the continuation of such an apparent deleterious allele -- if it is, in fact, a deleterious allele and not a choice. These are hypotheses based on unproved assumptions; the very definition of a moot (pointless at this time, but worthy of interest) point.
"'When it comes down to it, homosexuality is, at best, a deleterious allele. At worst, it's a choice of sexuality for which people are seeking special treatment.'
You have the 'at worst' and 'at best' seriously mixed up. The first thing is blind assertion on your part, the second doesn't matter, since that would mean heterosexuality is also a choice (and so would make your argument completely meaningless)."
At best, for homosexuals, means it's at least not their choice as they consistently maintain. At worst, homosexuality is something that should be sought to be cured or viewed as a mental disorder. Sexual tastes are developed. For instance, some people are into S&M and others aren't. It's not a genetic thing, it's a matter of a taste being acquired.
"'The thing is that after childbirth, there's no different between a legally unmarried homosexual couple and a married heterosexual couple.'
You know, except for the financial stability, the hospital visitation rights, the next of kin rights, the right to not testify against your partner in court, the list goes on (I would suggest looking up a comprehensive list, since you seem to not know what marriage entails)."
What financial stability? I would suggest civil unions, but in the UK, that's not good enough for homosexual activists -- they still want marriage.
"'Furthermore, to me it's still a moot point (irrelevant to this argument) given that I still feel it's an unnecessary risk to allow homosexual adoptions.'
Again, another fallacy; this time an appeal to tradition. 'My position takes precedence, because we've always done it this way.' (Even though we fucking know this assertion isn't true; have you seriously not looked up the APA? Or, are you just an insult to anyone who might pine the name of a 'rationalist.')"
I'm not appealing to tradition as it's based on a lack of evidence and is therefore erring on the side of caution.
"'The State has no other interest in its involvement in marriage.'
Much argument, so impressed. If this were true the state wouldn't allow marriages of those who can't, won't, or will not have children. This is so easily false it makes my head swim the amount of daft ignorance needed to employ such sophistry."
A married couple who decide to not have children is exactly the couple that marriage is attempting to appeal to the idea to have children, so that's perfectly in line with my argument.
Those who "can't" have children, often technically can and do. The simple understand that there is a heterosexual couple is in itself considered proof enough that there is the chance of offspring.
"'Yes, it's an open hypothesis. A proven hypothesis still maintains its status as a hypothesis, but it is proven through experimentation.'
Scratch that first talk of wanting you to see my face, this is where I truly lost it. A rationalist speaking of things all sciency? Oh, goody, goody! You failed so hard. 'A proven hypothesis still maintains its status as a hypothesis'? First off, no scientist would ever in a million years use the word 'proof,' they use the word 'corroborate.' Second, what you described is, say it with me, a THEORY. THEORIES are corroborated hypotheses; corroboration comes about by experimentation and empirical results. You failed so hard you proved my point, and my criticism of the word 'open' still stands."
Yes, because meeting the "burden of proof" is not an institution of science... Science is based on proof. Where are you getting the thought otherwise? For the most part, no single study proves anything -- it corroborates as you said; however, a body of studies can absolutely prove a hypothesis or theory.
A theory is an explanation of why something occurs. A hypothesis is what should be expected within the framework of a theory. Hypotheses either support or put into question theories.
For instance, a theory would be epigenetic causes for homosexuality. Hypotheses would be a prediction made within that theory's framework that will either prove true, supporting that theory, or prove false, bringing the theory into question.
After several hypotheses within the framework of a theory have been proved true with no sufficient questions raised about those hypotheses (read: competing hypotheses with different results), then a theory is accepted as a fact (not scientific fact which is something entirely different, just a fact that should be accounted for).
It sounds like you're the one lacking knowledge in the area, not me.
1
-
Krip "...considering this is my field of study... Scientists even sighted this as being indicative of..."
Contradiction proving you don't know what you're talking about.
"'Burden of proof' is a misnomer; as I just explained above, proof is not in the realms of science... Burden of proof lies with those making positive claims... Also, show me how they are 'unproven' and 'untested' then instead of just saying they are."
Two contradictions here that prove further that you don't know what you're talking about.
"...would mean Newton's theory of gravity is proven, but, oh wait, we have Einstein's theory of general relativity..."
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation (not theory) was a set of formulae that still stand today; however, since the 17th century, we've come to understand that there are certain bounds outside of which those laws no longer work. Those bounds are what Einstein's Theory of Relativity sought to explain the why of. Various hypotheses therein have been presented, tested and proved true that support that theory to the point of it being accepted as fact now. For instance, when we put GPS satellites into orbit, we used principles found in Relativity to adjust for time dilation because we regard relativity as a fact, and will continue to do so until something breaks unexpectedly (i.e. proves relativity does not work in a certain circumstance, like what happened with Newtonian physics and its gravitational measurements).
Seriously, learn what you're talking about before you say anything. And for crying out loud, at least stop contradicting yourself multiple times in the same post.
1
-
Krip "'"...considering this is my field of study... Scientists even sighted this as being indicative of..."
Contradiction proving you don't know what you're talking about.'
What contradiction, you moron. If you are talking about the 'my field of study' and suggesting I am lying because of my corrections on your 'philosophy,' then you are erroneously assuming that I ever said I was a philosopher. I am seriously confused at what the contradiction might be; my other guess is you don't think the scientists indicate what I said they indicate."
No, it's because you claim your in a science-related field and stated that "scientists sight" instead of properly using "scientists cite." This was further proved that you intended to use that wording since you didn't even see it was the wrong homonym used.
"""'Burden of proof' is a misnomer; as I just explained above, proof is not in the realms of science... Burden of proof lies with those making positive claims... Also, show me how they are 'unproven' and 'untested' then instead of just saying they are."
Two contradictions here that prove further that you don't know what you're talking about."
If you are talking about my use of 'burden of proof,' my calling it a 'misnomer' does not mean I cannot use the phrase myself."
No, that just makes you a hypocrite.
"I used it accurately for my purposes, since I'm not regarding 'burden of proof' as 'proving beyond a shadow of a doubt,' but as 'corroborating the claim.'"
If proof doesn't prove something, what would be the point of providing proof? You're painting yourself in a corner here. In addition to this, you're apparently a scientist that doesn't base anything on "proof."
"Beyond that, I have no clue what other 'contradiction' there is (my guess; none, although, that would be accurate for this entire post)."
You stated the burden of proof doesn't exist. Then you state that the burden of proof does exist and lies with those making positive claims. Then you ask me to prove a negative (technically that's two contradictions in one making it 4 contradictions, but I cut you a break before). You're failing hard now, not even having the presence of mind to see where you contradicted yourself.
"...but nothing will 'break unexpectedly.'"
That's how figuring it out works -- it unexpectedly breaks. "OK, I plug this data into this formula and... hm... That's interesting..." <- Suddenly that formula doesn't work -- it broke under those parameters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And that's the problem. Being a service-based economy is a horrible transition, and a great part of our woes. And, yeah, that is partly because of progressive movements to protect the environment.
Now I want to be clear here. This does not mean we should not protect the environment, but that we should strike a better balance that does not strangle our ability to produce physical goods to export as well as encouraging the buying of goods produced in the US more than imported goods.
When you're dealing with physical production, there is at least some intrinsic value in whatever it is you are producing and quality is king, but when you're a service-based industry, there is no intrinsic value and lower cost is often king over quality.
We are absolutely rich in natural resources: lumber, oil, gold, coal, phosphorus (we're one of only 3 countries with known deposits and is vital for crops), copper, iron. The problem is the environmental progressive lobbyists that really stand on the neck of those who wish to partake in these industries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Whether it's donating time, money or yard space for signs, we all have equal opportunity to be there for the political hopefuls we support. WolfPac also is attempting to state, in the amendment, that corporations are not people, despite the fact that corporations are nothing but people. This has very far-reaching and clearly unforeseeable consequences.
WolfPac is a horrible idea, and it will not accomplish what is being stated as its intention.
I'm not one to like to give criticisms without being constructive, however. I think the fundamental idea here that special interest lobbying through campaign funding is an issue is true. We have attempted to curb this in the past, unsuccessfully, by tightening legislation on campaign funding. This proved to just force the money deeper, but changed nothing. I believe WolfPac, in its current concept, will accomplish only the same thing. Instead, reporting of campaign funding should be legislated and required of all political hopefuls to openly and concisely report in detail their political funding, requiring all sources to be named in clear and easy-to-understand formatting.
Rather than trying to control something that you simply can't control, this accomplishes the task of lessening the strength of special interest lobbying through campaign funding by requiring funding accountability of political hopefuls. In short, if Evil Corp donates $10 million to Mr. Incumbent who subsequently votes to loosen EPA protections which results in disastrous consequences, then the public will be capable of seeing clearly that Mr. Incumbent had Evil Corp's best intentions in mind instead of the people's. An informed voter is an empowered voter. An empowered voter can go against Evil Corp any day of the week.
It's about creating a culture of responsibility and accountability in political hopefuls and incumbents as well as doing our best to ensure that voters have all of the information necessary readily available in order that they may make better-informed decisions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** You stated that, "Also, it's quite clear that she didn't have any clue that her disobedience would condemn the entirety of human kind."
You're implying here that she is bearing children at this point. Otherwise, Adam and Eve were the entirety of mankind. Since she told Adam to eat the fruit, she was actively killing the other half of mankind.
"They had no experience with death so how could they know what it meant?"
They understand life. They would understand nonexistence as well since they understand that state prior to their existence.
"They only covered themselves after they had eaten of the fruit which should tell you that there were several concepts they weren't aware of before."
They didn't choose for themselves what was good and what was evil. After eating the fruit, they began deciding for themselves what was good and what was evil. They determined for themselves that to be naked was bad and clothed themselves. This isn't a concept they weren't aware of, but a thing that they decided not to choose for themselves prior to this point.
"And why would God withhold the consequence that disobedience would condemn their descendants for all eternity?"
Well, it wasn't for all eternity, first of all. But how can you choose right and wrong for yourself, and not expect to choose that as well for your children? In short, why would they expect otherwise?
1
-
***** I answered how you were implying that she was bearing children in the Garden when I said, "...Adam and Eve were the entirety of mankind. Since she told Adam to eat the fruit, she was actively killing the other half of mankind." What you're inferring is that there was other people in existence at the time that would have been affected by their choice.
"Knowing that you are alive does NOT in any way shape or form automatically lead to a comprehension of the concept of death and non-existence - especially from people who were brought to life through magic and were the only two people around."
If you exist, then you know the opposite of such is nonexistence. These things come hand-in-hand.
"They had no knowledge of good and evil before they ate from the fruit of 'the tree of knowledge of good and evil' which means they didn't have knowledge of good and bad and so of course couldn't make an informed choice or even understand the concept of the consequences of disobedience before this action, and even after as God had never told them anything other than they would "most certainly die". (Oh, and just for good measure he only says it to Adam as Eve didn't exist at that time according to this story, so who told her?)."
No, it means they listened to God to tell them what was good and what was evil prior to the eating of the fruit. Knowledge of good and evil is not necessary to understanding consequences.
Regarding who told Eve, the serpent was speaking to only her first, and she reiterated God's command. She understood it was something she wasn't supposed to do.
"And lastly, am I to understand that you believe the offspring and descendants of someone doing something bad are equally guilty?"
You're making this personal. I don't believe in any of it. The fiction, however, does, yes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
wickidjuggalo79
Oh, yeah, I would love to hear what you think this means: "Fuckin' magnets, how do they work? And I don't wanna talk to a scientist. Ya'll motherfuckers lying and getting me pissed."
Yes, Benjamin Franklin, the creator of the fire department, US postal service, ambassador and minister for the United States, successful publisher, abolitionist, founded the first hospital in the US, a leader in agriculture in the US, started the first insurance company, invented the Franklin stove, invented bifocals, started the first library in the US, founded two colleges, prolific writer, started the first police department, governor of Pennsylvania, ranked as a colonel in the militia, Grand Master mason of Pennsylvania, started the American Philosophical Society, ran several successful businesses, a leader in the rationalist movement, a linguist who spoke several languages, philanthropist and great mentor and more.
What have the ICP done lately? Well, other than telling a kid to "go smoke something", of course.
"Because I listen to music of a certain genre I am shoved into a niche?"
Don't forget you already demonstrated your inability to think critically. The fact that you're a Juggalo was a hindsight after the fact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
wickidjuggalo79 "You supported no evidence to support your inane theory that I have a lack of knowledge yet keep yelling it from the rooftops."
You've provided the evidence with each post.
"The fact you think there is not flouride in the water just goes to show how much you haven't taken the time to research."
I never said that there is no fluoride in water. This goes back to the first part of this comment where I stated that you keep proving that you're not very bright.
Almost all water has some level of fluoridation. Fluoride is often times, but not always, added in water supplies that have lower than normal fluoridation levels.
"I could care less what you believe about what I've done. I'm not a celebrity or on the news filling your mind with blissful ignorance so I don't see a reason you would care."
This goes back to point one as well. You simply aren't a critically thinking person, as a critically thinking person would take issue with the phrase, "I could care less," which has the strong implication that you do care when your goal is to imply you don't care.
Now, in this, you also completely disregard my evidence presented to support my reason for not believing you. You can't maintain credibility while stating that you know Freemasonry and at the same time spouting immense amounts of ignorance about the organization.
"I indicated nothing. I'm not scared to say what I actually mean. I expect you are the same way except that you have to get told what your interests are before spouting the stupidity.
I guess there is a need, yet again to point out there is more to the world than youtube videos. But it's nice to see you admit the limitations of your "research" concerning any particular topic.
The sad part is you are stuck judging anyone that craves knowledge and dares to question the given narrative, and don't even realize it. Back it up with facts or give it up. I could have this exact same conversation with millions of your sheep clones. And you have less knowledge and information than even most of them."
I have backed up my position with facts. Since those facts don't agree with the delusion that you've been taught, you dismiss them as garbage.
The problem is that you're more interested in being right than you are about gaining knowledge. A person interested in and craving knowledge changes with new information. You do not. You stubbornly maintain your same views.
Doubtless, you're already wondering about me, the information you're presenting to me and how I'm dismissing it. The reason for this actually ties in with my summation of your level of knowledge, ability to learn and your dependence on alternative media. You see, you're just regurgitating things that I've heard several other conspiracy theorists spout time and again.
Since I personally don't seek to commit argumentum ad hominem and am not a blind sheep, I do verify and scrutinize every new bit of evidence that is presented to me. I've yet to have any of the delusional beliefs held by these Alex Jones idiots stand up to scrutiny.
I would say what occupied most of my time was 9/11 conspiracy theories. Every last source I've reviewed has been simply and patently wrong, and it was so easily provable. It was at the end of this extensive research that I did that I finally determined that the few individuals who are publishing this stuff are simply taking advantage of the simple minded and the paranoid to sell some t-shirts and bumper stickers, and you're a sucker right up there with the rest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
wickidjuggalo79 "In that scenario, all accounts would be anecdotal."
Anecdotal evidence is you stating that you knew people who meet X criteria. It does not meet the burden of proof, it is not verifiable or falsifiable, it does not present unbiased data, it does not further the conversation in any way, form or fashion. If you don't see the objective truth in that, then you're absolutely hopeless.
"You really have something to prove, no? You've been sending me inane comments for almost a week."
I'm tenacious.
I love how you advise me to present facts or don't comment, but in the same post, you make a generalization like, "publicly funded brainwashing," without so much as even a qualification.
You're blind, but you refuse to believe you're blind.
1
-
wickidjuggalo79 It wasn't taught in school that Columbus discovered America. It is taught that he thought he thought the world was smaller than what it was estimated to be and that sailing west could result in an easy and short trade route to India. It was also taught that the Vikings were traveling to the Americas about 700 years prior to Columbus' voyage. It's also taught that America is named after Amerigo Vespucci who proved that the Americas was not Asia. You must not have paid attention.
George Washington was the first President of the United States. He was also the first president as we know it, with executive powers. The position of President of the United States in the First and Second Continental Congresses was an honorary position that was a secretarial service to the Congress. Again, you must not have paid attention in school.
"Children in kindergarden are forces to stand and pledge their allegience to a country they are incapable of understanding the policies of."
I suppose a valid argument can be made for that, and an argument has been made for that. Not that I necessarily agree with the arguments posed, mind you, I just feel that it's a legitimate question to ask.
"Ignoring the obvious and reacting with extreme hatred and prejudice against anyone that dare question the official story."
I've seen you question, but I've yet to see you produce valid evidence for your claims. That's your problem -- you ask a lot of questions, but you don't bother to find the answers to your questions. Alternatively, you make a half-ass attempt to find the answers, and the first answer you find that sufficiently supports your preconceived notions, you just go with. You don't care about whether or not the answer is the right answer, only that it's an answer you expect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Shane Goguen "I can tell you that coming up to a person and saying 'hey native american' is actually just fine with us." It's funny how you think you're the spokesperson for an entire race. I'd like to think that there's no KKK guy out there saying he's talking for me. You see what I mean? You're applying your personal preferences to an entire people with whom you only share a heritage, not some sort of hive mind of peoples who all think the same.
"We tell people what we would like to be called, the problem is they never listen."
No, this nebulous "we" of which you speak does nothing of the sort. This nebulous "we" only offers mixed messages. The fact of the matter is, is that it is not the right of someone to control another's speech (or what another prefers to be called) through the arbitrary personal preference of how oneself is preferentially identified. Each individual may tell me at the time how they may prefer to be identified, if they have a preference. That's how it typically shakes out anyway.
For what it's worth to you, read this excerpt:
"Eighteenth-century records do, however, attest the emergence of the use of the color terms red and white by Native Americans as racial designations, and the adoption of these terms by Europeans in eastern North America. The first uses of the term red as a racial label that Shoemaker (1997: 627) found are from 1725. In that year a Taensa chief talking to a French Capuchin priest in Mobile recounted an origin story about a 'white man,' a 'red man,' and a 'black man' (Rowland and Sanders 1927-1932, 2:485-486), and a Chickasaw chief meeting with the English Commissioner for Indian Affairs as Savanna Town referred to 'White people' and 'red people' (George Chicken in Mereness 1916: 169)."
http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf
(Note: The accentuation of "by Native Americans" using bold text was my addition.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** Outside of linguistic semantics, could you explain how "red people" and "redskin" are different? Okla humma (or homa depending on method of Latinization): "people red" is the literal translation, not "land of/for red people" as you put. All of this adds to the confusion of your post, and should serve as a lesson as to why you shouldn't argue semantics, especially linguistically. It's like trying to argue that Qu'ran is a more accurate spelling than Koran. Neither is more accurate and simply represent an approximation of sounds in a different syllabary or lettering. It only serves to confuse the reader when the reader provides you with a modicum of respect in the belief that you would at least understand that these are semantic differences, not differences of any substance.
Furthermore, the use of red and white to differentiate the conglomerate of Europeans from the conglomerate of native tribes was coined by the natives, not the Europeans. That means that the substance in the actual usage and origins of the words in both the case of redskin and Oklahoma are synonymous. Again, this is something that I initially respected you on that you would know since you are talking about the subject.
So, yes, while you intended to argue, you and Ken were, in fact, in agreement -- you just didn't realize it because of a lack of knowledge on your part.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Latte Cat "Oh, so you're religious?"
How did you come to the conclusion that I may be religious or that have anything against the scientific community? That's quite a jump in logic. At this point, I'm honestly not surprised, but that's a little non sequitur, even for you.
"It is a fact that nothing can be 100% proven, and scientists know this."
That's not what I'm asking for, and you should know this.
"No valid argument? Controlling a woman's body isn't reason enough for you to consider it wrong?"
That this is controlling a woman's body is a claim, not an argument.
"If this were happening to men, I can guarantee you and other people of your ilk would be outraged."
Since before written history, it's been common knowledge that men are the expendable portion of humanity. It's why men march to war and die en masse. It's why even today, an action movie is male after male after male being killed without anyone batting an eye. So when it's the male's expected role to run out and die in battle, there's really nothing you can say about men being outraged at some minor sleight in life like this.
"Forcing a person to carry to full term and give birth to a child they do not want for whatever reason is a serious violation of human rights."
It's no one forcing anyone to do anything. It's someone having consequences for a chosen action.
"Some things are clearly bad because of the negative effects they have. They do not need 'proving,' because why they are bad is self evident."
Yes, you have to prove that you have valid reasons of why you think it's bad. I would suggest they be solid arguments, not just claims. If your goal isn't to persuade me, then you might as well just keep your opinion to yourself. However, I would like you to remember that you came to my posting and posted -- I didn't seek you out. Clearly you intend to persuade me.
"You attempt to control women and the choices they make for themselves under the guise of caring for the zygote/foetus/baby she is carrying. You let your emotions cloud your rationality."
You can't speak to me about my rationale when you yourself have presented no rationale for your position. Everything you've said amounts to that you think it's bad and you don't have to prove why -- it just is. If you can't even articulate your argument, why do you even have it?
"Both are ways to control another person's body for no good reason, gross violations of human rights, and also taking somebody's reproductive rights away from them."
Forcing a castration or hysterectomy on someone is a far cry from restricting medical professionals in procedures.
"I'm not entirely sure if you're religious or right wing, but if you're either or both of these things, it sure would explain a hell of a lot."
I'm not religious, and my beliefs rarely line up with any party. I find party politics and religion rob people of their ability to think critically and for themselves. Much in the same way you simply regurgitate (ad nauseam) the idea that this is about control of a woman's body, but you're not even sure why you're repeating it, other than it's what you've learned from someone else and works well enough as a loaded argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Latte Cat "Not really. It was a very tiny part of my response."
I didn't address how much of your response was dedicated to it, only that you're actually bothering to pick on it. It's even in the Oxford dictionary as informal usage.
"...but I won't, because I'm aware of what is morally right and wrong.
Not taking a knife to someone's throat is not an action, but an absence of an action."
Exactly. Think about that. Not having an abortion is what? The absence of that action. And your moral compass is simply not the same as mine in this instance. And just like what you consider a valuable life in a person, I consider a valuable life in the womb. A heart is beating at 18 days. Now we can split hairs all day long about when it's considered an actual life -- that's like arguing a Theseus' Ship paradox, but there has to be a point between conception and birth that we must draw that line. The earliest a baby who was a premie has lived is after only a 4 month (21 week) gestation (second trimester). As medical technology advances, that could become younger, as this is already younger than what was shown before the Roe v. Wade decision.
"...is somebody else making decisions for you and what you do with your body (hence, controlling)"
So laws that prohibit murder is controlling you. You just happen to conveniently agree with that law, so you don't have the same dilemma with those who support it as you do with those who support tightly regulating abortions.
"It didn't escape my attention how you conveniently ignored the rest of my reply."
Just because I haven't quoted it, doesn't mean that I ignored it. It's because I feel that what I responded with addressed the whole of your argument.
1
-
Latte Cat "I was pointing out that it sounded stupid. My opinion, nothing more. No need to get your knickers in a twist over it."
When you're attempting to discredit my opinion with an ad hom, I'm going to address it. It's common informal language, so deal with it.
"I noticed you said you didn't ignore the rest of my comment, but this part of your response proves that you did, conveniently."
No, it proves that you had an argument against my previous argument so I expanded on it. Stop with the ad hom and attempts to be sly. It's just making you look utterly childish, and doesn't get us anywhere.
"I think we need to be clear about this (I think we already are, but you're denying it): both carrying and giving birth to a baby are actions. And the woman performing these actions is being forced to because she is being denied or having her access restricted to safe abortions. "
No, no, no. Carrying a child and giving birth are the consequences or results of an action.
"First of all, did you ever hear of quality over quantity? All you care about is how many lives there are, not the quality of those lives."
Yes. It's called eugenics, and it's a bunk pseudoscience.
"You do not give two shits about the woman's quality of life, or her life in general."
And how do you figure that?
"...I can only come to my conclusion that you are using the "poor zygote/foetus/baby" rhetoric as a guise to control women's bodies - over 90% of the time, that's what it is."
Or maybe I actually care also about the unborn baby. You say I think black and white, but you're the one who thinks, simply and stubbornly, abortion = rights; no abortion = misogyny. On the other hand, I consider both the mother and the child. It's a complex dilemma as to what is "life," and what excuses can there be to terminate that life.
"Yes, the law does prohibit murder. That doesn't mean I couldn't go out and kill somebody right now. It does not directly 'control' as preventing abortion does, it controls for the right reasons (keeping society safe and in order as much as possible) and it's actually there for a legitimate reason."
So.... basically, we keep abortion clinics open and punish someone for using them? By your logic you presented here, that would work for you since you've demonstrated the key differences with laws that punish murder and laws that prevent abortion is that at least still have the option to go murder someone, whereas laws that stop abortion don't allow someone to have the option of an abortion.
"Again, it's a pathetically failed analogy. The law is put in place, and I completely agree with it, because the thing it is preventing - murder - is negative (though I'm sure you'd disagree because there's no way to actually prove that, eh?)."
Prove what? That murder is negative? I agree with that. That's not exactly the debate -- whether murder is a negative thing or not; it's whether abortion is a negative thing or not.
"Whichever way you dress it up, restricting safe access to abortions for women - including victims of rape, failed protection etc. - is a violation of human rights and a woman's right to own and control her own body."
I'm not persuaded by your arguments. In fact, if I'm to be painfully honest, I find your arguments to be rather two-dimensional and emotional rather than articulated reasoning. You spend an inordinate amount of time punctuating your arguments that this is all just a clandestine way to control women's bodies, and that's just an unfounded insult that you've convinced yourself of and amounts to no more than a straw man.
1
-
Latte Cat "I don't remember ever claiming your use of language discredited your argument. Did I? No. It was my opinion as I previously stated, maybe you need to deal with it."
Of course, not. You're passive-aggressive that way. It was certainly heavily inferred, however.
"......which, as discussed countless times, are often out of the woman's control. You are vile. By the way, you only need one 'no.'"
Let me ask you -- when did I call you vile, evil, immoral, etc.? I'd appreciate it if the respect I give you would be reciprocated. Whether or not the woman takes on the risks of having sex is in her control.
"Afraid not. My stance is that no woman should be forced to carry and give birth to a child she doesn't want under any circumstances."
How is this not black-and-white thinking again?
"Why? Because I actually care about the quality of the woman's life."
But you don't care about the life of the fetus.
"How hilarious - I see you skirted around my argument by claiming it to be invalid, without actually addressing why."
What argument? The portion I quoted to which that was a response to was little more than ad lapidem. Your claim was that what I state is a "violation of human rights and a woman's right to own and control her own body." There's no supporting argument given.
"Even more hilarious is that you call my arguments emotion based, when all pro-lifers depend on emotional reasoning. That's where all this 'how dare you kill babies!'"
It's more along the lines of, "It's not proper to infringe on the right to life of unborn children."
"A...are you kidding? Are you serious, or just trolling? Really, at this point, it's hard to tell. Since when did eugenics have anything to do with making sure people are living quality lives?! You have got to be trolling on this one. If you aren't, oh my, bless you."
What you're talking about is in the same vein. It is the promotion of self-directed child rearing for those with desired traits and acting as an antagonist to child rearing for those with less-than-desired traits.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Alexander Lang "May I ask, given that you statements seem to only support that only the New Testament is a part of Christianity and seem to argue that if it's not in the New Testament than does that mean you outright reject the old Testament? Also, if the New Testament is the only book of Christianity than why is the old Testament along with the books you attributed to Islam, the Pentateuch and the Book of Prophets also located within the Christian Bible? It seems to me that if the Old Testament is not a part of Christianity than it would not have been included within the Bible, no?"
Yes and no. Yes, the Old Testament in Christianity is part of it, being the History, Law and Prophets portion. However, what we're talking about here is punishment. Punishment was authorized in the Hebrew tribes when the judgments and sentencing was handed down by God himself. Jesus showed that it's not man's place to administer punishment, but only God's, as shown in the gospel account of the attempted stoning of the adultress.
"On your second post you point out that Stoning may not be in the Koran, but it is in the Pentateuch and the Book of Prophets books that Muslims observe, but did you not realize that these books are in the Old Testament and are also observed by Christian's? Do you also realize that by that logic that if Stoning is in Islam than it is also inherently in Christianity? Do you honestly not see the hypocrisy?"
In addition to my above response applying here as well, we have to remember Islam's view of Christian scriptures and Mohammed's role. Islam views Jesus as a human prophet and nothing more -- not the son of God. As it's stated in the Quran (19:35), "It is not [befitting] for Allah to take a son; exalted is He! When He decrees an affair, He only says to it, 'Be,' and it is."
For this reason, and for the reason that Mohammed is the most perfect prophet of God (overriding Jesus' teachings), it is the violent vindictive nature of Mohammed that is followed in Islam above any other teachings.
"In regards to your third post on the KKK, and Islam. How exactly is it that you can look at a Muslim who kills in the name of Islam and associate those muslims with all Islam, but when the KKK, a Christian organization does something that you feel isn't Christian than you can hold a double standard that says that the KKK is somehow not really Christian? Do you not see the hypocrisy?"
I think I may have said before that the litmus test of the validity of an action truly being religious in nature is the core set of beliefs of the suspect religion. For instance, when the KKK burns a cross in the yard of a black or interracial family, you can't find anywhere in the New Testament an indication that this is what actions should be taken, let alone that such action is even remotely acceptable.
However, on the hand of Islam, if you look at the scriptures from their most perfect prophet Mohammed, you find verse after verse of violence and corporal punishment to nonbelievers. So when a suicide bomber blows up a populated subway tunnel because the Quran does teach that a worshiper of Allah will receive special benefits for fighting and dying in His name against the nonbelievers and apostates, it's clear that the religion is the true core causation, not just the individual seeking excuses for his actions.
Another question that's worthy of asking is, "Would this person still act in this particular manner without the religious beliefs he holds?" Now, imagine what you think the Middle East may be like today if Islam didn't exist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
From the original poll's article: "We did test one vaguer alternate political revolution statement that didn't mention redistribution of wealth — asking the other half of our sample if, 'In the next decade, a political revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties.'
"This turned out to be slightly more popular, with 59 percent of registered voters agreeing with the statement and 23 percent disagreeing. That's because there was overwhelming enthusiasm for this 'liberties' revolution from Republicans (70-20), evangelicals (69-19), and Tea Party supporters (76-12). Pluralities or majorities of practically every other group agreed too, though, again, 'somewhat agree' numbers tended to be higher than 'strongly agree.'"
But I guess that popular conservative question in the same poll goes against your agenda, so you're not going to cover it, right? People want a person that will provide a strong and honest economy and protect the liberties of the people. Conservatives don't trust liberals to protect the people's liberties -- especially regarding firearms, property ownership and freedom of religion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** "The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure." -Thomas Jefferson
You don't agree, but a bigger man understands that he is not so important as to think his own opinion is more important than anyone else's.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
torchandhammer You're bringing up the same point I've already rebutted. You need to read the material I gave you.
Furthermore, traditional medicare has a lot of cost associated with it. For instance, $104 a month premium for inpatient care, inpatient services have a deductible of $1,288 and coverage can completely end after about 150 days of inpatient care in a hospital or nursing home, outpatient care costs another $121 a month, outpatient has a $166 deductible and a 20% copay for any service after that. That's a lot of out-of-pocket.
Now when you're talking about overhead costs, you have to understand that because of Medicare Advantage, private health insurers have a larger overhead -- employing entire departments of data analysts, programmers, database managers, local data processors, clinical data processors, software development and more along with the necessary management dedicated to reporting to the Federal government within appropriate timelines to be reimbursed.
Life expectancy is a broad subject, and to say that life expectancy is lower in the US due to health coverage is greatly overreaching any data we have.
Government grants pay for tens of billions in a trillions-of-dollars market. Most medical advancements are not paid through government grants.
Now you'll have to excuse me if I take data science for such a complex system with a grain of salt, because it's for a just reason. First of all, 45,000 dying a year from lack of health insurance is not a lot when you see that millions die with health insurance. Furthermore, this study is hearsay at best. It is a study of other studies (a metastudy), the data of those original studies being self-reported by the respondents. Furthermore, that means that 0.1% of the uninsured die a year because of a lack of insurance, while another 46 million, the study states, continue to live without it. Of course, it's slyly put into percentages to really scare you. For instance, the uninsured have a 40% increased chance of dying over the insured. Ignore the fact that you go from a 0.8% death rate to a "whopping" 1.1% death rate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
torchandhammer On a 1:1 ratio, Medicare is simply not more efficient. Medicare is doing a tenth of the work for a fifth of the cost as private insurers while charging people more than private insurers. Look at the UK whose NHS is at 14% overhead. That's where we'll be, but higher since we have significantly more people to manage.
I've never had private insurance that was more than 20 bucks for a doctor's visit, not 20%. I'm not sure what kind of private insurance you have had. Typically, I pay $10 for a generic med and $20 for a brand name.
It's not just employees, it's extra employees (very expensive ones mind you) and outsourcing to report to Medicare for reimbursement for Medicare patients. Please read thoroughly what I'm typing to you.
The average life expectancy of the US is lower. You assume it's related to health coverage. You couldn't imagine that it's the fact that we're the "fattest" nation in the world or any other of the plethora of confounders?
Regarding government grants, the NIH handles the grants. According to their site, they invest about $32.3 billion a year into medical research. Something so simple to check really should have been on you.
I have a feeling that you'd care about even one dying. Their individual lives don't matter. Like I told Gk, if you or I died tomorrow, no one would even remember us in about 100 years -- so why do those 45,000 matter?
40% greater chance of death isn't crappy odds when you're talking about negligible odds in the first place. That's like buying two lottery tickets and thinking that the increase of your chances of winning by 100% is a great improvement on your chances of winning.
1
-
1
-
1
-
torchandhammer We're all sociopaths to some degree. Tell me, when did you stop crying about those 40,000 killed in Africa after you read that article? Did you cry as much as you would if a close family member died? Do you still feel that pain in the same way? It's a very inescapable and fundamental fact of nature that life is a futile struggle of labor to remain alive. You think that society should remove that burden. I say that it cannot. Society works because we work. The burden of working to survive exists in any foreseeable future. You call me a sociopath, but I say that I understand things better than you do.
That said, I'm not a sociopath -- I'm a nihilist. I don't believe in any god or life after death. The only things that are important to me, I realize, are what I myself deem to be important to me. That's true for every human. Some deem a god to be most important, some deem social progressivism to be most important, some deem traditionalism to be most important, and on and on and on involving many blended aspects of how a person identifies himself with the world.
Tell me, what does worrying about that 45,000 get you? Some temporary sense of self-satisfaction that will no longer exist when you die? Feeding some ego-driven need to feel important? To look good among those whom you deem your peers? What's the real reason you care?
With that being said, you can withhold from insults till the cows come home, but your true self comes out when you can't control yourself any longer. I don't much like false people. You just pretend to be interested in an intellectual exchange, but it's just a drive because someone disagrees with you -- and you can't stand that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
bluetrilobite "So i reiterate my previous question: any study that doesn't give the result you want is by default flawed and/or biased?"
No, these two studies are clearly biased for the reasons I already stated. It has nothing to do with the results, but the methodologies and presentation of the data.
"'The United States spends more on health care and yet has worse rates of death and a higher disease burden than countries that spend far less'"
Heart disease: 596,577
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,932
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 126,438
Diabetes: 73,831
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 39,518
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 45,591
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm
That's half of the deaths in the US, and these are deaths out of the hands of the US healthcare system. It is in the hands of people to take care of their health.
"It would be nice if you could provide some concrete evidence supporting your position instead of your usual opinion based assertions."
I am providing concrete evidence of my position. Remember, my position is that you are basing your opinion on poor sources of information. I'm using the very sources you're providing to demonstrate how they're biased and incomplete. That's how it works. For instance, when a paper is submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, the reviewers don't review papers that disagree with the new paper's findings, but determine that the science itself in the paper alone is sound. That's what I'm proving otherwise to you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
bluetrilobite "Heart diseases, diabetes Influenza and Pneumonia, Nephritis and Alzheimer related deaths are out of the hands of the healthcare system.... are you serious?"
Last I checked, there is no cure for Alzheimer's, so all care in any country is simply palliative; influenza and pneumonia is just about as likely to kill patients in every country; kidney disease is typically caused by a lack of self-care (e.g. diabetes); cardiovascular disease processes are, by far, most frequently caused by a lack of self-care (overweight, sedentary lifestyle, improper eating, etc.)... So, yes, these deaths are typically out of the hands of the healthcare system.
Think about it. If these deaths were so preventable by having socialized healthcare systems, then why do other nations have just as high of rates as the US in these categories?
"Instead of dancing around and avoiding the question can you once and for all just provide ONE study done by professionals that support your position, without resorting to personal opinions and self-evaluation of data?"
You're just being willfully ignorant and misrepresenting my position despite my explanation of how reviewing articles in a scholarly fashion works.
If you're going to believe that you're relying on good, unbiased sources, by all means. But you can't claim ignorance to being advised that these are not good, unbiased sources since I've explained in depth why they are faulty, which is all that is necessary in the review of a study which is being rejected.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
derwyn, Canada and Mexico are the only other two countries on the globe? And it's not what the US has to fear, but what all the other nations have to fear. It's more accurate to say what they don't have to fear because they have the "nuclear option" of the United States to back them.
The site Biospace lists the 10 most innovative pharmaceutical companies to work for. Of those 10, 8 are US companies (Biogen, AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Gilead, Baxter, Merck, Bristol-Myers, Celgene).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
hooligan bubsy Well, first off, I was replying to Wizard with my first post, not you -- you just assumed I was replying to you.
Second, the point of the numbers is to show that statistics don't matter. So if you're saying my numbers were pointless it's because that was the point I was trying to get across.
What's bad is that you comprehended what I was saying, but were so wrapped up in your own head that you didn't even realize you were properly comprehending what I replied with.
Third, Politifact states, "Trump claims that the CIA told the Bush administration that a domestic terror attack was coming. The report assembled over a span of three years after Sept. 11, 2001, found no specific alert. The potential for a domestic attack was discussed in early August, but it was mentioned only in broad terms and was not brought back up. Investigative reports in the years since found that the CIA warnings emphasized possible targets overseas.
"Tenet told investigators that as late as Sept. 10 he did not talk about a domestic attack with the president.
"There’s no support that Bush and top White House officials had, as Trump said, 'advanced notice' of an attack on New York City or any other place in America."
So it's not only off topic, but it's also inaccurate.
Finally, considering if someone's going to commit a terrorist attack in the US in the foreseeable future the safe best is that it's going to be related to Islam and the second safe bet is that it is related to racism. If they're already here or naturalized, there's not much they can do, but inviting possible trouble in is just lunacy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TheNavigateur
-Using ones leverage of ownership, not productivity, as parasitical self-increasing leverage against those with less.
No, they use their skills and talents to create opportunities and business, and their hard work, sacrifice and dedication afford them a better life for it.
-A generally poor attitude towards others in society
As a general rule of thumb, the rich are involved in philanthropic endeavors with their time and/or money.
-The willingness to corrupt the government to maintain the robbery process responsible for ones income, and even increase it.
While providing jobs in the market, bringing funds into the national market and paying over 80% of the taxes of the nation.
-Considering ones parasitical wealth acquisition to be more important than ethics.
In few cases, yes. In a majority of cases, no.
-Often includes cocaine.
This is not the 80's.
"All of these points make such people a non-valuable and destructive member of a constructive society."
Except they are the very basis of society, filling the infrastructure formed by the government to bring opportunity to everyone.
"Whereas MOST poor people, no matter how they dress, produce FAR more in wealth than they can get in income, precisely to feed that parasitical exponentially increasing welfare system for the already-richest known as capitalism."
They have equal opportunity to put everything they have on the line, sacrifice everything and work around the clock to create a successful niche, just like everyone else.
"Can you really expect the extensive deliberately-caused extreme crushing poverty and violent subjugation not to cause any sort of reaction in any of its victims whatsoever?"
Well, you didn't load up that question with all the toppings at all, did you? I don't expect those who've been gifted opportunities to very easily go beyond being dirt farmers barely living season-to-season to cause negative reactions, no.
"You've been trained to look the wrong way."
Right. I'm not the one full of pointless hate and rage, seeking to tear down a system that works very well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Daniel Gardiner You argued, "I never said ban all guns or that you can't use a gun for self defense. It should be obvious by now though that if it walks like an assault rifle and talks like an assault rifle, then who cares what you call it?"
So, yes, bringing up the definition of assault rifle is your doing, not mine. You cared enough in this post to bring it up, but now you don't want to talk about it? That's you being wrong but not wanting to admit it. You asked me who cares what you call it, and I responded succinctly why I care. Even after explaining the inviolable definition of "assault rifle," you said that I said you were wrong about the definition just because I say so. Now you're trying to twist it around on me as though I started a conversation on the definition of an assault rifle. You're one devious individual who does well at muddying the waters, but I'm intelligent enough to be able to clear them up again, despite your best efforts.
Life having no meaning without God was never what I said. In fact, I said that any meaning you give life is subjective and devoid of any real effect, so I actually said you give meaning to life yourself. That's just the opposite of life having no meaning without a god. Straw man fallacy on your part here, and it's hard for me to believe that it was unintentional -- or maybe you really are just that stupid and/or blinded by your bias to comprehend properly what you're reading.
1
-
1
-
Daniel Gardiner I was not equating nihilism with atheism, but an atheist is, de facto, a nihilist. If you need me to be specific, the common reference to nihilism is existential nihilism; that life has no objective intrinsic meaning. Note that this is objective meaning. That is, there is no identifiable universal purpose for our existence (e.g. a God with a greater plan for eternity, eternal soul/life after death, reincarnation and ascension, etc.).
It's not only the incorrect definition you're using that I take issue with, but it's the other points I brought up as well. You only focused on the definition of assault rifle (as though you even had a foot to stand on) as your primary point after I argued as an aside against your use of it.
In fact, you still haven't addressed that people do want to take away guns if allowed, despite what you said you wanted.
1
-
Daniel Gardiner You keep saying that life has an objective, intrinsic meaning without religion, but you've yet to demonstrate what that is.
"There is a generally accepted use of therm term assault rifle, whether it angers you or not."
You're right. There is a generally accepted definition for the term assault rifle. It is a selective fire rifle with a detachable magazine and chambered for an intermediate cartridge. That is the one and only definition for the term "assault rifle" (whether it angers yo uor not), and it's been in use and has been a standard the world over for aboout 70 years now, starting with the German MP44 Sturmgewehr (literally: storm rifle). Just accept that you're wrong on this and move on. A lot of people being wrong doesn't change things. A lot of people think the monitor is the "computer." That doesn't magically make it so. The same is true here.
In regards to what you didn't understand, you had said some time ago, "I never said ban all guns or that you can't use a gun for self defense."
To this, I rebutted, "It doesn't really matter what you specifically want or don't want in regards to gun legislation. Let me provide you a couple of quotes:
"Interviewer: 'You'll never get a handgun ban with the Second Amendment as stated.'
"Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) Responds: 'I don't know. I don't know that we can't.'
"-----
"Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) (in reference to the weapons listed under the 1994 assault weapons ban), 'If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate, Mr. and Mrs. America turn em' all in, I would have done it.'"
You ignored the above response in favor of just focusing on the definition for the term assault rifle.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Daniel Gardiner Webster is wrong. That's not surprising when regarding definitions of a technical nature. In fact, Oxford defines an assault rifle as "A rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use." It's contradictory to Webster's definition and is still wrong. An automatic rifle is a machine gun, not an assault rifle. These guys are linguists, not technical experts of the material. They do their best, but they're not infallible.
For instance, if you look up "motherboard" in Merriam-Webster, it states simply, "the main circuit board of a computer." However, that's inaccurate. A calculator, for instance, has no motherboard. It merely has a single PCB with integrated circuitry, but it's a computer. Some computers don't have motherboards -- like dummy terminals.
Oxford does a little better, but it's still wrong when it defines a motherboard as a "printed circuit board containing the principal components of a computer or other device, with connectors into which other circuit boards can be slotted." However, besides the issues stated above, the new issue here is that the motherboard of a desktop typically doesn't contain the principal components of a computer. The motherboard typically lacks primary memory, secondary memory and CPU. Some motherboards don't include video controllers either. The motherboard can be best defined as a PCB which contains the hardware control systems of a computer system.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Daniel Gardiner A gun is a toy? Since when? I understand it to be a powerful tool able to affect political change and when the people lack the spirit or armed rebellion, we lose all hope of having a public liberties.
Of course you said it was a miniscule minotiry. I responded at that time, "A miniscule, unrealistic minority? Dianne Feinstein represents a miniscule, unrealistic minority? Seriously? I'm sorry, but how can you be so arrogant that you prefer to look like a complete idiot rather than just accepting my rebuttal as successful?" So, no, I'm not shadowboxing. You're just trying to go back and rehash old, settled things as though they were settled in your favor. If you think they were, that's only in your mind.
"Really? Don't tell me you're one of those guys that believes the constitution should grant them unfettered access to nuclear weapons if they were so inclined."
No, but any firearm standard issue for infantry is covered, and always has been covered since its ratification. The fact that you go from me saying that you can't ban any guns or infringe on the right to bear them, to even having an inkling of thinking that it's my belief that everyone should have the right to nuclear weapons is quite possibly one of the most retarded things you've brought up here. This is especially retarded since we're talking about only guns in this entire thread.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Daniel Gardiner I've explained at length and pointed out how I think you've been arrogant as the conversation has unfolded. I will give you props, though, because the last few posts have actually been quite pleasant. Despite the fact that I still disagree with you, I find it much easier to respect your approach.
I'm not a person to mince words or beat around the bush. I'm brutally honest, and I appreciate brutal honesty in return. I don't like having to guess what someone really thinks or feels. Such efforts are exhausting to me. I'm most comfortable around people I can depend on to plainly state how they feel, and I'm the same way. What I do is not to put you down, but to plainly and definitively put that you are ignorant regarding the subject about which we're discussing. If I feel you are out of line based on my perception of your knowledge of the subject as you state it here, then I will again address your ignorance and arrogance.
Not knowing about a subject is not an issue. Acting (acting meaning the virulent nature of challenges or corrections of my knowledge or the situation, e.g.: "Adding a stop and classifying it as title 1 seems like the action of people who are willing to lie, cheat and steal to further their agenda.") and speaking arrogantly as though to make a showy display to promote an air of authority about yourself is, however.
Now I don't mind discussing such things with people whose opinions I disagree. In fact, I find that surrounding oneself with like-minded or merely agreeable people to be a dangerous pastime. I prefer to have my ideas and ideals challenged than having someone there just agree with me. I've learned more from arguing and debating points with those I disagree with than I ever will learn for the rest of my life discussing matters with people who generally agree with me. You simply don't learn much from the latter.
I am a person who is swayed by evidence. I have no emotional attachment whatsoever to my ideals. However, that doesn't mean that you should expect me to change my mind simply because you have presented some arguments. I still need to find those arguments convincing. From you, I have not. I honestly think that's because you simply don't have the base knowledge to be capable of doing so.
That's not to say that this is entirely a waste. With every exchange of ideas, there are new viewpoints I gain and retain. I don't agree with them and I don't find them convincing, but they are retained for future use nonetheless.
There's something I would like you to keep in mind regarding my rhetoric of which you speak. Because you lack a good understanding of the subject matter, I'm required to teach you the objective facts of the situation as we go. And, yes, I'm so nauseatingly familiar with it that it's rote. I'd much prefer that you had this base of knowledge so we could cover new material, but that's just not where you're at at this time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
umamimamu, when you decide to carry a gun, you have a certain increased level of responsibility to others. This includes knowing how to handle an encounter with an officer. Philando didn't take that seriously and foolishly acted. I think this man should not be a cop because he clearly escalated the situation well beyond what was necessary, but in the end, it's Philando, not the officer that died, so it's those of us who carry like Philando to make sure that we're alive at the end of the day. We can't trust anyone else with that.
You say these things in this order, clear and concise:
1. With your hands in plain view, preferably up and in front of you, and not in quick reaching distance of anything, say, "I am legally licensed to carry a gun." Accentuate the "legally licensed" part.
Typically this will begin a dialogue with the officer asking if you have a gun on you and where it is. At no time talk with your hands, don't point to where it is, don't move your hands at all.
2. If the officer seems unsure of how to proceed, simply ask the officer, "How would you like to proceed?"
If the officer still seems lost and concerned, offer to be handcuffed while sitting so he can feel safe in securing the weapon. Once the weapon is secure, ask for the officer's supervisor at that point. If he won't get his supervisor, make sure to file a complaint at the police HQ for where you're at.
Things may not go as perfectly planned on the street. The cop may even confiscate your weapon or arrest you. You just have your day in court later. That's what you get when you have cops out there making $30,000 a year with minimal training (especially in *DE*escalation tactics) whose imaginations are filled to the brim with how much danger they're in out there, like the typical US citizen is some John Rambo in the woods, stalking police. Then you put these police in neighborhoods that are foreign to them and expect them to be effective. tsk.
Well, anyway, be safe. Don't stop carrying because then you've given your safety over to those who just shot Philando, and are those people you can really trust to protect you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This list fell on its face.
Green Jelly/Jello, Three Little Pigs
The Beastie Boys, Intergalactic/Sabotage/Body Movin'
Meatloaf, I Would do Anything for Love
If you're going to do Backstreet Boys, you should have done Everybody (Backstreet's Back).
Nine Inch Nails, Closer
Smashing Pumpkins, Tonight, Tonight
Baha Men, Who Let the Dogs Out
King Missile, Detachable Penis
Beck, Where It's At
Blind Melon, No Rain
White Zombie, Electric Head (pt. 1)/More Human than Human
Red Hot Chili Peppers, Give it Away
Sound Garden, Black Hole Sun
I could go on forever. The 90's was all about going over the top in ridiculous ways. There was so much to choose from. This list needs to be redone really bad.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Blu Musix Bernie's either lying about his long-term goal for America's economic system or he's ignorant of what a democratic socialist is. Either way, whether he is lying or ignorant, it's not presidential material in my eyes.
"Since you obviously don't understand, let me rephrase: 'Your tall tales of socialism' I was specifically referring to the Area 51-style accusation that Bernie is going to have the government own the private sector."
That doesn't make sense as a counterargument. Basically, you're agreeing with my assessment of your statement that I believe that the government owning the means of production (socialism) is still not as top heavy as capitalism. So even your excuse fails to acquit you of your lie.
Bernie claims he is a capitalist. It doesn't mean he actually is. He also claims he's a democratic socialist, which is the exact political opposite of a capitalist. So which is he? I think only Bernie himself really knows.
You state that America is 100% supposed to be a mixture of capitalism for the strong and social welfare for the needy. Could you give precedent for that instead of just laying out a statement as true and not providing any supporting evidence?
"I demand you stick to LEGITIMATE ISSUES, prove my case why your accusations are irrelevant considering the massive crisis we face, and I'm arrogant?"
You're arrogant because you know beyond any doubt that you are right about which no one is actually sure of.
"...you use a diversion every time to not actually sit down at the table and do the math to figure how much the working man is being fucked."
You've not presented anything of substance in that regard. Of course, that wasn't the argument. You started the argument with me because you asserted that social democracy and democratic socialism doesn't have anything to do with, as you say, "the government regulating property or not." That's what the argument has been about which you started with me. That's the point I'm trying to stick with.
But if you want to actually talk about Bernie's politics, let's look at his video on "income inequality." First, I think the term "income inequality" in itself is a misnomer. Everyone has equal opportunity to the income made in the US. But that aside, Bernie claims that the 15 richest people in the United States have seen their wealth increase by $170 billion in the last two years.
First of all, let's look at how their wealth is increasing. Are they hoarding it and not helping others with their money? Hardly. They're investing that money into new enterprise. In that 15, he listed Bill Gates who is one of the most philanthropic high-profile individuals in the US.
Next, let's consider what it means that their wealth has increased. What it means is that their investments have paid off. What does it mean that their investments have paid off? It means, in part, they successfully supported someone who created jobs and business in the US.
Finally, let's address whether or not these people have made money. Remember that we just went through a recession, and those who lost the most were the top 1%. Almost all of those 1%'ers lost tens of billions of dollars during the recession. Bill Gates may be the only exception to that considering he has not invested his money, but is spending his wealth into eradicating polio in the world.
Even the commonly demonized Koch brothers have 3 of the most philanthropic organizations in the US.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** The US Constitution is about the establishment of government, not an economic system. For that, we have to look at the Founding Fathers' writings.
For instance, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
He also wrote, "If we can but prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy."
It's quite clear that each man should live by only the sweat of his own brow in this nation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** Thomas Jefferson was against slavery. However, the English ensured that he economy of their colonies were dependent on slavery. It was one of the issues presented in the original Declaration of Independence. It had to be changed from the original draft to not alienate the southern region of the colonies that had a much higher dependency on slavery than the northern region.
Here's what he included in the first draft: "He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobium of INFIDEL Powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the LIBERTIES of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the LIVES of another."
"I actually just explained that I do not care about their opinions. You just don't understand."
My disagreement with your view doesn't mean I lack understanding of your view.
"Have you every played Monopoly? At the end of the game, does everyone that worked hard have a nice distribution of wealth? No, you have 1 person with everything, and the rest of the players with no chance at all."
That's why it's called monopoly, and in real life we have anti-monopolization laws.
"Do the top 400 people in this country really work harder than the rest of us? I doubt it."
You can doubt it, but you're wrong. Successful people are successful because they work hard. Most single-owned wealth in this nation is nuveau. There are very few money families. It's the reason that it's said that 85% of success is just showing up.
"People don't want to be poor, living off less than $1.25 a meal on food stamps, living in the crappiest hovels that their meager minimum wage jobs can afford."
And, yet, it's still so much better than subsistance living. And keep in mind that we're still only talking about 1% of the working population who are over the age of 25. It's hardly an epidemic.
"When the lower and middle classes have more money, they spend it, creating a demand for more stuff, meaning more jobs for people, and more money for business owners. If you can't follow that logic, I'm done with this debate."
This mentality of the market is exactly what causes the issues that we have. Being thrifty, fiscally conservative and minimal in this day's culture are considered poor qualities to have, instead of being virtues which are good to possess. Instead, we consistently depend on increased future production, feeding the banks their interest and eventually causing a crash when production, inevitably, doesn't mean the lifestyle for which was borrowed.
1
-
1
-
+Blu Musix "The middle class who wall street and the banks keep fee-ing to death and playing with their credit."
It's each individual's choice to use credit. If they get into trouble because of the credit they chose to take, that's all on them. I'd prefer if "credit" were a bad word in our culture.
"...my ideology also includes middle class workers being gutted by insurance companies."
And how is that happening?
"My ideology also includes students who might make more than minimum wage, but still can't afford to pay off the massive CRIMINAL debt forced upon them by the same people who attack the poor."
I don't get how this is an issue. People moan and complain about this all the time, and it doesn't make sense to me. The issue is people trying to live beyond their means. All economic issues come down to this fact. It's fine when some people do it. We can carry them. However, when the entire system depends on debt and specific increased production, then things crash. That's why we didn't even experience economic hardship until the 30's after World War I and the massive worldwide debt incurred therein.
"And those 'anti-monopolization laws' have been torn down by the megarich and their lobbyists, or have you been asleep for the past 50 years?"
You clearly haven't even been alive for even close to 50 years, so how do you expect to instruct me on what's happened? Because of the biased narrative you've heard from others. Listen to experience which follows reason, not narratives which sound good but follow no reason.
Anti-monopolization laws have worked to great effect. And they continue to work to great effect. If they didn't work, then no one would have the opportunity to own new means of production, and that is patently false.
"...but she was talking about people who have to live off of less than $1.25 a day."
She said that it's $1.25 a meal. You need to read more carefully. A frugal person can eat pretty well on such money. I don't think you've ever been poor. If you're shrewd, frugal and determined, it's quite easy to eat very well as a poor person.
"And you refuse to acknowledge that the mega rich that ATTACK the lower classes are dishonest criminals..."
You keep stating that the mega rich are attacking the lower class (and middle class) as though it is established fact. It is not. Prove your case.
"And I'm SO glad you missed me.. did you really wonder where I went? :)"
Did I say something to infer such? You just chime in occassionally, and it is what it is.
"When I stopped responding to you, it was because I don't get on the computer every day.. and because I don't value you as an important bloke to check back with.."
I really couldn't care less. If you want to come in with points, you're welcome. If you don't, you're welcome to do that too. Whether a random internet stranger with whom I've entered into a debate of opposing views thinks I'm important or not is hardly top of my concerns in life. You may come and go as you please, comforted with the knowledge that I don't think twice about what you do. Of course, I'm sure you also couldn't care less, and this was just an attempt at a low blow which depended on the fact that I care. Fortunately, I don't care, and I trust we can move on from such childish mind games now, and continue on with the civil, albeit passionate, debate that actually is worthwhile typing about.
"The point is; they don't have to, the math says they shouldn't be. The math says the ones lobbying and attacking the citizen is also a thief too, imagine that."
Post your math to prove your case.
"How CONVENIENT you get to take out Millennials, who now have VERY large numbers in comparison to Boomers and Gen X... it's not like it would help your point to devalue what the last generation considered "go-getters" to your vision of Fodder."
It's not convenient, it's where we are. I also addressed the point while including them which was shown to be insignificant still, so I don't know why you're complaining.
"Yeah, a large apart of the VOTER CLASS and working class are SUPPOSED to live on minimum wage--- also implying that the minimum wage was a living wage and not a criminally DEFLATED starvation wage."
I didn't say anyone was supposed to do anything. I said they are expected to be making minimum wage. That's for a number of reasons from inexperience to time constraints due to schooling.
"In the United States alone, the Walmart company employs 1.4 million people. This is a staggering 1% of the U.S.'s 140 million working population. Walmart, in other words, matters."
If you want to fix this, lower taxes, raise minimum wage so that it is an equivalent cost for Walmart. It's not Walmart's fault that an employee making $7.25 costs Walmart $14.50. That's the infrastructure they're just forced to work within. I think that's where we need to look. It's excessive and inefficient Washington overhead and burdens. For instance, I'd rather see that employee get an extra dollar an hour than Walmart paying that dollar to the government which then goes through several Federal and State departments to give 20 cents back to the employee in Food Stamps. It's like Churchill said when he stated something along the lines that a nation attempting to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket trying to lift himself up by the handle.
"Contrary to stereotypes, low-wage workers whose pay scales are affected by the minimum wage are overwhelmingly adults, many supporting families."
Just no. You should check your facts before making such statements. The BLS reports that of those who work at or below minimum wage (again, we're talking about 2% of the entire working population here), an overwhelmingly vast majority are between the ages of 16 and 25. 7.4% of hourly rate workers for ages between 16 and 25, 13% of hourly rate workers between the ages of 16 and 19, and 1.8% of hourly workers for individuals 25 years and older. So, no, you are simply flat out wrong.
"But out here, we have medical bills, rampant insurance companies, huge banks, greedy corporate interests, CEOs inhumanely gutting the budgets, inflation, yearly increases, Veterans killing themselves in high numbers, homelessness, child hunger, elderly dying of exposure, attacks on social security.. "
You're as oblique as it gets right here. Just throwing things out there without any argument and too many items to reasonably address.
1
-
Blu Musix "All of your responses were of the similar taste; all distractions from the very thing you were trying to quote."
In the future, save yourself the time typing and me from reading points you attempt to make which you don't care to bother giving the "why" for.
"And you obviously don't have credit, if you refuse to acknowledge those companies use dirty policy and capitalism to the fullest exploit to trigger debt to be paid off by hard working Americans. Banks and credit card companies are NOT consumer friendly and they DID attack the working, middle and upper classes."
You do know that this isn't a valid argument right? This is just you stating as fact that which is moot (moot does not mean pointless which is what many people think it means -- look it up if you need).
"I'll get you the numbers on Big Pharma, our medical costs, and insurance companies pinning down funding for Hospitals and hijacking insurance rates for families tomorrow.. since you don't read. Ever, apparently."
I don't expect that this will be forthcoming since between the two of us I'm the only one seemingly apt to post actual numbers and citations.
"That is NOT a meal for an amputee or a VA, or a window, or a child. NO. This is 2015; I will choose to vote for better meals for the poor because WE DO have the budget to INCLUDE IT."
What're you expecting? Should they be able to head out to their local restaurant and buy a $10 plate or something? A few slices of bread, some meat, mayo, cheese and lettuce is about $1.00 at most, and is a rather decent meal. Like I said, I don't think you've ever lived poor. You don't know how to budget and manage money. You don't know what assistance there is out there. I've been there and done that, raised for many years by a mom who was going for a graduate degree, then post graduate. I was in high school before the hard times slowed. I understand personally what it is to be poor and how to manage money well. I also understand what it looks like to not live beyond your means. I also know, through the credit mistakes my mom made, what happens when you do live beyond your means and overborrow against future growth.
Even to this day I budget tightly because of how I grew up. I have meals planned down to the penny. I make sausage and egg breakfast sandwiches and some milk and OJ for my wife and myself which costs about $2.50. It's typically our most expensive meal of the day. The next two meals are typically under $1 -- especially lunch. I make homemade bread daily which costs about 2 dollars to make. Even with expendable income, my wife and I typically eat on $9 a day (which I consider splurging), and we don't want for more food.
On top of that, I also hunt. If I can bag a deer, that's enough meat for an entire year (about 80 lbs. dressed typically) for a couple hundred dollars (all expenses including tags, gas, rounds, etc.). In between I also fish which brings in more meat for $33 a year for the license. But even without that extra, eating on $9 a day is actually plush.
And, yes, a vet amuptee absolutely can hunt. My veteran uncle who's missing a leg hunts annually.
Also, with a debt of 17 trillion dollars, you really think that we have the money to continue borrowing against future production? I think your idea is ludicrous and dangerous and will only lead to more crashes in the future.
"I asked if you missed me because you noted my 'disappearance'. ...so you did care."
Where? I'd like to see you give a quote of where I said anything of the sort. To save you time: I never said any such thing.
"I'll get you the numbers on insurance companies, credit companies, student loans, the cutting of government programs for the needy tomorrow. I'm sure we'll have another discussion of how I'm not fetching numbers...."
You've yet to post a single number to me, so, no, you're not fetching numbers.
"...and I'm sure you'll be right there with no numbers of how a very large part of the millennial class doesn't matter, 1.25 a meal is terrific, and everything is just fine and no company has EVER inflated the cost of living higher than they cut and devalued the wages."
I've given BLS statistics to show how wrong you are. Do you really want to stick with the argument that I've provided no numbers to back up my arguments? Do you really want to appear that oblivious to the conversation you've been begging to have?
1
-
Blu Musix "No, you keep demonstrating that there IS NO situation."
Really? Let me quote you from one of my first posts (a post which was addressed directly to you even): "You're right that our government has become an oligarchy, and that needs to change."
"You're just enforcing the idea that you really don't care about the political issue. You just want to derail the conversation."
No, it's me attempting to make you aware of your own limitations to try to broaden your horizons. It's something you sorely need.
"I'm a grown ass woman that takes a dick bigger than yours, and my HOMEWORK is balancing an entire household."
I'm sure. You can pretend to be anything you want, but your naive view of the world shows otherwise.
"How typical of you to imply that I believe this way because I might get a 'hand out.'"
I didn't imply that. Please learn to read.
"My husband who works 12 hour shifts 5 times a week and does VERY well for us will vote for Sanders because of public college for OTHER children..."
I don't know why you bothered typing this since you have every reason to lie, and I have every reason to not believe you.
"...since I've chosen not to have any kids because of over population."
Small favors. At least your stupidity will die with you.
"I've done every thing you'd like to make for me as a 'check list' to be allowed to be on my 'station' to speak about 'such issues'."
No, you haven't, and no matter what you say you've done, your words speak otherwise.
"My ideology does not speak that every single American is unhappy. My ideology says that the MEASURES WE HAVE IN PLACE for our vulnerable classes which make up 80% of the poor are FAILING."
I know that's what you're saying, but the numbers aren't backing you up.
"They are FAILING because they are under attack. And before you even start, I already told you I'll get the numbers for you tomorrow. I'm not doing this shit on the demand and I'll argue my point as leisurely as I want."
I know what you said. You'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath.
"Especially since you never highlight or respond to anything but the most obtuse points."
I'm sure I'm responding to every point you make. Including this one.
"You're still nothing but a political wannabe that has been quoted saying voting doesn't matter..."
I said that I'm not planning on voting because I don't like any politicians currently on the field. That's a far cry from saying that voting doesn't matter. You consistently set up these straw men and it's getting really old.
"...while constantly using the government, laws, the good will of the rich, and the best laid plans as his model of how things actually are... when the reality is an economic desparity."
Actually, how I say it is, is demonstrably how things are. Whether these things are self-evident and patent or I've provided information to show that fact such as BLS statistics. I've proven my argument. You've yet to even try to prove yours -- eight... days... later...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** Your first response made no sense whatsoever. I don't know if you simply didn't comprehend what I wrote or you were hammered when you wrote that, but your response wasn't even a coherent thought. I went back and re-read my response to you and it does make sense, so I'm not sure what your issue was when you made that reply.
Onto the second reply which at least has some cohesion to it. You base what is a sport on the injuries obtained while playing and/or practicing for it. That's not very bright of you. In fact, that's downright retarded. You claim to have been a "hardened martial artist for 28 years." I highly doubt that, but even giving you the benefit of the doubt here, there are plenty of sports that do not batter your body or require much athleticism: race car driving, golfing, bowling, fishing, billiards, shooting/hunting, archery, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
C.J.P. "In my opinion the woman gets the final say. Period if you don't like it too bad."
Well, aren't you just the epitome of open minded?
"Look at it: inside an unborn unfertilized chicken"
It's a single cell, not even a zygote. It doesn't even have the basics of what the life sciences considers life: There's no metabolism, homeostasis, it doesn't respond to stimuli, it doesn't grow, etc.
Clearly you need to study harder.
"Hence why I'm so amused when people like you try and justify that abortion is criminal act when instead in reality it's a medical procedure. The topic of abortion is only for professionals not laymen like you. Now please turn around and leave my office please, thank you very much. And have a wonderful day and may God bless you."
Speaking of eggs, you're about to have it all over your face. You're assuming that is my stance even though it's already been posted here that is not my stance. Let me quote myself for you:
"I personally think that the cutoff should be clear and the earliest point at which a born child has been recorded living until full term gestation would have been reached. This makes the issue very clear and simple to follow.
"At this point, I believe the earliest a child was born and met these requirements is 21 weeks gestation (five and a half months). Should a child be born and survive to the day that would have been the due date prior to that, the date it was born would become the new standard."
Now you may want to run to the bathroom to wash the single cell that is not a zygote from your face.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
sharper68 "...because of your personal feeling about their relationship is unsupportable."
First off, please note that if you do not read all of this and/or bring up a point that has already been addressed, I will not hesitate to not answer you and merely point you back to this post, so it's in your best interest and in the best interest of both of our times that you fully read and ponder what's said before replying.
It has nothing to do with my personal feeling. I couldn't care less. I would prefer to not even have to be concerned about it. However, since this is a republic, then it falls in my lap when the request is made for legal consideration.
From a rational and legal standpoint, we must first establish the reason for marriage to even exist as a legal institution in the first place, and the reason for the various benefits to marriage to exist.
First, there is the contractual agreement in dual ownership of life. I agree with this stance for gay marriage in all sex-pairings just as it occurs with heterosexual sex-pairings.
Second, there is the ability to obtain discounted insurance for the significant other. This is a point where I take issue. I believe that the legal reasoning for such an offering is to assist a family unit with the cost and burden associated with pregnancy and childbirth. The question then is that should sex-pairings that will never be capable of conceiving a child receive such benefits? I say no, and that it is an abuse of the system. Two women, however, are capable of becoming pregnant through the use of science, so I feel that the privilege for insurance coverage should extend to them. In fact, I feel that two women, being capable of both becoming pregnant and giving birth at the same time, perhaps should receive greater insurance protections over male homosexual or heterosexual protections.
I understand that you're going to then bring up heterosexual couples who can't have children. I've heard it before a million times, so to cut you off at that pass, there are reasonable limitations regarding government intervention in regards to both fertility and offspring. While seeing that a sex-pairing cannot ever in no way become pregnant or experience childbirth in no circumstance right now is not too intrusive to refrain from extending that privilege to a sex-pairing, fertility tests and forcing people to have children is far too intrusive.
Another argument that's commonly made in regards to marriage rights is to liken it to skin color issues. However, this issue should not receive equal consideration because skin color is absolutely and positively immaterial, whereas sex pairings are a very material issue as I've been demonstrating here.
Now, there is a third point that includes tax breaks. This post is long enough, but consider the same logical argument posted above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tyler Rue No, he didn't rise to power on his own. He rose to power by Qasim of the Iraqi branch of the Ba'ath party. Qasim was a general in the monarch's army of Iraq who began a successful a military revolt in Iraq which ended the monarchy in the 14 July Revolution.
So, no, Saddam didn't just rise to power -- the rise to power was his party, not him. Anti-monarchy sentiment was popular in Iraq during the time as well, not only among the Ba'ath party. Saddam was part of Qasim's cabinet when he was part of the team that assassinated Qasim due to the latter's refusal of pan-Arabism and his pro-communist ties.
Qasim was overthrown in the Ramadan Revolution. This was where the accusations of CIA involvement came out. However, a review of documents and interviews have proven there was no CIA involvement in this coup. The Soviets, however, were very much involved. They attempted a failed communist coup in Iraq on July 3rd of that year, as they would later do in Afghanistan.
During this period, the US had interests in the Middle East, but those interests extended to helping Middle Eastern anti-communist groups regain power after it was lost (e.g. Operation Cyclone in Afghanistan).
This was a time when the US was against intervention in the Middle East. It was a time of heavy British and Soviet intervention in the Middle East. Anything the US had to say or do in regards to the Middle East during this period was not clandestine.
This changed in the very late 70's and early 80's following Mossadegh's seizing of totalitarian power, the loss of Afghanistan to the communists, and the Iranian hostage crisis all in the same few years.
This is when the US starting taking an active role in the Middle East, supporting the Afghan mujahideen against the communists, the CIA-backed coup in Iran, establishing strong support for Israel and Saudi Arabia and the hardline policies against Iraq.
The only issue prior to this was the Yom Kippur War in which the Saudis and other Arab nations put an embargo on their oil exports against Europe and the US. This forced the US to pressure Israel into ending hostilities with concessions to the Arab nations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm sorry, but last I checked, laws do not protect private and public establishments from ejecting individuals because of the color of their skin, forcing racially segregated water fountains or bathrooms, prevent any skin color from voting, force into separate schools, lynched without legal repercussions of the lynching parties, abridgment of due process of the legal system due to skin color, etc.
So what's the fight, again? Oh, you actually think that it's racist to require an ID to vote? So only black folk who don't have ID can't vote, but white folk who don't have ID's can vote? Is that what the Republicans are pushing for?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cheezeblade Just to touch on something here that Donald wouldn't be able to, let me explain my personal reasoning as to why I keep a firearm with me. It's not about numbers and statistics. It's about when everything goes absolutely wrong, I have not chosen to relieve myself of a tool in the case that I should find use for it. It doesn't guarantee a victory. It doesn't provide a sense of security even. It's just a final option should my life or the life of my loved ones be on the line and there's no other way through the situation.
I truly and honestly hope that you never have to experience a moment in your life that makes you think, "This would be a good time to have a gun." If that time ever comes for me, I may still die, sure, but I will have done everything I can do that's within my power to try to prevent it.
There was a time when I was younger that hubris ruled my life, and I thought I was nigh on invincible -- or at least that nothing would ever happen to me. My opinions on things changed when I grew up a little and realized that I have people who depend on me being there day in and day out. I'm not saying that as though I think that I'm objectively important in any way, but these people who matter most to me, choose to depend on me. These people have given me purpose, and ensuring that I will be there for them in return is something that I've made a significant priority in my life.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
gastarbeiter1 Let's do a little comparative criminology here. You focus only on gun murders between the nations.
Let's just focus on murders (not including gun murders) to try to see if the cause of the high gun murder rate is low gun laws.
Now I should note that I don't know exactly how this is going to come out going into it, so we're discovering things together.
First, we have to establish gun death ratios to form a baseline (note: I'm having to do a little approximating here because of my access to specific data, but I'm doing my best here to be as accurate as possible).
US gun murders (2012): 8,855
Germany gun murders (2012): 56
UK gun murders (2011): 38
France gun murders (2012): 138
So the US is higher in gun murder rates thusly:
Germany: 158 times higher.
UK: 233 times higher
France: 64 times higher
Now let's look at murder rates without guns:
US murders w/o guns (2013): 3,453
Germany murders w/o guns (2014): 656
UK murders w/o guns (2013): 502
France murders w/o guns (2014): 652
So the US is higher in non-gun murder rates thusly:
Germany: 5 times higher
UK: 7 times higher
France: 5 times higher
It seems like the US is just a more "dangerous" country in general, whether we have guns or not.
Honestly, I think that the totals of 5 people out of 100,000 being murdered compared to 1 person out of 100,000 being murdered to be insignificant, the US simply does have higher rates of murder overall for whatever reason.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
gastarbeiter1 Infringement by Congress is what my concern is. One person's rights versus another person's rights is not infringement by Congress. You see, the Bill of Rights was about limiting the power of Congress to legislate regarding this thing in question; whether speech, arms, privacy, etc.
If we just want to stick to common sense, then common sense should tell you that, classically, citizens have carried the most current firearms of their time. In fact in the 19th century, there was even at least one person who privately owned a cart-drawn Gatling gun which was one of the first machine guns created.
The idea that the Second Amendment never stops to the point of nuclear arsenal is ludicrous and a slippery slope. If you can't see that, then I hope someone randomly smacks you across the face today, and you think of this conversation.
1
-
gastarbeiter1 A bazooka is not nuclear arsenal.
"So you are against congress laws that are not in your favour, but you love court decisions that are in favoutr of your position. This is just absurd."
What are you talking about? The point of the Bill of Rights is a recognition of natural rights that Congress can't infringe on. I'm only against Congressional laws that infringe on the rights of the people. For instance, in the fight on terror, many rights had been infringed on by Bush, and continue under Obama's legislation. Congress can do as they please, but I will speak my mind when it comes to the infringement of rights.
"No if you want common sense you would come to the conclusion, that there is no need at all for guns."
There's no violence in the world? You know, you're right on the edge of the anti-gun lobby's paradox: The day the world is safe enough that no one needs arms is the day you don't need to take them.
In other words, you're only after arms because there's violence. However, people have arms because of violence, and if there were no violence, you'd not be after the guns.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
gastarbeiter1 "You are wrong again. YOU said the right to bear arms shall NOT be infringed. As in not be infringed at all. So where do you draw the line and why? What reason do you have?"
I'm not wrong. When it comes to the US Constitution it is a granting of powers and the Bill of Rights is a limiting of Congresses' powers. That is why the Bill of Rights states "THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added..."
"You base your position that arms also include military style assault rifles on a court law. Thats your only line of defense here. So defend yourself."
No, I'm showing you that subsequent interpretations of the law support me as well as the text in the Second Amendment.
"hypocrite."
I'm not a hypocrite. Society would not work without coercion to follow the laws.
"Where do you get your numbers? They are lower though. By the way you are dodging the issue. Even if i give you the 800 the violent crimes murder and rape are a multitude more likely in the USA even though everybody is allowed to have guns. So your arguement still falls apart. So stop dodging."
No, that's only 800 murders. Not 800 violent crimes, murder and rape. I get my information from OSAC. Murder and manslaughter kill 2,126 people in Germany a year. There are 8,031 rape and aggravated sexual coercion cases. 136,077 cases resulting in dangerous and serious bodily harm. 48,711 violent robberies. All total, there are 195,143 violent crimes per year in Germany. These stats are all from 2015.
The US had 1,165,383 violent crimes reported in 2014. Twice Germany's rate, normalized for population. It's just more dangerous here. Very marginally so, but more dangerous.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Malcolm Marks When an economy is dependent on slave labor, one cannot easily free their slaves and continue to live themselves. Some, like Benjamin Franklin, did free their slaves -- though he only owned two.
Fighting against slavery was conserving the wishes of our Founding Fathers. Therefore, conservative. In fact, during Lincoln's time it was considered radically conservative.
Liberal policy doesn't fight for equality, however. For instance, in legal marriage "rights," there is a specific purpose for the institution. I put "rights" in quotes because legal marriage is a privilege, not a right. A person may be socially or religiously married to whomever they wish.
Marriage as a legal institution exists as a privilege to promote a family unit to undergo the infirmity and financial and medical burden of pregnancy and childbirth. While my personal stance is that a lesbian couple may be legitimately argued to fit that definition since they may get pregnant, it does not fit gay men. Should a male couple adopt, they will receive tax breaks automatically for the dependent.
This is also not discrimination against same-sex individuals. Consider that polygamy is not supported by the legal institution of marriage. While a fundamentalist Mormon may be religiously and socially married to as many women as he wishes, he may be legally married to only one woman.
But this is just an aside. Both conservatives and liberals are complete idiots. I'm more of the Washington-type who said that party politics will be the downfall of the nation. I have my own ideas. I don't need a party to tell me what my ideas should be.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You'reNotATerroristAreYou? Mississippi: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."
Georgia: "For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic."
South Carolina: "We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States."
Texas: "[Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oblivious, I never said anything about black communities being the worst for child molestation. I said that it's one of the most significant issues in the black community. These are two entirely different things.
The article titled, "Sexual Abuse And The Code Of Silence In The Black Community," on the site Role Reboot states, "Sixty percent of black girls have experienced sexual abuse at the hands of black men before reaching the age of 18, according to an ongoing study conducted by Black Women’s Blueprint."
NPR has an article titled, "Sexual Abuse Often Taboo For Black Boys," which is a transcript from one of their radio shows which is prefaced, "Several prominent African-American women, such as Oprah Winfrey and Queen Latifah, have disclosed being sexually abused as girls. In contrast, many well-known known African-American males frame their childhood sexual experiences with women as a source of pride — or a rites of passage — instead of abuse. Dr. Carl Bell, a Chicago psychiatrist, journalist Sylvia Coleman, and Talib Darryl, who was abused as a boy, discuss the double standard."
These are just a couple of examples. One of the most outspoken individuals regarding male molestation and physical abuse in the black community is Tyler Perry.
Did you really look? I feel like you're an outsider looking in if you're not aware of these kinds of issues.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jaz,
Kobe Bryant (Black), charges dropped
David Meggett (Black), guilty, but only 2 years probation
Ben Roethlisberger (White), charges dropped/not prosecuted
Garrett Wittels (White), charges dropped
Kirby Puckett (Black), acquitted
C.J. Spillman (Black), not charged nor arrested
Frostee Rucker (Black), pleaded guilty, but given suspended sentence of only 1 year and ordered to pay $60 to victim charity
Jameis Winston (Black), no charges filed
John Jerry (Black), not charged
Jordan Hicks (Black), not charged
Josh McNary (Black), acquitted
Julian Edelman (White), charges dropped
Junior Galette (Black), charges dropped
Mark Sanchez (Hispanic), not charged
Perrish Cox (Black), acquitted
Prince Shembo (Black), not charged because alleged victim committed suicide
Ray McDonald (Black), not charged in two instances of domestic abuse
Richie Incognito (White), not charged
I could go on, but there's 4 white guys, 13 black guys and 1 Hispanic guy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Loki, they did think all men were created equal. They did not sanction slavery. If they could have ended slavery on the spot, while keeping the Southern states, they would have.
Jefferson wrote in the draft of the Declaration of Independence, "he [King George] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."
Of keeping slaves, Benjamin Franklin wrote, "You [King George] bring the Slaves to us, and tempt us to purchase them. I do not justify our falling into the Temptation."
They were fully aware of their hypocrisy and made no excuse for it. Still, they made great efforts against the practice of slavery in the US, though ultimately they failed.
1
-
1
-
Adrian, apparently you're looking in the very wrong places. James Wilson, a framer of the US constitution, one of the first to sit on the US Supreme Court appointed by George Washington, and writer of one of the first law books in the US under the Constitution stated, "With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger." -Lectures on Law, Chapter 12 "Of the Natural Rights of Individuals"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
sharper68 "I never chose to be strait, I was always attracted to woman."
You did choose to be straight and they chose to be gay, but you (and they) just don't remember and/or did not and do not understand the functions behind human sexuality.
This has nothing to do with conservatism and everything to do with the science of sexual development and psychology (less the politically driven nonsense that you're apt to find around the subject).
Deviations of sexual thoughts regularly lead to perversions so intense that such a thing is required to become aroused. That is how sexuality works.
For a straight person, things like breasts, the vagina, butts and legs are some of the most common fetishes that become necessary for the subject to be turned on. However, it doesn't just automagically happen -- it occurs because of a focus of sexual thoughts on such things.
There are many abnormal things that we see become sexualized and actually necessary for arousal. These include prepubescence, bondage and domination, sadism and masochism, as well as homosexuality where the sexual organs and physique of ones own sex becomes the object of their infatuation to the point where it is the only way to become aroused.
That's the ugly truth that too many people are hesitant to accept to the point where peoples' personal opinions are actually attempting to write science rather than science determining what is fact and people adjusting their opinions to it.
Of course, this blackmail-like tactic tends to work because very rarely do you come across a heterosexual who will understand and/or admit that it was a choice for themselves just as it is for 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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hal Jordan First of all, do you even know what gun I'm talking about that was presented to the Founding Fathers? You see, what you forget is that the Founding Fathers were seeing firearms take the front stage in warfare, transitioning from the bladed weapon. They knew better than we even do today the frightening jumps in power armaments can make in a relatively short period of time. We're still using a lot of 70-year-old technology in modern firearms.
No, threatening someone is not in itself illegal, as I said. Again, as I said, the burden of proof of the person pressing charges is to prove that a reasonable person would expect the threat to be acted on. So, again, it is the action that's being legislated, not the speech.
1
-
Hal Jordan "I don't buy this argument that they could foresee what would arrive in terms of firepower."
You don't find that argument convincing, and that's fair enough. Despite cannons being available, capable of destroying a building in a single shot and killing dozens, were they limited by the Second Amendment?
"No. Threatening people is classed as assault."
That's not an argument.
For instance, in Oregon, "Publicly insulting such other person by abusive words or gestures in a manner intended and likely to provoke a violent response
"Subjects another to alarm by conveying a false report, known by the conveyor to be false, concerning death or serious physical injury to a person, which report reasonably would be expected to cause alarm;
"Subjects another to alarm by conveying a telephonic, electronic or written threat to inflict serious physical injury on that person or to commit a felony involving the person or property of that person or any member of that persons family, which threat reasonably would be expected to cause alarm."
Every state whose laws are Constitutional have this caveat of burden of proof on the prosecution.
So a common colloquialism like, "Fuck you," is not valid for charges of assault for being in fear of imminent rape, because speech itself is not regulated.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Everyone knows this kind of stuff happened. We all learned it in school in American history. Those who believe the color of skin makes the content of one's character cannot be reasoned with. This video means nothing to them. To the rest of us: none of us owned slaves, none of us lynched anyone of dark complexion and none of us have ill feelings toward anyone based on the color of skin.
Just like if the Islamic/Palestinian/Israeli/Arab oppression and violence of the Middle East stopped tomorrow, I'd forgive faster than it could be questioned to be legitimate on the news. Absolutely, it would not be forgotten, just like I've not forgotten the lynchings, but it would be forgiven. And that's how it should be. While I'm an atheist myself, the Bible's right that holding onto a grudge and not being quick to forgive is an evil. To further expand on that idea, to prejudge based on skin color or ethnicity -- in any direction, be it black to Hispanic, white to black, black to white, white to Asian, etc. -- because of what a completely different person of that race did is a complete evil.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TheNavigateur The cease fire, which included the destruction of WMD facilities and stockpiles, was agreed to in 1991. The UN was there destroying weapon stockpiles and facilities during the 90's, with varying success. In 1998, after rising issues regarding the uncooperative Saddam regime, the Clinton Administration advised for the withdrawal of UN inspectors and IAEA and commenced with Operation Desert Fox to get Saddam back on task in cooperation. After the Clinton Administration left office, Saddam continued to hinder the inspections. This was to the point of the UN issuing Resolution 1441 in November 2002. The Security Council of the UN voted unanimously 15-0 for the resolution.
After the resolution and the re-admittance of UN inspectors into Iraq, Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector, stated in January 2003, "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance–not even today–of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."
In March, the US commenced with the Iraq War. It was not allowed by the UN Resolution 1441, but when it comes down to it, the US is a free agent and only a willing participant to the UN. It is not beholden to UN policy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How do you abandon your own children just because you don't agree with their lifestyle.
Anna, how supportive would you be of an offspring of yours if they were a child molester of prepubescents? Oh, I'm sure that the answer is that child molestation is nothing like gender identity crises. However, if one truly does not choose their sexuality, then by that logic, that child molester is in the exact same boat as the individual with a gender identity issue. They apparently can't control their sexual attraction, and it should be, by extension of your logic, wrong of us to imprison them, force them to register as sexual offenders, treat them poorly, bully them with therapy groups to get them to stop being sexually attracted to prepubescent children and/or control their abnormal sexual urges, etc.
You're just drawing an arbitrary line in the sand without reason or logic behind why you place the line where you place it. The fact is that if your gender or sexuality is in crisis or an attraction to a sexual partner with which it is abnormal to be attracted, it is, at best, indicative of a clear mental and/or physiological defect based solely on the nature of gender and sexuality -- ignoring all other factors. It is best for the sufferer of that defect to come to terms with his or her defect and work around it to live a full life -- just like people with depression, bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia, Down's, Asperger's and other physiological/psychological defects do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** "I'm no expert, but I know how to debunk the common myths, and the size of a nation in relation to wind energy is one of those myths."
Alright. I'll give you a chance. Your job is now to manage the installation 2 billion additional windmills in the US to meet current energy demands as currently covered by coal and natural gas burning. Then you must make a plan for growth to meet future energy needs. Please explain all these considerations: environmental impacts, spatial requirements, economic impacts, man hours, time to complete, permit applications and requirements, manufacturing requirements (including man hours, fab locations and management, environmental impacts, cost, regional economic impacts, responsibilities to workers, etc.), ongoing maintenance and replacement considerations, efficacy of energy distribution from source, source material management (including environmental impact, responsibilities to workers, regional economic impacts, worker safety and compensation, international trade responsibilities, etc.), management information systems (including design, installation, security, redundancy, ongoing maintenance, locations, resource management, etc. for both the project itself and after completion of the project), physical infrastructure of grid (including design, installation, security, redundancy, ongoing maintenance, etc.),
You know what... You figure out the rest. My fingers are tired.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** Senegal, Sierra Leone, Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria -- ALL countries in Africa affected and they are all on the African west coast. So, yes, West Africa, not just Africa. These nations would pretty much be equivalent to the western-most states of the 48 Contiguous states in the US including California, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Montana and Arizona. Could you imagine if we had almost 9,000 cases of Ebola in just those states? Do you think that, say, the UK would be accepting student applications from that region of the US during the outbreak, if they accepted them from the US at all?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** We argue to share differing, and opposing, viewpoints.
"So I guess everyone at Navarro better stay indoors then - online classes for everyone! - if they are so concerned as you imply, about mitigating any and all health/fatality risks to their students. Not to mention rampant gun violence, not to mention other diseases that lead to 1000's and 10,000s of deaths every year in America, not to mention STDs and a host of other risks (what would you know, life would appear to be just full and brimming with these, ugh, what an outrage!)"
This red herring type of argument is part and parcel in every post you make. The control of communicable disease which has a high mortality rate is the point here. If someone gets shot, they don't turn into a shooting zombie that shoots other people. If someone gets struck by lightning, it doesn't increase the likelihood that others will be struck by lightning. Readily treatable disease processes for which we have therapies are not a concern. And STD's are not something those avoiding engaging in risky behaviors need be concerned about.
"...somehow Nigeria's current 0 cases is a higher risk than the Texas and Spain's 4..."
Nigeria will be lucky, given their practices, that they do not have a bad outbreak. Did you watch the video and hear how they're handling it? It's downright scary, despite Cenk trying to make it sound like they're doing a bang-up job.
It's clear that you don't understand the dangers of high mortality communicable disease for which there is not real therapy. Ask a public health nurse, who works for your county, sometime how hard they work to keep mass death from happening in the US and how important quarantine is in Ebola.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Skeptical, I'm well aware of Franklin's economic views, and I think they were very naive. It's one of my contentions with him. Are you apt to agree with everything someone ever says and does? Even yourself? I doubt it. Franklin wrote, "All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition."
That flies in the face of private ownership that the nation was indeed ultimately founded on -- that of private ownership.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
samiam, an executive has to be quite familiar with all aspects of his business. He's not a machinist, but he has to know enough to know what makes a good machinist. He's not a metallurgist, but he has to know where to source good product. He's not an engineer, but he needs to know whether his engineers are making a sound product that's marketable. He's not a chemist, but he needs to understand the emerging research of propellants. He's not a gunsmith, but he needs to understand how a firearm works. He's not a lawyer, but he needs to understand Federal, state and local laws that pertain to his business. And finally, being an executive is so much more than just supply, demand and pricing.
I'm going to be blunt here. The fact is that your pea brain cannot fathom the amount of responsibility and work that's part and parcel to being an executive officer of any corporation. It literally takes being a genius to be successful in the executive world because of how much you have to constantly be learning about your industry(ies), how fast you have to learn it and how much of what you intake you must be capable of recalling, let alone how perfect you must be in all of this. Just one bad decision can end your company and career. Compound that with a lack of sleep, long-ass hours and the stress of perfection on you and there's only a minority of a minority that can handle that job. And you probably think they don't deserve their millions in compensation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
samiam, sticking with the same example, last year Coca Cola's operating costs were $18 billion. It has a revenue of roughly $12 billion a quarter. That's $48 billion in revenue a year. That's a net profit of 30 billion a year. They average about 17% in taxes. That's $5.16 billion to governments and leaves $25 billion a year. That $25 billion a year goes into banks which can then loan out additional money.
It is also saved and used to cover rainy day costs in an uncertain market. It's also used to expand the business. They also pay dividends to shareholders to keep them happy, which keeps stock prices up, which makes everyone money; including employees who take up the opportunity of stock options as part of their compensation. Dividends for Coca-Cola, for instance, are typically about $1.50 a share.
An employee may choose to invest up to 15% of their income at Coca-Cola, and Coca-Cola will match up to 3%. That's $3,700 a year in stock for an employee making $13 an hour (which is a typical starting wage for unskilled labor first coming into the company). Coca-Cola's stock is currently going for $43 a share. That's 113 shares in the first year, which adds about $169 to an employee's annual pay in the second year.
For the next 5 years the employee continues to make more: $339 (226), $508 (339 shares), $678 (452 shares), $847 (565 shares).
If an employee reinvests the dividend into the company, that compounds the dividends. First year 113 shares $169, second year 230 shares ($345), third year 351 shares ($526), fourth year 476 shares ($714), fifth year 605 shares ($907). By the fifth year, the employee also has over $26,000 in stocks. This is assuming no splits which would double (or maybe even quadruple) the number of shares the employee has, no stock gain, and the employee gets no raises.
The last time Coca-Cola split its shares was in 2012. If an employee worked for 5 years and the stock split 2-for-1 like in 2012, the employee would be making an additional $1,800 a year from dividends (which he could keep even if he left the company) and have over $52,000 in stock. That's in addition to the $77,000 he's made in salary over that same time.
By the time the person's ready to retire, he's making almost $20,000 off of stock and has over half a million in stock. He would also have. He could also have another million in a 401(k). If he withdrew his funds from the 401(k), he could put it into more stock and make $40,000 a year in his retirement.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Aeroldoth3 "For #1, so religious freedom means you can legally engage in human sacrifice? Or are there limits to rights?"
Secondary law unrelated to religion. Rights don't protect you from repercussions from the outcomes of exercising that right. Rights stop preventative laws leaning against those rights (e.g. having to pass publications through the government before publication or polygamy not allowed in Mormonism).
"For #2, the issue isn't about religious expression, it's about how some professions, notably gvmt ones, involve certain limitations on rights."
This has never been the case.
"It's illegal for military to speak ill of the president."
What? No it isn't.
"It's illegal for teachers to force children to listen to sermons and go to church."
Of course it's illegal for anyone to force anyone to do anything. That's secondary to rights.
"Teacher, soldier, police, fire, clerk... you must act as a neutral agent of gvmt, not as yourself."
Sorry, but that's not the case at all. The only place where this has even edged close this far is teachers.
1
-
Aeroldoth3 "You're the one suggesting there are zero limitations to religious freedom."
I've said nor suggested anything of the sort. I've maintained that government cannot legally make a law which leans directly on the freedom of expression of religion.
"So if a religion believes in human sacrifice, it should be able to according to you. To prevent it from doing so is limiting its rights."
I've also maintained that freedoms and rights do not preempt suffering the secular consequences of those actions. It is illegal to murder someone. That's not a law against religion. If you perform human sacrifice as part of religion, you are still breaking a secular law.
"UCMJ Article 88
"https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/888
"It can carry a maximum penalty of dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and pensions, and 1 year in prison."
Yes, if you're talking to the president or other superior, you can't tell them to kiss your ass. You can talk about anyone in pretty much any way you want.
"Freedom of Speech
Service members, like other citizens, have a right to express themselves. However, the
right to engage in free speech does not provide an absolute immunity from subsequent
punishment if the speech violates a criminal law. In the military, such criminal laws
include:
1. Disrespectful speech toward superiors;
2. Use of words or gestures that might provoke a fight;
3. Disclosure of classified information;
4. Discussing official matters outside of the military without proper authorization. "
-"Rights of Military Members" pp. 5
"But this is all going off-topic. The main point is that teachers cannot encourage or lead or even influence their students to favor a certain religion. That's direct from the 1st."
No it isn't. That's an interpretation of the First Amendment which is clearly wrong since the only law being enforced is the one preventing teachers on the job from praying.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nevertrumper8483 There's a joke. A trooper pulls over a car. He walks up and sees a little, old lady. Laughing, he says, "Ma'am, do you have any weapons in the car that I should know about?" The woman replies, "Well, I sure do. I have a .380 in the glove box, a .44 magnum in the center console, and a 9mm under the seat here." Flabbergasted, the cop asks, "Ma'am, what in the world are you afraid of?!" She smiles and replies, "Not a damn thing."
With that being said, when you keep homeowner's insurance does that mean you're now constantly in fear your house will burn down or does it mean that you worry less about that occurring? As far as arms, I feel those who don't have concerns being without one are simply blissfully unaware.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bobreilly4996 Since you apparently aren't aware, there's no all-black gang I listed. Both Crips and Bloods have membership of all races and nationalities. Certain geographic areas may have membership dominated by one race or another, but across the US, no.
To also counter, AFAIK, Hebrew Israelites, an all-black, black nationalist group, do not join the military for training, so they weren't included. The groups I included weren't because of a specific race's membership, but because they're known to have members join for the training.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@0Fyrebrand0 "You clearly do, otherwise when any two consenting adults love each other and want to get married, you would simply say 'Okay.'" That's right, and that's what I do. Getting married outside of the legal framework and asking for consideration within the legal framework are two entirely different things, however.
"You've drawn a line in the sand, and I simply would like to know the reasoning behind your decision." I already provided that reasoning.
"And also, why you think your personal values should restrict the freedoms of other citizens." It does't have anything to do with my personal values, but critical review of the facts of the matter. It's clear to me that this whole gay marriage things is solely for the purpose of gay people seeking the affirmation from the government that they feel they didn't get from their parents, family or society, and it's the one place where they can try to force that affirmation to occur.
"There you go, with that p r e s u m p t i v e a t t i t u d e of yours." I'm not presuming anything about you that you were presuming about me, so mind yourself before you think about trying to get all cute. The reasoning for the government institution of marriage isn't well documented, and there's very little written on the matter so I'm required to presume to further the conversation. As I was saying to icturner, marriage is a general framework. It's not there for the government to force people to have children, but to foster that behavior. Under that reasoning, I could say that there could be a valid argument made for lesbian marriage as they can become pregnant by the miracle of modern science, and even doubly so given there are two wombs in the relationship. Maybe they should get extra consideration even. But two men (biological) are never going to experience the burden and hardships of pregnancy and childbirth. clearly this isn't equal between what a heterosexual couple, a lesbian couple and a gay couple experience, so it's reasonable to critically review each within some sort of logical and rational application of the rules.
"Allowing women and black people to vote was not 'redefining' voting. Allowing gay couples to marry is not 'redefining' marriage. If it is, then please explain to me how this is so, and why the government should be in the business of preventing it from happening." It absolutely was redefining voting. Voting, being a positive right, requires legislation to exist. At first, only white, male land owners were allowed to vote. Over time, new laws were established to redefine the positive right to include a broader range of voters.
"I don't want to p r e s u m e too much, but it sounds like you're really into defending a big government agenda! Surely, this philosophy of yours is consistent across all topics, and not just gay marriage, right???"
I'm not sure how you're coming to that conclusion. Because I used the loaded term "agenda"? Agenda doesn't mean what you think it means, and despite its probably coming across in your mind with loads of boogeymen, it's a neutral term. If the government wants to promote a growing population, then that's its agenda. There's no between-the-lines to read into here.
"A civil union between two consenting homosexual adults is basically like some dumb-ass humping a pillow." If that's what you're walking away with, you need to spend a little more time thinking about what I'm actually saying instead of already thinking about your reply that doesn't even address the point I was making.
"I'm SO SORRY that you have to deal with presumptive commenters on YouTube! That must be a living hell for you. I can't imagine anything worse than that. Well, maybe if you loved somebody with all your heart, wanted to devote the rest of your life to them, and wished you could live in a world where you could express your love as freely as most people do, and have your homeland not systematically treat your relationship as a disgusting sham. But no, having to listen to a 'presumptive attitude' is much worse, right?"
Sexual perversion isn't something I'm generally going to give legal leeway to when asked, which I necessarily am asked when someone asks for legal consideration. From my experience, it seems open displays of homosexuality is about as normal as public displays of affection between hetero couples. I don't see any systematic treatment of anyone's relationship as a disgusting sham.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@camillemagno22 If you were up on your math, you'd see that it was a simple mistake that instead of .20 USD to CNY, Google provided the answer instead of $20 USD to CNY since your answer and mine were the same except the decimal place moved by two. I could go on all day about your atrocious grammar and spelling, but I don't. So join me in rising above the pettiness.
In light of this mistake, however, it would be fair to compare average US worker wages to average Chinese worker wages. Average US worker wages are $45,000 a year. I have no idea where you're getting 170 Yuan (presumably per hour). I've looked at multiple sources, and everything I've found places the high end range at about 90,000 Yuan a year (down to about 75,000 yuan a year), not anywhere near 353,600 Yuan a year. That's 43.27 Yuan an hour average, not 170. I've also found that transportation takes anywhere from 1-3 Yuan per ride. Where I live, it's 8.5 minutes of work per day to ride the bus/train to work and back home. That would be 2-6 Yuan per day, or 2.6 to 8.5 minutes of work per typical day. It is worth noting that if you're stopping at the grocery store or going out with friends and taking public transport for those events, that could quickly increase your transportation costs while here it would not.
I couldn't find tax information for China, but in my state, we have a public transportation tax of 0.7737% which adds $348.17 per year, or an additional 3.7 minutes per working day. If you can find that information on China, it would be helpful. In the end, it doesn't appear to me that there is much of a difference in relative cost at all. Without that tax, I'd say that we pull ahead of China with day passes, but with the tax, I'd say it's about even.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@beanabovethefrank1499 Keep in mind the DoI used "pursuit of happiness" to avoid using the actual proper word as used by Locke of "property" so as to not provide political ammunition to slaveholders as the intention was to end slavery with their declaration of independence. The proper phrase is that life, liberty, and property are the three parent natural rights. See the Second Treatise of Government.
Now, what constitutes happiness? I know of no objective happiness, and it seems to be subjective to each individual as to what they find as far as happiness. I find it far too subjective of a concept to even be assessed objectively.
But even looking at that dubious metric, the US is ranked 19th, which is pretty decent out of 195 nations. And we're not bottom of the top, either. We rank above France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Poland, Hungary, Japan, and Greece. Still, I maintain it's an utterly silly metric.
And, by the way, those who are murdered because they were disarmed, tend to not be capable of complaining about being unhappy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Unless you're pure energy, living on universe juice, people gotta work and produce to feed you, clothe you, provide you with energy, keep the distribution infrastructure for all these things going, etc. Those people also are not likely made of pure energy living on universe juice, so they appreciate being able to afford for themselves clothing, energy, housing, etc. This isn't a dollar thing--it's an "our nature" thing. If you don't work, you die. That is simply our nature as human beings. While our civilization provides us a small buffer to that, it can't work miracles.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
First of all, the amount of CBD in a pot brownie, oil, tincture, etc. is not going to help. Secondly, radiation therapy would still be required, even *if* the CBD can even affect the spread of the various leukemias. Last, but not least, with our current technology including modern chemotherapies and radiation treatments, the rate of child survival is approx. 92% for leukemias. CBD, specifically VERY high concentrations of it, *may* be an alternative to traditional chemotherapies only.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's 1 with a googol of zeros behind it. It is 10 billion to the power of 100. Since it's exponential growth, you pass 1000 zeros after just 10 billion to the power of 10, and you'd have 90 more iterations to go.
It's like the powers of two: 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16,384, 32768, 65536, 131072. That's just 17 iterations of raising the power by 2 each time. Now try to imagine 100 iterations of raising the power of 10 billion each time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Joshua, the Second Amendment states, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The Bill of Rights was granted to the anti-Federalists in order to get the new Constitution passed that gave a significant amount of power to the Federal government versus the previous Articles of Confederation. One of the powers granted to the Federal government in the new Constitution that the Articles of Confederation did not have was, and I quote from Article 1, Section 8, "The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions... To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States..."
This is what the preamble is recognizing. That the militia is no longer simply all of the people, but a specific entity trained, paid and armed by the Federal government, and most importantly, at the beck and call of the Federal government. Today that militia is called the National Guard. In contrast to this, and thanks to the distrust of such a strong central government, it was assured that the people would not be disarmed in any form or fashion.
Your rebuttal?
1
-
1
-
1
-
BadWebDriver, you can, but it doesn't matter. If it mattered, you could argue that you only have the right to own a receiver, not a right to a barrel, rails, sights, stocks, magazines, bullets, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1. You're laughably wrong. Quoting this part of George Mason's address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention proves this easily:
"No man has greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valour. But when once a standing army is established, in any country, the people lose their liberty. When against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defense — yeomanry, unskillful & unarmed, what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies? An instance within the memory of some of this house, — will shew us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British parliament was advised by an artful man, [Sir William Keith] who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people. That it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. But that they should not do it openly; but to weaken them and let them sink gradually, by totally defusing and neglecting the militia. [Here MR. MASON quoted sundry passages to this effect.] This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed?"
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Deus69xxx1 Let's see if that stands up to a more complete picture when we include the views of other Founders. Let's first check in with Hamilton and see what he has on the matter in Federalist 29:
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."
How about checking in with Madison in Federalist 49?
"Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."
How about Jefferson? What did he think of individuals with arms using them as individual against state militias?
"yet where does this anarchy exist? where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? and can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. they were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. god forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. the people cannot be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it's natural manure."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@christophergreen6595 "and you addressed me in regards to religious beliefs when I wasn't talking to you."
You asked, "Who?" first.
"And I still don't get it. Did you have a question about my atheism?"
You linked belief in the supernatural to a local policy issue for the US, but I was arguing that it's a human phenomenon. You and I, as atheists, are the odd men out, and we should fully understand our place in that.
"I'm all for knowing history, but you're clearly bringing the big guns. I can see you polishing them, obsessively working the metal to a shine. I respect the work, but am surprised someone so knowledgeable is so insistent on original intent guiding our choices hundreds of years later in a radically changed environment."
I wouldn't say the environment has changed much at all. Humans are still largely the same people. Guns are used for good and for evil, as it's always been so since their inception. It doesn't make sense to make policy which inhibits good people from having and using arms in order to keep arms out of the hands of those who would misuse them. The legal scholar Cesare Beccaria, calling it a false sense of utility, likened it to humanity having disused fire because of the damage it could cause. Blackstone's ratio demands that in a good justice system it's better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent person suffer. How would a good justice system operate for a greater good when its people are inhibited in their ability to defend themselves from the ten guilty who escape? The caution, for the protection of the people, must be burdened on the suspect's guilt in that case.
Now I espouse original intent because I've studied the arguments of Enlightenment and the threads of those ideas going back to the Greek philosophers, and I've found them convincing, even when testing them with extreme scenarios. I've also read more contemporaneous and postmodernist philosophies that have added further development from living in the societies based on Enlightenment concepts, and I've found them lacking solid grounding and objective reasoning. That's why I currently espouse that Enlightenment libertarian philosophy is the best model as a basis for a large society that we currently have. Its predecessors are without concepts for practical application and the latter are lacking in stability, lacking in understanding of humanity, disconnected from the philosophies which established those societies and so lack understanding for the reason why things are the way they are, or head-in-the-clouds ideas that seem good but fall apart when considering all cases in practical implementation.
"Your very breadth of knowledge far surpasses that of the founders, and you are surely well aware of their many errors and personal failings..."
More importantly, I'm well aware of my own errors and personal failings, and I refuse, knowing myself to be imperfect, to have a hand in being part of telling another innocent person how they can or can't defend their own life. And that humility to accept that reality is where we get Rousseau's popular phrase, "Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem," which can be translated as, "I prefer dangerous liberty to peaceful servitude." A lesser known quote from him is, essentially (I'll skip the French on this one), "The people are always right even when they're wrong." Paradoxical, I know, but, as is generally true with paradoxes, while they appear only at surface level to be contradictory, under scrutiny they are actually true.
"so I am interested in YOUR modern arguments, not theirs..."
The reason that I use the Founders is two-fold. First, they're the ones who espoused these philosophies to create the foundation of the nation, and a subset of them wrote those founding documents. To understand their ideals is to understand the documents they wrote. Especially in the face of someone saying that the words of those documents are being grossly misinterpreted, it's probably the only valid argumentation (at least certainly the best argumentation) to counter with. In this case, Mason was very concerned that the militia that was being given to the federal government to arm and train in Article I, Section 8. He was very concerned that they would allow the militia to atrophy, declare it useless, and start to disarm the citizens that make it up, as the British did.
We actually have a letter from the period Mason was speaking of showing a bit of that struggle the colonists were having, likely written by Benjamin Franklin on behalf of the Pennsylvania Assembly in response to the Governor in 1755, "In fine, we have the most sensible Concern for the poor distressed Inhabitants of the Frontiers. We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pennsylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition, have, as we are informed, been supplied with both, as far as Arms could be procured, out of Monies given by the last Assembly for the King’s Use; and the large Supply of Money offered by this Bill, might enable the Governor to do every Thing else that should be judged necessary for their farther Security, if he shall think fit to accept it."
Second, the reason that I use the Founders is because they were pretty good at summarizing the philosophies that led up to their establishing the nation on libertarian principles. Simply, I couldn't improve on it, so there's little reason for me to do extra work just to recreate the wheel.
I hope you have a great Thanksgiving.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@christophergreen6595 You asked questions, and I answered the specific questions you asked.
Now you ask a new questions without addressing the first: "The fact remains that in the modern era and in the past we have found it fitting to restrict certain levels of armaments to certain designated classes, and I'm sure you agree on some levels of control, yes? So why are you arguing as though you're an arms absolutist? You KNOW that you, personally, don't think that every man has the right to own just ANY type of weapon freely, especially given our current level of technology."
The answer to this is simple: If the government allows itself to have it, the citizens shouldn't be limited in having it. If the government wants to limit its citizens, it should show the same restraint for itself. Need I remind you of the panic regarding Trump having a nuclear option? If we didn't have a nuclear arsenal and our fighting forces weren't a professional, standing army, but state-level organized and unorganized militia, then that would have been a much safer environment for Trump to have taken federal power in, don't you think? There are four weapons that individuals in the United States can't currently own in any state: Nuclear weapons, biological and WMD chemical weapons, machine guns not registered by May 1986, and guided surface-to-air missile systems. Americans can and variably do own everything else.
"Why the deep research and historical quotes?"
How can you expect to understand anything if you don't know why things exist as they do?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aslamkingtube1151 Yes, 20%, and that's being generous in your favor. Look it up. About $700 billion of a $4+ trillion-dollar budget, so since you pushed it, it's more like 15%. There are about 50 bases in other locations outside of the US and territories, not 800. There's not even 800 if you include things like communications facilities. It's a bit over 500. Guess where most of those 50 bases are too? Germany, Italy and Japan. I wonder why. Now they're allies so we have an agreement to maintain those bases as needed. South Korea is another place where we have a SOFA agreement with, and they appreciate us there for obvious reasons. These bases are also a huge boost to the local economies that they're in. Furthermore, we leave when we're asked. We left France as they no longer wanted a US military presence there. That happened in the 80's. On occasion, as France decrees fit, the US will share the Istres-Le Tube Air Base. No one's being held hostage -- it's a mutually beneficial agreement that no one's over a barrel to uphold, as is evidenced by France. Former Soviet bloc nations are even vying to get some US bases moved from western European nations to their countries.
Where do you get your information from? It's seriously whacked.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jing Bot Wealth in the US is not a zero-sum game, so the answer to all of it is, it doesn't matter to anyone else. And when I say they are ever increasing the range and size of the holdings they manage, I mean the companies they manage, not their personal holdings.
When you operate a business, with 10 employees, and you pay yourself $60,000, you're required to take $6,000 per employee from the revenues. If you run a company with 2 million employees, and your salary is $2 million (real life scenario with Walmart), you are compensated $1 per employee from the revenues of the company. I'm sure you've heard it said before that it's all about volume. The more you manage, the more people you help bring value to, the more you make while taking less and less from the pie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TheUhhoh, you've definitely hit the nail on the head where we diverge in opinions and where we're of a like mind. When you speak of different moral stances, we have to evaluate if these moral stances have an objective basis outside of ourselves that is a universal truth -- like basic existence. If there can't be established such an external and constant basis, then we have to consider these morals subjective. Comparing objective and subjective morals would be like comparing apples and oranges, because, while a person can have subjective morals they follow themselves, how could it be a consistently applied logic that those subjective morals that can and often do conflict with other's subjective morals be enforced on another person? What is the test that can be applied equally to all situations for whose subjective morals should be forced onto the whole? To me, this boils down to whose natural rights are more important than another's.
On the other hand, if you have an external thing that serves as a basis for morals, then it's that objective basis that's organically applying the restrictions through the application of the same logic in all situations. When you talk about the moral values of our freedom to kill, we would apply the logic as a sentient being that other people are the same as me and therefore must have the same nature of existence as me. This includes those rights they have. As such, with life being one of those natural rights, I cannot morally infringe on that person's natural rights. I technically can do it, but it is immoral by the objective standard set in the moral code.
Now that I've beat that to death, what I'm interested from you is, along with whatever thoughts you have that you want to share, are you aware of any other objective moral codes than the Enlightenment philosophies that established natural law and its moral conclusions?
1
-
1
-
fl00fydragon, asymmetric warfare works. This is such common knowledge that I really shouldn't have to tell you this. And we are already under tyrannical rule. You need to wake up and smell the covfefe I guess. Drug enforcement, immigration laws, torture, spying, gun regulations, asset forfeiture, immigration checkpoints, etc. How can you not see that we're under a tyrannical government?
Capitalism isn't the problem -- government is. You're being told capitalism is the problem, just like the right's being told that immigration is the problem -- smoke and mirrors; divide and conquer. Capitalism is the cornerstone of liberty: the natural rights to life, liberty, and property .
And there is no false sense of security. People are about done. Soon we'll make a declaration to fix it or we're establishing a new government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Even given this questionable research, it's 1 civilian death per 5 coalition airstrikes. And this is coalition airstrikes which includes not only the US, but also Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, Netherlands, France, Germany, Denmark, France, Canada, Australia, the UK, and Morocco.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
"This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
"Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
"It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
"There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."
George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@beigefox6579 Nah, that's just where ignorance comes in. I'm not saying that as just a flamebait, but let's face it -- people on the left really don't understand weaponry or martial skills in general. I don't mean soft-hands Tae Kwon Do throws or the like, I mean real-life, high-stakes martial skills. When there is an absolutely imminent threat as you see here, it's long past time for a Taser. He was right to go for his pistol when he saw the girl wasn't backing off, instead going for the woman in pink. He knew at that time, the situation was coming to the point where if she did not back off, she was going to have to be shot to reliably stop her apparently imminent attack that she has made every effort to show she is prepared and willing to complete.
And then this is also partly survivorship bias, for lack of a better term. Police have millions of interactions with the public in a year. That is over 5,500 interactions per day just lowballing it. If this were every interaction, we wouldn't have enough time in a day to cover it all.
1
-
@beigefox6579 I'm not here to pretend everything's perfect. I am here to say this shooting was as justified as you could want. When it comes to policing and reform, there are always improvements that can be made, and even if it's not apparent, we should at least be reviewing it constantly to see if there are improvements can be made. Like Chris Rock said, this is just one of those jobs where "a few bad apples" isn't acceptable. We wouldn't put up with it from pilots, and police are in such a role of authority and responsibility that we shouldn't there either. Best argument I've heard, and it comes from a damn comedian, not people who think themselves smart.
Here's the rub for me, however. People keep championing justified killings. If your goal is just to preach to the choir, fine. If your goal is to reach audiences you aren't yet reaching, it's a horrible, horrible way to do that. Reasonable and at least semi-knowledgeable people are going to see this footage, agree it's sad, but also agree that, while tragic, it was not a poor decision. You champion, protest and riot on something like this, you lose clout. You lose allies. Like me. Champion clear cases like Eric Garner or George Floyd. I'm with you there. Cases like this or Michael Brown? Nah. You lose me.
And just screaming about reform and defunding isn't helping either. Some places have tried social workers, and those social workers are already being murdered... They do not need to be put, completely defenseless, in harm's way like that. Defunding doesn't work. Finding improved screening techniques. Understanding the psychology of officers to help them with decision making. MORE training in soft techniques like de-escalation. You get that from better funding.
To defund means fewer officers on duty, longer hours, fewer days off for those that are still on duty, more stressed out... How do you think that ends up? Better decision-making? Lower tempers? I'm not saying I'm made of answers here, but the solutions being demanded under threat of violence are exacerbating problems, not helping. But that's also what Chris Rock said. They don't pay police enough, and you get what you pay for.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@beigefox6579 Alright, I'll break it down for you.
You stated, "But some people also ask why that's the default way of cops handling every situation."
I explained how this is a false premise.
You stated, "Why would the cops automatically shoot anyone they see brandishing a knife dead? Shouldn't there be another way to stop knife attacks without killing the perpetrator?"
I explained why it was the most realistic option available at that time given the situation.
"You mentioned there are several thousand cases in a day that dont go wrong, but that's not the same thing people who get shot and dont have video evidence to proof that the cop did the wrong thing says."
This statement doesn't even follow itself. It has no internal logic, and it doesn't follow with what I said. Let's step through it. Of those 5,500 cases a day, how often do you think police discharge firearms? As it turns out, in only about 4% of them. That's 80,000 cases where dicharges occur a year. Of those 80,000 discharges, about 1,000 end fatally.
You cinch up your statement with, "Thats were the term 'police reform' comes to place," however, it's all just ignorance. That is not reform. What you're doing is not just Monday-morning quarterbacking; you don't even know the rules of the game while you're doing it.
As I said, reform is always a good thing, but your understanding of reform and why it's needed is ignorant, asinine and dangerous.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
See this excerpt from a transcript of George Mason's address at the Virginia Ratifying Convention on June 14 in 1787. In this, he explains the reason the right is being given to individuals. George Mason is the father of the Second Amendment, and his opinion holds heavy weight in its meaning and intent. In short, your argument that the militia is no longer really in existence, so it's reasonable for government to control who owns what arms is exactly one of his primary concerns and reasons for championing the Second Amendment.
"No man has greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valour. But when once a standing army is established, in any country, the people lose their liberty. When against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defense — yeomanry, unskillful & unarmed, what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies? An instance within the memory of some of this house, — will shew us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British parliament was advised by an artful man, [Sir William Keith] who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people. That it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. But that they should not do it openly; but to weaken them and let them sink gradually, by totally defusing and neglecting the militia. [Here MR. MASON quoted sundry passages to this effect.] This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed?"
When it comes to the NRA, some background on what happened in the 70's was omitted or simply not researched. The organization experienced a political coup, because for decades up to 1971, part of its members had been warning about the dangers of giving the government power over who owns what weapons. It was the Kenyon Ballew raid in 1971 that fueled the growing group of dissidents that finally took over the organization in 1977. If you're interested in knowing more, there are multiple articles and a Wikipedia entry for the Kenyon Ballew raid.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mike Stewart, you're ignorant if you think the Constitution or the Second Amendment gives power to the government to regulate weapons. In Federalist No. 84, Hamilton wrote, "They [Bills of Rights] would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, from what I know of turbofans, they compress the incoming air in the turbine, heat the air in the combustion chamber causing a large amount of pressure, then there's a decompression stage just before the nozzle and the final compression as the expanded air is pushed out the nozzle.
With an ICE (gas), you have a lot of the same processes. Air, fuel, compression, ignition, exhaust. But the ignition is what drives the pistons in an ICE, rather than the exhaust.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So let's look at this: The Universe is estimated to be about 15,000,000,000 years old. Let's say, on a good run, an advanced civilization lasts 10,000 years before it collapses. That leaves a .0000006% chance that their radio waves would be hitting us. Now consider the fact that, on the low estimate, there are 200,000,000,000 stars in the Milky Way and we have a handful of radio telescopes checking in on just a few thousand of those stars, you start to see why we haven't found proof of anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nate S, abortion laws force a mother to carry a child depending on the circumstance. No matter what, the government chooses in the arena of abortion, they would be infringing on a right. As such, the government cannot make any law. If you protect the mother's choice, then you infringe on the rights of the baby, and if you protect the baby's right to life, you infringe on the mother's autonomy. And, yes, a baby, even inside the mother, is alive. As early as 22 weeks, a baby has survived after being prematurely born.
"delusions that the government has no right to impose reasonable limits to individual freedoms for public safety"
Alright. There's an exhaustive list of powers granted to Congress in the Constitution under Article 1, Section 8. Please, tell me where Congress is granted this power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nick G., to quote Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
To also quote Thomas Jefferson, "& what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
To also quote John Locke whose philosophies were an influence on the founding of this nation, "Must men alone be debarred the common privilege of opposing force with force, which nature allows so freely to all other creatures for their preservation from injury? I answer: self defense is a part of the law of nature, nor can it be denied the community, even against the king himself..."
I'm interested to know how you reconcile these writings with your view of the Second Amendment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nate S, Joseph Galloway, who you're quoting (paraphrasing really) from The Adams Papers, was a Imperialist who wanted to keep the American colonies under the control of the British Empire. He argued against natural rights because it gave strong pretense for why the colonies should create their own constitution and government. He doesn't give a valid argument as to why natural rights don't exist, much in the same way you don't. You simply state that it's so, and therefore it must be so. You think that liberty, in this case the right to keep and bear arms, can only granted by the government, but without government, can a man living in the wild fashion a spear? Can he trade hides for a bow someone else made? Nothing we do with our liberties requires government, and government shouldn't get in their way.
And those are things where the government is turning against us because even if they're not infringing on natural rights, they're making laws they haven't been given the power to make.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kevin Souza I was expecting you to prove something... Since you didn't, let me disprove your claim. From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
"In 2017, 80.4 million workers age 16 and older in the United States were paid at hourly rates, representing 58.3 percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those paid by the hour, 542,000 workers earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour."
"About 5 percent of part-time workers (people who usually work fewer than 35 hours per
week) were paid the federal minimum wage..."
So that's 27,100 workers of a pool of about 138 million workers that wouldn't have employer-sponsored healthcare as part of their compensation package. You're talking about 0.02% of the workforce. I'd be interested to see the length of time people employed at those positions stay. Very likely not long, I'd imagine. And it'd actually be less because the 5% figure is 35 hours a week, not 30.
So, "Most minimum wage places don't give benefits," is just bunk.
1
-
1
-
@elephantintheroom5678 I'm not only talking about the obvious. As an example, the US brings almost half of the world's annual medical products to market every year and spends over half of the R&D done in the world every year. One nation does that, out of 195 nations. I'm not sure there'd be enough pixels in a reasonably sized radian to accurately pie chart -- that is how lopsided it is. And that comes in part from the $2+ trillion that passes through our medical system every year with about 70% of that funding from private enterprise. Other nations enjoy such advancements for a pittance.
So when I hear of someone complaining about our healthcare system, especially from a nation benefitting from it while not contributing their fair share to that research, I feel like an appropriate allegory is that the US is a parent getting ready for work while being yelled at by their kid that they're passing in front of the TV too much. Meanwhile, what the kid is going to be doing all day is lying on the couch playing video games, maybe contentiously doing dishes and vacuuming later.
That aspect does get to me, which is why I choose to highlight it. Make no mistake: I don't think anything is perfect in any system, but we're all doing what we can. The last thing we need and what is absolutely not helpful, however, is backbenchers screaming that we're playing the game wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KevlarIlluminati Here's something to consider that you may not have. When you have a small business, you are at the mercy of large corporation pricing. If you have a grounds keeping service that serves only your area and there exists a multi-state corporation that offers the same service, the multi-state corporation can easily charge just slightly over employee pay because they have, say, 1,000 employees, each bringing in a dollar more than they're using up plus operating costs. You're still making $1,000 a day profit to pay yourself and reinvest into the business.
On the other hand, when you have a small business, you're at the mercy of what people will pay for grounds keeping. That is most typically what the above-mentioned corporation charges, because if you charge much more, people won't come to you. That means the small business owner has to make a living managing 50 employees at 1,000-employee corporate pricing.
If the cost of operating exceeds what the owner can pay while still paying himself a wage as a manager, then he no longer is in business, 50 people are no longer employed and typically will go work for the corporation because that becomes the only game in town in that industry.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SandeepKumarIIIT How does not being able to provide LLC protections equate to the government not having the power to uphold the rule of law? I'm not saying that we should have an anarchy, I'm a Libertarian, but not an anarchist.
The more involved you have government involved in commercial aspects, the more it can be abused by corporations. When we didn't want a State Church, we didn't add more laws regarding religion, we removed from the government all power regarding religion (more accurately, we simply didn't grant to the government anything related to those powers). If the Federal government was incapable of regulating trade and business, but instead only upheld the rule of law equally to the people in charge of corporations as well as all of the other citizens themselves, it fixes the issue.
"Big government" is a government that exceeds its social contract as laid out by writers such as John Locke. Big government establishes immigration laws and takes weapons out of the hands of the people, puts some individuals above the law by protecting them behind a corporation, says when and where you may practice a religion, they make laws against drugs, they take "military actions" in other countries without any check or balance, and so much more...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In short, you don't like democracy. You like democracy as long as the majority agrees with you, but you don't like it when a majority don't want the same thing you want. Instead of believing that your desires are truly in the minority, you instead want to believe there's something wrong with the system or with other people who don't see eye-to-eye with you.
And I think you have a valid point in there -- that is the disenfranchisement of the minority. While this is maintained to a degree with constitutions to at least (at least as far as intention) not infringe on natural rights, it's still a form of disenfranchisement.
But your party has essentially thrown a stick into its own spokes, wrecking the whole thing, then complaining. How is that the case here? Because the way this nation was set up was from the bottom up. The states are intended to be the ultimate authority with the federal government having scant few things it's supposed to manage which the states are incapable of managing, while maintaining full reciprocal nationwide citizenship between those states and completely open borders from the federal perspective. That means if you feel disenfranchised in one state, there would be another state, easily moved to, that better fits your views. But instead, the federal government has been expanded to the point where many believe that it's the prime authority in the United States and solutions can't be on a state or local level, but should be on a federal level. It doesn't, however, make sense to shoehorn that the federal level must fix everything for local economies when it's not given the power to tailor legislation to target states or local economies and issues.
So, no, they're not right, but the Founders were. If you want enfranchisement, stop forcing your ways on everyone else through federal legislation, and look at your state and local governments for solutions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
BM, I bet you're wrong. Global warming is happening, I tend to agree that man is contributing to it, and I think that we should deal with it, but not by attacking industry. I want Trump to do what is best, and that's about the most support that any president or congressman gets from me.
Now you're all off on a diatribe of leftist propaganda against conservatives.
-We welcome foreigners happily, but you need to do it legally and you need to go home on time or do your responsibility to get a legal extension.
-Progressivism isn't viewed as evil. In fact, progressives view anyone who isn't progressive as evil (such as you being a progressive with accusations of racism, intolerance and xenophobia). We think that progressivism is a movement predicated by ignorance and misguided and shallow idealism.
-The US brings to the table the most medical advancements per year, partly because we're pretty much the only nation left with $2 trillion flowing through its medical industry. This attracts many of the greatest minds in the world together.
-Conservatives do not believe the government does not have the right to (and no one has the right to) slave labor. You do not get my money to pay for someone else to do something for you. You do not get the government to force someone to work for you. Your rights in medicine end in what you can do for yourself. Everything else is privilege, whether it's a drug manufacturer giving you a $60,000 cure for Hep C for free or doctors and nurses donating their time at a free clinic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hadara69 "I won't assume you're a Trump chump if YOU don't assume I don't take shit seriously. How's that?" Well, your double negative convolutes the meaning of what you're trying to say. From what I think you're trying to say, expecting you to be completely close-minded is completely separate on whether or not you take it seriously.
All of those things you mentioned are in the preamble of the Constitution.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Driver's licenses and vehicle registration is handled by the states. You know this, I'm sure.
"It's easier to get an AK-47 than a driver's licence."
That's because ownership of an AK-47 is a natural right, while driving on publicly-funded roads is a privilege.
Following the Revolutionary War the Founders began debating the replacement for the Articles of Confederation. One major issue, a primary speaker on this subject being George Washington, was the limited impact the militia (citizenry with guns) had during the revolution. That if we were to not have a standing army, the militia needed to be better trained and organized -- "well-regulated". The result of this debate was Article 1, Section 8, item 16, "The Congress shall have Power ... To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress..."
This is what the preamble of the Second Amendment is referencing. It's the anti-Federalists reluctantly agreeing that it's better that the militias are trained. However, they wanted to ensure that this wouldn't be used as a pretense to disarm anyone outside of this newly-defined militia and hence the operative clause.
That you believe that this offers some caveat or handle which allows the government to determine who can own what weapons, you are "disposed to usurp" as plainly stated in Federalist 84 written by Hamilton, "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."
My final argument is that why do you think that the men who wrote the following things would be interested in providing power to the government to control who can own what arms: "...what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to William Smith, 1787). "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition..." (Benjamin Franklin, Reply to the Governor from the Pennsylvania Assembly, 1755). "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Translation: "I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787). "...the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, Federalist 46).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tazhienunurbusinezz1703 Interesting, because I'm not offended. I am, however, correcting you. What you avoided actually addressing is that fear drives us to continue to exist. You view fear, clearly, as a negative thing. But if it weren't for fear of starvation, why would you ever bother to put in the work to eat? If you didn't fear being bereft of permanency, why would you work to maintain an apartment? If you didn't fear not existing, what reason would you have to not just lie down and die? If it weren't for the fear of someone dying to a gun, why would you even have an opinion on this matter? Start by understanding your own fear, and how it drives you.
1
-
1
-
@tazhienunurbusinezz1703 And I don't care if you care. I don't type just for your sake. Others will read this, and maybe they'll get it. You're conflating fight or flight with fear. Yes, flight or fight instincts are triggered by intensely fearful situations, but that's not the end all and be all of fear.
"brains can & often do work very differently person to person"
Not that different, no. We're all, for the most part, pretty much the same, but an exhibition of a sum of different experiences. That's where the individuality arises. I think that's where a lot of people really might get tripped up. They can't see themselves ever being Nazi supporters, but had they grown up through the turn of the century in Germany, chances are good, they would have been. But no small number of people seem to have a drive to believe that humans are fundamentally different, either good or evil in their makeup, because they really can't fathom the alternative in themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrMezmerized Define "in public", because, generally speaking, yes. I think it's the specifics where you're getting hung up there. The NFA registry was closed with the Hughes Amendment (which was dogdily passed, see the CSPAN coverage of it -- it was a joke) and challenges to the Hughes Amendment will be coming through the SCOTUS before long. The Hughes amendment is exactly why liberty-minded people will never allow any legislation again that may even have a sniff of firearms registration. The Hughes amendment doesn't prevent me from manufacturing my own fully automatic weapons (nor any NFA weapons) -- they're just not transferable. With that all being said, all of these laws from the 1934 NFA on are illegal. Congress isn't granted the legal authority to make laws on gun ownership, full stop. They are making unconstitutional laws, and the SCOTUS has backed them up. And it's not just guns, it's immigration, drugs, warrantless spying, etc. as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chasjones5442 I would argue that providing a safety net for the irresponsible at the cost of others being able to construct their own safety nets is what's irresponsible. When the government is costing a company twice what they pay an employee, then take 20%+ of the employee's paycheck on top of that, it becomes difficult for a working person to save for themselves to not be dependent on the government for their care in the case of tragedy and retirement or to have the funds to start their own business or invest for their own retirement. We could have people working Walmart today full-time for $20-25 an hour with no taxes being taken out if it weren't for government interference who are the real thieves of wealth, for the reasons stated above, from the lower-middle, middle and upper-middle class.
I'm not far-right, but I am strongly anti-authoritarian (syncretic on the left-right spectrum). You and I are the solution to problems, not the government. The government is just as much our enemy as those companies that take advantage of people. In fact, I would argue that the government is the greater enemy of the two because the government is what provides legal protections for the decision-makers and those complicit in the egregious actions of those companies. A case in point: if Monsanto did not run under limited liability as protected by the government, and their executives could be found criminally responsible for knowingly selling a potent carcinogen in their Round-Up product, do you think that would likely have changed how that company's decision-makers did business? Even some sycophantic corporate lawyer at some point would likely say, "Yeah, I'm not going to jail for knowing that this shit's going down and not doing anything."
A person who does not have health insurance does not need to go to the ER for care. Not having insurance in the US does not mean you can't get access to healthcare. Education is key in a lot of things, and in this case it's true. If people were aware of their options, they could have a lot better outcomes. Clinics operating through local grants and voluntary charity provide much more efficient care than Medicare/Medicaid/ACA ever thought possible. Even a right-winger isn't against charity, but they are against government stealing in the name of charity. My grandparents were the epitome of what you'd probably view as a Trump voter. Rural Texas dwellers with American flags and Trump 2016 signs in their front yards sitting there, smoking cigarettes while watching FOX News and complaining about dem damn illegal immigrants. These two volunteered their time in their early retirement setting up, finding funding and talent for and running a free clinic in their small Texas town (this is just an example of their charity that they gave to their community, and far from it being all they did). Now that's human decency.
You're very much misunderstanding the SCOTUS's ruling on the matter regarding the First Amendment and the Constitution itself. I'm sure you've heard the paraphrase that your right to swing your fists around end where my nose begins. A person's liberty is unhindered until an actual infringement occurs. You can't be charged for yelling, "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, but you are responsible for the effects of that action (e.g. people are hurt/killed in a stampede). It's clear when you quote the case in question, Schenck v US, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." It's important to note here that the qualification is that the panic is caused. The individual who yelled, "FIRE!" would be responsible for the panic which ensued, not in itself the act of yelling "FIRE!" The Constitution indeed does provide us with the test of what is and is not allowed to be legislated on in both the Bill of Rights and Article 1, Section 8.
If you want to stop insurance companies, stop buying insurance. Cheaper for most people anyway to just pay out of pocket.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@arcadiaberger9204 Not at all defensive, but, yes, a bit miffed. I'm sorry about taking that out on you, and thanks for calling me on that. It's not fair to you. It just seems to me that something like these occurrences really should be common knowledge given the push to make these changes. People really should be made aware of the consequences of these changes so they can make well-informed opinions, but for some reason, a social worker being murdered as a direct results of these reforms is not making national headlines. And that's why I think that national media is on an agenda beyond just getting ratings, because there ain't no ratings like blood and controversy.
Republicans may have deregulated the requirements for impartiality in the 80's, and, yes, you could point to that being an issue... However, really, it comes down to what people like to consume. I agree we shouldn't be limiting liberty of the press because the average person engages better with drama, and a population taught early on in life better critical thinking and filtering skills would be so much better.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EveryoneWhoUsesThisTV The US has a lower homelessness rate than the UK, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Sweden, Luxembourg, France, Germany, and New Zealand. There are nations that are better than the US like Japan, Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein, Poland, Italy, Finland, Iceland, and Denmark. These range from 0.3 per 10K in Japan to 86 per 10K in NZ. The US is at about 17 per 10K.
Why would they would use such a racist metric as IQ?
We definitely do have a higher rate of murder though. I would blame that mostly on the injurious mala prohibita laws in place against things like drugs and prostitution giving rise to gang activity. Of the 12,000 - 15,000 or so murders a year, about 4,000 of those are estimated by the FBI to be gang related.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
voodooblue61 blue Again, that varies greatly from household to household. If you're living in the country, teach your kids about guns and gun safety as soon as possible, take them out shooting on a regular basis, etc., the chances that a tragedy will happen with a firearm is VERY low.
If you have a handgun for self defense, hide it from your kids, tell them to not touch it, didn't learn gun safety, etc., the chances are pretty high that a tragedy will occur.
That's what you don't get. It's not the same stats per household. That statistic, per household, will vary GREATLY. You were just successfully lied to by them using dishonest statistics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gabemendoza1052 No, you don't recall Trump doing that. That's the issue. Was the AP telling the truth? The videos exist of Trump denouncing up until that point. However, if you're just skimming headlines in CNN, MSNBC and the like, you're not going to see that. And that's what the real major issue is: You're being fed opinion without you knowing you are. And here's the ironic part: this is the fault of Republicans. They deregulated news in the 80's under Reagan to require by law clear demarcations of opinion and journalism as well as enforcing honesty and integrity. Were they wrong to do that? I can't say they were -- there's certainly an argument for First Amendment infringement therein. But without that legislation, it's up to us as a whole to demand better of our media. That is, the media will get better when we choose to consume better.
"It wasn't any coincidence either how hate crimes against minorities went up under his presidency."
I'm not sure about that. Hate crimes have historically been between about 7,500 and 8,000 incidents per year for decades. Trump topped out at 7,700 incidents per year. The only time there really was a statistically significant rise in hate crimes was following 9/11, where hate crimes shot up to 9,730 incidents in 2001.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CoryMck I missed this reply of yours earlier:
"That's not an argument.
" It's self-evident. Let's say you have $100, and I say, with a gun in your back, that you're going to give me $10, you would consider it a mugging without a doubt, regardless of how little I was asking for. For some reason, when the government does the exact same thing, exactly, you consider it justified.
"You think using the street is voluntary?"
I don't think you understand what voluntarism is.
"you think 100% of the population chooses to use them as if there are other options?"
100% of the population doesn't choose to use them. A vast majority do, however, choose to use them because it's worth it to them when compared to subsistence living.
"Also, it literally cannot be run very well seeing as how most of the benefits are not running well at all."
And what exactly is not running well at all?
1
-
1
-
@CoryMck "You said roads were built due to our voluntary actions, I said that your implication was stupid because roads are not voluntary." I volunteered to purchase fuel. The tax that builds roads is included in it. I have volunteered to pay that tax which builds roads by choosing to buy fuel. This is as opposed to working, having money given to me as proof of that work, then having the government force me to give up part of it or men with guns come and kidnap me.
"First of all, taxes has been a part of U.S. Law before any criminal code was." Income taxes were not, no. The first time income taxes came around was during the US Civil War. "appeal to law" It's not an appeal to law -- it's an appeal to morality. Similar since laws are founded from morality but fundamentally different nonetheless. When it comes to natural rights, morality is objective.
"Alright, so I guess you're truly not inhabiting this plane of existence." The link you sent agrees with me. The entirety of the budget is fine, except for that one thing being contested.
"U.S. Customs & Border Patrol stats showing that the non-issue (of Illegal Alien Apprehensions From Mexico By Fiscal Year) is already a declining non-issue. (The exact opposite of an emergency)." I'm not sure why you're even bringing this up. It's still only the one item of border wall funding that is hanging up the bill.
"Trump is an idiot, and he knows he can't fund that wall, so he's using Americans as a hostage." Ok? I agree, but that's nothing to do with anything we're talking about. Hell, in my principles, immigration policy itself is immoral and against the spirit of the United States. Why are you acting like I'm defending it when we were arguing whether the budget couldn't be passed because, "they couldn't find a way to fund everything that needed to be funded," as opposed to, "Trump just wants his wall and that's the only reason it's not being passed"?
"Are you saying that capitalism is incapable of addressing human rights, quality of life, environment, infrastructure, or health? Hmmm... that seems like a pretty important thing to note." Are you trying to infer that capitalism is a system of governance? Because it's ... not. Why would you even frame your reply like that? Let me sum it up with an allegory of what I'm seeing here:
Me: "Birds are awesome."
You: "Birds are not awesome. Fish are awesome."
Me: Nah, birds fly and make wonderful sounds."
You: "Are you saying birds are incapable of being dogs?"
Completely non-sequitur.
1
-
@CoryMck 1. You don't understand what voluntarism is. I've told you this, and you still haven't read up on it. That gas isn't always your gas until you trade for it, but your work is always your work. It's yours as an inherent trait of your existence.
2. No, that's the unbridled truth. You're busy engaging in uselessly splitting hairs because of who is doing it and with what authority when that question is already answered.
3. Maybe you should just read John Locke's Second Treatise of Government instead.
4. I didn't blame anyone. I said that Trump won't sign what the Democrats are willing to agree to. There's no blame placed therein, just the facts of the matter. That's your bias reading more into what I said than I actually said. In my personal view, $5 billion isn't a lot to agree to but the Dems aren't wrong to try to get something for it. If anything, I appreciate the fact that people are realizing that government shutdown isn't the end of the world.
5. That's not how funding in the Federal government works. Each year a bill is made and must be agreed on by both the legislative and executive branches of government or there is no budget. It doesn't matter if we have trillions in the coffers and our budget was well under our income, this would still happen if the legislative and executive branches can't agree on a bill.
6. No, that's the corporatism we've allowed to breed and have made only more powerful by providing government power over corporations. To quote Benjamin Franklin (presumably), "A republic, if you can keep it." The NRA and other groups (GOA etc.) are paid largely by those of us who are members, not by manufacturers. It's one of the few instances where government is being bribed to be honest. We're not just a democracy, so it doesn't matter if 95% want something. We're a constitutional republic, and the rights of the minority are protected in laws that are above the government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Quintinohthree "You've already effectively stolen from your own employees so it's only fair." I'd like you to explain this. Let me give an example from my point of view, and you can let me know where you think I'm wrong. Let's say I run a business mowing laws with one employee. I net $100,000 in one year, I pay my employee $25,000 for mowing, pay myself $50,000 and the remaining $25,000 goes into an account for rainy days (so my employee can get depend on his check during slow periods), expansion of the business to include new equipment and employees, petty cash to pay for repairs and issues as they come up, etc. Of course, I'm the one managing all of this, keeping the books, handling clients, management payment and billing systems, marketing, etc. etc. etc. How is all of that of an equal value as the guy that only has to know and is only responsible for pushing a mower back and forth? Why should we both be paid $37,500 instead of the way above?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Quintinohthree "General welfare" is a very subjective term, so I think you're overreaching. Some believe our militaristic and economic interventionalism is detrimental to international peace while others may find the same thing to be a for the greater good.
"I wouldn't mind giving up a tiny portion of my wealth"
No, like I said, half, very likely. Or actually a lot more than that. You'd probably be allotted $2,500 - $5,000 a year would be my guess.
"...how the employee created less profit than the employer."
No, I explained how the employer has done and continues to do, overall, significantly more than the employee, and therefore has a higher reward. Less risk, less work = same reward just doesn't make sense at all.
"I am not opposed to this." You're just a fool supporting an immoral system of theft by government, then. People here keep talking about how those of us against income taxes are duped into protecting the rich, but you're the ones duped by governments into pitting you against one another while they slide their hands ever deeper into your pocket, ignoring the entire time that politicians are some of the most significant non-producing earners (HUGE earners) in our society.
"...the exact profit..."
We know the exact profit. A lawn is mowed. The owner of that lawn doesn't have to mow it. That time saved for the owner of the lawn is spent doing other things, whether earning more or leisure. That's it. Take out the money if it confuses you. It's just for simplifying bartering anyway.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ericarogers3053 Hi, Erica. I do recall you from a couple of previous conversations -- notably the very long conversation over arms we had, IIRC. And, as I've made abundantly clear in our other conversations, you know I bring the rationalization and data to back up my points of view. I recall that you're wont to reject the data and rationalizations I bring without providing argumentation against it. We'll see how this goes.
I see that many don't understand what they're talking about here on both sides of this debate. However, there is very good precedent for being concerned about this issue.
First, CRT (critical race theory, not culturally responsive teaching) is an unproven hypothesis is the baseline. If you feel it's proven to work, feel free to provide evidence for it.
Second, there is historical precedent for being concerned about teachers who seek to implement these concepts into their teaching. We don't need to look back too far to understand why: Carol Dweck's "growth mindset." Dweck's research was sound and supported by experimentation (which is more than what you get with CRT). Despite this, educators and those who were influential to children such as coaches, misapplied her research. This ended up leading to the "everyone gets a trophy" mindset.
Dweck had discovered that when children succeeded at a task, praising them for their hard work over inherent ability resulted in happier children, even when failing a task, and children more willing to push themselves to try new and more difficult endeavors. When educators got hold of it, however, they dropped the requirement for success at a task, and started rewarding all children regardless of outcome. Children who did not succeed were showered with attention, given trophies, taken out for pizza and ice cream. The children who worked hard and succeeded started developing a sense that that hard work was valueless because you get all of the rewards either way.
I see the same thing happening with certain educators who are glomming onto CRT for use in their instruction. CNN's piece, "Why parents say they worry about critical race theory," has an interview with a teacher who states, "I'm teaching children to question America," and that's a problem. This teacher is not teaching good critical thinking and filtering skills in general. She's instructing her students to see America as a set of racist institutions. It's about tearing down instead of building up because it's a hypothesis that has fundamentally given up on institutions, seeing them as inherently racist, but which America is built on. This is the source for the conclusion, "America is founded on racism."
As part of CRT's hypothesis, the institutions of America prevent small changes from making a cumulative impact. Changes towards realizing racial equality through CRT must happen in quick, sweeping strokes and as much as at one time as possible. This is a dangerous and false logic. It provides context for failed experiments to not undermine the hypothesis, and sets the stage to fundamentally restructure the entirety of the US in order to find our if CRT even works or not.
And this is all assuming the cause that leads to the observed data is racism. For instance, it's been repeated that black people are shot by police at a rate disproportionate to their share of the population (with black representing 33% of police shootings, while representing 13% of the population). While that's true from a national frame of reference, if we dig a bit into the data, we see that police shootings almost always happen in urban environments, and notably it's an urban environment when a black person specifically is shot. When looking at the demographic breakdown of populations in urban environments, we find these locations are about 33% black. So which is more true? That's a good question, and a question that's drowned out in favor of violent reactions to the assumptive perception that the former is true.
As an aside, I would love to know what your avatar is. I always think it looks like a pill bug with goggles wearing samurai armor.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ericarogers3053 Ah, well, there you go then. If I'm clearly not even aware of what's going on, then it's much less likely to be me would be the reasonable conclusion. Or I'm just super smart, and it's all part of my master plan as a paid troll. I don't know, apply Occam's razor or something.
But, no, I'm not paid, I'm not a troll, nor am I from SA. I post my honest takes on things. I tend to disagree with TYT most of the time, but their opinion is shared by no small number of people, so it's important, I believe, to hear their opinions to better understand my world. I feel like I might have told you this before in one of our arguments. I can't be sure, but it's still true anyway. Nothing's changed therein.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ericarogers3053 Now mind yourself that you don't have such an ego that you believe you have the right way of seeing everything, and everyone that disagrees with you must be a troll. That might be the worst part of this, though. Since you've determined that I'm just a paid troll, you now feel that you can treat me as a piece of human garbage. Try to not be mean, at least. Regardless of what you think of me, I'm still a human back here. In the case that you're wrong, which remains a possibility regardless of how sure you are about me, you're just being mean for no reason other than my dissenting opinion from your own.
I've always shown you nothing but respect and treated you kindly, despite vehemently disagreeing with your view. I would appreciate that you at least reciprocate that basic level of respect. I'm not telling you what to do, but I am, I feel, well within reason to at least ask that you just not be mean-spirited.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cjgt77 The military, even in active war, makes up about 15% of the spending in the US. Compare that to the more-than 50% of spending that constitutes our three primary entitlement programs (social security, medicare and medicaid), and you'll see that you're already getting your way to a large degree (they're entirely the reason we're over $20 trillion in debt, so you can go ahead and add the 8% of total spending that the interest on our debt costs us solely due to these entitlement programs as part of their cost, bringing it to ). Providing coverage to those who are undercovered is a nice idea -- if you can reasonably afford it. Fining people hundreds of dollars for not having insurance, lying that they can keep their plan, forcing men to pay for women's healthcare coverage, raising premiums by hundreds, etc. are horrible things that came from the mess that is Obamacare.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bloodink9508 I've never seen John Wick so there's that. I learned the quote from reading about Vegetius.
"Thats not preparing for war, that’s shit negotiations with lots of contractors raking us all over the coals."
No, it's the reason we've had 5th generation air superiority fighters since the 90's and other nations are still just starting to develop theirs.
"No backpedaling linguistic games..."
It's not backpedaling; this is just me correcting your poor reading comprehension.
"Saying it in Latin makes you smarter by a factor of 10 to the -3 doesn’t it?"
Vegetius wrote it in Latin. It's popularly known in its Latin form.
Jefferson and Rousseau also wrote in Latin, "Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem," and I quote it in its Latin too.
"How about them tax dollars and using them to get rid of the grifter medical insurance agencies all together."
You'd have to pay a lot more in taxes. Currently, we spend about $2.5 trillion a year on health in the US, according to Kaiser research. No small portion of that funds R&D. The US spends about half of the world's spending on medical R&D. Some 60% of that is spent within the private industry and 40% is publicly funded research. I do not want that to go away to take care of people who are perfectly capable but choose to not contribute to society.
"No intelligent society would suffer their existence."
Which, as you seem unaware, would include Canada, Australia, and the UK. Because they all have private health insurance companies.
"Psuedo intellectualism."
Not near as often as you might think. I only call it out on people who arrogantly misuse calling out logical fallacies.
"You literally do google research, nothing more, but you’re gonna pretend to be high and mighty."
You need to at least learn the difference between a theory and a hypothesis before coming at me like that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, ANony Mouse, it's equality of the minority. And that sword cuts both ways, no matter who's in the minority.
"I have every respect for wisdom, its a known fact that as you get older you lean more toward a conservative view.
"Thats not wisdom that is just because as you get older, frail and more worried about yourself you get a more selfish outlook on life, understandably."
I would argue that it's because you start experiencing how the world really works, rather than being naive and thinking you know how the world really works. I think that humans develop from having a myopic view to a farsighted one. If what you say is true, then there would be even more of the aging population who would vote Democratic since they want to give out things for free.
"True but can you explain the numbers of countries of the western world that use a single payer type system?"
Yes, because it technically can be afforded, but there's always a trade off. If I just decide on a whim to pick up a chocolate bar at the store's checkout line in 1980 for 50 cents instead of putting that into an investment, that chocolate bar eventually cost you $50 by today. There's always a trade off, and it's usually costly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"first of when did he laud USSR andVenezuele, context would be interesting , because i doubt its as clear cut as youre describing."
That shows how little you know about Bernie Sanders.
"secondly, regardless of what he might or might not have said about countries above, his policies are much more in line with western europé and not in line with Venezuela or USSR."
I don't trust him. As I said, I think his policies are still very much the same, but he just doesn't flaunt them for political expediency. In short, he's doing what politicians do best: lie.
"So who cares if he calls himself a Marxist or Socialist? thats just a form of political correctness on your part, what matters are his policies, and Fox news and hive-minded morons seems totally unable to adress them without, for some reason, mentioning venezuela."
Because people who actually heard of Bernie Sanders before this past primaries have more knowledge on the matter than you do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@niclastname Well, despite how the Second Amendment is written, Congress isn't given the power to regulate firearms in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, so they're doubly wrong to even make a law regarding firearms. Also, what you deem to be limits in speech is simply being responsible for the consequences of your speech. If you cause a panic because you yelled "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, you're liable for the damage. That isn't regulating your ability to say fire, but only the consequences of it. Similarly, if you hurt someone with your gun, you're liable for the damage. Simply carrying the firearm cannot be considered injurious, just like saying fire in passing cannot itself be considered injurious to anyone.
The Second Amendment, nor any of the Bill of Rights, confers any legislative power to the government. Federalist No. 84 makes this painfully clear.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're strawmanning FOX News here. They took it as an attack against the founding principles and documents of our nation. Yes, they misread it and took it out of context, and that deserves pointing out. But Republicans aren't against immigration. That lie needs to stop, because it's basically libel and slander at this point. The #1 earners of citizenship and visas under Trump were Mexican immigrants. While I believe we should have open borders, just like with gun control, I understand the argument for safety in border control. However, liberty isn't safety. Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem, to quote Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Liberty isn't safe and it isn't easy, but it's right. No one who has broken a clear malum en se law deserves to be treated like a criminal in loss of rights to life, liberty, or possessions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@albertmooney2628 If it were up to me, we'd have open borders. But we don't. And I get the argument. Like I said in my original post, it's about safety. Same with gun control, it's about safety. But liberty isn't safe, right? So no gun control, no border control. Malo periculosam libertatem and all that jazz. What decreases the detentions and long family separations is not having thousands of people hit the borders at once while these laws are in place.
Anyway, focusing, I'm not saying that anything is in any way ideal. I am saying that people do come to the US quite often, it's primarily Mexican nationals doing so, this continued under Trump as it always has, there's clear evidence to back what I'm saying.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@albertmooney2628 "it is our immigration laws and policies that are causing the immigration crisis"
Yes and no. First, the immigration policy isn't what caused people to start a caravan to the United States. In their own words, I heard the claim that the United States was the source of their problems in their home countries, and so they're coming here. I have no idea what their rationale is for that claim, but that's what was heard verbatim.
Now, internationally, asylum seeking typically only extends to the first country you hit.
"the law that trump used to separate kids from parents has been on the books for ages yet no one other than trump interpreted the law in that way."
That isn't what happened. What happened was that Trump took a zero-tolerance stand with the caravan. Anyone caught entering the country without waiting and applying for asylum through proper means (and we could certainly lambast those "proper means" -- an English-only, 12-page form) would be prosecuted. This is what caused separation and the large number of people doing this is what caused long separations.
"increasing legal immigration decreases illegal immigration, decreasing legal immigration increases illegal immigration.
"
While true, what you're arguing here has really fallacious reasoning. Want to solve the murder problem? Make murder legal. Even though we're on the same side, and in fact I'm further left than what you put here, this is a dumb argument.
"there is a massive backlog of people waiting to come to this country legally we need more people at the border to process the legal immigrants."
That isn't what causes the backlog on legal immigration. Only so many are allowed to legally immigrate per year. A lottery is done to determine who is selected among applicants.
"people who live close to the border cross it all the time. people from mexico cross into the US, people from the US cross into mexico. the majority of immigrants to the US are not mexican nationals, immigrants come from all over central america. kinda seems like america wanted this immigration crisis since they spent so much time destabilizing that region."
Yes, in fact you don't even need a passport. You do have to get a temporary pass, though. We have a friend that lives near the border in Mexico, so I'm familiar. But we're not talking about specifically Mexican immigration. I'm not sure why you're bringing this up.
We have nearly 1 million immigrants come to the US each year by official channels. The issue is when they enter the country by the thousands, specifically, illegally. That's what overburdens the system.
"since they spent so much time destabilizing that region."
I hear that a lot. The presumption that the nations were stable in the first place is discordant with history. Feel free to review Peronism in Argentina, for instance. There was a honeymoon period for Peronism, certainly, but that honeymoon quickly turned into a nightmare.
1
-
@albertmooney2628 As liberty-minded as I am, I can at least say I understand the reasoning of safety for its citizens in the banning of illicit substances. I cannot hold anyone choosing that path as responsible for what crime arises from such an action.
As I said, your assumption that a nation's instability is the US's fault requires there to be stability beforehand. Name a country where there was stability beforehand. I will say, no, and link you to evidence to show it was already well into disarray before US involvement.
I re-reviewed the articles of the 1951 Refugee Convention, and you're right. They don't have to stop in the first country they come across. You're right, and I'm wrong. I fully concede that point.
Those in the caravan are the only ones with an actual right per law to come to the US outside of the normal legislated procedures. They're the only ones in question. Trump and Republicans believed this caravan was a crisis that was kickstarted through propaganda. They took actions in line with that belief. As far as not seeing massive amounts of children detained before Trump's EO's, I think we're now all aware of this gaffe: https://apnews.com/article/immigration-antonio-villaraigosa-north-america-jon-favreau-barack-obama-a98f26f7c9424b44b7fa927ea1acd4d4
"yeah just like if you want fewer illegal marijuana possessions you just make marijuana legal. illegal immigration by itself is a victimless crime, just people looking for a better life. there is no reason to treat illegal immigrants as hardened criminals."
Yes, but it's still a very weak argument. Making an argument to persuade me, who's already on your side, is pointless. Make arguments to persuade people who make these policies for the sake of safety and security. To argue, "Don't make it illegal then people won't be breaking the law," is not persuasive from their perspective. Well, yes, they would reason, but they consider it less safe then, so that's not going to happen. It's a very short trip.
"the solution is simple increase the processing power of the immigration system to vet and accept more immigrants. unless the entire point is to keep people out in which case you would be against legal immigration."
Again, the issue isn't processing power. When you staff a border gate, you staff for your every day traffic. Suddenly having 4000+ additional bodies requesting asylum will simply never work smoothly. It's quite literally a logistical nightmare. Budgets from the feds only come around once a year. Training takes time. Finding and hiring professionals takes time. And, yes, the solution is simple to you. It's simple to me too. But we're not going to get that solution as long as you stubbornly refuse to really understand the other side, instead constructing strawmen in your head to be angry at while you impotently wail in this echo chamber. I know that sounds harsh, and it is. I do put some bit of responsibility on people like you who practice such demagoguery and absurd, unrealistic partisanship which makes it even more difficult to move forward together. You really have to (and by that, I mean if you honestly care to help the situation) stop seeing the world we live in as a movie, and start understanding the gray complexity we all make up, regardless of political affiliation or beliefs. Make a genuine effort to truly understand the other side's views and feelings.
1
-
@albertmooney2628 I agree with you regarding drugs and alcohol, but no matter what you feel the laws should be, you can at least empathize with the desire of good that drives making such laws. Like I said, you would ban guns for safety -- this is no different. Banning guns has created a black market in gun trafficking and trade too. It creates a space for criminals to make money by them circumventing the law. Empathy for people you agree with is easy but also largely meaningless. Empathy for people you disagree with is hard and critical to reaching those people.
The US deported nothing in the 1980's and 1990's. They just minimized territorial disputes by desaturating the gang population and activity through the Crime Bill. The gangs are still very much alive here distributing illegal substances and goods and plying in the illegal prostitution trade and sex trafficking. The gang activity in Mexico is the same it's always been: cartels shipping products and goods north from South and Central America and illegal immigration. They also have their own local activities. Their primary schtick, however, has always been drug trafficking to the US and Canada. I was never in the game myself -- I was too smart for that, but living up in both the Puget Sound and Los Angeles in the 90's, you had to know people, and you had to know what was going on for survival. It definitely isn't an issue these days like it was, but I see here in Portland, Oregon the signs of this really stupid "Defund the Police" movement taking us back to that time, and that scares me, because that was a really bad time in American history that I was happy to see subside.
There were 4,000+ additional people hitting the border all at once. Of course it took an exceptionally long time to process claims. And, like I mentioned before, the process is not at all an easy one for immigrants seeking asylum, which also exacerbated the crisis. Absolutely that is Republican policy, as they only desire already successful and contributing members of society to come in -- not poor people who they feel will soak up aid that should go to citizens (whether or not there is reality in that, I understand the point of view). Also, I'm not even trying to pretend that Trump handled the crisis well, but I'm also not trying to pretend that would have been anywhere near easy for any president to manage while abiding by our immigration laws. As far as the picture, the AP (source of the picture) doesn't explain why those children are in the cage, so you're just speculating.
Immigration lawyers as you think of them are not staffed by the DHS. Lawyers are hired by the DHS to support their side, not the side of the immigrant. Independent immigration lawyers are the ones that work with immigrants to help them with paperwork and to guide immigrants through the process. In fact, up until the Jan. 2020 decision in Doe v Wolf (Case 19-cv-2119-DMS (AGS) in the Southern District of California), asylum-seekers didn't even have a right to counsel as immigration is a civil, not criminal matter. This ruling, however, will not be in effect until the Secretary of DHS gives up the appeal or the SCOTUS rules in agreement on the matter. This case is ongoing, meaning asylum-seekers still do not currently have a right to counsel. Even if that passes, if there simply are not enough lawyers in the market for to handle 4,000+ additional asylum-seeking immigrants hitting the borders within a short period of time, there is simply not enough lawyers. I'm pretty sure I mentioned this before, what holds legal applicants is not a lack of processing -- it's a hard limit on the number of legal immigrants allowed into the US per year. And, to reiterate again, I agree with an open-borders policy, but that's not where we are right now. We have to understand the world as it is -- not as we wish it to be.
1
-
@albertmooney2628 Yes, the path to hell is paved with good intentions, which is all the more reason it's important to be able to reach those people with those misplaced but good intentions -- and you can't do that through demonization, dehumanization, and persecution. As far as gun control advocates, the legislation I buck is the legislation which inhibits the rights of the law-abiding with the hopes that it also affects the unlawful.
The reason that MS-13 members were deported to El Salvador is because they're from El Salvador. They originated to protect the Salvadoran community against gang activity until they themselves became corrupt and engaged in gang activity. Vivo por mi madre, muero por mi barrio. El Salvador wasn't a nice place even when those deportations started. As far as illegal/legality, I'm unsure why you're continuing to argue that point with me. I've already made it abundantly clear that I agreed with you on this before I we even engaged in this conversation.
You've a right to legal representation in criminal matters, but not civil matters, as I said. The Constitution states, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to ... have the assistance of counsel for his defense." This is why if you have to sue someone, the dime for a lawyer is on you. Immigration is considered a civil matter. Specifically illegal immigration is a misdemeanor and a criminal matter, but that defense does not extend into legal immigration.
And you're right that it's not healthy to just accept the law, and it's best to change it to how it should be. However, you're not going to accomplish that unless you become an effective persuader of those who disagree with you, right? Those who disagree with you will continue voting into office people who will vote against you in the legislature unless you persuade them to do otherwise. Does that make sense to you, or do you see this as gibberish?
1
-
@albertmooney2628 What other right do you require training for? Do you require training for a voting marker, to me a clearly more deadly instrument than a gun? What is the rate of accidental homicides that warrants said training? If we feel a right requires training, why not make it part of the already compulsory portion of secondary education? I don't think those committing suicide or murder with a gun need further understanding of a bullet through human flesh, as they seem to have grasped that concept fully, so it appears to me to come down to negligent use. But then prevention of such accidents is found in the 4 basic rules of gun safety:
1. Always treat a gun as if it's loaded.
2. Never point a gun at anything you're not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger away from the trigger with the safety on (if applicable) until you're ready to fire.
4. Be sure of your target and what's beyond it.
I'm not sure that they would require some great amount of time and effort to learn. I suspect you just learned that in about 30 seconds.
The Salvadoran civil war was because of local politics, not international politics. The US backed the established military junta government at the start of hostilities. What gets me is you trying to paint MS-13 as a victim of circumstance. They chose for themselves to become one of the most ruthless international gangs that's ever existed. No one chose that for them. Yes, US policy sets a stage and environment -- and there's fault in that, but we can't allow that fault to make exempt the personal responsibility therein.
When it comes to Iran, let's remember that the issue was a UK issue. The US benefitted from Mossadegh's nationalization of oil as that was once BP oil we'd have to spend more on. The US became involved late, and by that time Mossadegh had dissolved parliament and stripped the Shah, a personal ally of the US, of his powers.
What something seems like has no bearing on what it is. Define what a fair and speedy trial is. Doubtless a court would rule that resources can be a limiting factor in how speedy a trial may be, and that as long as the wait is not in excess given what resources are available versus the caseload to be handled, it would not violate the right to a speedy trial. I suspect if case law exists, the reasoning would follow along those lines. If you push, I will look up the case law on the matter. Otherwise, even though I've got all the time on my hands I could want because I'm recovering from surgery, I really just don't feel like looking right now (and I will have pizza being delivered shortly on top of that, so it's not a good time to start a large research project).
Anyway, my excuses aside, you didn't address what a primary point to you in my last reply was: making effort to learn to persuade others who are in disagreement. Does what I had argued make any sense to you? Do you find it rational what I presented to you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jftt42 I present to the tyrant-in-training Federalist #84, "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Aaron, we didn't even have income tax in the Gilded Age. And I don't even understand the point of taking 94% of someone's money. Why not just say, "Hey, you can make this much, and anything you make over that we're taking from you"? 94% (which is the highest a marginal income tax rate's ever been) is pretty much exactly that. That's exceeding all sense in an income tax. The crazy thing is that our rates aren't much different from that of the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Luxembourg, Finland, France, or any number of other nations you could think of.... And I'd love to know how you think Switzerland even survives with its 13% income tax and 17% corporate tax.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lisakaz35 As I mentioned to xybersurfer, you can't look at it with perfect 20/20 hindsight of it being an innocuous house showing and expect to come to a rational take on the situation, because the police at the time they took these actions were unaware of what was going on. That means that at the time they took those actions, he could have had bear spray and a knife. If he were up to no good and hadn't the ability to cooperate over a reasonable period for an investigation and arrest, leaving him uncuffed could result in such a person attacking police, resulting in a shooting. A much worse outcome if that turned out to be the case, versus handcuffing as quickly as possible for the duration of the investigation.
How do you know this hasn't happened to whites? Why would that make even local news if it happens to a white person? I'm white, and I've been questioned by police, with gun drawn, while delivering food late at night. That didn't make even local news. I was stopped once by an officer on a trumped-up traffic claim because she thought I was actively attempting to avoid her. That doesn't make even local news either. And I'm a white guy, not in any particular dress that should indicate I'm up to no good, driving a late-model Honda Insight hybrid. I'm as white as sour cream, and because of the nature of my job, my activities raise suspicion on occasion. I would not suspect that it would be very different for any other white person with a job that includes what's out of the ordinary for standard civilian movement outside of those wearing a clear uniform.
That's not to say some people don't have the police called on them solely because they're black, or that black people are treated equally by all people. What I am saying is that just because it's a black person that was the subject of investigation, assumption of racial motivation should not be the go-to. Instead, it should be a question and only determined to be the case upon the conclusion of an investigation into the matter. I would argue, in fact, that shoehorning something to be racially-motivated before all the information is in or otherwise not sharing pertinent and key information is harmful to racial justice. This moral is perfectly illustrated in the children's story of The Boy who Cried Wolf. Reasonable people don't listen when it's important when they've been played for the fool time and again by false claims.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lisakaz35 Here you are preaching about me assumptions, and you go off assuming my political stances and biases.
If someone is doing something wrong, the longer something goes on, the better the chance they'll find the courage to make a break for it. You may say, "Yes, but these people did nothing wrong," but the police don't know that until they finish the investigation, will they? The investigation took all of 5 minutes, they uncuffed them and apologized.
And my argument is that if a suspect is cuffed immediately, it's safer for everyone involved, including the suspect, because, if they were the type to engage in risky behavior, they'd be less likely to do so while cuffed.
In a rundown of my views, since they seem important to you:
-Ashli Babbitt: Despite what her lawyers said, she was clearly told on video to get back/get down out of the window. The shooting was justified.
-Ahmaud Arbery: He was not criminally trespassing (or even simple trespassing from what I've seen), making the two in the truck brandishing at him cause for valid self defense. Since Georgia is a Stand Your Ground state, Ahmaud had no duty to try to run away before attacking in defense of himself. His death is clearly murder.
-Michael Brown: Tough call since we don't even have any tape of that one, but the autopsies and all information I've seen is that Darren's story at least provides plausible cause for self-defense. Since our system is supposed to be innocent unless proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I'd find him innocent of murder.
-Freddie Gray: I can't see any valid reason that he would have died after being in police custody, but I'm not very familiar with the case.
-George Floyd: From what I've seen of the footage review and the autopsy reports, he was murdered. I understand also he had fentanyl in his system and was resisting getting into the cruiser. I understand subdual techniques being used because of that resistance, but subdual techniques are to illicit compliance. Once compliance is attained, whatever subdual needs to stop. That's how any standard use of force continuum works. As such, I'm unable to see any reasonable doubt that holding him through and past death, well beyond compliance was attained, did not exacerbate whatever other issues may have been occurring to lead to his death. I would find them guilty of murder at worst and criminal neglect for those who stood by and did nothing at best.
-Ma'Khia Bryant: From what I saw of the various footage, the officer attempted to start a discussion to understand what was happening at the scene. Ma'Khia, weilding a knife, shoved one woman down and stood over her brandishing the knife. The officer held his fire until Ma'Khia ran after the second woman in pink and raised her knife hand as though she was about to stab the woman in the pink jumpsuit in the neck. The officer then opened fire. Sadly, I couldn't imagine that there has been a more justified shooting in the defense of another.
-Eric Garner: Despite the fact that he committed a crime of selling single ciggs on the street corner (and I'm just giving the police this argument, because it doesn't matter in my mind to what happened next), he was not only placed in a choke hold against department policy and (IIRC) was even illegal, but it was done with poor technique, the officer barring his forearm right across Eric's throat (this hold, when done properly, restricts blood flow through the jugulars causes a loss of consciousness in a matter of seconds, the goal of the hold isn't to cut off airflow or injure the person permanently). And don't get me started that selling single ciggs on a sidewalk is against the law in the first place.
-Breonna Taylor: It wasn't no knock despite the warrant allowing for it. I feel the charges and conviction were unfounded as the police were under fire, and it's reasonable that they would return fire. I feel that Breonna Taylor would not have been a victim if she wasn't into the dark trinity types and into that type of activity herself.
-Philando Castile: As much as I applaud him for carrying a weapon and being licensed, he clearly fell asleep during his CCL class. First, you don't carry while under the influence. That's illegal. He should know that from his class. Second, you're taught when you get your CCL that you inform the police first that you're licensed to carry, then advise them you have the weapon on you and ask how they would like to proceed. You don't reach for your wallet, then say, "Oh, I have to tell you I'm carrying," and keep reaching for your wallet while being told to stop reaching multiple times. That's just pretty much suicide by cop at that point, literally ignoring all training... I agree with the firing of the officer, because he should have been able to have the presence of mind and nerves to assess the situation much better, but I don't find it criminal in the least.
-Tamir Rice: This was a major failure on the part of the 911 dispatcher. The 911 dispatcher was clearly advised 911 that the caller believed the gun was not real, but the dispatcher did not relay that critical information to police. They did not even intimate to the police that All the police understood was that they were seemingly responding to an active shooter event. With Tamir's response to be to approach the police car and reach into his waistband for the Airsoft pistol, I can't fault the police as they acted appropriately on the information they had, but I can fault the dispatcher for withholding life saving information.
You get the idea.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thanks for that quote. It provided me with firepower against your argument.
"But if the moral precepts, innate in man, a made a part of his physical condition, as necessary for social being, if the sublime doctrines of philanthropism, and deism taught us by Jesus of Nazareth in which all agree, constitute true religion, then whithout it, this would be, as you again say, 'something not fit to be named, even indeed a Hell.'"
To our Founding Fathers, Christianity is deism. Thanks again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Are you one of these Russian trolls that Mueller was investigating?"
Did you fact check what I said?
Dianne Feinstein following the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
Jan Schakowsky was interviewed and said that an assault weapons ban was just the beginning and that she was against handguns.
Hillary Clinton has said I don't know how many times in the past two years that weapons of war have no place on our streets, and Barack Obama has given the same spiel.
Five years ago the official playbook for gun control advocates was leaked. This included, "EMPHASIZE THAT BANNING ASSAULT WEAPONS COULD BE A PIVOTAL
STEP IN RESTORING COMMON SENSE TO AMERICA’S GUN LAWS."
This guide recommends that when someone says, "This is just a first step. Once they ban these weapons, they’ll be coming after your handguns and your rifle," the recommended response is, "The NRA should just come out and say it: there are no weapons so dangerous that they shouldn’t be on sale at your local gun shop."
My personal favorite is the thing that seems to be the go-to for any liberal when championing an agenda, "DON’T ASSUME THE FACTS – AND DON’T WAIT FOR THEM."
"POINT TO SOLUTIONS – ... BANNING ASSAULT WEAPONS AND HIGH
CAPACITY MAGAZINES AND ENFORCING THE BAN ON FOREIGN-MADE
ASSAULT WEAPONS..."
Actually review what someone's claims are. Don't make a fool of yourself assuming someone's wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nout4812 I'm not even sure what to say that was all you walked away with.
Let me break down the various sentences of supporting argumentation given that you apparently missed:
"...we agree to be under governments to be better off, not worse off. As such, everything we had and could do outside of government (which didn't infringe on another's like enjoyment of the same abilities) are a duty of a just government to protect--not infringe on"
Unless you agree to be under government to be worse off than if government didn't exist, you must concede this premise, and the logic that follows that premise is true.
"[Natural rights] are so-called negative rights because they require INaction from legislative authority to preserve these things."
A thing that exists without the need of a human action is a base state of nature and exists as part of the human being independent of human reasoning.
" If there exists an infringement, as soon as infringement stops, all rights are restored, because they exist regardless of forceful infringement--they never cease to exist."
When human intervention stops, the right is restored. Nothing was, in fact, taken. It was merely suppressed. When the oppression stops, the rights, which existed all along--during and before oppression, are enjoyed again. That can only happen if they always existed, regardless of infringement. Otherwise they would have to be returned or restored through some other human action other than INaction.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Michael Mansheim To handle this first, machine guns aren't banned. There are over half a million registered machine guns in private hands. There are over 2.2 million destructive devices in private hands (which includes grenades, RPG's, mines, and the like). In fact, here's a small number of those privately owned arms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uUNL6rW-Ck
The Second Amendment wasn't made by the Founding Fathers, it doesn't grant any right, nor does it even need to be written in the Constitution for the right to keep and bear arms to be protected. This is true for all of the Bill of Rights.
When the Founding Fathers wrote down the Second Amendment, people owned fully armed and staffed warships. There were pirates that abused this right as well. Rather than killing some people in a school or theater or at a concert, they would lay siege to entire coastal cities with these ships. This didn't change anything then, and weaponry that is actually less dangerous wouldn't change anything now. I doubt you'd even be for people privately owning frigates with 48 functioning cannons without needing even a background check.
I have solutions in regards to mass shootings. I'd be willing to discuss them with someone who at least understands that the government has absolutely no legitimate power to infringe on natural rights, under no circumstance, even in the name of safety.
If you don't support all weapons, then you don't support the Second Amendment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Numa, minimum wage in 1965 was $1.25 an hour. That's $216 a month gross, with a net of $183 with a tax rate of 15%. An apartment cost an average of $118 a month. After paying rent, you'd be left with $65 for the month to pay your other bills and purchase necessities. You wouldn't be going to college, because the Pell grant and government guaranteed student loans didn't exist until the end of 1965. You certainly wouldn't be working at McDonald's, affording a small house, and going to college.
These days, you could be living by yourself in an apartment, getting paid a couple thousand dollars to live off of for each school semester through government-backed loans and grants, making up to $1,000 a month from minimum wage after taxes. That sounds a lot better to me than 1965.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@durk3e Ok, the data is out there to escape from your ignorance. Check The COVID Tracking Project.
From March 15th through April 21st, the number of daily deaths spiked up. From there, it dropped from April 22nd through July 6th, daily deaths dropped rapidly by 80% (~2,500 deaths per day peak to ~500 deaths per day).
After this, through August 6th, there was a rise in the number of deaths per day up to a peak of about 1,250 deaths per day. Since then, it's been steadily falling. In the last two weeks, the number of COVID deaths per day has been about even.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I never read the pedophile thing, but this media outlet and others are consistently bullshitting about Breitbart. I never even heard of the site before Trump. I checked it out and it's nothing like what TYT, Buzzfeed, Mother Jones, and other media with zero journalistic integrity would have you believe. Yes, they're right. They are not white nationalists. In fact, Buzzfeed posted a list to prove, in part, that Breitbart was racist. One article they posted was actually titled "The Racist Pro-Nazi Roots of Planned Parenthood". You can't make this up people. They actually posted this from a pro-lifer site to prove, in part, they were racist Nazis. Of course, this article was to prove they're misogynistic, but you're expected to ignore the fact that they clearly view racism and neo-Nazism as bad.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Every kid that was a teen through, what we called, The Gay 90's used that word liberally along with "gay" as a derogatory term for some event being crappy. We just weren't overly sensitive over such nonsense. We were able to actually understand the nuance of how someone was using the word -- whether it was intending to be hateful to homosexuals or not. And, yeah, we definitely took appropriate offense to anyone using it as a hateful slur towards the group.
Actors are a special breed. Well, very popular people in general are. They can't just get out and about. You ask someone if they've been living under a rock; well, they are living under rocks because they literally can't just live a normal life when they're that popular. You realize how different, and kind of sad, it is when you hear things like Sean Astin never having even heard of J.R.R. Tolkien or The Lord of The Rings before he played Samwise. We couldn't fathom that. But being the son of Patty Duke and John Astin makes for a very unique life from the one we know.
And I found this interesting:
Ana: "You can't judge everyone based on the bubble you live in..."
Also Ana: "tHe FoUnDiNg FaThErS OwNeD sLaVeS!!!111"
Yes, Ana, that was the global economy of the time. Ignore the fact that the Revolutionary War was, in part, to try to end the institution of slavery. But you keep judging from your bubble when it suits you, and saying we shouldn't think anachronistically in other cases. Given your age, I imagine it's because you have a proxy guilt here is why you're gentle on your judgment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BrandonSmith-rb1bf I know you know better than to think there are easy solutions to the problem. And you should know better than to argue that there is no problem. You look at this boxing matchup in particular, and you can patently see the gross disparity in build, speed, and power. This is a match up that should have never happened. But where do we draw that line? Sexual dimorphism exists in humans--that's just a fact of nature. That dimorphism is from a genetic expression on a bimodal distribution that has many factors impacting it.
We could say everyone competes together, thereby removing any opportunity of any woman or trans person from ever being able to compete at the top levels of sports.
We could say that we cut off at certain hormone levels, but even that causes an issue, because developing under a typical male hormone environment will still retain a significant portion of those advantages even after years of HRT.
And how do you test for doping-like hormonal advantages without potentially cutting out those born as women who are a new peak of female athleticism, denying them the success that they deserve?
There's no easy solution, but also just going by someone saying, "I'm a woman," and then allowing them to go on to dominate a woman's league or going by genitalia regardless of clear hormone environment are not tenable solutions. And some people--not necessarily meaning you here if this isn't you--seem to be content just letting this happen until a normal woman does get killed in a pugilist sport because she's put up against an opponent hitting way above that women's weight class.
We have zero solutions, and that doesn't mean we just go forward with putting women in undue danger or taking away opportunity from them. We could stand spending a lot more time thinking about this rather than bickering about whether or not there even is a problem.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@himerosTheGod No, populism is bad full stop. Populism is how you get political parties. Parties unchecked is how you get extremists. See George Washington's Farewell Address that warned about this, even presciently stating it would give rise to someone exactly like Trump:
"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
"This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
"Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
"It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
"There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Supernov4 Yes, he's talking about violence, but he's not talking about "bullying, theft, murder, rape, etc." as the OP stated. When I was growing up, some of the best and strongest friendships I found started with a knock-down, drag-out, heated brawl of unbridled hatred for one another. If you're not a guy, I can't expect you to understand, and if you were never in such a situation, I also can't expect you to understand.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Supernov4 Evolution narrowly "categorizes" things. Any silverback gorilla you look in the eye is going to take that as a threat. Humans work the same way -- our basic instinctual emotions are all the same, delineated by sex. We can only try to convince ourselves that we're above our nature, but unless we're some alien cross-breed, we're no more or less evolved than any other creature on the planet -- we just have larger brains than most. That does not mean we have the ability to directly control our emotions.
I've never presented my opinion as fact. In fact, you chided me for not presenting my opinion as fact, and now try to say that I'm trying to present my opinion as facts. The only thing I said that was fact is that our nature as men is about violence, a reduced self-preservation drive and strong emotions (summed up when I said, "our nature"). These are indeed facts easily empirically verifiable to anyone through any history book. Your argument is, "Well, that's just acting stupid." If you want to have a logical debate, I would say the burden of proof is on you to prove that men aren't these things, because common knowledge is on my side.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lornekay8948 Last year, the top 1% filed 1,432,952 returns with an average AGI of $2,301,449. That $3,297,865,000,000 represents 21.0% of the share of AGI. They paid $615,979,000,000 in income taxes. Individual taxes account for about 41.5% (2019 -- most recent data I could find) of the federal government's revenue. The government in 2020 brought in $3.71 trillion. 41.5% of that is $1,539,650,000,000. $615,979,000,000 / $1,539,650,000,000 = 0.4001.
What disingenuous places like TYT do is conflate wealth with income to confuse you. Wealth comes from things like property or stock value increases. They're not cash with which to pay taxes. Yes, the system is built to encourage safe, long-term investments, reducing tax burden the longer a stock is kept. When we retire and cash out our 401K's, we average people benefit a lot from that system.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
gartner, Italian fascism was a bloodless coup (socialists, however, were involved in extremist attacks). Nazis in Germany were democratically elected, the monarch in Bulgaria declared totalitarian power without revolt (however, there was a violent coup d'etat by communists in 1944), Spain was a socialist revolt...
I'm not going to go through all of your examples, but it seems like you got everything wrong.
Don't think I didn't see your changing of the goalposts in your most recent post. "However, there are countless examples of violent right-wing overthrows of democratic societies," is what you said, not, "examples of right-wing rebellions overthrowing democratically elected governments." I like how you left out "violent" in the second post after I challenged your ridiculous position.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Steven Van Hulle, federal sales tax/VAT. If we didn't have entitlement programs, in 2015, we would have spend about $1.3 trillion instead of $3.8 trillion. Without income taxes, we have made about $640 billion, leaving a deficit of about $660 billion. People spend about $6.4 trillion a year less donations, food, gas, and healthcare. A 15% VAT tax on that spending figure would bring in $960 billion. This would create a surplus of $300 billion. Our current debt is about $13.6 trillion. If we paid the surplus to buy back that debt, the US would be debt free in 46 years. This would free up even more money not having to pay interest on that debt which costs the US about $230 billion, increasing our surplus to $530 billion. If we included food, gas, and healthcare in that, we would make over $2.5 trillion instead of $960 billion. If we had a VAT tax equal to the UK of %20 and included those aforementioned items, the Federal government could bring in about $3.4 trillion. That would create over $2.7 trillion in surplus. That would allow us to pay off the national debt in 6 years. Then the interest payments would stop and the surplus would be almost $3 trillion in surplus. Half the surplus could be paid back to the people, and the rest put in the coffers for rainy days. Every person in the US could get a an annual check for $4687.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bunnyslippers817 1. As soon as the WHO declared an international health emergency, Trump did act to the extent that he had power to act.
2. Trump said in Jan and Feb that the press was blowing it way out of proportion. To be frank, given the information we had at the time, the press was indeed seriously hyping it. The information we had at that time made nCoV-19 look less deadly than H1N1, and that didn't need containment at all.
3. No branch of the federal government, executive or otherwise, has power to force states to shut down.
4. The initial study (I believe from France) showed a positive effect from hydroxychloroquine. That's when Trump mentioned it. A subsequent study from China found no correlation. I would not expect Trump to be smart enough, as with most people here, to understand that one or two small studies are in no way conclusive of anything. There is a new paper, however, that did show a positive effect from hydroxychloroquine. It's still far too early to tell. Causative studies have shown that hydroxychloroquine does have the mechanisms to assist with viral pneumonias, but even in malaria studies (hydroxychloroquine has a much lower LD50 than chloroquine, making it an enticing replacement for the latter) the data is mixed.
5. The idea that it would go away in the summer came from the knowledge that coronaviruses tend to not handle warm, humid environments very well. They typically become deactivated fairly quickly in those conditions. It was the hope that this coronavirus would follow suit; however, this coronavirus is possibly showing that it is heartier. It's still far too early to come to a conclusion on the effect the summer will have on the virus.
1
-
@bunnyslippers817 1. Trump is limited in what he can do from the executive office. Most of these things are state-level responsibilities.
2. No, the press were hyping it, not sounding the alarm. It wasn't known at the time that it was more infectious than previous pandemics. You can't take information we have now, and judge the actions of the past prior to that information being had. They had the same information we all had, and that information led everyone to believe it wasn't that bad. Now we know that it's been around since November or October, not Dec 31st when China first disclosed the infection to the WHO. It was very likely already here and spreading before anyone outside of China had even heard of the virus. It wasn't until late February that extra measures started being taken because the truth was just starting to come out of Italy.
3. No, Trump was actively saying, "It's a state matter." The failures are on governors like Cuomo, Newsom Abbott and Desantis. Inslee up in Washington did pretty well considering how hard they were hit early on. We've done fairly well here in Oregon.
4. This isn't conceding that Trump failed to act on advice, but that he made an assumption on one, small study.
5. First of all, you can't kill something that's not alive. Viruses are deactivated, not killed. Hot, humid weather doesn't inhibit severity of symptoms, but inhibits infection by deactivating viruses in the air and on surfaces more quickly. The number of deaths is irrelevant to the heartiness of the virus.
Let me ask you, what should Trump have done then? Unconstitutionally forced states to shut down? He managed the international travel, and that's what's in his purview.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RHINOSAUR 1. He's part of the militia per Title 10 Sec 246 of the USC. In seeking to prevent damage to innocent people from open rebellion, he was carrying out his civic duty.
2. The argument is that the gun did not cross state lines, and even if it did, see Argument 1.
3. See Argument 1. As Psaki said, federal law overrides state law.
4. Neither castle doctrine nor stand your ground laws apply here because Rittenhouse attempted to flee from Rosenbaum until Rosenbaum reached him and grabbed him. This would, if there were such a law on Wisconsin books, even reasonably satisfy a duty to flee law on the books.
5. None of that matters. Self defense is moment to moment. On legal technicality, it doesn't matter if Kyle posted that he was chomping at the bit to shoot every rioter out there. What matters is whether or not a reasonable person would believe that they were about to receive grievous bodily injury at the time the defendant shot.
The first question is was Rosenbaum using force to stop a violent incident incited by Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse was running from Rosenbaum, so I don't see how that could be the case.
If it's determined that Rosenbaum was shot in self defense, that means that Grosskreutz nor Huber were within legal authority to use violence to stop or disarm Rittenhouse. Since they were not lawful in inciting that violence against Rittenhouse, the claim of self defense stands here as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CoryMck Apparently you have no idea what imperialism is. Wiki sums it up well, "Imperialism is policy or ideology of extending a nation's rule over foreign nations..." Last I checked, South Korea rules itself with unhindered sovereignty. England, France, Netherlands, Spain, Germany, The Soviet Union, these were imperial powers.
"with the intent of violent regime change" With Afghanistan, its government was overthrown with a communist coup. With Vietnam and Korea, we were supporting the established governments who were being attempted to be overthrown by communists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@philesq9595 If there were such a news source as you describe--one that provided reliable and accurate news--it wouldn't be left or right. It would just be a journalistic news source. The fact that a news source can be labeled as left or right is in itself a derogatory, at least to me, adjective used to denote an organization that promotes the sacrifice of journalistic integrity for the sake of politics.
"...and more than half living in poverty..."
No. That would be left-wing bias you're repeating here. I did do some research on that. There are nowhere near even 50% of the US population living near or below the poverty line. That was easily verified as false through the HHS. Those living at or below the poverty line is at a little under 10% of households (about 12.3 million of 122.8 million households). If you include incomes up to twice the poverty line, then you get to about 50%, which is $25,000 a year for a single-person household, $35,000 a year for two-person household, or $43,000 a year for a three-person household. It's also only part of the story. If these individuals live in a large city, they would surely struggle on such incomes; however, one you move into rural areas, these incomes are much more reasonable. So to understand how these incomes impact individual households, we have to determine where they are geographically. Looking at this from another perspective, even being at 200% of the poverty line is destitute in a place like Los Angeles, so understanding the geographic locations of these earners can reveal how much of that 50% is struggling.
As far as Crowder or Shapiro, I don't find them very appealing, even as a source to understand right-wing points of view. Crowder has the mildly intriguing "Change My Mind" schtick, but I only trust him to put interviews on there that he thinks he soundly defeats. I'd be interested more to see the B-reel of those setups. Despite its dubious source, I watch them from time to time because it does include honest and open discussion of hot-button topics, giving at least some semblance of active discussion occurring therein.
Relative positioning does not make something "not hot garbage", or even really any better. It could be very well just as bad in different ways (that is, ways that confirm your established bias). It's like giving someone a choice between the meal of a turd and a rotten, raw chicken corpse. While, yes, the rotten, raw chicken corpse may appear at first blush as recognizable food over the feces which would never be considered food--at least not by humans--it's still not good to eat.
1
-
@philesq9595 I never said anything about right-winger education level, traditional or autodidactic. This isn't the first time here you've assumed that because I attack the far left's shortcomings that I must be accepting of the right's point of view. The difference is, this isn't a right-wing channel. The right gets pounded enough by everyone here. I don't mind busting up that echo chamber by being a vociferous dissenter, challenging beliefs and in turn getting valuable feedback from those that believe differently from myself. I believe in what I believe in. I don't believe in something because it's considered left or right.
Do I think that TYT's audience hasn't read philosophy? I haven't taken a census of TYT's viewers, but it's been my experience in life in general, that many people, regardless of who they are or what they believe politically, are not very well read at all. Those that claim to be well-read are filled up on fiction novels. I'm sure that those at TYT are very much experts in whatever career fields they are in, whether those careers required a traditional education or they learned along the way, but to be well-read on Enlightenment philosophy requires one to go out of their way to find the material and read it. Tell me, of those books, treatises and records I mentioned, what have you personally read?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@philesq9595 Why anyone would opt to receive pre-digested narrative is beyond me, but it's a phenomenon nonetheless. A rather widespread one. But this type of thing is to be expected with party politics allowed to run amok. You get otherwise perfectly fine people falling victim to this mentality. As Washington said, "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism."
It's truly sad that what you would choose to harass me over is my bucking against towing party lines. Is it that much of an affront to you that people should think for themselves on all matters as they see fit that I'm so deserving of your scorn in that specific matter?
A trollish position? Disagreeing is not trolling. Calling TYT out that they should be better is not trolling. If you're a learned person, then when Cenk said "joon-toe", it was bad enough, but when he said "hoon-toe", you had to have cringed. The man couldn't spend two seconds on his phone to do a Google search to find the word was Germanic in origin. TYT exists because that's what's being consumed. It's being consumed because you love smoke being blown up your skirt, echoing all of the things you already believe. That's absolutely disgusting to me. I find it hard to respect that position.
I asked about something specific enough that you'd have to really understand Locke's writings to be able to answer. You didn't answer, so I think you just coasted through the classes where you learned it, where the knowledge began to atrophy immediately after the relevant classes ended.
Do I think I am the only one who has read the Federalist Papers or the works of those other writers? Of course not. In a place like this comment section? I'd be surprised to find anyone who read beyond a CliffsNotes for them. I've found there are so many people here that are oblivious of basic criminal law, let alone how the governments of the US and its various states are organized and definitely not the philosophical sources that gave rise to the nation. Now I've been up for 24 hours now, and I need sleep 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
-
1
-
1
-
@metalbean813 I go and look at various locations, what the rent and cost of things is like. I look at various methods for measuring costs of living. I look at inflation in relation to that data in a comparative analysis anachronistically and in modern terms. The only possible point of fault is the integrity of the data itself because I go as close to the source as possible, calculate and try to understand, for myself, the numbers and what they mean. What I don't do is read headlines and articles and listen to news stories. The only tool here is you spouting ProPublica/TYT/et al., which is actual propaganda.
Regarding the ProPublica leak... Have I seen it? THIS VIDEO WE'RE COMMENTING ON IS ABOUT IT! DERP! Anyway, it shows that Buffet paid taxes of $23.7M on $125M at an effective tax rate of 19%. Bezos paid just under $1 billion in taxes ($937M) at an effective tax rate of 23.1% on $4.22B in income. Musk paid $455M, a 30% effective tax rate on $1.52B. Bloomberg, and I'd be auditing this if I were the IRS, had a 2.9% tax rate, paying only $292 on $10B in income. It's possible he cashed out a bunch of long-term investments he didn't get taxed for or was taxed very lightly on, and I don't mind that. That means when I draw on my 401(k), I don't have to pay half of that to the government either.
"thats why politicians are more interested in how this information leaked versus the contents of the information. let me guess you are ok with silencing whistleblowers as well."
Just as I feel about BLM, Antifa, 1/6, Snowden, DNC emails, etc. people are going to act against civil law in proportion to the severity to the facts as they understand them to be. None of us have say over natural law, and so it's pointless to opine on the justness of the use of natural law when people feel civil law has failed them. And such opinions will doubtless be a bunch of biased tripe which means nothing to reality regardless.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danielr.y5261 "You also have a right to life. Murder does still happen though. Therefore, according to your logic, you don't have a right to life. See how easy your premise falls apart?"
So if the police don't come, there is some mala en se? I can press charges against police for not coming? No? Aha, it seems like we found a fundamental difference here, because if someone even tries to kill me, it's not even myself that has to press charges -- the state and/or feds will. Do you understand the really stark difference between the two here?
"America was founded on slavery and genocide."
That's a simplistic and highly ignorant view of things.
"Not to the former, yes to the later. Which I don't find to be practical beyond philosophical study, since feudalism is no longer around and objective reality doesn't support things like the Principle of Non Aggression without a refering entity that enforces its function. Like, you know... a government."
The so-called "Non-Aggression Principle" is a modern concept, not from Rousseau. The concept of NAP is much more Randian or other post-modernist nonsense that has taken over and grossly perverted libertarian ideals into the schisms of current American liberalism, conservatism, and libertarianism. Are you sure you understand what you're talking about?
"American people have decided that for a good decade at least, as most Americans support the implementation of M4A. The political class has clearly sided with corporate interests, and not only regarding healthcare. The MIC is even a more blatant example."
Don't use acronyms we haven't established yet. What is MIC? Marginally most voting Americans support M4A. The problem is we're not a simple democracy -- we're a constitutional republic. Kaiser research found that having a national healthcare plan didn't get to even 50% support among respondents until 2016.
https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer-national-health-plans-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage/
"Name them."
Who's the fattest nation in the world? And what's one of the primary indicators for health outcomes for an individual? BMI? Just as one example... That's not even covering the jump in logic that health insurance leads to certain health outcomes -- not without a lot of data analysis on the in-between steps to get from one to the other.
"I don't live there. I'm not American."
And yet you presume to judge? Is whatever you have so perfect? I can show fringe cases about whatever system you're under while claiming your system doesn't work, yes? Our system works for the vast majority of people. That's one reason why we're not in a huge rush to change it. Second, there are those like me who like the idea, but are rather concerned having its funding and management in the hands of the federal government. Our system also provides about half of the entire world's funding into medical R&D -- over 60% of that funding coming from private industry. There are very good aspects surrounding what we pay for our healthcare and that it's limited to those who meaningfully contribute to society. From my perspective, Americans are left footing the glut of the bill for medical advances in the future because single-payer in other nations -- a requirement to cover everyone, including those who can and choose not to contribute -- means their people pay less of a share.
https://www.researchamerica.org/sites/default/files/Publications/InvestmentReport2019_Fnl.pdf
"If we go that route, then we'll conclude that our baseline rights are none."
No, that's where your assumption of "nihilism is correct" takes you to. Forgetting any concept of god or intention of nature, if I have life and you have life, what logic exists that you may have a greater right to your life than I do to mine? If we postulate that continued existence is the desired outcome, we can logically argue that the eating of animal meat is necessary to our continued survival. It's the only source we have for Vitamin B12. We can logically conclude that the life of a human must be at the cost of the life of other forms of animals -- notably herbivores.
You have a right to care your own health as its within your ability as a human, but what reasoning exists that you would have a greater right to your own health than another person over their own autonomy? There certainly doesn't appear to be any reasoning for that. That's why there's no fundamental right to healthcare. It is instead a privilege as part of a mutually consensual contract for services of another. As I inferred before this does not mean the privilege cannot be extended or that it cannot be publicly funded. It's just a weak ass argument to try to call it a right. And you now state you don't even believe in rights, but yet you use it because you know it's an easy argument -- not because it's a solid and rational argument.
A solid argument actually comes from Locke -- that's right, the foremost libertarian writer whose philosophies as you understand them you hate so much -- writes: "Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another."
"However, I'm also a pragmatist, and a person with empaty for my fellow human beings. Given that a succesful civilization with no positive rights hasn't come around I cannot see any reason for any form of Libertarianism."
Do you actually believe that libertarianism is against the establishment of positive rights?
1
-
@danielr.y5261 "If something happens to you that could have been prevented had police come after your request? Absolutely."
No, someone tried this, and it's been ruled that police are in no way responsible for anyone else.
"But you're unconscious, so you cannot do it yourself. It will be the state the one taking the responsibility of your wellbeing during the immediate future."
It's a privilege received from the labor of others.
"Simplistic? Yes. Ignorant? No."
I'm a student of American history. It's both simplistic and ignorant. These replies are long enough, but more often than not, you'll find fault and compassion with just about everyone. Nobody's perfect.
"Feel free to elaborate then about this point."
There's no NAP in Enlightenment libertarian philosophies that informed the founding of this nation. These writers would never be so pithy about a concept. They included significantly more nuance. Suffice it to say, it's clear you haven't read Rousseau and you're confusing him with someone else.
"Fair enough. Then I'll rephrase and say for the last five years. However, if you count the "no M4A but yes to public option" crowd you have some 66% of Americans supporting having at least one form of UHC. That's per the Kaiser Family study you linked."
What does a public option mean exactly? What is it intended to mean? What does it mean to the respondents?
"Which also happens to be the only one among the developed world without UHC (which includes preventive medicine and easy access to mental health resources, since there's a strong link between obesity and mental disease)"
You're assuming causation here. Does poor mental health beget obesity, or does obesity beget poor mental health?
"Not anymore. You can easily extrapolate more accurately by looking at the rates of obesity-related illnesses like heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Plus life expectancy (assuming we're talking about first world nations at peacetime)."
This is an incomplete thought.
"There's no leap here; the American system leads to worse health outcomes for poorer people simply because of the financial burden, which is NOT happening in other developed nations."
"See, it's much more difficult to treat a progressive illness when it's caught late. And more so when going earlier to the doctor implies a heavy financial burden for a lump that may be a malignant tumor or just a regular lipoma."
I've never had issues with healthcare from being poor. I'm honestly not sure what kind of completely apathetic attitude it takes to not be capable of navigating to get care, but there's honestly no reason for someone to not get care in the US. And if you can contribute but choose not to, I have no sympathy there. There's no reasonable expectation for society to carry such a person.
"No, it's not perfect. However, it's beating the American system in virtually every health metric, and it has for decades. I mean, maybe we the other 36 OECD countries may be onto something..."
You've never noticed those health metrics are really weighted to a Euro-centric way of doing things? I have. You get a lot of free points in those metrics for just covering everyone.
"Yes, you could. However, America's lower life expectancy, higher child mortality rates, higher obesity rates and of course, the very existence of crippling medical debt are not 'fringe cases'. It's the system itself."
No, they're fringe cases. If they were in any significant amount, we'd already be changing it. And those things, again, are just assuming causation.
"And our system works for EVERYONE, regardless of the bank account."
It doesn't work for everyone, as you already mentioned.
"BTW, how come then at least 48% of the American population wants M4A, plus another 18% wants another public option? That doesn't exactly scream contentment. Nor 'vast majority'."
Because about 50% of the nation are Democrats, and they're instructed that this is what they want. And, yes, Republicans are instructed to reject it. It doesn't mean they themselves have or had with issues, and for Republicans they may have had issues but still reject the idea. A lot of people in this nation are simply instructed on what to believe versus thinking for themselves.
I think we have a unique opportunity moving forward to learn from the mistakes of others. Instead, so many people think it's just rainbows and unicorns without a single critical thought about it.
"Try being a politician in any EU nation and propose getting rid of UHC. See how fast your political career goes down in flames."
Yes, I'm familiar with what media those in Europe get fed too. They're by and large instructed as well.
"McCarthysm still echoes in American media. Case in point, the average conservative calls everything a government does 'socialism'."
That would be because of Marxist theorist Eduard Bernstein, not McCarthy.
"Hold your government accountable. We the rest of the developed world have."
Easier said than done, right? You live in tiny state-sized nations. Our states are much like your nations in having largely a single ideology among its populace.
"Most drug R&D isn't happening in private pharma companies anymore (American or otherwise), hasn't been for decades. That happens at public research facilities across the world, in countries like China, Germany, Denmark, Japan, France... and of course the US. And more often than not the work is collaborative and international. So you cannot really pinpoint at any country for any new pharmacological principle anymore. Plus, when you take population differences into account (as in brakthroughs per capita) countries like Switzerland or Denmark come on top. I myself have professional experience in this field."
Citation?
"Being richer =/= meaningfully contributing to society."
I didn't say merely being richer, though simply having money has its benefits. What I'm pointing out is those who can contribute as well as not having a large stockpile of money and also don't contribute in a meaningful way to society (e.g. some good or service someone gives you adequate pay to live) should not be carried by a society.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Westcountrynordic That's the difficult question: At what point can you assume you are about to be killed if you do not kill first? In the US, some states (states manage their own criminal codes here, not the federal government -- at least in almost all cases; there are exceptions) allow the assumption that if someone has broken into your house, there is no need to assume that they may not hurt you once they find you are home, and deadly force is authorized based on the bad-faith act of breaking and entering. That's known as the castle doctrine here. I can't say that's a wrong-headed concept if the ultimate goal is to preserve innocent life.
And, no, you don't need a gun, but a gun is the greatest power multiplier, and if you're a 5'1" young woman facing multiple men, you'd have the greatest to gain from having such a power multiplier over, say, a knife that likely wouldn't get much more than a laugh.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AD-jq7ow I'm highlighting how run-away our social safety programs already are. For my personal ideologies, I lean heavily on some Libertarian platform principles. Their view of taxes, however, is not one of them, for the most part. I agree with the Libertarians that income tax is horrifically immoral, and I would argue that taxes like VAT are ethically far superior. If you're interested, I can expand, but I'll leave it at that for now.
What I would personally do is eliminate income taxes and create a 40% VAT tax on all goods. It's estimated that Americans spend $11.7 trillion a year (Gallup). 40% of that would create a spending surplus that could pay off the entire US debt in 45 years or pay full ride scholarships to every student and then about 60-70 years to pay off the debt.
The US military doesn't have to be touched in my example to balance the budget. Despite what oddly seems to be a prevailing, but wrong, belief among the left, the military doesn't take up over half of the budget. That was based on a very disingenuous use of discretionary spending only. The Military is actually about 15% of spending. What is over half of the spending, however, is Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, weighing in at over $2 trillion.
With that being said, however, I think that militia service is a citizen's duty and we should not have a standing army. Congress is given free reign to maintain the Navy in the Constitution as well as the armaments and training for the militia, but not a standing army. That's why they can't appropriate funds for longer than two years at a time for it. Of course, we just keep funding it, and we see the issues that it's caused. As it says in the Second Amendment, a militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Our standing army has only served to make us less secure.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Baman21 "you can tell in some cases on an MRI."
And yet, you don't explain how.
"The symptoms are also a give away since the man was capable of working."
People work with nerve pain all the time, so, no, that's not a sign of anything. Especially people who sit all day. I think studies have shown that puts 3x the pressure on the lumbar discs as standing work.
"The surgery was on his neck and since he had some form of stenosis it would most likely affect his arm strength severely."
Stenosis occurs because the disc is no longer as thick and/or the herniation is pushing into the nerve root canal, as I said. He mentioned that he also "needed" surgery on his lumbar too. You may have missed that.
I'm curious about the surgeon he's going to, if they're recommending surgery saying, about a simple herniated disc, "The wrong move could have you paralyzed." I mean, technically, yes, even a perfect spine would experience damage enough to cause paralysis from the "wrong move". That's just weird, ambiguous wording, and doesn't sound like a surgeon's typical careful wording to me.
And, no, I've seen people with stenosis in the c5-c7 region that have had no visible nerve path on MRI still function as normal, albeit with some loss of strength and significant pain.
"You can't fake certain neurological disorders"
I can go into any doctor and say I have unbearable burning pain in my buttocks and thigh. They don't know if I do or not. If they image the lumbar, as those symptoms would call for, and find disc degeneration, they would refer me to a neurosurgeon. And as I said before, if a neurosurgeon is saying a slipped disc could lead to paralysis, which I will admit that I'm not privy on those rates that occurs with, that's very questionable. However, I am well aware that there is no epidemic of people who opt out of spinal surgery for slipped discs who find themselves in a wheelchair, and Cedars-Sinai states that by 60, "most people" (presumably meaning specifically >50% of the 60 and over population) will have notable degeneration of their discs. I would venture to guess that no large proportion of them are opting for surgery. We should have widespread wheelchair use if it were as problematic as this narrative leads the uninitiated to believe. And even then, initial spinal surgery only shows about a 50% chance to actually result in improvement (see stats on Failed Back Surgery Syndrome).
"You can't fake certain neurological disorders, I have met some people who tried in my 15 years in the hospital. One guy was trying to get out of the army and was faking stroke symptoms."
You're being vague and going off-topic. First, we're not speaking about strokes or vascular issues at all. The neurological symptoms and causes we're speaking of is related to disc degeneration. That is very easy to fake, because everyone perceives pain differently. What someone reports can be difficult to predict from an MRI. And, here's my biggest issue, we're only getting one side of the story. We're not hearing from his surgeons or the WC physicians. I have a feeling that it would sound very different from what he's stating.
"You listened to a story presented by non clinical people and repeated by more non clinical people and said it doesn't sound right. You don't know, and that was the reason for my sarcasm."
Yeah, I don't feel it met the burden of proof for the conclusions made in the narrative of the story. For some reason you're up in arms over that. Likely because you want to believe it as the narrative is given in this video, but the rational person in you knows better. So you're having a bit of cognitive dissonance, and I'm just an easy target as the cause of that internal struggle.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Debbie, "The ultra wealthy most times pay NO taxes"
This is absolutely, positively untrue.
According to the Congressional Budget Office: "In 2013, households in the top, middle, and bottom income quintiles received 53, 14, and 5 percent, respectively, of the nation's before-tax income and paid 69, 9, and 1 percent, respectively, of federal taxes."
So the rich are actually paying MORE than their fair share while the middle and poor are paying LESS than their fair share.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Uhm, the US doesn't have VAT.
"In 2013, households in the top, middle, and bottom income quintiles received 53, 14, and 5 percent, respectively, of the nation's before-tax income and paid 69, 9, and 1 percent, respectively, of federal taxes." -Congressional Budget Office.
Now hush.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
jesse, I have a real problem when I hear people say things like this. For instance, when it was first announced that Trump was working with Bannon, it was all over the news about how Breitbart and Bannon were racist and Neonazi and whatnot. Personally, I had never heard of either of these, so I did my due diligence. I searched around for exactly why these outlets were claiming these things, and I looked at their evidence. The first time I saw something that gave me a hint to there being something dishonest going on in this arena was when I saw a list of article titles on either (long time ago, so I don't remember exactly) Buzzfeed, Mother Jones, or ThinkProgress that, in trying to prove misogyny, defeated their other argument that they are racist/neo-Nazi. The article was titled, "The Racist, Pro-Nazi Roots of Planned Parenthood" (the title may not be exact, but it's very close if not correct).
Following this discovery, I thought it was time to check the Breitbart site itself. I started by reading the articles quoted. In the articles I read, there was literally nothing racist or misogynistic in them. The headlines were absolutely sensationalist and many would raise an eyebrow of any reasonable person. I can't stand that, but that's media. However, a headline these days isn't at all the thesis. There was one article that was kind of in a gray area on Israel. The author, a Jew himself (I don't recall the author's name, but it wasn't anyone I'd heard of before like Milo Yiannopoulos or Ben Shapiro), was speaking out against Zionism in Israel and those Jews in America who are financially supporting that effort. That's a controversial topic, so I call it a gray area.
After this, I thought about what I was reading. I said to myself, "Alright, it doesn't seem the articles are these things the news is claiming, but what about its readers? Is this a gathering place for racists and bigots?" I could see that if it were, clearly these articles were at least speaking to them and could be deemed at least not healthy, if not outwardly hateful. In reading the comments of various articles, especially regarding contents like immigration or other racial or areas we find hate, and what I found was that the comments were very benign. There was nothing that stood out. I would even hazard to say that the level of comments was better than you typically see here. I did find one article where one person was being patently a hate-filled ass hat, but he was quickly shut down by several people posting in defiance to him.
After I was satisfied with what I read, I kicked in my critical thinking to process this part of it. I thought, "Well, they are in the news about being an extremist hate outlet. Perhaps they are working on that image in respect to that." So, the best that I thought I could do was find a selection of old articles and comments that would have been there long before they were making international headlines with these accusations. It was the same things as I was reading before. Nothing had changed. I was finally satisfied that I had done my due diligence in as unbiased possible. It appeared that the media simply was wrong, if not outright lying. But, I digress. I can't prove that; however, it's hard for me to believe that they could be as wrong as they were. At the very least, it appeared that journalistic integrity was definitely not first in their priorities.
So, I'm very dubious of such claims, and I think that this should sufficiently give valid reason as to why.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GinoSoldier The evolution of self defense, and the tools used for it, as understood as a natural and individual right:
"That which someone does for the safety of his body, let it be regarded as having been done legally." -Justinian, 529 AD
"Consequently it is a precept, or general rule of reason, that every man ought to endeavor peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek, and use, all helps and advantages of war." -Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, 1651 AD
"Must men alone be debarred the common privilege of opposing force with force, which nature allows so freely to all other creatures for their preservation from injury? I answer: self defense is a part of the law of nature, nor can it be denied the community, even against the king himself..." -John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 1689 AD
"The two great laws of human society, from whence all the rest derive their course and obligation, are those of equity and self preservation. By the first all men are bound alike not to hurt one another, by the second all men have a right alike to defend themselves." Cato's Letters, #42, 1721 AD
"It is a false idea of utility to sacrifice a thousand real advantages for the sake of one disadvantage which is either imaginary or of little consequence; this would take fire away from men because it burns and water because it drowns people; this is to have no remedy for evils except destruction. Laws forbidding people to bear arms are of this nature; they only disarm those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. On the other hand, how can someone who has the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity and the most important ones in the statute books be expected to respect the most trifling and purely arbitrary regulations that can be broken with ease and impunity and that,
were they enforced, would put an end to personal liberty -- so dear to each man, so dear to the enlightened legislator -- and subject the innocent to all the vexations that the guilty deserve? Such laws place the assaulted at a disadvantage and the assailant at an advantage, and they multiply rather than decrease the number of murders, since an unarmed person may be attacked with greater confidence than someone who is armed. These laws should not be deemed preventive, but rather inspired by a fear of crime. They originate with the tumultuous impact of a few isolated facts, not with a rational consideration of the drawbacks and advantages of a universal decree." -Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment, 1764 AD
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..." Declaration of Independence, 1776 AD
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights." -Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 84, 1788 AD
"[No mention of the power to keep people from owning, keeping or bearing arms]" Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, 1789 AD
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Kuruma, it's still a right, whether it's written in the Constitution or not. This made clear in United States v. Cruikshank (1875) in the majority opinion which states of the Second Amendment (and by extension all amendments found in the Bill of Rights), "This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." That means that even if it's not written, it still exists the same as though it is. Hamilton wrote in The Federalist #84, "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."
You are simply wrong, and I hope these quotes will help you not be as ignorant of the subject.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@havocvalour2448 A payout is all you get from your system. In my system, tobacco and Monsanto executives would be getting the chair. Or, more likely, they wouldn't be getting the chair because the threat of them getting the chair would make them a helluva lot more conscientious than if the company, not even the decision makers, was having to pay out a settlement and those executives maybe getting fired with a $20 million severance package.
Citizens of the world are culpable in global warming. Doesn't make much sense for a thief to sue his partner for not giving him his fair share of the haul from a house they broke into together. Some people want change -- they just don't want it to be terribly inconvenient. I have no sympathy for whatever happens if people can't get together and give a huge middle finger to society, willing to start subsisting if real changes aren't made.
It doesn't have to be complex, IF you're willing to endure discomfort for your convictions. If you're not, then how dedicated are you, really, as you're pointing fingers at everyone else?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@clarenceexd My pleasure! As far as I know, the aperture in the v3 fixed at f/1.6, so there's no increasing its light gathering. As far as exposure time, they have a seemingly arbitrary single-point 0.0 to 2.0 value, so that's not a huge help. I've no idea if this is post-processing to simply increase brightness or actual exposure time. Given it's called "exposure" in the manual, I'd suspect the latter, but there doesn't seem to be extra information gathered, just a brightening of what was already being gathered -- see the shadowed side of the houses that don't get any new detail as you might expect with actual longer exposure times. Moving objects also don't seem to blur more as the exposure value is increased leading me to believe more that it's post-processing. Though I'd have to test, I'd suspect that the actual exposure time is fixed to balance detail and motion sharpness while allowing for 60 FPS recording (so actual exposure time of course can't be slower than 1/60 if that's the case). If you look at the video 5:14, the v3 is definitely using the polarized filter based on the flare from the street lights and lack of reflection in the windscreen, and this segment slides through the gamut of exposure times from 0.0 to 2.0. This should give you a good idea from there how much detail you can glean at night through the CPL.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vinessawess4401 "Kyle should not have been there in the first place."
Of course he should have.
"It didn't become a chaotic mess until kyle showed up running through the crowd with a loaded AR."
He'd been chatting with and helping protesters all night without issues. It was Rosenbaum's suicidal ass that made it a thing. He was just released from a psych hold, and decided he was going to go pick a fight at the protest. These individuals in the following video definitely didn't seem intimidated, did they?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsGWqCjdkXo&t=4339s
"This crap keeps happening where folks are minding there business and then other folks want to take it upon themselves to go where they are not wanted/welcomed"
Yeah, that's called liberty.
"...and try to take the law into their own hands..."
Everyone retains this right during the fact. Civil law only comes into play after the fact.
"...bc they have a gun which gives then courage that they never had..."
When you stand up to protect people's life, liberty, and property, those that want to destroy that tend to get angry. Open carrying a rifle is done first to get those people to make better life decisions. I would even argue if you're looking for an excuse to legally kill people, it would be more efficient to conceal your deadly weapon and protect life, liberty, and property.
"then when the folks fight back"
Against what? The simple and innocuous exercise of a right? If the exercise of a right is in itself inference of aggression or crime, then you don't have a right.
"or when the perp with the gun believes they're gonna get their butts kicked then they shoot the people"
More people a year die from hands & feet than die from the rifle he's carrying. Yes, it's an excellent power multiplier and an excellent deterrent, but it's not a magic wand. And if you've never been in a real fight where your life is actually in danger, you're preaching from an ivory tower on that one.
"and then claim self-defense when theyre the ones who initiated and provoked the situation to begin with."
Provoking the situation would be, for instance, pointing the weapon at someone who was doing no wrong. And even if you provoke, that doesn't mean you can't defend yourself; it only means that you have a duty to retreat, which Rittenhouse clearly did.
"You can't show up at a blm protest with a loaded automatic assault rifle, provoke chaos"
You have a very twisted concept of provocation and justice.
"and then when the crowd tries to disarm you"
The crowd didn't. One man, Rosenbaum, attacked him after earlier threatening to kill any of the militia he caught alone. There were few people who acted ignorantly on assumption, with incomplete information, and after the fact (which is vigilantism by the way) when Rittenhouse clearly no longer posed any threat and was clearly running to the police he stated he was running to.
"That's the same thing that happened with George Zimmerman and Tray von Martin, and now Travyon is dead."
If there weren't a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman didn't start the fight, then he would have been convicted. But that's how our justice system is supposed to work: Blackstone's ratio: It's better that 100 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person be convicted.
"the same thing happened with amaud Abrauy & the mc micheals and now amaud is dead."
Thank god our self defense laws are what you hate, because Arbery''s killers would get off otherwise. You see, without Georgia's stand your ground law, Arbery would have had a duty to try to run away before attacking. Since he stood his ground and immediately moved to attack the younger McMichaels, without stand your ground, the younger McMichaels would have been within his rights to defend himself with deadly force. However, since SYG exists in Georgia, Arbery did not have a duty to retreat, it was unlawful for the younger McMichaels to shoot Arbery, and they may now face justice for accosting, brandishing, and shooting Arbery.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@newshound2521 There's nothing further from the truth...
David Dorn "Charges filed in murder of retired St. Louis police captain David Dorn" - St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Chris Beaty "Friends mourn ex-Indiana football player slain during unrest" - AP
Italia Kelly "Woman, 22, killed at protest as civil unrest roils Davenport" - AP
Marvin Francois "Man killed after shooting near 46th and Warwick, not far from Plaza" - Kansas City Fox 4
Jose Gutierrez "Chicago man charged with murder in Cicero shooting" - Chicago Tribune
Victor Cazares Jr. "Victor Cazares Jr, A Life Taken in Cicero" - Cicero Independiente
Secoriea Turner "'You killed a child': Armed protesters in Georgia fire into car, striking 8-year-old girl" - WJCL local ABC
5 Dallas police killed, "2016 shooting of Dallas police officers" - Wikipedia
2 NYC police shot and killed "Gunman Ismaaiyl Brinsley Told Bystanders to 'Watch What I'm Going to Do': Cops" - NBC News (This started the Blue Lives Matter movement.)
2 Louisville police shot (survived) "2 police officers shot during Louisville protests over charges in Breonna Taylor case" - NBC News
3 Baton Rouge police shot and killed "Black Lives Matter leaders sued over Baton Rouge police shooting" -Reuters
There's a death count of 19, and there may be more. It takes so much digging to find these that I can't be bothered to look for more. And these aren't just someone dying of a heart attack later, but violence directly from protests and protesters. And it is worth noting that you really have to dig for all of this. The news may feature a short headline, but these incidents are forgotten quickly. There's no months' long discussions over things like this. Probably what got the most national attention, which was only for about 3 days, was the Dallas shooting of 5 officers. The only time you see it brought up beyond 3 days is either only in local news or right-wing news like FOX News.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
David, the Second Amendment does indeed mention a well regulated militia, but you're mistaken on why it mentions that. Under the Articles of Confederation, there was no well regulated militia. That changed with the Constitution. The Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8 gives the power to train, pay, and command the militia to the Federal government. This is what the preamble is recognizing. This means that the militia is no longer the whole of the people but a specific entity of select individuals at the beck and call of the government, which the anti-federalists found very alarming. They wanted to ensure that the natural right to keep and bear arms of all of the people would not be infringed because it would be considered "unneeded" for them to be armed. The militia mentioned in Article 1, Section 8 and the preamble of the Second Amendment was eventually formed into the National Guard. This amendment was specifically due to a lack of trust toward the new centralized, powerful government under the Constitution. The people are meant to be allowed to be as armed as any force the government commands.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
MRostendway, look, I don't know what your messed up definition of broken is, but this country is doing pretty damned well. We're possibly the single largest world power, our economy is constantly growing, we're allies with all but two world superpowers, we have complete liberty and freedom -- in the way of guns, expression and enterprise, more freedom than many other nations, we are the 10th highest nation in GDP per worker, in nominal numbers we have the highest GDP of any nation, our dollar is the basis of the world's economy... What is "broken" to you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@professorswaggamuffin7572 sigh... Ok, first, if you're making $10 an hour, at least in an urban area, delivering pizza, you suck. If you're in a rural area, $10 an hour isn't that bad because cost of living is also significantly lower.
Second, sometimes people don't tip, but more often than not, they do.
Third, without tips, the menu prices are higher leading to fewer people ordering and employees are paid less on salary than on tips because the market won't bear such high initial menu prices to keep the pay the same as with tips. With or without tips, it's the customer who gives the money that goes to the employee because that's how it works. A company doesn't have money until the customer gives it to them. In this case, the customer is able to give the money to the employee directly who keeps that entire share, there are more orders because of low initial cost and that's a much better prospect for the employee and the company.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Boogie Loo, I don't troll TYT, but I don't agree with TYT either. I watch it and comment to get dissenting opinions from my own. Sometimes it's changed or adjusted my opinion on things, but admittedly it's mostly not. However, there's never a reason to be ignorant. And, yes, what I say in some cases may be in line with the GOP, and in other cases what I say is in line with progressives. It varies depending on the topic. For instance, I believe that the government doesn't have the legitimate power to infringe on the natural rights of people in keeping and bearing arms. On the other hand, I think that immigration laws also infringe on people's natural rights to move about freely and should all be struck down. In the Constitution, Congress is only enumerated the power to set standards and processes for naturalization. They're not given the power to prevent people from coming into the country. In fact, this was one of the areas that my opinion had changed from being here. I was once for immigration laws, but still against banning people from coming in for whatever reason. I was out of line in that with my overall philosophy of natural rights. I've fixed that and bettered myself thanks to coming here and listening to dissenting opinions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@j5nephews558 The question of individual need is not part of the Second Amendment. What George Mason wanted to ensure is that even if the new federal government, in charge of disciplining and arming the militia, would allow the militia to atrophy, the individuals that make it up would always be guaranteed arms regardless, at the very least for their own defense. The British allowed the colonial militia to atrophy, would not give money for arms, then actively attempted to disarm the citizens. This line of reasoning can be found in George Mason's address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention.
Federalist 46 also gives us a point of view of a federalist:
"Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."
Here is the relevant excerpt from George Mason's address at the Virginia Ratifying Convention:
"No man has greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valour. But when once a standing army is established, in any country, the people lose their liberty. When against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defense — yeomanry, unskillful & unarmed, what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies? An instance within the memory of some of this house, — will shew us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British parliament was advised by an artful man, [Sir William Keith] who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people. That it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. But that they should not do it openly; but to weaken them and let them sink gradually, by totally defusing and neglecting the militia. [Here MR. MASON quoted sundry passages to this effect.] This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed?"
If you perhaps believe that "well regulated" confers regulatory power, please review this paragraph from Federalist 84:
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jermbot15 "That is correct in that they do not. Congratulations you have made the same mistake as Jordan Peterson because the two of you have the same level of understanding of the science of predictive modeling."
This doesn't convince me that you have a more appropriate stance here. When attempting to predict what's going to happen in a complex system, the further into the future you predict, the more likely interactions will not go as planned, right? For instance, if I predict the movement of a single particle through a gas, I can know with fair certainty of the total volume where that particle will can up within one second. In two seconds, that particle could end up in a much wider range. After three seconds, it's even a wider range. It seems prediction of any complex system necessarily has unpredictability that can't be accounted for. Feel free to let me know where you think I'm wrong.
"You go on to claim Jordan Peterson is just urging caution, but he isn't."
But that's quite literally what I've heard him state as a conclusion to the issue of climate models. For instance, a solution to fossil fuels being looked at is hydrogen-powered vehicles. Now, the issue is that water vapor, which is the result of burning hydrogen, is a more significant greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The models we currently work with means we can't readily know if switching to hydrogen-powered vehicles is going to net us a benefit or make things worse. That's a huge problem, isn't it?
1
-
1
-
@Jermbot15 "Maybe but nothing I say is going to be as convincing as you going out to actively look for a Jordan Peterson quote that supports your interpretation and then coming back with what you did."
You're assuming I'm not arguing in good faith. You're wrong on that account.
You didn't answer my question: "I'm going to actually stop my questioning on this matter here for a moment and just ask: Do I understand you correctly that you're saying that the error range in predictive models is to account for errors in the data that's gathered?" This conversation really needs you to answer this.
"It literally does not say the thing you've literally seen him do. It is exactly what I said he does."
You have to be adding inference through your bias here. Knowing things is, indeed, hard. Having a belief is easy -- proving it is an extremely more difficult matter and is why those who go out to try to prove things require some of the highest levels of education that exist. You simply can't say as a fact that knowing things is easy. Not even doing the research, but simply reading a published paper and understanding it can be hard and maybe requires a lot of skill. Yes, he's absolutely right that knowing things is a very difficult task.
To me, that's not him being nihilistic in regards to epistemology -- it's being realistic. A good scientist knows when to say, "I don't know." He's been published over 100 times, so I'd say that's evidence that he clearly has no qualms in trying to know what we don't yet know. In my quote, he asks how you solve a problem if you can't measure the consequences of your actions. I hear that as a call for more rigorous work, not a recommendation to throw your hands up and do nothing. And I will say that it's easy for Peterson to criticize the current models without proposing a solution, but that doesn't mean he's wrong in his criticisms. The hard part is developing those better models accurate enough to be able to comparatively model the effects of suggested changes.
I'm not saying he's at all perfect. No one is perfect. He's smart, but he gets plenty of things wrong still. He's gotten plenty of things wrong in regards to climatology, and I wouldn't defend those (e.g. He posted the temperature variations shown in an ice core sample with what was to me a clear inference that this was indicative of global temperature averages. That was unequivocally wrong.) However, as far as him saying that the current models are not accurate enough to model the effects of changes, he's absolutely right.
Your estimations of Peterson's motivations are only your estimations. Given you've opened your last comment with the presumption that I'm not here in good faith, I have good reason to not be trusting of your judgment of the motivations of others.
As I noted with Peterson, it's easy to sit there and criticize. If I were talk to him, I'd tell him the same and ask what he sees as a solution and the timeframe for that solution. He's not here, unfortunately, but I have the same question for you: Given the facts that we can't determine the outcomes of changes we make today and the changes we make today could end in worse results than if we change nothing -- not just regarding climate but also ecologically, what is your proposed solution?
1
-
@Jermbot15 "But if you tell me that your quote was a sincere attempt to prove that you've literally seen Jordan Peterson say that we should be cautious. I'll believe you. I'll wonder because your grasp of the English language seems fluent enough that such a total failure in comprehension is out of character, but I'll believe you."
That quote is also the exact quote that I was looking for. You're assuming that he's saying that we should throw up our hands and do nothing. He doesn't say exactly that either, does he? But that's what you assert is his meaning. I've listened to probably about 2-dozen hours of his full content. How much have you listened to? If you haven't watched the content that I have, why would you believe that your comprehension of what he says doubtlessly more accurate than what I understand he's saying?
"I did. I immediately determined your grasp of climate modeling was not great, mine is only marginally better. We're both doing better than Jordan Peterson but that's not saying much. So I referred you to a real world method of testing his assertion, by simply finding a climate model that is 50 years old and then seeing if the margin of error is so great that it's unusable. Suki Manabe made his first climate model in 1964."
No, you didn't directly answer the simple question I asked: Do you believe that model error ranges come from errors in measuring temperature?
You won't answer. Now you're ducking out of the conversation, not because you think I'm incorrigible, but because you know you've painted yourself into a corner.
Since you won't answer, you said, "If you take the wrong temperature today, whether it's higher or lower, Peterson asserts that the flaw will magnify with time. In reality you're comparing that wrong temperature today with the right temperature taken tomorrow, and the right temperature taken the day after and so on."
You think the error range in models is from a specific measurement of temperature. But when you're looking forward into climate, you're predicting the chance that the temperature will be within a certain range at a certain time delta. What creates the error range is the large number of unpredictable events that can change the estimated temperature which can't be accounted for. The next time delta going forward has to take the previous error range into account and therefore inherently must itself be wider than the error range at the first time delta. That's the compounding error range Peterson was talking about. When I saw that you didn't understand that, I knew you had no idea what you were even talking about. This is a basic fact of any future modeling, not just in climatology but in any science which seeks to try to predict very complex systems. You don't understand why error ranges in prediction models exist, so your understanding of science must be minimal at best. And that's the bottom line of why you're trying to weasel out of directly answering the question and now out of the entire conversation. You're a much better English major than you are a scientist. Stay in your lane.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Dog.eatdog Without Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security spending, the US budget would be balanced with a 1-trillion-dollar-a-year surplus with the current income. If you remove all defense spending, which is absurd--but let's give it all to you, we're still in a deficit.
I'm aware of how currency is generated and lost. I'm also aware of this thing called inflation. Each dollar essentially represents an equal share of a nation's wealth. The wealth of a nation is not something that can be created without work--it's not printed. As such, quantitative easing, as you suggest, causes inflation but having more units of currency in hand may provide a psychological effect which prompts some people to more freely spend money. However and as mentioned before, that does not change the wealth of a nation. When your wealth is declining sharply while you are divvying up that wealth between more units of currency, it causes much worse inflation than when there is only a secondary market downturn.
"WHO earned that money?" The United States. "WHO should be beneficiary number one?" The United States. All money is backed by, created by and belongs to the United States. The United States is a representative democracy. Elected officials determine, democratically, in what way the money is best used for the United States as a whole. Our budget as it stands reflects those democratic choices.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Chances are as an engineer, you're already putting in 50- to 60-hour weeks. Saying, "We want you to spend a couple of hours a month outside of that time away from your engineering duties to go drive using the app to see how poorly you designed it, which, in actuality, you'll likely find perfect because you designed it in a way that's intuitive to you," is just absurd. That's the fundamental issue here. It has nothing to do with the job being bad. In fact, doing this work is some of the best money I've made as unskilled labor. You just have to be smart about it. Forget being a "Top Dasher." That's just a plot that will leave you broke.
"betcha didn't think you'll be delivering when you added a stupid timer based on what google said it will take you to get there. Or when they decided to lower delivery pay several times and hide the tip haha... Or when they side with the customer automatically whenever the customer pretend not to get the food so they can get free food."
These are not the decisions of the engineers. In fact, it has nothing to do with the engineers outside of those systems' implementations. These are the types of business direction decisions that come from the top. If you want things like that to change, Tony needs to be out delivering, and make it his primary income. If you find a feature's location within the app or the usage of a feature unintuitive or cumbersome to use while doing the job, then you provide feedback to the engineers who implemented that. That's what the engineers decide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ericarogers3053 "If they had Guns, I imagine the toll would have been much higher than it was."
Except no mass shooting, even the Vegas shooting, where the shooter had every advantage in the world, could not rack up those numbers, so I'm going to doubt your claim there unless you actually can prove it.
"Okay, is 86 a higher number than 15,292?"
You're comparing some 10,000+ separate incidents with a single incident as a comparison? Are you not understanding why this is the most ridiculous number manipulation to fit an agenda that you could possibly muster? It's like you're not even trying to control to make an even comparison, and you see no issue with that... Mind blowing. Honestly. From someone who just asked for citations. lol I mean, I let it go once, but you're doubling down, so I just have to call it out now.
"The U.K has been banning Knives for a long time, but I see no evidence they are trying to ban Kitchen Knives.
You will need to provide a source for that one."
Now that is a fair call for a source. Here you go:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@manwithadronespain "1000s of people can go out, drink 5 beers and still drive home safely. However, drink driving laws exist because of the ones who can't."
If someone can drink 5 beers, blow <0.08 BAC, and pass field sobriety, guess what? They can drink and drive. If they can't do the above, they are taken in. I don't see the conflict here.
"Speed limits exist despite the huge number of good drivers who can drive fast and maintain control."
On public roads shared for and paid by everyone. The public has the right to determine how they're operated. This isn't a natural right; it's a service subsequent to civilization.
"There are minimum ages for buying alcohol when many teenagers could be very responsible with it."
Almost all states in the US allow for minors to consume alcohol with parental or guardian supervision, for religious reasons, etc. You assume I'm not for similar for all states.
"Yet you choose to concentrate your ire on the purchase of items literally designed for killing.
"
Clearly, I'm a liberty-minded person, and that's not the case. You're just assuming my answers. This video is about guns, so I'm talking about guns. It's not about drinking and driving laws. It's not about speed limits. It's not about underaged drinking. That's why I'm not talking about other issues. A bit of critical thinking should have helped you there. And furthermore, killing is sometimes necessary to preserve innocent life, so, yes, I'm concentrating on maintaining arms in the hands of citizens.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jenkem4464 The age of a study does not determine its correctness. We still reference science from the 1700's. Newtonian physics. Perhaps you've heard of it? Do you have a newer study that refutes it? That's the question. If you don't, it's not cherrypicking bullshit. It's a quick meta-analysis of the body of information we have. The CDC has even recently cited the same figure ranges from various studies, so I don't think you have anything you can pull unless it's like hot off the press. You definitely think you're a lot smarter than you really are.
"Election fraud was clearly, and overwhelmingly, ruled out in all the courts."
The rioters disagreed and appealed to natural law to correct what their perceived grievance as is their natural right to do.
"not the rioters and looters who should be charged"
Perhaps charged and convicted, but also pardoned.
"Yes any violent act or harm carried out to another person with an illegally carried weapon you are responsible for hence all the felony murder charges for Kyle. Self defense is thrown out as he was the one committing the crime."
You are absolutely, flat out wrong.
"Depending on the circumstances and the law in your state, the fact that you possessed, carried, or used a gun illegally may not prevent you from defending yourself against criminal charges by claiming that you needed it for self-defense."
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/using-a-gun-self-defense-laws-and-consequences.htm
Also review (Colion does good at referencing relevant statutes):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSU9ZvnudFE
"Jan. 6th riots were sedition and domestic terrorism"
So are BLM/Antifa riots. I really don't care for one subjective "study" that defines what peaceful constitutes or when BLM protest ends and BLM riot begins. It's utterly useless outside of making headlines useful for media propaganda. You know, like CNN's "Fiery but mostly peaceful protest."
There's no fundamental difference between the two, but only a difference to you in that you support one and not the other. I think both riots are based on absolute ignorance, but I support that they have the right to rebel against whatever they misconceive. Jefferson wrote on this exact topic about a rebellion he didn't agree with:
"And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure."
You don't understand this nation. You don't understand its principles.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ericarogers3053 This table only includes murders. It does not include justified homicides. If you'd found the table through the main page, you'd have seen that.
"Every year, the killings are over 10'000"
2015 = 9,143.
The murders went up to 11,000 and started to drop again with 10,258 in 2019.
The average for all years is 10,252.
Still, 11,014 < 13,000. 10,252 < 13,000
So, going back to the point of your faulty logic, I'll paste here to help you remember where we were:
"Anyway, back to the point of your faulty logic that I've used which has allowed for the argument that since 13,000 knife murders in China > 10,000 gun murders in the US, knives are more deadly than guns. Do you understand the problem in your logic now when you're asking, 'Okay, is 86 a higher number than 15,292?'"
Now that we've proven my figures, are you ready to concede that your logic used to argue against trucks being deadlier than guns in mass casualty incidents is flawed?
1
-
1
-
@ericarogers3053 Ok, I'll take your silence as you can't read a simple table. Alright, what you're quoting is total murders which includes knives or cutting instruments,
blunt objects, personal weapons, poison, explosives, fire, narcotics, drowning, etc. Since we're not comparing all of that with knives, just guns, we should be looking at only the firearm murder totals. That's the second line down. On one hand, I can't believe I had to explain this. On the other hand, I now understand why you just aren't getting things.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ericarogers3053 I'm not so sure you have the moral high ground. Who they want to kill are those that are those who are taking greater rights over the defender, taking their life. You're making it easier for them to accomplish that, especially when there is a power disparity, such as a man to a woman. See this article:
https://www.nj.com/camden/2015/06/nj_gun_association_calls_berlin_womans_death_an_ab.html
I wouldn't consider denying her arms, as you would, is so unambiguously the moral high ground. While I've no doubt about your good intentions, good intentions don't change the reality that there are great strength and ability disparities among our species, and that murder will still occur regardless. What you do is remove the tool which has the potential, if used, to greatly help level the playing field between murderer and victim, especially where great strength and ability discrepancy exists -- this evening of the field is most pronounced when men attack women.
So, when you consider that there will be those that die (or raped or receive other grievous injury), which may have been able to successfully defend themselves with arms (as is evidenced by those 55,000+ defensive gun uses we talked about earlier), It's absolutely not clear that you have the moral high ground. From my perspective, you're meddling in who must be sacrificed for your authoritarianism.
1
-
@ericarogers3053 "A bit overdramatic? Nobody is taking their life, just their Guns. Unless you mean Criminals, such as Burglars, but it is unclear. If Burglars don't have Guns either, then it becomes a different game, doesn't it. Not sure I agree with that assessment."
It was pretty clear in context. Especially the next sentence that you quoted and replied to separately. It does become a different game when no guns are involved. The power and skill disparity come more into play. No longer does the disadvantaged and weaker party have a power equalizer, creating a wider disparity than would exist with guns. I presume you're female from your name. Do you honestly think you stand a better chance against a 6'6" 240 rapist/murderer with you both having knives or both having guns? Keep in mind that his goal is to rape before killing, not the other way around.
"If she wanted to carry a Knife, she could have done so. Perhaps she was not as powerful as the Man involved, but she would have been 'protected'. If all it takes to be 'protected' is carrying a weapon. I would deny her a Gun, I would deny him a Gun. Still don't see how that makes me lose the moral high ground, but whatever."
New Jersey tends to be very stringent even on carrying knives. Also, she was stabbed to death. He didn't have a gun. The gun control worked as intended right? But she still ended up dead. The gun control didn't matter to her in the end, did it? If she had a gun as she requested and applied for, she likely could have much more easily shot her assailant. She was denied that. You would not be held responsible for her life for the laws you pass, right? Yet, an argument I hear all the time is that the blood of innocents murdered are on the hands of innocent gun owners. You so dismissively shirk your responsibility for that death.
"I haven't made the claim that getting rid of Guns would stop murder... That's a non-argument."
You stated, "I don't want people getting hurt or killed. Therefore my position is altruistic..." This is inferring that your plan will stop people from being hurt or killed. If that were the case, I'd be on board. Until we can actually get there, however, I'd rather would-be victims have the best power multipliers as technology can provide them.
"Okay, but I still don't think that's enough of a reason to allow people to carry Guns. The risks still outweigh the gains. What if the Guy overpowers the woman and gets his hands on the Gun? Remove the Gun and I still think the situation is safer for the woman."
Since there are 55,000+ defensive gun uses a year, that's 55,000+ people that have been saved or at least have prevented grievous bodily injury to themselves, such as rape. That's as opposed to the 10,000 murdered a year. That's greater than 5 times more people saved by guns than are murdered by them. The numbers simply don't prove your case.
"But it is. The only reason for a Gun is to kill. I would prefer that people did not kill so easily, therefore removing the Gun is an altruistic move. Violence will always happen, Women will not always have guns to protect themselves even in areas where Guns are legal. Unless you pass a law that forces all women to carry a gun, your argument does not hold weight."
I'd prefer no one die as well. However, I would prefer that if someone has to die to end an attack, it's the perpetrator of the attack, not the innocent defender. And you're right women will not always have a gun, but if it's allowed, that's a choice they've made for themselves; not a choice you forced on them.
"'From my perspective, you're meddling in who must be sacrificed for your authoritarianism.'
The same thing works from my perspective though."
My stance is liberty, however, not authoritarianism. If you choose to carry a gun, you may. If you choose not to, you may choose that as well. You are at liberty to choose for yourself. I will not choose for others how they defend their very lives based on that choice.
It doesn't make sense to me that when you are not directly responsible for someone else's life, how you feel you have the authority to tell them how they may or may not defend it.
1
-
1
-
@ericarogers3053 "Like forcing people to live in fear they might be shot?"
People have had the right to arms as part of the human condition long before government existed. In fact, them having arms is the only reason any of us are here. And no one has a right to not live in fear. Fear is as much a part of us as breathing. Fear is what drives us. We fear going hungry, thirsty, homeless, without love, loss, and so many things that drive our decisions and lives daily. Without fear, why would we even have reason to care to live?
"Your ENTIRE spiel about why Guns shouldn't be banned was because 'women are smaller than Men'. You made NO mention of smaller Men previously, only that 'this will affect Women because they are smaller', now you predictably move the goalposts. Funny that. Also, I'm a Trans-Woman, so I know what it's like to be a skinny-effeminate 'Man' that has to deal with much bigger assholes. I still do not think people should be allowed to have Guns, speaking as somebody from both sides of the Gender aisle.
Non-argument.
"
I haven't changed victory conditions on you, so I'm not moving the goalpost. I'm addressing a view that I think you may identify with best with your reasoning. You had been, up until now, rather pleasant to argue with. You've been kind, rational, and calm. Now you're again getting vile, intolerant, and incorrigible as before. That's not very nice. Despite losing my temper sometimes, especially when you're being exceptionally vile or arrogant, I've attempted to always bring it back to treating you with respect and dignity. I'd prefer that to be reciprocated.
"Just a way to close a loophole, really. 'Oh, yeah, Officer. It's not my Gun. It's, like, toootaallly my wife's!' If a Man would legally not be allowed to own a Gun, due to the fact they might hurt a woman with it (which was your whole argument), then letting them off from having a Gun, would be counterproductive. But it's not about 'saving women from harm' it's about owning Guns, so you can kill."
I'd like for you to know that I don't even own a gun. I have no desire to own a gun. I do enjoy target shooting from time to time, but not having guns around would not impact me in any way. I just couldn't bear on my heart that someone may die because I voted in a way that would disarm them or make it difficult for them to be armed. I would feel as though I might as well have killed them myself. In short, I have no dog in this fight other than my conscience.
But you didn't answer my question that I actually asked. From where does your authority come to send someone to jail, taking their freedom, for malum prohibitum of a right they would have had they not been in civilization?
"Because liberty without restraint is dangerous. Unlimited access to Guns harms people. Hey. What do you think about BLM protestors blocking a road?"
But any amount of liberty is dangerous, so where do you stop restraining liberty? And when you find that line, what if others' lines are in disagreement? What if the majority believe that all children should be institutionalized until they can prove they can become upstanding and contributing citizens to your society? Certainly, it would be safer. That's rather dystopian though.
Unlimited access to guns does harm people; but it also helps a lot of innocent people, right?
What do I think of BLM protesters blocking a road? I think those marching with BLM (and Antifa since they're currently closely related) are appealing to natural law, as is their right, to correct wrongs they perceive are happening. I don't begrudge them that right in the least. It's the government's job to maintain civil law, so I do fault them for not maintaining that civil law by making any group feel they are having their rights infringed to the point where they feel no alternative but an appeal to natural law.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jenkem4464 Outliers do not make the data. We have to use homicide data from 2006 through 2019 here since it's difficult to find accurate, annual rate data for the specific years covered (and the first 5 years of the 2000's were a sharper decline anyway, so it's an error in your argument's favor). Over these 14 years, there are 4 years recently with an increase in gun homicide rates (one of those years, 2012, is statistically insignificant, with a 1.5% increase from 2.78 to 2.82 (+0.04) and below the mean for this range as well). Overall through the 2000's, the number of deaths from gun violence doesn't vary much up or down from about 3 per 100,000 throughout the 2,000's. All years except for one (the lowest year) has been within ±0.5 of the mean. https://www.statista.com/statistics/249805/homicide-by-firearm-rate-in-the-united-states/
This is why anti-gun outlets have switched from charts to bulleted lists and infographs. They must use cherry-picked data to support their cause. Check the sites, Giffords, Every Town, Brady campaign, Moms Demand Action, etc. none of them are actually just posting raw graphs of the annual data on gun violence. There's a good reason for that. The data isn't backing them up.
Mass shootings have risen since the 80's, yes. 2000-2018 show a mean of about 16 incidents per year and a mean of about 50 deaths per year in those incidents. Taking a shower daily is more risky than gun ownership in this regard. https://www.fbi.gov/about/partnerships/office-of-partner-engagement/active-shooter-incidents-graphics
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jenkem4464 "The fact that you`re ONLY talking gun homicides as the determining factor in gun violence IS the misleading narrative."
If you can find a chart showing per 100k rates annually for 2000-present for all gun deaths, feel free to present it. Otherwise, this is what we have to work with. As I said, "homicides" is a vast majority of gun deaths, including suicides, murders, and justified homicides. It is easily over 90% of gun deaths.
"so post your two points clearly, and concisely, in the next comment and I can address them if you`d like. Waiting with baited breath!"
1.
You claimed, "When you balance the scales, the number of deaths attributed to gun violence far far outweighs the anecdotal instances of "good guys" with guns."
I responded, "At a bare minimum, in the most liberal-leaning studies you can find, guns are used defensively at least 55,000 times a year. 10,000-12,000 murders a year happen on average. So right there, you're wrong. (A Call for a Truce in the DGU War, Tom W. Smith, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Issue 4, Summer 1997)"
2.
You claimed, "When we're talking about the rise in gun violence over the past 20 years..."
I responded, "Gun violence and violence in general has been dropping since the 90's in the US. Early/mid 90's was when murders in the US peaked at an all-time high."
https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000474/gun-homicides-decline
Bated breath, by the way. Unless you're just trying to tell me your breath smells like fish bait.
1
-
@jenkem4464 "Suicide via guns are actually higher than homicides. fyi."
To repeat myself for a third time now, I'm just going to copy and paste the two times I've already explained this to you:
"Homicides include almost all gun deaths. It generally includes murders, suicides, and justified homicide."
"'homicides' is a vast majority of gun deaths, including suicides, murders, and justified homicides."
Honestly, and I can't help but be really harsh with this, I really hope you're trolling at this point and not really this stupid.
"And again, you're ignoring the most pertinent trend that leads to the present day."
You think that increase of 1 per 100,000 from ~2005-2020 is hair-on-fire scary regardless of the 4 per 100,000 decrease from the larger set of data, I know... Do you know when you use the "per 100K" measurement in statistics? When we're talking about very, very, very small numbers that are difficult to read in very small fractions of a percentage. So that increase from 3 per 100,000 to 4 per 100,000 (which, by the way, is beginning to return to the mean) represents a percentage rate change of 0.003% to 0.004%. It's important to keep in perspective that we're talking absolutely minuscule numbers all around here.
"What's the point of talking about trends if you don't include the decade leading up to the present day"
I did. It's included in the full set of data from 40 years ago to today.
"so post your two points clearly, and concisely, in the next comment and I can address them"
I did, and you didn't address them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ah, I see. Persians are weird. They're Arabized, they're Muslim, but the really cling on tightly to the fact that "they're not Arabs". The mujahideen is a weird animal, too. There are a wide variety of reasons these people take up jihad. I would like to think that most are noble, such as militia fighters fighting against ISIS. And I think that's what ultimately the US hopes as well. And certainly our relationship with Saudi Arabia has to do with oil, and I think that's a mutual control aspect. Saudi gets pull with the US for having aligned interests in selling oil at reasonable prices, but also if the US remains is largest purchaser, with Saudi Arabia being the largest contributor to Islamic extremism, it gives us a pull. That's happenstance of course given the deal we were given following the fall of the Ottoman Empire. I have sometimes wondered if it were BP that got Saudi oil and the US that got Iranian oil, how things would be different today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Willie, "In 2013, households in the top, middle, and bottom income quintiles received 53, 14, and 5 percent, respectively, of the nation's before-tax income and paid 69, 9, and 1 percent, respectively, of federal taxes." -Congressional Budget Office.
So the top are the only ones that paid more than their share while the middle and bottom paid less than their share. The top also paid well over half of the Federal taxes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"but if your however suggesting that americans prisons, or even majority of Californian prisons alone, are filled with gangmembers, murders and the like, that is such a false statement and just makes you look stupid mate."
In 2010, there were 94,000 in California imprisoned for homicide, robbery (face-to-face theft), assault and battery, sex offenses, and kidnapping of a total of 162,000. You really don't understand our unique issues here, do you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's that the safeguards, like the Electoral College (which both Federalists and Antifederalists felt was a good system), that were removed to "streamline" the democratic process and make it more "democratic". In short, any time something gets in the way of one person's authoritarian streak, they convince people to dismantle or ignore the system against their own nation's long-term well being. Unchecked political parties are exactly that. Did you know that George Washington actually predicted someone exactly like Trump over 240 years ago as a result from unchecked party politics? And yet, as a whole, we're still too blind to see his presidency as a direct consequence of our action and inaction to stymie the power out of our lust for getting our own way. Here's Washington's farewell address:
"I have already intimated to you, the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, Generally.—
"This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissention, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of is own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
"Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely ought of sight) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise People to discourage and restrain it.
"It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
"There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched; it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming it should consume."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We backed off the 90% top marginal tax rate starting in the 60's, not 80's, 90's and 00's. And 21% (+state taxes which can be up to 11% mind you, and property taxes, and sales taxes, etc.) is in line with nations like Denmark, Norway, and Sweden.
"Europe has the lowest average statutory corporate tax rate among all regions, at 19.99 percent. When weighted by GDP, South America has the highest average statutory corporate tax rate at 31.83 percent. Europe has the lowest weighted average statutory corporate income tax, at 24.61 percent."
https://taxfoundation.org/publications/corporate-tax-rates-around-the-world/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrBenny1010101 Between 2005 and 2017, the US reduced CO2 emissions by about 900 Mt/yr. The EU reduced emissions by about 800 Mt/yr. Meanwhile, China has increased emissions by about 3800 Mt/yr., Russia has gone up a marginal amount, India has gone up by 1,200 Mt/yr, Canada went up marginally, Japan went up, South Korea went up, Australia has gone up, Norway has gone up.... Yet, for whatever reason, your kind view the US is the bad guy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cetty, that's not the definition of socialism, you fool. Socialism is the public ownership of the means of production. What the concern here is democratic socialism: that is, bringing about socialism by way of exploiting democratic process in a capitalist nation. This includes creating policy that crushes private industry, forcing the government to subsidize and thereby control that industry. See modern agriculture in the US as part of the fallout from the Dust Bowl to see an example of the effects of democratic socialism. It's like what Reagan said about the way the Democrats operate: If it moves, tax it. If it still moves, tax it more. If it stops moving, subsidize it.
Cetty & Alexander, I really don't understand why I have to expound on why roads do not equate to healthcare, and why it's not sound logic to argue for one by referencing the other. No, I'm not going to think for you. Make two lists for me. In one list, how how roads and healthcare are alike. In another list, show how roads and healthcare are different. Go.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hardly. Most wealth isn't cash or readily accessible as cash. It's in stocks held, assets, property, etc. That's wealth. That's the problem with this comparison. You can't compare WEALTH to income taxes paid. You compare INCOME. INCOME is what's taxed. These 25 individuals paid $130 million each per year to the feds. And that's just the feds. I imagine much more went to their respective states and local governments.
Let's say you live in Los Angeles as an engineer making $180K a year, and you owned a home valued at $2 million. Property value increases at about 12% per year. You, as an engineer have to pay 32% to the feds, 9.3% to the state. That's $74,340 you pay in income taxes now. Now if it works like you think it should, you're also going to have to pay income taxes on that $240,000 your home increased in value. You have to pay an additional $99,120 in income tax. Have fun paying the mortgage for your home at $6,540 a year. I don't think you're making your $7,434 a mortgage payment. That's why it's retarded to tax wealth and this comparison is retarded.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@uncannyvalley2350 ....lol no....
Alright, so Walmart is the poster child of corporate greed and stealing labor from the worker right? Hell, CNN running the headline a few years back "Walmart's CEO earns 1,188 times as much as the company's median worker". Reading that probably gets you worked up. Me, on the other hand, it gets me thinking. Alright, so I bring up Walmart because I already did the research on this. You caught me. But ain't nobody trying to defend Walmart. Now I went and figured it out. I went and figured out for all executive pay, all board pay and all dividends. You know what that comes out to? I'm going to figure high here for you just so you see how ridiculous your claim is... It comes out to about $200... PER YEAR per employee. Less than $2 per paycheck pays all that. Now look at me and tell me that they're stealing meaningful amounts of labor. About $50 of that goes to executive and board pay. $150 to dividends, including what the Waltons pocket. So, no, you're just full of shit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jonathanxavier2026 "I am not interested in your everyday "definition" anymore than I am in someone calling a child "a kid", even if a dictionary accepted such a definition. Proofs only exist in maths."
You be sure to let everyone who works with leavened dough that they may no longer "proof" their loaves. Also, let all US alcohol manufacturers know that they may no longer label alcohol content as "proof". Oh yes, and "proof" readers -- what shall they be called I wonder? It will be a boring language without homonyms, but I suppose I could understand how someone of such small talents would be very confused by them as you seem to be. My personal favorite part is how you put "definition" in quotes, like I didn't pull the definition from Merriam-Webster. You don't care how much you embarrass yourself, you're just going to hang onto it, aren't you? Tim Merriss was right. You should just run, because you're sorely ill-equipped to even be here.
I said I was questioned about my background, not grilled. He made an incorrect assumption. I corrected the incorrect assumption. As I said, whether you believe it or not is no skin off my back. I'm moving on.
Let me know what you see here that isn't a government-funded project: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products.html
As an aside, when looking through that list, I discovered that I need to catch up on their compact fusion reactor project, because I see now that there have been a lot of developments. I have three patents to read through and I found a great SME article to read through. If you're interested in the article: https://fusion4freedom.com/intensive-analysis-lockheed-martins-fusion-effort/
Anyway, I don't have anymore time for your trolling nonsense. This research is much more interesting to me. You should spend more time doing this kind of thing instead of trolling, and maybe you'll have a similar breadth and depth of knowledge as I do someday.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Technicolor, "In 2013, households in the top, middle, and bottom income quintiles received 53, 14, and 5 percent, respectively, of the nation's before-tax income and paid 69, 9, and 1 percent, respectively, of federal taxes." -Congressional Budget Office
Notice that the only people paying a larger share than they receive is the top.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dje6719 It was the Capitol, but yes. That makes no difference. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"You will not find a single reference anywhere in the founding documents of this country to the Second Amendment being there to fight a tyrannical government."
You don't need to dig deep to disprove this claim. And don't think it was missed on me that you caught yourself, adding a very specific "founding documents" requirement so that you may no doubt later apply a no true Scotsman fallacy. I personally consider the Federalist Papers to be part of our founding documents. They are instrumental and specifically compiled by the Framers for the purpose of understanding the intentions of the Constitution. You'll find Madison reference this issue in Federalist 46:
"Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."
In Federalist 84, Hamilton explains that the federal government is one of positive powers:
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."
This is instrumental to this issue because he's claiming that items that appear in the Bill of Rights, the federal government already doesn't have power over it. We can examine the Constitution and see the federal government is not given power over who can own what -- guns and otherwise.
The Italian resistance was armed, and was a thorn in Mussolini's side for Italy's entire life as part of the Axis. It's arguable that a nation like Italy having to divide its resources to a war front front much less generously because of that home resistance had at least some positive impact in the war for the Allies.
The essence of the cautionary tale against Nazis and guns does exist in actual history, with the actual history being, I think, a much better cautionary tale (just not as pithy as “Nazis confiscated guns.”). The actual tale begins at the end of World War I, when German leaders signed the Treaty of Versailles. As part of that treaty, the nation of Germany was limited on the number of arms it could have within its borders. Concerned of reprise, the German government (at this time called the Weimar Republic) wanted to concentrate arms into its military so it would be prepared to defend the country—you know, for the greater good. They did this under a stiff penalty of 10 years in prison and a 100,000 Mark fine.
Regardless, there was a lot of nonconformity and push-back from the German people, including arguing how could they be capable of rebelling if need be. Very little arms were actually turned in. The Weimar Republic over the course of their tenure passed two other, stricter gun control laws and stepped up enforcement a great deal.
So by the time the Nazis were coming to power, the hard work had already been done for them as part of some nebulous concept of what the leadership of the Weimar Republic viewed as “the greater good.” The Nazi party didn’t have to go out and confiscate weapons; they just had to loosen the laws to allow NSDAP party members have guns, refusing Jews the ability to have or trade in weapons, etc. Why should we ever pave the way for such egregious evil?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marryellenmonahan5585 It's a shame you cut out just as it was getting interesting, but for anyone else that happens to come by, I'll explain what I was going to explain to you. That headline of Walmart's CEO making 1188 times more than the workers means that Doug McMillon was given $24 million in compensation (Actually, his salary is $1.3 million, but we'll assume all stock compensation as cash on hand anyway, just to make it in your favor as much as possible). That comes out to 62 cents per check per employee. Even if you include all dividends (which includes the Walton money) and board and executive pay, it comes out to about $2 per check from each employee.
So you see that headline and you don't think critically. You just assume that it must mean something. You dig no deeper. You accept it without thinking because it fits your preconceived notion.
Meanwhile, those workers are paying between 30% - 50% of their check to the government by way of income, sales and other taxes.
So who's keeping them poor...?
Oh yeah, can't forget the government is charging the company tax for hiring that worker too. So not only is the government taking half of that person's check, but they're also costing the company more than your compensation for the privilege of being able to work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
allcondolesaregood, "Because that's how societies work! If you honestly don't want to live in a society where everyone contributes to the pie (and the rich have a higher amount to contribute), then say goodbye to police departments, fire departments, hospitals, public education, roads, electricity, parks, and waterworks."
Well, the issue here isn't the rich paying a higher amount, but a higher *percentage*. We can still have all of those things as a privilege of society without having the rich taxed at a higher rate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sheldon, it follows that the higher the level of danger of participating in a criminal act, the less likely that criminal act tends to occur. This is why police patrol instead of sitting at HQ waiting for a call. It's been proven that presence is the first step in deterring crime. That can be expanded to include any presence that creates a risky environment within which for the crime to occur, including video surveillance, alarm systems, locks, and more up to and including at least one person at the location being armed, with the more who are armed, the more cameras there are, the more alarm systems there are, the more locks there are, etc. the higher the risk to the criminal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Naomi, yeah, you haven't devolved into a dystopia in 20 years. Give it time. History will repeat itself.
A mass shooter wouldn't know what parishioners are armed until it was too late for him. And if I were a parishioner, I'd rather die shooting and drawing his fire, giving everyone else more time than live unarmed and unable to do anything. As well, the more there are armed, the more likely you will have someone in a place where they can stop the shooter.
If the neighbor sees who's coming out of the church, he doesn't have to fire. Your hypothetical implies that the instinct is to just shoot at anyone with a gun. That's wrong. A normal person's instinct is to hesitate. And, yes, the instinct to hesitate will occur on the other side too. Certainly the driver of the truck the hero got into while holding his AR-15 didn't get attacked right off the bat, even though that driver wasn't sure what was going on.
1
-
Naomi, mass shootings account for (literally, I did the math) 0.005% of annual deaths. Our gun deaths are on a decline. And, yes, those nations have been around for a long time, but outside of Japan, weapons restrictions are new. Feudal Japan disarmed the populace because they feared the people. The people found it so necessary to have instruments of war that they trained using what they had, namely farm tools: nunchaku (crop thresher), kama (sickle used to cut up bundles of plants), bo (stick), tonfa (mill handle), and others.
When your government oversteps its bounds, and it eventually will, then you will learn why keeping your arms and not allowing your government to track what arms you own, is very important.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MarkTubeG "I just know it's none of my business."
This is like saying you can't judge what's justifiable homicide or murder because you weren't one of the people involved. It's a vapid argument.
"but it's disingenuous of you to say that's how to solve for this when you know that's virtually impossible to pull off."
Then you don't have the numbers to push your agenda to the federal level and it remains in the hands of the states. Simple as.
"Our government is out of whack right now, in terms of properly representing our citizens. That's due to several factors, including Republican despicable efforts to retain power against the majority. Republicans are a very small part of our make up now (and fading fast), yet they maintain their 50-50 status in the House and Senate."
First, only about half of the population of the US votes. Of that half, about half vote Republican and about half vote Democrat. That's all of 25% of the entire nation for either Dem or Rep, so remember that for context. In the last election, Biden received 51.3% of the popular vote. It's not some chasm of a divide.
"There are many Democrat agenda items that are wildly popular with Americans, but Republicans block all of them. That's not representation, that's suppression. That's not how our government is supposed to work. ... But right now, Democrats are more in step with the majority, and the majority is supposed to get their way. Simple as that."
You have a lot of ideas of "should" but don't go out to learn why it doesn't work like you think it should. Good legislation not passing is better than bad legislation passing. Government is established because men aren't angels, yet those same fallible people have to run whatever government's set up. Really consider the implications of these two untidy realities that we have to contend with before you start getting all authoritarian. And remember, of course your ideas seem obviously like great ideas to you.
1
-
@MarkTubeG All of the same pleasantries to you. I don't mind disagreement and hashing things out with words. I prefer that. It's hard to find similar minds.
"It's not vapid at all, it is at the heart of this nation's divide on this subject. The difference between people that believe that life begins at conception, and those that don't. Since it sounds like you're in the former camp, that explains your passion about this. Just because you feel that way, doesn't make it so."
You're right that it's at the heart of the conversation, but it shouldn't be. It doesn't matter what your position is in life, we are perfectly capable of rational reasoning from the perspective of another person who is different from ourselves. The practice of that may vary, but then irrational arguments can be spotted for what they are.
It's also a lot more complex than just all-or-nothing. Again, I don't know why you feel you understand my position on abortion. That's an entirely separate issue from proper governance, which is much more my concern than any given issue at hand.
However, this is the second time you've taken a guess at it, so let me clear the air: if I'm to pick anything, I think that Roe was most proper despite the method by which it came about being highly improper. I would be accepting of codifying Roe into the US Constitution or, barring that, into the individual state constitutions when possible. The Founders, I believe, set the legal line at the "quickening" which was the first movement felt. Viability, as Roe ruled, is a similar acceptable line to guarantee abortions up until, then leaving it up to the individual sensibilities of the various states from there.
"The fact is, and why this has been fought tooth and nail on both sides for so long, is because "when life begins" is a completely unprovable concept. Just like the existence of a god is. Sorry, whether you believe in the quandary or not, again, doesn't matter. It is for each of us to decide, and for each of us to live with the consequences should we act on our beliefs. It is NOT for YOU to decide. It is NOT for our government to decide. And since another making that decision for themselves, for their family, affects me not in the least, THAT'S what makes it none of my business, and NONE OF YOURS!"
This is a nihilistic line of thought. Could I not then just argue on the basis of this logic that the person I just killed to take their property for myself was never really alive if we can't make a determination of when life begins? Before we get together into a society, you're right that it's none of anyone else's concern. However, once you get into a society, one of the natural rights that's absolutely necessary to give up to the public discourse is justice after the fact, which is the circle in which this topic falls.
"If 330M people could "judge what's justifiable homicide or murder," then we wouldn't be having this discussion. The fact is, 330M people don't agree."
You're right--which is why justifiable homicide and murder and its punishments are handled by the individual states. If murder--likely the most egregious of violations of another's natural rights--is handled that way, it seems there should be no issue handling every lesser issue in the same manner.
"So in this society, with this form of government, when we don't all agree 100%, what is the solution? The majority decides. Period."
Doing nothing is an option as well.
"Your math about the voting public is irrelevant, as is how the numbers worked for the last election."
I'm not the one that brought up election numbers. It's not very good faith discourse to bring up a subject as a point of argument, then handwave the rebuttal to it, claiming the entire fact is irrelevant. It wasn't irrelevant when you brought it up and you thought it supported you.
"I'm talking just about the subject of abortion, and I misspoke, it's closer to 64% (not 70), but a very clear majority. That's not 64% of voters, that 64% of our citizens (if polling is to be believed). And again, it doesn't matter how you and I feel about it, majority rules (or should)."
"So we DO have the numbers to support an amendment, but our government doesn't represent us."
Or polling is mistaken.
"Elected officials vote what they believe, not what their electorate does."
Elected officials vote in a way that keeps them elected. That would be what their electorate wants. And it's a ranked scale. Some issues are much more important than others with various electorates.
"But the Right tipped the scales when they leveraged the ignorant Trump to appoint those three radical Justices, who lied their way on to the Court specifically to alter 50-year-old precedent."
I certainly wouldn't say they lied. I also certainly wouldn't say they're radical as far as this decision is concerned. It was a wholly proper decision from the court while Roe was in actuality the radical and inappropriate decision. Also keep in mind that if the SCOTUS couldn't overturn itself, the Dread Scott decision would still be in effect, requiring a constitutional amendment to override it.
"And come on, you're smart enough to know that move was only the first step. They used 'it should be a States issue' to topple Roe, knowing full well they were going to try for a federal ban next. They didn't even wait more than a month or two to start the process. So don't bother with any sort of argument about a State's issue, when we both know that is not the true agenda of the religious-right."
You're probably right. However, their motives do not make the action/decision right or wrong. I could save someone from imminent death in hopes of getting a large payment. While my motives may be questionable, at the end of the day, saving the person was an upstanding act. The motive is a different fish to fry altogether. And loading governance decisions with such presumed motives just breeds paranoia.
"The rest of your comments are just snide, like 'go out to learn why it doesn't work like you think it should' and 'before you start getting all authoritarian.' It was a good discussion, but I choose to not continue getting insulted by someone that I have no chance in convincing my point of view."
Call it snide, but these are matters of fact that you've shown a great deal of ignorance in and a lack of thought towards. I like chess. In chess, you have people that look for the best move they can make. They do pretty well and can find themselves anywhere from 1,500-2,000 Elo, which is pretty high. Then you have people that look for the best move their opponent can make in response. That's a whole other level of gameplay. Governance is similar in that regard in that whatever power you provide yourself, you also provide to your worst and smartest political enemy and their entire hoard. While I watch you look at this great move you have in your head and ready to excitedly play it, you're missing the attack your opponent is lining up. That's not snide--that's a wake-up call--if you can calm your ego enough to not be insulted and so be capable of seeing the reasoning behind what I'm telling you. At this point, you haven't done that. You've instead chosen to be insulted by true but hard words and shut down like a child. So I take back with what I opened this post with. Clearly you feeling smart is more important than actually being smart. Being smart also requires carefully evaluating and correcting where you're not smart. The best minds are the ones that can be corrected. Incorrigible minds belong in children alone, and even there it's only marginally tolerated.
"So you can have the last word (but know you're not going to have any better luck convincing me)."
Then I'm here in more good faith than you are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zacharyfrancis5852 From the previous thread: when you claimed the Declaration of independence doesn't mention any right to own a gun. "Yes, it does mention guns. When it states, '...that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,' life comes with it the natural ability to defend that life using whatever advantages one can get.
"And it also shows in there why government should never seek to infringe on those rights. 'That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...'"
"It's short and you can read it right now to find what it says." I'm the one that initially told you many days ago that The Second Treatise of Government is free online and to read it because you're clearly ignorant of it, so don't get who here reads and who here doesn't twisted. It's quite possible you simply don't understand it because of its archaic language.
"Locke is very clear about the rights and limits of property. He says that only what a man can immediately use is legitimately his." This is completely untrue. Lockean proviso provides that a man can retain ownership rights of anything provided the ownership of it doesn't prevent similar ownership to any other person.
"For example, he says a man has a right to any apples he picks, unless he picks so many they go to waste." He's talking about a pre-government state of nature here. Only when the tree and its fruit were both in commons does this apply. If that man were to plant the tree, care for it, feed it what it needs, he may dispose of the fruits of that tree and the tree itself any way he sees fit, even if it's to pick them all and let them rot, not eating a single one, or just cutting the tree down for lumber.
"Scholarship has clearly linked Lockean property theory to the 'Labor Theory of Value'" Now this is a joke. Locke would never decree that any other person has a right to set a price on one's own property. That flies in the face of his belief of property rights of that individual. I'd love to read those published articles, because that has to be some of the most unirionically funniest mental gymnastics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
With all due respect for your love and knowledge of civil law, this is natural law. Natural law is always inherently superior to civil law and very a different beast from civil law. I don't agree with anyone's reasons here, but, to quote Jefferson, "The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty."
And I'd like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that Washington warned about this in his farewell address:
"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
"This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
"Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
"It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
"There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrMoaksy If you want to speak of efficacy, reply that to the OP, not me. My point was a counter to the claim of we might as well get rid of murder laws too, since they're disregarded.
I didn't say the UK has a problem with mass shootings. I said it still has had mass shootings regardless of draconian legislation against the rights of people who've committed no crime and never would, leaving them without a very effective tool to stop attacks against their person.
So if a woman is raped and murdered, you find that an acceptable sacrifice. You find that her bodily integrity and life is worth less than would-be gun victims. I find that type of legislation wholly evil. That type of legislation is also part of why the United States separated from England.
Liberty is not safe. It's rather dangerous. To you, to allow a person their liberty when some may dangerously abuse those liberties equates to being wrong. So, I have to wonder, why doesn't everyone start in prison until they prove they can be trusted with their freedom to move about without supervision? You have opted to sell liberty for safety, and this system of institutionalization and programming would certainly would be safer for your society. The point I'm making, if you find this egregious or absurd, that's me sounding the same alarm on the same logic -- just earlier than you would.
Relevant counter-points is one thing. Trying to nail me on a technicality of not mentioning you need a background check for an operative main gun on a tank is asinine, because that's true for any NFA weapon and any weapon purchased through an FFL. It was a given that a background check is required.
Typically, I would say that a background check is not an infringement on any rights. When I go to purchase a firearm, I fill out a short form and get a clear immediately. It's one of the few reasonable pieces of legislation. Getting a tax stamp, however, is indeed much more of a problem. So not only do you need to pay a "rights tax" (and if you can't have a poll tax, how can this exist?), but you also typically won't hear your results for a year or more. It's absurd.
And, I know, you don't think arms are a right. Well, read your own countryman's work: Locke's Second Treatise of Government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Another dishonest quote. What he really said was, "As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and His Religion, as He left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to His divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon..." B.F. to Ezra Stiles, March 9, 1790
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Taniesha_S You're showing a lack of nuance and reason. It's almost like you, and others who reason along the same lines, feel in order to sufficiently despise her actions, the person she acted against must be a pristine angel of goodness and law, or otherwise above reprimand for anything. Or, you feel threatened that it's in some way an attempt to lessen her poor actions. You attack anyone, even me just explaining what happened to someone who was unaware, for saying anything that disrupts that necessary delusion. It doesn't have to be the former, and I've no intent of the latter, hence my acknowledgement that this doesn't excuse her in any way at the end of my original post. It was put there specifically for people like you, but you can't even read it or you don't want to comprehend it. I was replying to someone who didn't understand where the threat was to explain that part to that individual. I get bombarded with ignorant comments from people like you who can't see past their own feelings.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Greg Fakerson The Second Amendment was about a large number of things, but the fundamental take-away is this: "We didn't give you the power in Article 1, Section 8 to take people's guns and we're going to reiterate here don't. fucking. take. people's. guns. Don't even impede their ownership of arms a little bit. Yes, it's really that important."
"No man has greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valour. But when once a standing army is established, in any country, the people lose their liberty. When against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defense — yeomanry, unskillful & unarmed, what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies? An instance within the memory of some of this house, — will shew us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British parliament was advised by an artful man, [Sir William Keith] who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people. That it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. But that they should not do it openly; but to weaken them and let them sink gradually, by totally defusing and neglecting the militia. [Here MR. MASON quoted sundry passages to this effect.] This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed?" -George Mason, Virginia ratifying convention (1788)
We even have a letter to Sir William Keith written likely by Benjamin Franklin and likely read as part of that sundry Mr. Mason read at the ratifying convention from the Pennsylvania Assembly in 1755 regarding this: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition..."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Just did a simple comparison:
$9,325 10%
$9,325 - $37,950 / $932 +15% marginal
$37,950 - $91,900 / $5,226.25 25% marginal
$91,900 - $191,650 / $18,713.75 28% marginal
$191,650 - $416,700 / $46,643.75 33% marginal
$416,700 - $418,400 / $120,190.25 35% marginal
$418,400+ / $121,505.25 39.6% marginal
$9,525 10%
$9525 - $38,700 / $952 +12% marginal (more money)
$38,700 - $82,500 / 4,453.50 22% marginal (more money)
$82,500 - $157,500 / $14,089.50 24% marginal (more money*)
$157,500 - $200,000 / $32,089.50 32% marginal (more money)
$200,000 - $500,000 / $45,689.50 35% marginal (more money)
$500,000+ / $150,689 37% marginal (more money)
*People that will be hit by this bill are making between $82,500 and $91,900 (single filing). These people will be paying about $4,000 more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RdeSuiza Because of the tens of thousands of dollars he's invested into himself, the constant continual education of himself and working up to take on the role of ultimate responsibility for trillions of dollars of investments. And, no, it's just laughable to hear you say that employees have the same amount of working hours per week. You act like the guy checking you out is waking up at 4 AM and reading all of the headlines related to their business and industry, spent some $100,000 and 6 years just to learn the basics of checking out, spent decades since then with increasing responsibility to work up to the real-life expertise needed to check someone out, works a 10-12 hour day seven days a week, goes home and starts reading as much as possible about their industry of checking out customers to ensure they're achieving maximum performance and staying ahead of the curve just to maintain their job while fielding calls from other checkers to help them figure out what they need until it's time for them to sleep. If checkers actually invested that much time in their work, they'd easily be CEO's or other top level executive. When the only thing you bring to the table is your back and you're not even interested in investing in yourself by learning more, I don't understand why they should expect to make much more than subsistance.
1
-
@RdeSuiza "...roughly 40% of college graduates (thus those who you adhere to have invested in their education) find themselves in low-end jobs..." Getting a bachelor's degree is a bare minimum amount of effort. When one does the bare minimum, I won't be surprised when they're not as hirable as someone who put more effort into their career, even if that greater effort was just networking themselves. I'd also be interested to see what kind of degrees are included in that 40%. Your critical thinking should be asking that question already, but it didn't. Why?
"As you claim, the less than one percent that makes it into the executives categories work harder than their employees. Really? Nowadays and just to stay afloat, workers have to take on 3 to 5 jobs to survive." 3-5 part time jobs =/= working more. If you're not putting in 100+ hours a week into working and investing in yourself, you will always be nothing.
"If they have a family on top of that and aren't single, then they have literally no time to further invest in additional education or reading." Most CEO's have families.
"I doubt these executives do the same..." They do that and so much more. They're a part-time data analyst, they're a part-time psychologist, they're a part-time student, they're a part-time economist, they're a part-time strategist, they're a part-time systems analyst, they're a part-time salesman, they're a part-time politician, and a full-time leader that's always on. That's just what it takes to stay on top.
"Reality is that income inequality is further on the rise" There being rich people doesn't make anyone else poor.
"You should ask yourself, why a top earner of hundreds of millions a year needs three instead of only one yacht just because he or she feels it's not enough." You should ask yourself what it matters.
"...salaries should be distributed more fairly so that everyone can benefit from, including our economy." You know, if every executive and board member gave up their entire compensation as liquid (since most compensation is actually in the value of stocks, not liquid, but let's say they liquidate those stocks and pay it to the employees), each employee at Walmart would get an additional $100 a YEAR. And that's rounding way up just to be safe. The executives of Walmart making millions isn't causing anyone to be paid less. All it comes down to is executives being paid less for the simple sake of executives being paid less. It has no real impact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stephenthomas3085 "Not the right wing media, Fox, I need hardly remind you has a very large audience indeed."
Of the two dozen or so national news sources, you have FOX News.
"Even if this was the case it is somewhat irrelevant because US society, some states more than others, are super saturated n weapons. Not just sidearms but larger weapons too."
This is tangential and borderline non sequitur. Against a soft target, it hardly matters if you're using a rifle or a handgun, and a rifle is probably the worse option in most mass shootings.
"I could legitimately argue that you are desensitised to gun violence, that the consequences and true import of such violence now goes over your head. We had a gun massacre in my country in the 1980s, this created such a wave of horror that strict (and, in my opinion) sane gun controls were introduced. They didn't stop gun ownership, they just made it a whole lot safer, for everybody."
It made it safer for everyone except those that could have used a gun to defend their own lives. And that's a sin on you and every voter that supported it. I maintain that every person has a right to defend themselves how they see fit, and that I will err on the side of the innocent having every tool available to equal the playing field or gain an advantage than try to take from ne'er-do-wells that in no way has even the opportunity to help a would-be-victim be more capable of defending themselves.
Do you believe in Blackstone's formulation that it's better than 100 guilty should go free rather than 1 innocent person be wrongfully convicted? If so, how do you propose that the citizens effectively defend themselves from the 100?
"Switzerland has an armed citizenry, however an equivalent to Sandy Hook didn't happen here."
And why not is the question. Your argument was that guns are the problem. You present now evidence that citizens can have not just semi-automatic rifles en masse, but selective fire rifles (read: machine guns) en masse and be perfectly safe. So which is it? Rather than hindering would-be victims, perhaps you should look at what in your culture makes a person want to murder (and be capable of murdering) children at a whim. And that's what we need to address in America. But the screaming from inside and outside just against the tool is hindering the furtherance of that. I'm not interested in band-aids to serious issues, especially when those band-aids work to punish those who've never done and would never do anything wrong. That is a perversion of justice.
"Well it's not doing a very good job then is it....?! It is killing and maiming massive numbers of its own citizens every year and creating a huge economic cost."
As above, I think it's better to understand why someone would want to do that and fix that problem. These mass shootings, especially the 16 a year we have on average taking an average of 55 lives a year, is a very new advent starting at about the turn of the century.
"This was a long long time ago, things can change radically in ten years. In two or three hundred...? You cannot predicate the organisation of a complex society, with deeply polarised views, poorly educated people, inadequate mental health provision, all fed by a dreadful media on the thoughts of a few early modern philosophers."
Everything is perfectly predictable if you have enough information. And what this response tells me is that you've not read the philosophies and you're not interested in reading the philosophies. I can understand if you think they're thick tomes containing esoteric linguistics, but Locke's Second Treatise of Government is only about 90 pages long, is written in plain English, and has very simple concepts. How can you even know if the philosophies make sense today if you've not read them?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Gardening causes all kinds of chemical runoff, wastes fresh water which must be processed and pumped, and the tools of the trade which must be manufactured.
Reading requires the paper, processing, printing inks, printing and binding, chemical glues, etc. E-books require the electricity to charge the device, powering of the servers, space for the servers, the internet and its needs, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jakemccoy You're right to a degree, but something to remember is that money loaned never stops being the bank's money, and the bank already paid the taxes on that money when it liquidated it. Just like if you get a paycheck, you paid taxes on that paycheck. If you put the remainder in savings, it doesn't get taxed again. If you loan it to a buddy, that's still your money that you already paid taxes on. Your buddy is paying you your own money back. If you're an asshole friend and charge your buddy interest, you'll pay taxes on that interest because that temporary exchange that was never NOT your property was already taxed in full. Now if your buddy never pays you back, you can claim that it's a loan that's defaulted on, you can claim a loss on those funds, lowering your AGI when calculating your tax return. Your buddy then is responsible for the tax for that amount he received. As long as your property comes back to you, he doesn't. He pays tax on whatever income he's using to pay the interest and principle. You pay tax on the interest earned but not the principle being returned to you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jerry Gallo No, sir. I was just re-watching the Ballad of Buster Scruggs. The Tax Foundation is the source. They have an annually-updated article titled, "Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, XXXX Update". For their 2020 update, they show that the top 25% of earners filed 35,823,790 tax returns totaling $7.561 trillion in income. They receive a share of 69.1% of total gross income. Their share of taxes paid total 86.1%.
The top 10%, 5% and 1% receive and pay respectively: 47.7%, 70.1%; 36.5%, 59.1%; and 21.0%, 38.5%.
Interestingly, the bottom 50% receive 11.3% of the income but pay 3.1% of the share of taxes.
Huh. As it turns out, the only individuals "not paying their fair share" are those making under $41,740 a year. So it seems when we speak of corporate welfare, it's a misnomer, because the well-paid support and executive staff and those receiving most dividends from the stock are the ones by and large providing the welfare through taxes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To give a hand: Cenk Uyghur is pronounced as chenk/jenk (Somewhere in between those two) yoo-ger.
10:47 This had been corrected, but I'm not sure if this would change the message in the video that depends on this information. The FAIC from the Portland, Oregon office clarified and explained that the Clark County Sheriff's Office (who used the FBI's presentation to fire a deputy) received no such instruction. OPB's article titled, "Portland FBI Head Clarifies Statement On Proud Boys," clarified this. in 2018, which includes the quote:
"Cannon said FBI agents presented background at the briefing on domestic threats posed by militias, white supremacists and anarchists.
"'In that briefing there was a slide that talked about the Proud Boys,' Cannon said.
"The slide was intended to characterize the potential for violence from individual members of the Proud Boys, according to Cannon, and not to address the group as a whole.
'There have been instances where self-identified Proud Boys have been violent,' he said. 'We do not intend and we do not designate groups, especially broad national groups, as extremists.'"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
One voice, I never said Republicans made valid laws. Read this tidbit from Alexander Hamilton (Federalist No. 84): "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights." (Accentuation by me).
He predicted your argument almost 250 years before you even made it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Casey Marling, "A Law of Nature is a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which destructive of his life, or take away the means of preserving the same; and to omit that by which he thinks it may be best preserved. … Consequently it is a precept, or general rule of reason, that every man ought to endeavor peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek, and use, all helps and advantages of war." -Thomas Hobbes
"Must men alone be debarred the common privilege of opposing force with force, which nature allows so freely to all other creatures for their preservation from injury? I answer: self defense is a part of the law of nature, nor can it be denied the community, even against the king himself..." -John Locke
I'm not uneducated.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Elie,
1. Finding the right time to counter is a part of understanding how to use a gun. In many situations which attackers have guns and get the drop, the would-be victims do have moments when they can pull a gun at an advantage. It's up to the individual as to whether or not they want to carry a gun for protection. I won't begrudge someone their liberty to choose as some would begrudge me mine.
2. I can't answer for everyone as to why a handgun isn't enough. For a person in Texas, it might be for culling wild hog populations that destroy farm land (and if you've never been hog hunting, you definitely want the quick follow up shots of a semi-automatic rifle). Protection of property is just as important as protection of self, and sometimes that takes range.
3. You're right that longer weapons are a disadvantage in close quarters, but not in all circumstances.
4. Well, let me start by saying that asymmetrical warfare does work. The Afghan mujahideen not only fought off the Soviets, but have been a thorn in the side of the US military for 17 years now. Also, some of those in military and police will side with those rebelling (or at the very least not attack civilians).
4(a). The government has already turned on its people. I'm quite sure you have your grievances of how the government has tyrannically infringed on the natural rights of the people. They may include immigration laws, drug laws, laws against homosexuality, anti-abortion laws, authorization of torture against foreign POW's, and more. If any of these you also feel is government overreach, I agree with you. Gun law is just another in a long list of injuries this government causes the people.
And another reason why someone who's progressive shouldn't support gun laws. Who do you think gun laws come down on the worst? If I carry a gun in my minivan, my white butt isn't going to get stopped, searched and caught with an illegal firearm without having a permit. But a black man who's already a felon for something as ridiculous as getting busted for weed with intent to distribute who lives in a poor neighborhood because black people don't get a fair shake at jobs in this nation is expected to go back into the only neighborhood they know, as dangerous as it is, without a gun. They'll buy a gun anyway because they need protection. They'll be stopped by the police for not signaling exactly 100 ft. before an intersection, they'll sit there for an hour while they wait for a drug dog to "alert" on their vehicle, a search will produce the weapon and back to prison for this man who did nothing wrong but exercise his natural rights.
When you start infringing on people's natural rights and liberty, it snowballs out of control. Our drug laws have single-handedly, for decades now, turned parts of South America and Mexico into some of the most dangerous places in the world. And then we tell them that they have to wait years and years and jump through endless hoops to come here after we do something like that to their home.
How about war refugees from the Middle East? It's the same deal there. And what power is Congress actually given as far as immigrants in the exhaustive enumeration of powers granted? This: "The Congress shall have Power To ... establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"
That's it. They can only set the laws on what it takes an alien to become naturalized. They're not granted the power to keep people from coming to the country in the first place, and they didn't until 1875. It was about the turn of the century that crazy tyranny took hold. I don't know what madness took over our government, but that's the time when we saw Jim Crow, the first firearms legislation, immigration laws, prohibition, and more. It's been going downhill ever since.
We need to turn this country around, and it's our responsibility to do it -- peaceably or by force. To quote the Declaration of Independence, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." This was not a declaration of war, but England brought war to us because of this. The rulers of this nation sit in their ivory tower, literally, in the most well-guarded building in the United States infringing on our rights while we suffer and take our grievances to them, with only the most minor of victories to show for it. They only give up what liberties they've stolen that they feel we deserve.
If they indeed take steps to further ban arms, there are enough people now awake that there will be a new declaration written to the government to straighten itself out or the people will reclaim what is rightfully theirs but has been usurped by men predisposed to take power that is not theirs to take.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@friedalove1315 North Korea, China and Russia never progressed beyond the dictatorship of the proletariat. And that's where communism falls apart and will always fall apart. Marx just "yadda yadda'd" the whole transition of the dictatorship of the proletariat to communism. To quote the Communist Manifesto, "If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tyrvinodinson9790 Some extremist forms of libertarianism (e.g. anarchism) would say to get your own water supply. Fundamentally, however, libertarianism is just about the liberty of the people being first and foremost--nothing more and nothing less. It has little to nothing to do with social/public works.
In the US, waterworks are handled by counties and municipalities, not the federal government. If you're talking about the Flint water Crisis, the finger pointing can extend no further than the leadership of that city. As one article in the Michigan Times titled "Flint Mayor Dayne Walling: I drink Flint water every day" reads, "'(My) family and I drink and use the Flint water everyday, at home, work, and schools,' [Dayne] Walling tweeted today, April 2 [2015]." The article states he said this "just as residents are receiving notices that Flint remains in violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act."
And this wasn't a Republican. Not that I'm saying either are better, but I am saying don't presume to think that Democrats in the US have the market on morality cornered.
1
-
@tyrvinodinson9790 Let me preface by saying if you could consolidate your posts into one, it would make your points a lot easier to reply to.
Now, you ask if you don't have government oversight, who's going to stop them? The government arresting and charging with a crime executives is what to you then?
Slavery was an affront to the libertarian ideals of the founders, not a staple of libertarian ideals. Had they been able, they would have gotten rid of the institution of slavery as soon as they declared independence from England. However, the southern colonies were well and good addicted to the practice, their entire livelihoods being dependent on the practice.
Child labor was a mainstay of civilization, not just the United States, and was not looked at with upturned noses until the 20th century. There's no sense in being prejudiced against that past view when even our views today may change radically in an unknown future. It wasn't until a concerted international campaign against child labor that humanity's mind changed on the subject.
Tell me: how did people live on the wild frontier? It sounds like you have a very romanticized vision of that.
Finally, I didn't say that socialism espouses authoritarian state ownership of all. I did say that it would never progress beyond that because of human nature.
1
-
@tonedowne The consolidation of capital means dick all, and if you think differently, you'll have to prove that point.
I think I see a point where we may be talking past one another cropping up. I speak of ideologies as practical implementations, not as pure ideas in and of themselves. I do this because it doesn't mean anything if you say X system is a paradise when it, in fact, cannot exist or is otherwise unworkable.
So when you argue that the basis of left wing libertarianism is a democratically structured free market without government intervention, that means about as much as saying if everyone just agreed to be awesome people, the system of government chosen wouldn't matter at all. Both mean nothing as there is no practical application of those ideals, and the reason for comparison is because for the former to work, the latter would have to be true (all of us being awesome people all the time).
The United States was founded on the principles of upholding life, liberty and property. Property doesn't specifically mean ownership of land. It means mixing your work with what is provided by nature to obtain a greater right than others to that portion of it.
Slavery was an institutional holdover from England, and was no part of the vision for the US.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Anton, I think the idiots are the ones that always espouse that paying less is going to give you more. We're paying more than our fair share because no one else is paying their fair share. Maybe if they paid a little more, we could pay a little less without taking a long-term loss to mankind in R&D. The reason I asked if all of these horror stories you're talking about hospitals shutting down, cutting services, etc. is happening is because I'm seriously questioning the veracity of these claims.
And, yeah, we rank so low on so many lists. I could make any nation rank low on any list I came up with too if I didn't agree with their way of doing things. You don't have socialized medicine? Well, then, you're never getting in the top 20 on our healthcare list. We don't care if you have a safety net system in place accessible to everyone and you're funding over half of the world's research. You don't pay for everyone to go to college? Well, then forget the fact that you have 50 of the world's top 100 universities, your education system sucks. You think you're free? Well, of course being able to arm yourself has nothing to do with natural rights and personal liberty, so you get zero points for that and therefore we're more free than you.
You fell for the ol' switcheroo. America's still the same when it was #1 while the rest of the world got suckered into pseudo-socialist practices. But as long as you get something now, what does the long-term matter, right?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kenmck7802 Just because there are those out there that would take advantage of a liberty doesn't mean you strip the liberty of innocent people. That's the antithesis of civility.
It's not up to the police to protect her. They are not her personal security force. At the end of the day, the only people ultimately responsible for our continued living is ourselves and no one else.
It never stops with taxing the rich because it's simply not sustainable to do that. You should know this. You sound like you're a working guy there in Canada, and you know you're paying your contribution in your taxes. See, the difference here is that if I choose to not have health insurance or only go with super-cheap catastrophic insurance while squirreling away and investing what I'd otherwise pay in taxes/premiums, I don't go to prison for tax evasion.
"Just drone them," isn't working in Afghanistan, and it definitely won't work here against the 100 million gun owners. Sure, they may get some people, just like they do in Afghanistan, but time and again we see that asymmetric warfare can be rather effective. And as soon as they drone strike citizens on our own soil for not giving up our natural rights, they've proved us right, and they've lost the fight for hearts and minds.
Now what am I worried about? Arms are part and parcel to the right to life. It's how humans effectively defend that life. When you infringe on arms you infringe on the right to life. Let's say that next time someone kills an innocent person with their vehicle, we deny everyone access to any full-sized vehicle and limit everyone to only to scooters and motorcycles, saying that if one needs something larger, call a professional. That's something you'd likely not be very happy with. That's a pretty big inconvenience, and you wouldn't stand for that, would you? Now, forget that it's an inconvenience and it's your life that's on the line. That's why I'm concerned about them. I do not intend to have blood on my hands by limiting how a person may defend their life.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@__-wc5zn I'm well aware of what socialism and communism is. To explain my position in more detail, without authority, whether by mob or by state, an individual can, through defensive force, control the physical property of a mill, for instance, and others can choose to contract themselves to work at said mill. Nothing would be stopping people from choosing to do either without an authority to stop it. The ownership of property is inarguably a negative right that must be actively suppressed and can never be taken away as an attribute from an individual. As such, as soon as external suppression stops, the act may again be exercised. Since it is the case that constant suppression of the exercise of that inherent trait is required, that necessarily requires authority in perpetuum to perform the suppression.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I had sleep paralysis the first time when I was about 8 years old, and have had it on a regular basis since then. The oddest occurrence of sleep paralysis was when I was fully awake. I did just wake up, and I was laying there getting ready to go back to sleep, when I felt an evil presence above me, descending on me. Then I blinked, and a wave from my solar plexus through the rest of my body, like a ripple on a pond, but very fast, took over. I couldn't open my eyes. It was the most awake I had ever been. Then the feeling passed. I sat up, and noticed candlelight flickering under my bedroom door. I jumped out of bed, ran to the door and flung it open to find a pitch black room.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@masterimaginariumdooblepop7592 "If you succeed in killing yourself, you're dead. Period." That's why it's called survivorship bias. Your data is based entirely on survivors. It's possible that those who succeed would have a 100% chance of attempting suicide again, but you don't have that data.
"The fact is that in the Second Amendment are the words 'Well regulated.' It seems as though some people perceive any attempt to well regulate firearms as infringement. It's not. As long as firearms are ultimately obtainable the regulations should be put in place because it's in the amendment."
Please read this excerpt from Federalist #84 by Hamilton: "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."
"So do nothing." Harden targets, as I said.
"Why is it that the solution to stopping people shooting other people is never to potentially deprive the shooters of their means to shoot others?" I'm only saying the solution cannot include infringements of those who've done no wrong.
"Or force educators to train to gun down former students." No one's forcing it. It's already done in schools across the US to positive effect. The idea here is to deter the shooting from happening in the first place. It's the same reason you put out front of your house that you have a home security system or lock the doors on your car with easily-breakable glass windows.
"If you are not crazy or an abuser or a domestic terrorist you should have no problem obeying the law." The New Jersey woman in my example wasn't crazy, an abuser nor a domestic terrorist. She's still dead because she obeyed the law. So, yes, there are legitimate problems with obeying such laws.
'The fact is that the 2nd Amendment never refers to private citizens but to well regulated militia." It says the right of the people, not the militia. Ok, it's a history lesson time because you're hanging pretty hard on this. Under the Articles of Confederation each state armed and trained all of its male citizens as part of their militia. The anti-federalists had major issues with the Constitution giving the power to arm, train and call forth the state militias as found in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. George Mason stated, "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor..." As part of the anti-federalist's concession to agree to ratify the Constitution, they were granted the Bill of Rights.
George Mason, whom I just quoted, is the father of the Second Amendment. It's clear, then, whom he intended to secure the right for. In addition to that, Hamilton's quote above directs us again to Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution where Congress is not given the authority to legislate arms ownership.
1
-
@hellcat1988 You're right that children shouldn't have to defend themselves from a school shooter. The adults should be. Or, as I say, the adults should be making every effort to deter an attack, shooting or otherwise, at a school.
We should always be raising militia members as its their civil duty to be armed and prepared as adults -- at least for males. The right to life comes with it necessarily the ability to defend that life. Sheltering children from reality isn't doing anyone any good.
Yes, they are children. You deride my ability to make an argument, but all you do is focus on them being children and how they should be above the realities of life and the world. You say school's a place of learning, but then you say it's not a place for learning certain life skills like self defense.
Regarding that arms are a right is a fact, I take it that you've never read John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, have you? It's indeed objective fact. If you need an argument, then that's the basic reading you need to do before we can even begin to have a discussion about it. Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan is also a decent primer on the matter but longer than the tract-length Second Treatise of Government.
"Third, Forcing people to use gun locks to prevent the 8 CHILDREN A DAY who are injured or killed by guns left unlocked is more than enough weight for lock laws than the few adults a year who MIGHT not be able to unlock their gun in a crisis would be against." The practicality of this type of thinking is that not everyone has an equal right to life; that some people's lives are worth less than others'. That's the issue with your way of thinking.
"Sure, the numbers would swing a bit in the other direction for those who really do want to kill themselves no matter what, but it wouldn't be a total reversal as you seem to be implying." Everyone makes their choices. I'm not going to take away their ability to defend their lives because I'm worried they'll do it themselves. That's just self-defeating.
"It ignores all the people who survived attacks because their attackers didn't have a gun. It ignores all the victims who ARE dead because their attacker DID have a gun." Research has shown that knife wounds are just as likely to result in death as being shot with a gun (see article titled "Survival Rates Similar for Gunshot, Stabbing Victims Whether Brought to the Hospital by Police or EMS, Penn Medicine Study Finds"). I think that a woman with a gun defending herself from a rapist-murderer with a gun would have a higher success rate rather than them both having knives.
"...arguing that those few cases where a person MIGHT have lived if they had a gun to defend themselves is reason enough to not have regulations on guns ignores the fact that her boyfriend didn't have a gun..." Didn't matter that he was denied access to a gun in the end, did it? Unless you're saying that she had an equal right to life solely because she was stabbed instead of shot, despite the fact that she was denied the tool to most effectively defend herself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Zel Zwrd "hey,dum dum.OBESITY and SUBSTANCE ABUSE are HEALTH RELATED PROBLEM TOO.did you not learn in highschool? its basic science.damn.
if the healthcare system is good,these 2 problems can easily be taken care of.the hell???"
You can't control what someone does or doesn't put in their bodies. It has nothing to do with healthcare. You're conflating one's personal health choices with healthcare, and that's disingenuous.
"there is not even indication that there are a sudden increase of substance abuse by the pregnant mother 2-3 years ago.clearly,it means that substance abuse does not play a major role in the steadily increasing infant mortality rate...right? right?"
There're data in the reports showing a definite increase in substance abuse among pregnant respondents. Even in the report you linked, it goes from 4.7% in 2015 to 6.3% in 2016 of pregnant women using. Looking back at previous reports, you see that even when the 2014 report showed a general decrease in drug use among pregnant respondents, usage in the second trimester actually increased. The 2017 report shows an increase as well.
Premature births, pregnancy complications and the results of accidents may or may not be something that healthcare was responsible for in regards to the mortality. The argument here is that said death, given the exact same patient circumstances, would not have occurred in a system with nationalized healthcare. That's not something you've proven yet.
9% say they find it very difficult to afford prescription medications. 15% find it somewhat difficult. I would say that would lead one to believe that 1 in 10 "can't afford it". Generic manufacturers don't have programs to provide free drugs to those in need like brand-name companies have set up.
"the company that made the generic drug DID NOT put any money on R&D yet they sold their product at a markedly high price. WHY?"
The reason people and insurance companies choose generics is because of their low cost. For instance, Viagra was $50 a pill for brand name, but the generics are selling as low as $0.70 per pill.
Your hubris and ridicule towards me is very much misplaced because you're looking at research you can't comprehend, impatiently assuming it's everything you need to make the conclusion you're making (hint: it's not) and trying to take an unsigned check to the bank. You have to drill down a lot further than any evidence provided thus far to prove the claim you're trying to make. I'm not saying your claim is wrong, but I am saying that your claim exceeds the evidence presented.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Zel Zwrd "what the hell dude?ive proven again and again that the cost of healthcare in US is freaking high."
I never said it wasn't expensive. You've made a mess of your argument and your claims have crept into this from the original argument against my questioning of the claim that access to care/quality of care in the US leads to a higher infant mortality rate. What I have questioned was your claim that most people can't reasonably afford it.
"...without giving any study /research/articles to refute my argument."
I have explained, substantively, why the data you've provided don't provide sufficient evidence to prove your claim. When I'm arguing the evidence you're providing doesn't support or your claim or that they're the incorrect or incomplete data to make the conclusions you're making, I only need to provide the reasoning.
"why are you trusting more on your anecdotal experience rather than the data that has been accumulated by researchers that interviews and gather the opinion of people all around the country?"
Because self-reporting and opinion doesn't establish fact regarding affordability -- it polls opinions of affordability.
"SO FUCKING WHAT if you see the over the counter generic drug are cheaper than the branded one?does it change the fact that majority of the people find the price to be exorbitantly high?"
It doesn't change their opinion, but their opinion isn't fact.
"ive given you plenty of proof,did i not?"
You dismissed my argument against your proof and simply restated your argument again.
"did you have a link/study/article that proves the cause of the rise of infant mortality rate is due to the mother's substance abuse and obesity? NO"
You actually provided a link to a series of reports claiming that drug use among pregnant women wasn't on the rise, but in reviewing the data, it actually showed the opposite of your claim, which supports my criticism that increased infant mortality rates may not necessarily be due to access to healthcare or quality of care received but factors outside of healthcare.
I'm not angry at you calling me names. When a person is presented with the challenge that the data he provided do not meet the requirements to back up the claim he's made, and he clearly has no idea how to make a valid argument to defend that, I'm confident that his opinion of my mental ability is not something to take to heart. What I want to see is for you to look critically at the data you've provided and make an argument to show how the data support the claim. That would be an academic response to the challenge.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Erik, no, the question is why are we supposed to treat Karen like she's more valuable than Derek, which is what's happening. Both of them can live a reasonably happy life only by taking from Derek and giving it to Karen on the sole basis that he has more than her, and that's fundamentally immoral. Karen's poverty is a sum of her decisions and subsequent circumstances. It doesn't have to be easy for Karen, and the opportunities to improve are available if she dares take advantage of those opportunities. This is no one's responsibility to do but her own because she's the only one living with the consequences of taking on those opportunities or not.
The national average of $1,200 a month is skewed by high rent areas such as Los Angeles, Hawaii and New York City. I could find plenty of 2- and 3-bedroom apartments out there for $800 a month outside of those few exceptional areas.
So she's saving up for her community college degree why now? Grants and loans are a thing, you know? And does she have to even go to college? College isn't always necessary for a good-paying career, and there's always the option of working for a company that will pay for your degree in order for you to be able to fill a more valuable role in that company.
You simplify things so much. You honestly believe that it's possible to be completely stuck in a position in the United States with utterly no opportunity to get out of it. Such a scenario doesn't exist, but you keep trying to fit that square peg into a round hole.
1
-
Dave, no no, don't change the goalpost. You said that they need more socially-funded services so they should be taxed more. The fact is that even under a flat tax rate, they're paying substantially more than someone making minimum wage. They use more services, they pay more. That's the point of percentages, and not flat, nominal amounts. A billionaire is paying more in taxes annually than a person making minimum wage will likely ever have in their lifetime. If you think that's not enough to more than cover those extra services they receive, I don't even know what to tell you, but you might want to brush up on your logic and math skills. These billionaires will also be paying into services they don't take advantage of, such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
I want to tax them equally as a percentage but overall fewer nominal dollars, and you keep ignoring that fact.
1
-
Erik, when you allow her to pay a smaller percentage of taxes than her share of the income, then, yes, she is treated better. When we provide her with free services and entitlements, yes, we treat her better.
What I'm arguing against is not taxes, but against certain entitlement programs which directly take from the work of one and give to the non-work of another. A progressive tax rate is inequality. A progressive tax rate punishes for success. And people like Bernie Sanders would see it even go further with an aggressive estate tax which makes it even more difficult to be secure in your own gains from the production you've contributed.
Karen's starting circumstance does not have to define her future. Karen chooses if her past determines her future. I would like zero opportunities to Karen removed, and I haven't recommended that any of those opportunities be removed.
If Karen's not willing to abandon things for the sake of a better future, that's Karen's choice. And the reason I brought up the reason why that number is skewed is because you disingenuously use that number to prove your point despite it being a vast minority rather than the majority.
You ask where you can get a 2- to 3- bedroom apartment, and then provide an example where the median is below the price I quoted. And that's the median! That means half of the prices are lower than even that!
Grants and loans provide equal access to a higher education that wouldn't be there otherwise. The cost of college being so high thanks to the GI bill had made it an uneven playing field and was a complete block to equal opportunity. It didn't just make it difficult for some people, but would be an opportunity not available to the majority, and especially to those that qualify for grant programs. Student loans are backed by the government. She will qualify for them. Karen may have to pay back her loan, but why is that even an issue? Even paying back the loan, she has unequivocally improved her financial situation with that degree. With student loans, and especially given the cheap rates of tuition at a community college, Karen will be given a fair amount to live on.
Companies that will pay for higher education are numerous. Pretty much every Fortune 1000 company will, so there's 1000 companies right there. You could work as a cashier at Fred Meyer and have your school covered for a computer science degree to work on their systems, or an MBA, or any number of other degrees that relate to your furtherance at Fred Meyer and Kroger. That's just an example. Coca-Cola, Pepsico, Kraft, and so many more join that list.
And if you show yourself to be a hard worker, consistent and dependable even at the most base of jobs, you will find yourself to be a very valuable hire to many companies which pay well and willing to train a dedicated person.
Could you explain why a person who is of working age and capable of making their own decisions poor because of circumstances beyond their control?
This isn't a race, either. Everyone runs their own life. They set their goals and determine what success is in their own eyes, no one else. If someone else is successful, that doesn't mean you can't be. It's nothing like a race.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Drkon6 A lot of people haven't done their reading, on either side of the political spectrum, as I've learned. Lucky for you, I have, and I can answer your question. There are a number of reasons why bottom-up state power is a better structure.
1. The Founders' primary reason was that not everyone agrees, or will ever agree, on how people should be governed. With states having the most power, everyone can live in a state that's closest to their tastes. This decreases the likelihood of things like riots and rebellions.
Other reasons that this remains to be a good philosophy include:
2. While a state may go tyrannical, if a state goes tyrannical, there are 49 other states with which that state has fully reciprocal citizenship that people can go to.
3. On a related note to 2, bad decisions and ideologies are geographically contained to much smaller areas than under a unitarian government.
4. A rogue state is actually something that can reasonably be dealt with, but a rogue national, unitarian power is much more difficult of a task to handle.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@keithwilson1554 "Firstly The 2nd Amendment says you have the right to bear Arms in a Militia..."
George Mason, again, answers this for you: "Mr. Chairman — A worthy member has asked, who are the militia, if they are not the people, of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c. by our representation? I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
"The Belton Flintlock never came into being as Belton couldn't come with a working Model."
There are no extant period models is all. He had actually demonstrated it to the Continental Congress, and they were thoroughly excited about it. The cost, however, was too much for the new nation to bear.
"And bearing an AR-15 against your Trillions of Taxpayer (Socialist not Private funded) Defence Force supported by your Freedom Loving Open Cheque Republicans and Democrats gives you a slight imbalance if your Government turns."
Socialism is the public ownership of the means of production, trade, and distribution. Welfare, roads, nor military are socialist. And I believe it's $700 billion, not trillions. And you're making an argument that an AR-15 isn't enough. That's the opposite of the argument you actually want to be making, right?
"Voting gives you more Power and Freedoms especially if you get corruption out of the System a problem in many countries."
Natural law will always supersede civil law. When you infringe enough on liberty, natural law will be appealed to by the people -- regardless of what weapons they don't have. However, the more armed the populace, the more cautious the relatively very small population in government will be to ensure people don't feel the need to appeal to that natural law.
"People around the World Hunt Pigs without Automatic Rifles and have done so quite safely for a Long Time."
I definitely wouldn't say safely.
"Hunting Bears is just Cruel and Stupid."
How do you figure? A single bear kill will produce about 40% more meat than a single deer kill.
"Have you any examples of Women fending off a Rapist or anyone else with a Gun?"
Easily. But these stories don't make national headlines, of course, because it doesn't fit the anti-gun agenda of national outlets. Here's an example, though: https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/woman-shoots-at-intruder-before-he-can-strike/73-344698716
Interestingly, this is the kind of scenario your perfect world ends up in:
https://www.nj.com/camden/2015/06/nj_gun_association_calls_berlin_womans_death_an_ab.html
"Your 55000 to 2.5 million claim is bogus and can only be found on Gun Pro Propaganda sights."
It's a meta-analysis of the many published research papers on defensive gun use. The figures come from the consensus study report, "Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence" by Leshner, et al., published by The National Academies Press and finds between 60,000 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year. I've seen another study that states the low figure is 55,000, so that's what I choose to go with to be as honest as possible. The CDC quotes and cites that study here: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html
So, no, it's not just from some random propaganda sites.
"The Rand Organisation says 67% of Illicit Arms Sales come from the US with Europe a close second. Russia 9%."
The world over, sure, but you asked about Afghanistan. The Taliban and interim government fighters are not using semi-automatic AR-15's. They're using selective fire Kalashnikovs and Russian RPG's.
"Most people control and use Fear to commonsense Guide them through dangerous situations"
You don't understand fear then, and that's why it controls you and compels you to authoritarianism.
1
-
1
-
@keithwilson1554 George Mason very pointedly stated, "They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." He continues on to show concern that some people in the future may try to say it's not all the citizens of the nation. Well, essentially, he was warning the convention about you.
"So again Belton couldn't supply a working model and a year later the British Army didn't want to buy it Either."
Except he did. He demonstrated it.
"Having Carefully examined M. Beltons
New Constructed Musket from which He discharged
Sixteen Balls loaded at one time, we are fully of
Opinion that Muskets of his Construction with
some small alterations, or improvements might be
Rendered, of great Service, in the Defense of lives,
Redoubts, Ships &c, & even in the Field, and that
for his Ingenuity, & improvement he is Intitled
to a hansome reward from the Publick."
"As a typical American you can't distinguish between Communism and Socialism."
Eh? Socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, is the intermediary period in post-revolutionary capitalism and an intermediary step on the way to communism. This stage includes wresting the means of production, trade, and distribution from private hands and suppressing the ability to privately own those means going forward. So, no, society is not inherently based on socialism, and no, no defense force is a version of that.
"Its mostly about people co-operating to regulate parts of society to benefit the whole"
No. You're just laughably and flat out wrong. I'm not even interested in trying to correct you at this point. I've provided the internationally accepted definition within the political sciences. You just deny science at this point. I might as well try debating an anti-vaxxer.
"Most Countries and their economies are a mixture of Capitalism and Socialism"
No, that would be Eduard Bernstein's invention, and a rather idiotic invention at that. The only reason for conflation here is that he claimed extensive state welfare could lead to a peaceful socialist revolution. So unless the end game is socialist revolution, it's not a mixed economy.
"If you had a Capitalist model Defence force they would just be a Private Army..."
Yeah, we do have private armies. They're called mercenaries.
"So Natural Law will only succeed if you are Armed to the Teeth."
That was your argument, so you tell me. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Either an AR-15 isn't enough with more being needed, or it is. You've argued for both now yourself.
"Do you really think people around the world go out and shoot feral pigs knowing its always going to not be safe...Seriously?"
Feral hogs tend to be a very successful species. They tend to grossly overpopulate and require a great deal of culling to keep in check. For instance, there's a very large population of an estimated 2.6 million hogs in Texas alone, and they're in 35 states all total. And they're rather destructive.
"Are Americans that short of Beef,Chicken,Pig,Goat,Fish etc all available in Supermarkets without taking a risk that they decide to Kill Bears as their Prime Meat source.."
People complain about the environmental impact of ranching and fishing. So you go pluck your meat from nature, and here you are complaining about that. Can't win for losing, eh?
"So you searched the World where over 7 Billion people live and you found ONE incident to justify everyone should wear a Gun WOW."
You can find a lot more if you desire. It's easy enough to find them, as I said.
"The CDC report says 39,707 gun related Deaths in 2019 6 out of 10 were Suicides, 3 out of 10 were Homicides. So making sure Mental checks are made and Criminal Background checks would help to reduce that number."
I don't trust people to adjudicate the mental health of a person without due process, and being adjudicated mentally deficient by a court of law does show up in background checks.
"So your saying there is nothing wrong no matter who supplies the Arms and for what purpose as the Taliban should have the FREEDOM to KILL American Troops"
No, that's not what I'm saying because I haven't said that the military should not shoot them should they try to kill American troops.
"But you certainly don't let it guide you in every aspect of your life. You must live in a vey Paranoid world to have that much Fear."
I would argue that you have a very toxic view of fear -- that engagement of fight or flight instincts are the only manifestation of fear. Instead, I challenge you to see that fear in as inherent to life as breathing. That without fear, as without breathing, there is no life.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ttrev, hanging was the de facto method of execution for everyone in the Old West. Lynching isn't necessarily hanging a person from a tree. Lynching was also not uncommon for people of any color. Lynching is execution, usually by hanging, by a mob without trial. Full stop. It was done plenty of time regardless of race, but, yes, in more recent memory race was largely a factor, but that's not where the turn of the phrase came from. The movie Hang 'em High shows a lynching and it's not a black person. It's a very common phrase in states with close relations with the Old West that hanging is used in a similar fashion (and just as un-racist) as die in a fire or jump off a bridge. It's hyperbole, figurative and not race-driven at all.
In fact, Old El Paso ran a series of commercials that featured a cattle drive where "Cookie" (a white guy) was using salsa made in New York City. In every commercial he was threatened with hanging with someone saying, "Get a rope," and a nervous gulp from Cookie after.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
John Borg, first of all, school funding and management of primary and secondary education is handled and paid for by the states, not the Federal government. Having school vouchers is an excellent idea. As it is now, students are at the mercy of the property value of the area in which they live. A voucher program would help low-income students find a better school outside of their area. Some may choose charter schools, and some may choose a public school. It's individual choice -- something they don't currently have.
Second, teachers aren't being forced to arm themselves, they're given the means and ability if they so choose. This wouldn't be a choice they had before. They were forced to be defenseless. So you say, "A siege mentality? Really? But the US the home of the free and land of the brave, at least, according to the advertising." So you would prefer that teachers are running all over campus with guns drawn? Really, this is just an attempt at an appeal to emotion, and it doesn't further the conversation at all. Leave this kind of nonsense on the playground. We're adults here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@istoppedcaring6209 I'm not sure what you may mean, so I'll refer to the maxim, "The more things change, the more they stay the same." What I would say that means to me is that while the stages and environments change, humans don't change nearly as quick, and as far as humans dealing with those new settings, little changes. I do feel that we are currently in the throws of an dark age of the information age. What was supposed to be a period of enlightenment was undermined by the fact that incorrect and incomplete information is pithier, panders to preconceived notions, and travels exponentially faster than correct information, which is often long-winded, unsatisfying, elicits more questions than answers, and requires change of the people reading it. This has led to more people loading into extremist ideologies and away from centrist views. I think that as far as concern for the longevity of our current institutional systems, this is, in my view, the greatest threat currently.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Aaron Wantuck
"EVERY state has a law that if you give alcohol to a minor or a person under the age of 21 you can be charged with a felony."
Only if that person isn't a parent or guardian. The following states allow consumption of alcohol by minors on private, non alcohol-selling premises, with parental consent. Alaska (AS 04.16.050; AS 04.16.151), Colorado (18-13-122), Connecticut (Sec. 30-1; 30-89), Delaware (Title 4 Chapter 9), Georgia (§ 3-3-23), Illinois (235 ILCS 5/6-20), Iowa (123.3; 123.47), Kansas (41-727a), Louisiana (§93.10; 93.12), Maine (§2051), Maryland (§10–114), Massachusetts (Chapter 138: Section 34C), Minnesota (340A.503), Mississippi (§ 67-1-81; 67-3-54; 67-3-70), Montana (16-6-305; 45-5-624), Nebraska (53-168.06; 53-180.02), Nevada (NRS 202.020), New Jersey (2C:33-15; 2C:33-16; 2C:33-17), New Mexico (60-7B-1), New York (Article 5 § 65-c), Ohio (4301.69), Oklahoma (§21-1215; 37-163.2; 37-246), Oregon (471.430), South Carolina (Section 63-19-2440 – 63-19-2440), Texas (Title 4 Chapter 106), Virginia (§ 4.1-200; 4.1-304; 4.1-305), Washington (RCW 66.44.270), Wisconsin (125.02; 125.07), and Wyoming (12-6-101).
"This issue is not you being able to shoot a gun when you are 5. The issue is you legally being able to purchase a gun at the age of 5 when it should be 21 since at the age of 5 and even the age of 18 you do not have the ability to understand that your actions have consequences. You do not really start to understand that until your about 25."
And yet, I was in school with a bunch of 12-13-year-olds with rifles, target shooting without a bloodbath. That's the importance of education over regulation that I was pointing out.
"5 and even the age of 18 you do not have the ability to understand that your actions have consequences. You do not really start to understand that until your about 25."
Most kids do.
"That is not what I said. Try again."
That's why I said, "you act like," instead of "you said".
What I'm trying to say is why does the government have to play babysitter, laying down house rules for people?
"I never mentioned anything about common sense and if the 19 year old had any common sense in the first place he would not have shot up the school."
If he would have been trained with firearms and learned to respect them would he have done it? The media and people focus way too much on (ironically) survivorship bias. We should look at people who don't do shootings rather than people who do shootings.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lololollololol2894 He never said that, and if you're even mildly interested in being a genuine human being, you've got to stop dealing in the sensationalism. I don't think immigration laws are even constitutional, and I can appreciate the nuance here.
Now, he was talking about specifically illegal immigrants and said, "Mexico's not sending their best," and then listed the illegal Mexican immigrants as rapists, murderers, etc. Of course, that implies that Mexico has the opposite of that: good people. As I mentioned earlier too, under Trump, Mexican nationals are the leading earners of citizenship in the US.
He may not be a constructionist in that he doesn't see immigration is clearly not within Federal jurisdiction, but he's not slinging around hate speech either.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LuisTorres-zj3tl 1. Tim Morrison wrote an article in the Washington Post you should read, titled, "No, the White House didn’t ‘dissolve’ its pandemic response office. I was there."
Part of what he wrote reads, "It is true that the Trump administration has seen fit to shrink the NSC staff. But the bloat that occurred under the previous administration clearly needed a correction. … One such move at the NSC was to create the counterproliferation and biodefense directorate, which was the result of consolidating three directorates into one, given the obvious overlap between arms control and nonproliferation, weapons of mass destruction terrorism, and global health and biodefense. It is this reorganization that critics have misconstrued or intentionally misrepresented. If anything, the combined directorate was stronger because related expertise could be commingled."
2. He can't control production until he declares an emergency. He has to have good reason to do it, and he did that on the day after the WHO declared an international health emergency.
3. That's vague and useless. the CDC did the best job it could, but, as it turns out, it was being given bad data by China.
4. If you think of it, post it and I'll assess it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Devil'sAdvocate, liberties and rights are not a subjective construct of society, but an objective right of existence. There was never an objective liberty or right to own slaves. You cannot legitimately own another person, as a right can be individually exercised to the point of the infringement of the individual right of another. Therefore, a person can individually own any piece of property he wishes, but owning a person infringes on that person's individual natural rights. Liberty and rights transcend needs. The right to keep and bear arms is about individual self-preservation, and there's no limits on that, whether that preservation is against your own government, a foreign government, a criminal that seeks to do you harm, obtaining food by hunting, or any of the unlimited number of reasons each individual can come up with as to why they exercise the right to own whatever gun they choose.
I'm not saying that America wouldn't be safer for it, at least temporarily, and for some, while more dangerous for others, but that infringing on rights and liberty is a dangerous path in the long run that is the true existential threat to continued civilization. I would suggest you read John Locke on the subject of natural rights. It's very different from the collectivism that you're espousing.
1
-
Devil'sAdvocate, I know you could own another person, but it was not a right -- nor objectively viewed as one. Something being legal doesn't imply in any way that it's a right. Rights are very different from law, though law can be derived based on rights, they are often not. If it weren't for needing the Southern colonies to fight the British, slavery would have immediately ended in the Americas. The slavery forced on English colonies by the Crown was a major point of contention between the American colonies and King George's rule. It was noted by the Founding Fathers that slavery was an affront to personal liberty of the slave. Slavery was the affront on individual liberty allowed by law. In the same manner, gun legislation is the affront on liberty that is allowed by law. These are both examples of illegitimate usurpation of power over the individual's rights.
There are people (in Congress, so their opinions matter significantly) who are very clear that they are for banning all firearms. The war weapon is a low-hanging fruit responsible for a few hundred of deaths a year, while all other firearms are responsible for nearly 30,000 (most of those from handguns). It's all downhill once you ban the weapon that has a look easy to ban but the stats don't support it when you can then bring out the stats for the firearms harder to ban and argue that there's already a ban for the weapon with the significantly fewer deaths attributed to it.
Now, why does anything need to change? Is there an actual existential threat here that calls for "need"? I don't see one. Personally, I would like things to change. If that change requires rights to be trampled on, then I accept that's how things are without the change. I think that there's a lot we can do to try to affect change without touching rights.
I believe I did already explain why automatic or semi-automatic weapons of war would be legitimate purpose for ownership. I also believe I already explained that collectivism in rights and responsibility is crushing to liberty. I gave you a reading assignment as well for John Locke so you better understand what individual rights and liberties are and how they exist objectively, did I not? Summarily disregarding what I'm saying isn't an effective way to argue.
Now you say that people need to look at the bigger picture, while I see those wanting gun control to be hopelessly small-picture type of people. School shootings happen, so we should regulate guns is about as myopic a cause-effect relationship that I think there could be on sweeping legislative policy. My mom, she's just getting to her 60's now, carries a .380 in her purse. If some have it their way, they would require her to trade in that right to personal defense so, possibly, kids won't get shot in the future (note: They'll still die. Even Japan has school stabbings, but they just won't be shot and there won't be as many casualties). In exchange my mom could be in a position where a gun could save her life, and it'll have been taken it from her. Would you then feel responsible for the fewer kids that die from vehicular assault, stabbings, etc. as well as those who died because they were denied a gun because that's the direction that society went? And when illegitimate powers take hold of our government and begin genocidal actions, will you feel responsible then that we had no arms to defend ourselves and fight back? It seems that you're exchanging for feeling bad about deaths being rubbed in your face for deaths that won't be rubbed in your face.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrMarca4444 Yeah, Mayor Wheeler being "fed up" with Antifa is like a wet noodle trying to stand up straight. He had stronger language for Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer for getting the appropriate permits to have a march through a pre-planned route (of course, they knew full well this would provoke Antifa, so I'm not saying they're innocent -- but if Antifa wouldn't start nothing, it wouldn't have been nothing). I personally have known some of these Antifa people. I've seen what they're about. No small number of them are actually unironically anarcho-communists and Soviet reactionaries. It doesn't matter what Trump says; they're going to be out there because their goal is the destruction of government.
Now, for the rest of the people who are not anarcho-communists piggy-backing on black plight, we have to go back and see those headlines regarding journalistic integrity. Many of these people actually still believe that Trump never denounced white supremacy. What's Trump going to say to change their minds when they're being fed (and more importantly believe) outright lies? Trump thought too highly of the general population, and he picked a fight with news outlets with no integrity. They may lack integrity, but they certainly have the ears and trust of many people.
Trump was utterly unprepared and incompetent for the presidency (I thought Obama was too green to hold the presidency, and even he had more experience in politics than Trump). He did not know how to speak to a general audience beyond being a meme machine for disaffected incels from 4chan. He's also one of the worst kinds of narcissists I could imagine. All of this is messed up, but it renews my appreciation for the United States being a decentralized form of government, where almost all legislative powers are maintained by the states save for a small number of granted powers as outlined in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution plus some amendments and other small tidbits (at least that's the intention with variable success). Still, what Trump wasn't was actually evil. If one objectively listens, and as long as no conflict in his own interests existed, he truly did want to make America great again. Not sure if he had the chops or time to take on his truly ambitious plan, and he certainly didn't play politics well, but I had seen at least some glimmers of good intention. We'll say at the end of the day, I believe Obama stepped up much better than Trump did to the presidency. Still, Obama was not flawless. He had many flaws -- how he dealt with the pandemics during his tenure, especially the Ebola outbreak, is one of them.
As far as conspiracies, anything's possible, but it's a waste of energy to concern ourselves with conspiracies without sufficient proof -- properly vetted and filtered by a dispassionate and diverse body.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@50jakecs There is no current freedom of choice. The deals are made between companies, and the worker is left out of the negotiation. Why? Because health insurance is a legally mandated portion of compensation. The portion paid by the employer has become essentially invisible compensation that's not considered, allowing insurance premiums to be exorbitant. This is similar to how government funds and guaranteed loans have allowed college prices to go out of control. Put any organization on that sweet, sweet government teet, and it's going to go nuts.
The issue isn't an unregulated market, it's a poorly regulated market. That is, the regulations cause adverse effects. Being regulated doesn't inherently make something better. Market interventionism can go sideways easily, and that happens a lot in the US. Well-intentioned legislation rarely has the desired effect.
Every choice in life is about money. And it should be. Money is a common representation of contribution to society. If you're living outside of society, your contribution is reflected by your own survival. In society, your contribution is reflected by funds that you give to others to reflect their contribution to you. Capitalism is, at its most fundamental, altruism to your fellow man. Because without offering others something useful to them, you do not gain the currency of society.
If you're on disability, you qualify for federal/state health insurance, so that's that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CaryMillerOfficial "The reality is, three decades into supply side all we've done is destroy the middle class. Yes. The MOST wealthy get a bit wealthier as we de-regulate the economy. And no, you aren't fooling anyone. We know you're a right wing troll if you're here to defend the indefensible with it comes to economic inequality."
So that's why I said in another thread that the federal minimum wage should be stepped up to $11 to $12 an hour? Progressives tend to have a problem with nuance and with treating as pariahs those who are not in lockstep in thought. Intolerant, authoritarian assholes, the whole lot of you.
You understand the research on the matter and economics in general about as well as that article, and that article doesn't understand it at all. They show grossly oversimplified data of an impossibly complex ecosystem. In fact, the concepts of supply-side economics and demand-side economics as a political dichotomy is manufactured.
What would happen if we taxed corporations at a rate of 100%? If you think this is a bad idea, then congratulations, you support supply-side economic policy at least to a degree. On the other hand Keynesian economic policy is also useful. A good economist understands the value of both of these viewpoints, and that the goal is not only one side or the other in supply- or demand-side economic policy, but attempting to gain an understanding at what point does government impede growth and at what point do corporate interests stymie demand. And that's a lot harder than that article's stupid and simplistic arguments can even begin to comprehend. Sometimes one economic toolkit is better than the other -- it depends on the time. It depends on the people, which economics fundamentally is a study of. Almost never is a complete plan based on either one or the other a good idea. They are tools in a toolkit, and if you're using the wrong tool for the job, then you're not going to get as good of results or bad results.
And the article is disingenuous at that. For instance, the article argues that Clinton tax hikes precipitated great economic growth and lowered the deficit. Apparently memories are short. As far as the national deficit, I recall that it was the Republicans (notably Newt Gingrich) that were getting the bad press at the time, shutting down the government until Clinton handed down a balanced budget. That's what led to the deficit reduction (and surplus). It was also the very beginning of the dot-com boom. That was due to the invention of the Internet, not Clinton's economic policies. Now, the question is, did those tax hikes help or hurt all those new start-ups? Did it hurt enough start-ups to lead to the dot-com bust? That's still being argued by those who actually understand the complex landscape that is economics. Hell, economists are still arguing over whether The New Deal helped end the Depression or extended it. We're dealing with unknown alternate realities in these post-mortems. You, the Center for American Progress, and those think tanks on the right all think you know better than experts on the matter.
1
-
@CaryMillerOfficial Don't think that I haven't noticed you addressed only one point I made. I presume you're conceding all the other points I made then.
See Investopedia's article titled "The Economic Effects of the New Deal" by Matthew Johnston. "If they disagree with me, they are paid off and not credible," is not a valid argument against the criticisms made -- it's just a generalized ad hominem fallacy to not critically review the claims made and evidence given to support those claims. And the funny part is, you cite a liberal policy and advocacy group to try to prove your point (Center for American Progress). I at least try to maintain neutral sources that provide as whole of viewpoints as I can find.
"But the reality is the New Deal, and then the subsequent high marginal tax rates during the Eisenhower Administration caused the single greatest economic boom the world has ever seen. Bar none. Full stop."
It was after backing way off the 90% + marginal tax rates in the 60's that greater growth was seen, indicating that perhaps marginal tax rates were too high and stymieing growth.
"But the reality is it's not a living wage in this economy, really anywhere."
It's actually a living wage in most of the geographic US. And this is an absolute minimum. States an municipalities with different needs may exceed this if they so choose for their own unique situations. For instance, if I'm living in Rural Texas, I can rent a house for $700 a month. $11 - $12 an hour is a healthy amount for minimum wage in that market. In fact, $11 - $12 an hour would be one of the highest PPP minimum wages in the history of the institution in the US.
"...but $15 is a bare minimum that can be met without hurting the price of of doing business."
Just because you say so? Yeah, so how does that money get into a rural market that is not a tourist trap or otherwise on a main thoroughfare for travelers? Sure, if the work-at-home thing maintains its ubiquity after COVID, that may help homogenize the US economy some, but if it doesn't, it takes quite some time for cash to saturate a local market in order for local businesses to support the required pay. And when we're talking about that, we're talking about almost all of the geographic US.
"The reality is I cannot take you seriously if you're going to pretend the New Deal wasn't effective. That's just ridiculous."
Alright, Miss Center for American Progress citations. You can't take me seriously. Right.
1
-
@CaryMillerOfficial "The reality is very nearly every major first world economy modeled themselves after Post FDR/Eisenhower U.S.A. from the 50s on. Taking on elements of Social Democracy, including high marginal tax rates on the wealthy."
Is that why most EU nations, for instance, have lower corporate tax rates than just our federal tax rate, let alone state taxes on corporations? Australia and Japan also have lower corporate tax rates than the US. Canada, Israel and Mexico would be three of the only developed nations right now with a higher corporate tax rate at 25%, 23% and 30% respectively, compared to our 21%. Depending on which state we look at, corporate tax rates may be variably higher.
"Side supply has done incredible damage during the past 45 years or so. And that's that. We can easily return to an economic model that works better, it's just that CEO's will make 300x what a worker makes, instead of 400x what a worker makes."
So I saw a CNN headline a few years back that claimed the CEO of Wal-Mart makes 1,188 times more than the average worker. I wondered what that actually meant to the workers, so I reviewed all of the stats. Well, despite the fact that was based on total compensation (most of which is stock, not pay, the salary alone was $2 million), it's still only $20 per employee per year. 20 cents per check from each employee. That CEO making 1,188 times more literally isn't hurting anyone. If we figure just his salary, It's $1.33 from each employee per year or 1.3 cents per paycheck.
1
-
@CaryMillerOfficial A few have higher individual income tax rates: Sweden, Slovenia and Belgium, but generally speaking, EU nations are in line with US income taxes, notably if you don't forget to include state income taxes with federal. With the concentration of US wealth in California and New York, our ultra wealthy are taxed at about a 50% rate.
What matters is what those tax breaks accomplish. I don't mind them not paying taxes if they take a loss in a year or spend the glut of profit on expansion which nets new jobs. That's not to say every deduction available produces fruit, but we could at least have a more specific conversation therein, not this glut of useless generalizations.
The UAE only taxes foreign oil companies at that rate. They're doing good work to diversify their economy from almost exclusively oil. It's not tax rates.
I've yet to see anyone make an actual argument regarding the issue with income or even wealth inequality or the shrinking middle class (largely moving up to the third quintile, by the way). Ok, so 0.3% of the population is making over $1 million a year. What does that matter to college-educated workers making $80,000 a year? How does that impact the workers making $10 an hour? Or what does it matter to the 2.3% of the workforce making the federal prevailing minimum wage?
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2020-update/
Here we see the top 1% receive 21% of the income but have 38.5% of the tax burden. This trend continues all the way to the top 50% of earners in the US. When you look at the top 10% of all earners, that's where the greatest disparity exists. The top 10% of earners take 47.7% of the total income share, but pay 70.1% of the tax burden, leaving the remaining 90% to handle only 29.9% of tax burden while receiving 52.3% of annual income. The tax burden is not largely coming down on the middle class. It's largely coming down on the top 10% of earners disproportionate to the share of the income they receive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@charlesbrightman4237 " Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush #2 went into Iraq under false pretenses, to get access to Iraq's oil, to get Saddam for Bush's daddy from the first gulf war, and to get no bid contracts for Halliburton, of which Cheney was involved with."
Wow, you're ignorant. Iraq invaded Kuwait. We said stop. They said no, Kuwait is a part of Iraq. International community said stop. They said no, Kuwait is a part of Iraq. We crushed them so hard it was dubbed the 100-hour war. Saddam withdraw from Kuwait, we agreed to a cease fire. Part of the cease fire was the requirement to dismantle his chemical weapons and to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors to ensure they were destroyed. He constantly did not live up to his end of that deal. Clinton was even rocketing and bombing targets in Baghdad (see Operation Desert Fox). When 9/11 happened, while Iraq was not involved with 9/11, it did bring the constant uncooperative attitude of Saddam to a head.
"
ROFLMAO. Then there are A LOT of guilty people walking free, including top brass."
I'm sure you think so. Regardless, my view of justice is that it's more proper for 100 guilty people to go free than for 1 innocent person to be punished.
"I base my views on science, not emotions."
What science would that be? 10 weeks is an arbitrary number not based in science. 6 weeks is actually based in science because that's the period of development when a heartbeat starts.
"Like forcing a woman who was raped or had incest performed on her to bare and raise a child on her own?"
If she were raped or a victim of incest, they are given a morning-after pill.
"You probably still believe a magical sky daddy exists too and places like heaven and hell truly exist. Why cannot you deal with real reality?"
I'm an agnostic atheist. Why can't you do the exercise? Scared you'll discover something?
"Who do you think dies in wars?"
JFK (D) began escalations in Vietnam.
Harry S. Truman (D) began the Korean War.
Bill Clinton (D) got us involved in Somalia.
Bill Clinton (D) got us involved in Bosnia.
Bill Clinton (D) got us involved in Haiti.
Bill Clinton (D) got us involved in Kosovo.
Panama, Granada, the Persian Gulf War, the Iraq War and Afghanistan is the shorter list even.
I went to your channel and read some of those posts. Have you been past high school physics? Because it seems like you've maybe read some things, but don't get any of it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sandrasnow-balvert7766 A nationwide corporation that can prop up locations operating at a loss through lean times is pushing for legislation that will further harm already hurting non-chain establishments, causing a number of them to close, reducing competition nationwide. How do TYT viewers not see this?
And don't think I'm against minimum wage. I agree that national minimum wage needs to be stepped up a great deal. I think we should be looking at stepping up to about $11 an hour over the next 5 years right now, maybe $12 over the next 5 years if you're feeling extra about it. But I have never agreed that $15 is where it should be at. It's an absolute asinine figure for national minimum wage. Some local markets should definitely be at $15 an hour, exceptional places like Los Angeles and New York City should probably be even higher. However, as it stands right now, the California minimum wage of $14 an hour, with California's cost of living, leaves workers making minimum wage with less disposable income than someone with the same living situation making $7.25 an hour in rural Georgia. Really digest that. The reason that I support the raising of the minimum wage is that someone making $7.25 an hour, despite having more disposable income than an extreme case, is nonetheless falling behind in being able to participate in the national market as a whole. The key is to raise their wages to allow minimum wage workers better complete in the national market while at the same time not destroying local, especially rural, economies.
Sit-down establishments in the food service is an industry already working on <5% profit margin on average, and it's only 5% and less because of expensive establishments raising the mean. Those competing with Denny's are working more on a 1-3% profit margin. Without outside money, these are establishments that cannot bear that much. Denny's and other corporate chains know this.
So back to you: Are you stupid or just dense?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Many people in developed nations have no notion nor understanding of natural rights, social contracts, individual liberty or why any of these are important and key to the social contract.
When we come together in civilization, if my neighbor Bob is bigger and meaner than I am, he can infringe on my rights all he wants. So we all get together and create a government to punish Bob if he tries to infringe on our rights, and in making a punishment for those infringements, we hope that Bob just doesn't even try. But why even have a government if the government is acting just like Bob by infringing on our rights? This is the same as Bob forcing everyone to give up their weapons because he only trusts himself with weapons. You've let your government be Bob, and I'm sure you've all been touched by it, but you just "Keep Calm and Carry On" as though nothing's wrong. It's apt that the poster that quote's from was made to prepare for getting the English through the Nazi occupation of England.
People claim that it's about saving lives, but really it's only about saving lives that are rubbed in your nose. You don't think of the people that are murdered but may have been able to defend themselves successfully with a gun that you took from their hands. People are dying either way, but if they have guns, then at least they can choose for themselves how they defend themselves. In the US, you're only a victim of a successful crime if you choose to be. You don't have that choice elsewhere -- you're just going to be a victim of a successful crime. I'm sure that a 5'1" 90 lbs. young woman facing down a 6'2" 240 lbs. rapist and murderer would rather they both have guns than neither of them having guns.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jesus420, you think that I have trust issues, and I know that the media has honesty and integrity issues. Look at how gun laws, immigration laws, abortion laws, terrorism prevention laws, and more are represented. All infringements on liberty that we're told are good for our safety. You're right that we intend to drop from the Paris Climate Accord. It's a pointless device anyway that simply adds unnecessary documentation overhead to changes already being planned and made (and thereby taking resources from actually designing and implementing those changes). Yes, you can buy guns as an adult in the US. Yes, laws on liquor are stupid. I think the gun laws and other restrictions on liberty in other countries are ridiculous as well.
Sure, the internet exists, but one source is where any piece of information originates most of the time. One source releases something, and all other outlets copy it. These aren't multiple sources; they're just a single source paraphrased and plastered all over by other publications. Unless something is self-evident, I always take what I read in the news with a grain of salt, because when they're not spin doctoring, they're getting basic facts wrong.
1
-
Joseph Davidson, you're assuming I'm a Republican, and that's your first mistake. I'm not necessarily against the idea of phasing out fossil fuel usage, but I'm against adding additional overhead toward that effort, which is all you get with the Paris Agreement. Unless you really believe that some sort of coercion is going to be used to force signatory nations to meet their self-set goals?
And I mean Fox News, the AP, CNN, MSNBC, Al'Jazeera, RT, and any other news outlet that works as a source for news. They're all just politically-driven mouthpieces.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jrsydvl, the shooting in Alpine, TX was not a mass shooting. It was a shooting targeted at someone specifically -- the female shooter's step-brother. There were no deaths but her own. In Italy, TX, this was, again, not a mass shooting. This was a targeted shooting as well, unrequited love. Again, no one was killed.
It's too convenient that this teacher, given the announcement just made, suddenly decided to lock himself in his classroom, fired one shot out of a window, and then surrendered to police. He wasn't licensed to carry in school. He would not have been able to carry to class under the Marshal program because he did have a mental health history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
SilverWing27, something that I wanted to specifically address here is when you said, "For peace, you need to drop this damn hatred. But apparently making threats, harassing, and killing others is the way."
I don't hate anyone. It's preferable that this country turn itself around, but if it doesn't, it's our duty as citizens to overthrow that government. You don't have to like violence to commit violence when it's necessary to preserve liberty and equality. You only need an objective moral standard as to when committing violence is moral. You also shouldn't judge others committing violence for the purpose of equality and liberty. Remember that the government isn't a person. You don't need to kill anyone to replace it. However, it's also true that those who have power aren't apt to give it up. You're right that there's already war going on in the streets. That's what a tyrannical government causes.
I hope BLM is able to change things peaceably so things will not continue to escalate. If they don't change, then things will continue to escalate, and I support them wholly in their effort. If it comes to arms, I will take up arms with them. No one should have to suffer under such injustices as black people have. I also stand with progressives in opening borders and eliminating all immigration law. There is a natural right to move freely, and natural rights are something maintained by all people -- not just citizens of the United States. The United States only ever sought to protect the liberties of the people -- ALL people.
Things are a lot more complex than you seem to understand. There are deep philosophies that explain the drive of the natural world and politics. You'd do well to read on these things and to think critically about them. You may not even know how to think critically. This is a common issue among even those with Bachelor's degrees (and certain Master's degrees even), so you're definitely not alone. Psychology Today has an excellent article titled "How to Learn Critical Thinking". It's an excellent, if short, primer on things you should focus on. The concepts behind thinking critically go very deep, so always be studying to improve your breadth of exposure to as many ideas on critical thinking as possible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jrsydvl, you quote tyranny supporting tyranny to claim that there is no tyranny. That's just circular reasoning. Hamilton wrote in The Federalist #84, "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights." This is you and Antonin Scalia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jrsydvl, that's the nature of choosing to share a roadway. And make no mistake that is a choice. You choose to use the public roadways and choose to make the concessions to do so (including maybe being stuck in traffic). If you don't want to deal with that, buy your own strips of land and build your own private road. I have a feeling that you'd choose the concession of not being able to go as fast as you'd like as a more reasonable alternative.
The nature of the existence of children is that they're subordinate. They have some natural rights, but only those rights that work within the subordinate role that they possess. They, for instance, have a natural right to life, but they don't have a natural right to freedom of movement because if, for instance, an infant leaves its mother, it will most assuredly die. That is the nature of its existence and defines its natural rights. No matter the age, if a child can survive on its own and chooses for himself to (for example a 16-year-old that we today view as in the age of minority but could be capable of being completely independent of their parents in regards to their existence), then he has his natural rights by way of that existence.
You're trying too hard to find holes to poke in the philosophy without actually thinking the philosophy through. We can be here until doomsday if you keep doing this. You've got to learn to think for yourself at some point -- and think critically. You can easily come up with specific instance after specific instance of why you don't think it'd work, but you can't predict the answers that I'm going to give when I explain things to you. That shows you that you haven't given it enough thought and/or you lack in critical thinking skills. Lacking critical thinking skills is more common than you think. Most Bachelor's degrees and even a number of Master's degrees have no requirement for critical thinking skills. It's not something you're really taught, but you have to seek to learn. It's like you're playing chess one move at a time without thinking ahead at all as to what the valid and/or likely responses are to your move.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."
-Alexander Hamilton
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
peanut, Europeans love to stick their nose into our sovereignty. You shouldn't have guns, you should have universal healthcare, you should disarm your police, you should stop cutting taxes for the wealthy, you should stop meddling in the Middle East, you should do this, you should do that, you should this, you should do that. While that's nice you have opinions, it gets old real fast.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dustigenes Well, most of those are state funded, first off.
Schools, firefighters, police, parks: Currently paid using property tax.
Roads, bridges, streetlights, etc.: Currently paid using gas tax.
And we can use sales tax as a voluntary tax that is naturally progressive, but also promotes saving as any savings are inherently considered pre-tax. Since people generally put their money in banks, not mattresses, it goes toward funding growth through loans.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Emily Moss Article 1, Section 8 begins, "The Congress shall have Power To..." That means anything outside of that list, Congress does not have the power to do. It's fact. The right to arms is a negative right. It requires legislation to infringe upon and inaction to maintain. I want you to read this:
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights." (Federalist No. 84)
So when Hamilton here writes "...when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed," he's referencing the lack of mention of this power in Article 1, Section 8. Do you understand?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
cynopt, yeah, I think one of the other Christian religions that I personally feel the same about is 7th Day Adventists. They're pretty closely related to Jehovah's Witnesses except for following the Trinity doctrine.
They definitely are not keen on apostacy and view strong questioning of doctrine in pretty much the same light (by those who are baptized at least). But I've read and seen some of the apostate stuff out there, so I could understand, because some of those people (maybe even most or all) are just bat shit crazy. I figure that Witnesses have their rules that they understand the Bible to say for them to follow. If you don't agree with the rules as interpreted, there's no arguing, just move on. I guess for me it's like YouTube. If you don't agree with YouTube's rules, you just don't come here or suck it up and follow them anyway.
For me, the one major teaching that I question is the no blood thing. I respect it wholly, and would never go against my wife's wishes regarding that if I were making medical decisions for her, but I talk with her elders from time to time when they stop by to drop off this or that. I had them give me some info on it. I didn't interpret the scriptures in the same way, and told them about it. They're really nice guys and respected my opinion -- always trying to get me to start a study of course lol. It seemed to me that the Bible was just talking about blood use in a ritualistic fashion though, and that it wouldn't apply to medical use.
It's always interesting talking with people like yourself. People who are pretty neutral on the Witnesses, but just aren't one anymore for whatever reason. Mind me asking if you were baptized before you left and if you disassociated yourself or you're disfellowshipped? My wife was disfellowshipped when we met. She grew up in the religion too.
1
-
The NRA couldn't have supported gun regulation for almost 100 years as the first gun regulation was passed in 1934, and the NRA changed gears in 1971. That's 37 years, not 100. The reason things changed in 1971 was because that's when the ATF raided an NRA member's home, shooting the member and paralyzing him for life. The member was suspected of keeping illegal firearms which he was not. This was the tyranny that we were warned against. You skipped that important part of what caused the change in the NRA's attitude toward gun legislation. This is just propaganda.
Oh, and you're really pushing the limit there... "Was targeted to 'urban crime' which was then synonymous with Italian-Americans." You mean white Europeans. Italians are white people. Good try, I guess? Propaganda. Propaganda. Propaganda.
Those of us who are members give the NRA at the minimum $150 million annually. We pay a lot more than manufacturers do. If the NRA doesn't pass further legislation, that 52% likely won't leave. If they do, then that 48% mostly and definitely will, including myself, and all of my money will go to NAGR instead. It's about the defense of natural rights, not what the people want as they have no power if they want to infringe on natural rights.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Philip Lamoureux, Jan Schakowsky isn't about to get her butt kicked to the curb and she said that in 2013. And what she said is to ban all guns. Not even Feinstein had the balls to say that. I want to make this perfectly clear: the solution cannot be infringement on the rights of the people. It's immoral, it's illegal, and it has consequences farther reaching than any of us can think of.
And regarding immigrants, no, I'm not the "build the wall" type. I'm the "immigration laws should be struck from the books" type. There is one power regarding aliens given to Congress in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and that is the government has the say over who becomes naturalized and how they go about it. They are not granted the power to keep people out of the country. Immigration laws didn't even exist until, IIRC, about 1865 and the country didn't implode before that -- and we were even recently at war with Muslims then too! (Barbary wars from 1801 - 1815)
Some of my solutions you may agree with, some you might not, but here's my ideas:
Allow teachers to train and be certified to concealed carry in class. Let's not make it easier on the shooter. Several states already do this across the United States and have for many years without an issue.
Get healthcare to everyone. This country is advanced enough and wealthy enough to be able to pay for healthcare for everyone without going to a single-payer system which I'm against as it would gut the money flowing through the industry that gives us future cures. Taking away someone's guns because of a mental health diagnosis is not only immoral, but it's also likely to lead people not getting diagnosed in the first place so they don't have to give up their rights. I'd rather have a diagnosed and medicated schizo with a gun than an undiagnosed and unmedicated schizo with a gun.
Start public programs to promote training and safety. Run ads that cover the four rules of firearms:
1. Always treat a gun as if it's loaded no matter what you think.
2. Never point the gun at something you don't want to destroy.
3. Be sure of your target and what's beyond it.
4. Safety on and finger off the trigger until you're ready to fire.
Really hammer these home with public service ads on TV and internet and billboards and everywhere else you can think to do it. Use these ads to promote people to get in and get training.
Start mandatory school shooting programs. As way out there as that sounds to you, no doubt, let me explain. When I was in school many years ago, we had mandatory shooting safety courses. We fired live ammunition from .22LR bolt action rifles. We spent a lot of time in class learning. Those in the class were between 13-14 years old. You'd be amazed at how great kids can be around firearms if they're taught right. And being taught about firearms increases respect for them as well.
Stop researching gun violence. Hear me out here. Gun violence numbers don't tell us anything and it's just survivorship bias (I know, very ironic name and no pun intended, but that's just what it's called). Research young people who have rough lives, are known for being emotional, have access to guns, yet DON'T go shoot up a school. Find out why they didn't, and target that thinking in more public ads through channels geared to at-risk youth.
As an aside, I'll explain survivorship bias in case you've never heard of it before. During World War II, the English wanted to lessen the number of bombers lost in sorties. When the planes would come back, they'd look at where the bullet holes were and reinforce those areas with extra armor. As time went on, stats didn't improve on planes lost. They were dumbfounded and decided to call a (IIRC) mathematician to assist. The mathematician said to take the armor off the current spots and put armor where you DON'T see bullet holes. Why? Because the planes that made it back were showing places a plane could be hit and still make it back. It was the areas where they didn't see bullet holes that needed to be reinforced.
Those are some of my ideas anyway.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rebeccagreenwood3302 1. Not everyone goes to college. You're saying people have a right to their money to go to college. That money is their work, and no one has a right to someone else's work without mutual agreement.
2. That's exactly what I'm saying. Income taxes are patently immoral.
3. You claim that healthcare is "obscenely higher than "it should be". I have a feeling "should be" is a completely arbitrary figure.
4. The Earth doesn't mean anything. The only hope for us and any species on this planet for long-term survival is to become an interstellar species. That's the big picture. Interrupting industry slows that greater effort.
5. If you lived in Charleston, South Carolina, for instance, an example of a common housing price is a 3 bedroom, 2 bath, 1,600 sq. ft. foundation brick ranch for $80,000. The same kind of house in Los Angeles is over half a million, in Inglewood no less. If you want to go rural in South Carolina, there's a nice 7 bedroom two-story near a lake for $100,000. So, no, purchasing power is REALLY not equal everywhere in the US.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dresinc1684 First of all, George Mason was very clear why he wrote the Second Amendment, and it certainly had nothing to do with slavery (which he despised the institution of, by the way):
"Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British parliament was advised by an artful man, [Sir William Keith] who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people. That it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. But that they should not do it openly; but to weaken them and let them sink gradually, by totally defusing and neglecting the militia. [Here MR. MASON quoted sundry passages to this effect.] This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed?
" -George Mason's address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention
As far as slavery, George Mason said to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, "The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind."
James Madison was also rather clear in Federalist 46:
"Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."
On slavery, Madison stated in his eighth State of the Union Address: "The United States, having been the first to abolish within the extent of their authority the transportation of the natives of Africa into slavery, by prohibiting the introduction of slaves and by punishing their citizens participating in the traffic, can not but be gratified at the progress made by concurrent efforts of other nations toward a general suppression of so great an evil."
"is the core issue"
Funny, because you seem to be continuing the narrative from dubious data which has been used to show that officers by and large are racist. This misconception has been used to sow discord and fuel domestic terrorism. So don't try to change things up now.
"Land of the More Free to Be Racist Than To Be Anti Racist."
Equal freedom, because the arena of ideas is where bad ideas go to die. Suppression through violence is where the ideologies that spawn bad ideas receives its fuel.
1
-
@dresinc1684 "who said that by and large officers were racist?"
I said that's the narrative you're helping to push, whether you're cognitive of that fact or not. Defending the AGNOSTIC formerly known as incomprehensible14's post is just reaffirming that.
"you should pay attention to what I actually say."
In a day when people say they're anti-fascist while using fascist tactics, no thank you. I'll review the full implications of what's said and the full effect of those words instead.
"Stop trying to deflect from the reality. You jump on these pseudo-intellectual lines of logic instead of just focusing on the simple facts."
No, it's actually an intellectual effort, referencing and sourcing historical documentation to combat your completely inaccurate understanding of history. You've been propagandized so bad that you don't even understand our history... Are you aware of that? Don't you think that should temper your arrogance a little? You actually show that you believe that the Second Amendment had to do with slavery and protecting slave owners when you write, "...some guys a few hundred years ago wrote some words to protect people that used to own other people as property from those people that they used to own as property that made sense at the time." So, yes, I'm going to throw history right in your face to show you how wrong you are. If you don't want that, be correct.
"As for the Second Amendment it wasn't written in an age where anyone on the street could get their hands on an assault-style weapon."
And that matters? Of the 10,000 gun murders that happen a year, almost 7,000 of them are handguns. Less than 100 deaths a year are accounted for by "assault rifles". That's first. Second, did they deny their people the most modern technology of firearms at the time? Were the regular people limited to bows & arrows and bladed weapons? No, they had cannons and warships. And do you think that the Founders and Framers weren't aware of repeating firearms? It was indeed newer technology at the time, but they were aware, for instance, of the Belton flintlock, which could fire up to 20 rounds in a few seconds without reloading. Sounds a lot like an AR-15 as far as firepower.
As Jefferson wrote, quoting Jean-Jacques Rousseau, "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem."
"Being able to own a shotgun, a rifle or a pistol to defend yourself and your home is not the same as being able to walk through Walmart with an assault rifle."
Perhaps not, but people who prefer liberty over safety are sick of your shit.
"But it's that all-or-nothing rigidity that one side always has that makes the discussion impossible."
lol... almost 100 years of regulation being passed, starting with the 1934 NFA says otherwise. It's just never enough for your side. If we want to see where your side ends up, look at the UK knife ban, doctors there literally speaking out about kitchen knives that are too long. It's. Never. Enough.
"Murica. Where We Use Guns To Protect Us From The Cops We Train, Arm and Empower To Protect Us."
We are a nation of checks and balances.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
SuperFly, not everyone gets to see a doctor all of the time. They get cared for when we can afford it or the charity is offered. Even if we eliminated the entire defense budget, it'd only be a quarter enough to cover healthcare for all without gutting the R&D system.
Also, I know how rates work. The lower the sample size, the more variation there will be in the numbers. 1-2 more or less deaths per 1000 is well within that margin of error between a sample size of 60,000 and 4 million. And, no, I don't think regular doctor checkups have anything to do with BMI and cardio health. A person being driven to be healthy is a matter of personal drive, not health coverage. So, yes, it's a matter of correlation not being causation.
Single payer systems kill untold amounts for a little immediate satisfaction. If you live in the US and want everyone to have access to healthcare, go out there and start free clinics. They already exist everywhere.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stucorbett I think Wikipedia sums it up fairly well where it opens, "A fallacy is reasoning that is logically incorrect, undermines the logical validity of an argument, or is recognized as unsound." Argumentum ad hominem is one of those recognized categories of fallacious reasoning. It's not a wordy synonym for "insult". It's when a personal attack is made to attempt to invalidate an argument that may otherwise be evaluated independent from the person making the argument. The classic example is the smoker's hypocrisy. If you say, "Smoking is bad for you," and another person points out, "You're smoking right now, so obviously you don't believe that. Therefore, I don't think anyone else should believe that." However, the fallacy is that regardless of whether that individual smokes or not, the argument the smoker made -- that smoking is bad for you -- can be evaluated independent from the person delivering the argument.
We collect data on every little thing. The presence of racism can be evaluated separate from myself.
"Also I'm still waiting on who you think is a more racist first world country...."
We can start in Netherlands where it has been a longstanding Christmas tradition to go out in blackface. See Black Pete if you're unfamiliar. This from a country with a deep racist history in kickstarting the Atlantic slave trade, profiting from it and colonization of Africa.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@animated000 1. It's his duty as part of the US militia.
2. To demonstrate the rationale for why his being specifically a citizen with a gun has nothing to do with it.
3. There are about 10,000 gun murders per year, 15,000 gun homicides per year, and about 40,000 gun deaths per year. See the FBI uniform crime reporting stats for specifically the murders.
As far as the 55K: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol87/iss4/7/
I mean, if guns just randomly turned around and killed 30% of their owners, yeah, I don't think anyone would bother with that. However, there are some issues there. There are some 45 million households with firearms. If you had a 30% chance to die to a firearm by having it around, our gun deaths would be in the millions per year, not a few ten thousand. Another issue with your reasoning is that the statistics are very complicated. Some households won't be safer with firearms and others will. It varies greatly from household to household. There's no legitimate use for an across-the-board risk figure other than to fulfill an agenda.
If you do calculate the numbers properly, there appears to be a 0.033% chance of death by a gun in the United States, and at a minimum a 0.12% chance to use a gun defensively to effect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ernstbtmn "aka YES, it COULD PASS!"
Something being USC doesn't mean that it's legal. Like I said, you have no idea how our system works, but you're very stubborn in maintaining your opinion.
"Would an AMENDEMENT allow Dems/lawmakers to ban "A" gun? Y or N?"
They could pass a law that bans a gun. It doesn't make it legal. White not realistic now, it may be possible in a distant future to pass an amendment allowing them to ban all guns. That, however, doesn't make it legitimate, and appeals to natural law can still be made.
"See, you aren't debating my premise; right-wingers reaction if cops came for their guns."
Because that's not my point of contention. You're not getting an apology because you're still not right. You stated, "With Dems in charge, they can ban SOME of these types of weapons," which is clearly referring to the upcoming congressional session and results of the presidential election. You're just trying to twist it.
1
-
@UClZ8ofOWJEiaX3_ZCQVjbrw Are you incapable of replying in a single reply?
"That STILL isn't an apology!"
And you're not getting one, because you're wrong. Just because you mistakenly thought that having a simple majority in both chambers of Congress and the presidency allowed Democrats to have full reign over amendments to the Constitution, and therefore wasn't even what I thought you were trying to say because it made no sense in reality, does not mean I'm wrong. It means you were so far out in left field with your beliefs that no rational, educated person would have followed along.
"Was the 'Assault weapons Ban of 1994,' 'legal?'"
Clearly not. Are you familiar with the case law, let alone the Constitution? Requiring a Y or an N is just retarded. The question is answered. You are not running on some 8-bit IBM desktop processor from 1980. You are capable of reading and comprehending English, I'm sure.
"Would an AMENDEMENT allow Dems/lawmakers to ban "A" gun?
Y or N?"
I answered that. Again, perhaps the answer is outside the parameters of your simplistic programming if you are indeed an IBM computer from 1980, but it was answered.
"At this point, I understand you NEED to save your BRUISED ego."
You're a dumb ass.
1
-
@ernstbtmn "Are you incapable of replying with a simple, Y or N?"
I'm not incapable of that, but you act like you're writing a love note in 5th grade when it's absolutely not a "circle one" topic.
"INSTEAD OF a SIMPLE"
I gave you a simple, "You're wrong."
"oops, try again, dumb ass... OR, cue more of that DEFLECTION to save your CRUSHED ego."
That is not the SCOTUS. SCOTUS case law, which overrides both circuit courts and CRS, states in Miller v US limits the types of weapons protected by the Second to be those in common use for lawful purposes. Not only are semi-automatic weapons the most commonly owned weapon in the United States, but intermediate-cartridge rifles are what would be most effective for the militia to maintain, barring selective fire, which I hope is challenged in front of the SCOTUS soon enough.
"So, that would be a YES? I.E. I was CORRECT?"
No, you are not correct. No, it is not a yes (nor is it a no). It is a complex answer to a complex topic that ends with your claim being wrong.
"And I'll wait for my second APOLOGY, as I was 100% CORRECT-YET AGAIN."
That doesn't make the law legal. Again, you have to show where in the Constitution they're allowed to pass that law for it to be legal. That's required to back up your claim that "they LAWFULLY come for their guns."
"While I celebrate being 100% CORRECT ON ALL COUNTS, via my 1980's 8-bit IBM computer..."
I'm honestly not sure if you're too dumb to get it, or you just think if you keep oversimplifying while claiming you're right enough that it'll convince people that you're right -- when you're not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@donnamcdonald6310 The bailouts saved the American economy from complete collapse. The bonuses are nothing. Everyone focuses on CEO compensation which are drops in the bucket when compared otherwise.
The 2002 Analytical Perspectives report of the budget states, "GSEs provide direct loans and increase liquidity by guaranteeing and securitizing loans. Some GSEs
have become major players in the financial market. In 2000, the face value of GSE lending totaled $2.6 trillion. The size of two housing GSEs, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), is particularly notable; they had $2.1 trillion in combined lending. In return for fulfilling social roles, GSEs enjoy some privileges, which include eligibility of their securities to collateralize public deposits and be held in unlimited amounts by most banks and thrifts, exemption of their securities from SEC registration, exemption of their earnings from State and local income taxation, and ability to borrow from Treasury, atv Treasury’s discretion, in amounts ranging up to $4 billion. These privileges leave many people with the impression that their securities are risk-free. GSEs, however, are not part of the Federal Government, and their securities are not federally guaranteed. By law, the GSEs’ securities carry a disclaimer of any U.S. obligation. The role and risk of these diverse programs critically
depend on the state of financial markets. In recent years, financial markets have been changing faster because of rapid technological advances and active deregulation. The Federal Government, therefore, needs to reassess the extent and nature of credit and insurance programs more carefully in order to adapt those programs to rapidly changing financial markets."
"Uncertainties about the Federal Government’s liability have increased in some areas. Consolidation has
increased bank size, and deregulation has allowed banks to engage in many risky activities. Thus, the loss to the deposit insurance funds can turn out to be unusually large in some bad years. The potential loss needs to be limited by large insurance reserves and effective regulation. The large size of some GSEs is also a potential problem. Financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."
And when we had hearings in 2003 talking about implementing these regulations and measures to prevent the crash, Barney Frank (D, of course) stated that people that need houses are getting into houses, the GSE's were just fine, this is just a "sky-is-falling mentality" and there's no need to set up a regulatory committee. The regulation was never passed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
First and utterly foremost, something that needs to be understood is that liberty is inherently dangerous. If you consistently seek safety, you are no friend of liberty.
The Second Amendment is not required for the natural right and essential liberty to defend yourself with whatever deadly weaponry you can make or trade for. You can choose for yourself only what liberty you exercise. You do not have the right to choose what rights and liberties others have. She is looking at both collective rights and collective responsibility, not individual rights and individual responsibility. This is exemplified when she says, "When adults tell me I have a right to own a gun, all I can hear is, 'My right to own a gun outweighs your student's right to live...'" Except that is completely wrong. His ownership of a gun does not infringe on a student's right to life. If he shot a student, then he would be infringing on that student's right to life. Someone else using a gun to infringe on a student's right to life does not in any way apply an attribute to the trampling of rights on anyone else who also owns a gun.
Also, you need to check your facts, since they're not "water tight" (not that they matter since this isn't a question of statistics but a question of liberty and how much you can legitimately infringe on liberty, but since you want to bring up having your arguments "water tight"), Australia has had mass shootings since the Port Arthur massacre: the Monash University shooting, the Police HQ shooting, and the Sydney Hostage Crisis.
The UK also has had a mass shooting since legislation (which is neither a decrease nor increase in rate of mass shootings, and that's the same as with Australia). Canada also continues to have mass shootings.
This isn't a discussion. This is a soap box and an echo chamber... She will not learn because she is surrounded by people clapping and nodding, not disagreeing and discussing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jcedc8668 While history is a collection of facts, understanding history is philosophical in nature. As it stands, we're not teaching facts in history; we're teaching narrative. Teaching facts is learning how to find source material and reviewing as much of it as possible. That's teaching facts. Teaching today is editing that information to bite sized chunks which is taught over and over again, which leaves a lot to be desired. And this is unnecessary outside of indoctrination. How many times throughout your primary and secondary education did you learn about feudal system in Europe? You practically go over it every year from probably about 4th or 5th grade and up. And, furthermore, they start from a point irrelevant to students (prehistoric/beginning of written history), leaving a lot to be desired on the retention of the information, even through rote. To have relevance and meaning to the student, history must be taught in reverse order.
"But rather you would want kids to be thought that what the kkk stands for was ok, because at the time that was acceptable?"
No. I'd rather they come to that conclusion themselves. When they do that, then they've really wrapped their head around that lesson. Not only will that lesson stick with them better, but it also gives them critical thinking and filtering tools that they can use in the future when presented with novel situations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jerry, we still come up with significantly more medical advancements than any other nation in the world, so whatever drug companies spend in marketing is clearly not impacting the bottom line.
Drug companies do their own R&D. They don't get to patent other people's discoveries -- they only get to patent their own. And even then, we limit how long they can hold a patent on their discoveries, forcing them to recoup costs before the patent runs out. That means more dollars per sale.
I've helped people get cures from US companies for free. Most recently, it's about getting help for people who don't have the income become cured of Hep C. This is a cure that Gilead, a US-based drug company, sells for $60,000 dollars. If you're interested to know, the drug is called Harvoni. The drug company has a program called HARVONI Support Path. It's used for needy people to get the medication they need to save their life for free. And guess what? It costs taxpayers nothing. Parasites, indeed.
If you want to talk about parasites, let's talk about the seedy drug companies that create generics. They don't care if you can or cannot afford that $10 for their medication, you're going to pay it. They have no assistance programs, it's all about the bottom line for them.
So don't tell me that what I'm saying is bullshit. You're just ignorant and need to learn.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@-oiiio-3993 Here's a quote from James Madison from Federalist 46 (accentuation by me):
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
George Mason has a mic to drop on you too:
No man has greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valour. But when once a standing army is established, in any country, the people lose their liberty. When against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defense — yeomanry, unskillful & unarmed, what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies? An instance within the memory of some of this house, — will shew us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British parliament was advised by an artful man, [Sir William Keith] who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people. That it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. But that they should not do it openly; but to weaken them and let them sink gradually, by totally defusing and neglecting the militia. [Here MR. MASON quoted sundry passages to this effect.] This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed?
Oh, and Benjamin Franklin:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition...
Jefferson of course can't stay out of the argument:
and can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. they were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. god forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. the people cannot be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it's natural manure.
Hamilton also had a bit to say:
A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped...
I could keep going on.
1
-
1
-
@jedinxf7 Here's a quote from James Madison from Federalist 46:
"Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
George Mason at the Virginia Ratifying Convention:
"No man has greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valour. But when once a standing army is established, in any country, the people lose their liberty. When against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defense — yeomanry, unskillful & unarmed, what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies? An instance within the memory of some of this house, — will shew us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British parliament was advised by an artful man, [Sir William Keith] who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people. That it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. But that they should not do it openly; but to weaken them and let them sink gradually, by totally defusing and neglecting the militia. [Here MR. MASON quoted sundry passages to this effect.] This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed?"
Benjamin Franklin in a letter from the Pennsylvania Assembly to the Governor in 1755:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition..."
Jefferson of course writing of Shays' Rebellion, a rebellion with which he disagreed with of thousands of armed farmers engaging in combat with those state militias:
"and can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. they were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. god forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. the people cannot be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it's natural manure."
Hamilton also had a bit to convey in Federalist 29:
"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped..."
I could keep going on, but both federalist and anti-federalist Founders and Framers were on the same page on this one, and it's not the page you are on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nalokitten I have a different view of fear that I wasn't going to get into, but you seem genuine and reasonable so I'm willing to go into it. I see fear as what makes us live and gives us our drive to live life. We fear death, we fear starving, we fear thirsting, we fear having no love, we fear being without permanency, we fear loss. Without that fear, we'd probably just not give a shit and roll over and die. Fear gives us our heart to live. That's how I view fear. You appear to me to view fear as childish, something to be repressed and reviled, unmanly, a weakness, etc. I don't know if I'm right, but it seems reasonable to me that fear is something to be embraced, owned, and used. I feel not learning to embrace our fear is where fear becomes our weakness.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wiretamer5710 So, communism, in its broadest definition, is the body of works surrounding how to attain a stateless, classless, moneyless system of civilization. There exists a good reason why regardless of theory and method of practical application, the practice to try to attain communism has never progressed beyond the dictatorship of the proletariat. Even undoubtedly the most popular writer, Marx, was reticent to describe how that would happen, merely handwaving the matter with, "The dictatorial government will deprecate itself and simply atrophy aware."
Others like Eduard Bernstein attempted to find paths to socialism/communism through peaceful policy change, giving rise to the democratic socialist movement (not to be confused with social democracies like Sweden).
The fundamental issue with communism is that their writers are dangerously ignorant of economics and of human nature.
Communism is in the future, but only when no one needs to work to meet all basic human needs (food, potable water, shelter, waste management, and infrastructure). That's going to need a lot more than just an overproduction of goods.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lachy Roberts, you clearly have no level of awareness... immigration laws, gun laws, drug laws, constitutional slavery through the 13th Amendment, black people not getting equal justice and protection, asset forfeiture, spying, torture, subversion of due process, infringements on the freedom of the press, no-fly lists, and so much more. Our government IS tyrannical.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
CleverScreenName, let's say the entire executive board of a company gave up all of their salary and benefits...
According to the SEC (with whom companies file executive salaries and compensation, Coca-Cola company has the following executives and compensation (salaries + equity + other compensation including spending accounts, bonuses and whatnot):
$6,410,585
$16,028,941
$5,417,493
$8,381,871
$7,175,321
That's a grand total of $42.5 million, rounding up to the nearest $100,000.
According to Coca-Cola, they employ 700,000 people. If those executives gave up all of their compensation and gave it to the employees, that would be a whopping $60 a year extra to the employees. So could you explain how they're stealing so much from the workers?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@daviddavies3637 In case you didn't know this, the only reason the United States had a slavery problem was because England forced slavery on its colonies as a rule, and utilized it to exercise control over their colonies. The US also stopped the Transatlantic slave trade prior to the UK ending slavery in its colonies (except of course those areas controlled by the EITC -- that came later). England outlawed slavery a mere 30 years before the US fought a bloody civil war to end it.
Here's what Jefferson wrote about England's slavery, "he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce:[11] and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."
Did you read what I told you to read? John Locke's Second Treatise of Government? You're the one who doesn't understand rights, as it's a clear natural right to have guns.
1
-
1
-
@daviddavies3637 Do you know why the Founding Fathers couldn't? Because the Southern States would have joined England in the fight against the United States, and the United States would have lost. The Founding Fathers did, however, begin immediately either phasing out or banning slavery in the states they were governing. England's transition away from slavery was smoother because they didn't have it in the borders of Great Britain even though they forced the trade on their colonies.
It wasn't until 1968 until the voting age was reduced from 21 to 18, so you didn't have universal suffrage until then. Also, did the acts in 1928 and 1968 not apply to Northern Ireland so that it's Great Britain and not the UK?
Do you know what happened in the 70's? As it seems you're aware, the NRA fully supported gun legislation from the first law in 1934. In the 70's, BATF agents broke into an NRA member's home, shot him and paralyzed him for life because they thought he had illegal firearms. He didn't. That's why the NRA threw themselves into reverse on the matter.
And from the founding of the nation in 1775 through 1934, it was an absolute right. Even Madison said in response to a letter asking permission to arm a merchant ship with cannons, he basically said that it's his right and doesn't need to check in with the government. And so it was for 160 years, people owning all modern weaponry from Gatling guns to canons (including fully outfitted war ships). And it's not just the Second Amendment, it's also the fact that there is no power given to regulate this at all in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution.
From your list: The right to life. As proxy to this right, you have a right to defend that life with whatever deadly weaponry you choose. You have three natural rights: life, liberty and property.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johexxkitten "oh and military and police ARE built different, certain people grow up knowing they will join up, most folks NEVER want to join up."
No, they're not built different. They're just like every one of us.
"Military training is designed to break and rebuild you as a soldier."
lol No...
"As for my standards... Oh their fine, because I don't need to cling desperately to a piece of metal that can murder someone."
Not when you engage in infantile demagoguery such as this, no, they're not fine standards.
"But you cling so hard to your gun, you cannot even see, smell or hear reason."
I'm not even talking about guns, for a second time. I don't even own a gun.
"You probably still think the guy who started this whole thing, still had rights to his guns."
If he were adjudicated mentally unfit in court through due process, the method we use to ensure that rights are not taken unjustly, he wouldn't have had arms. But I'm not even here talking about that. You keep trying to keyhole it there because that's what you're practiced at. Can you have an intelligent conversation on an impromptu topic?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here's the problem with wealth tax:
Bezos, for instance, makes $1.7 million in total compensation (and that's not all liquid -- his liquid salary is only a little over $80,000, as Warren said). His wealth is estimated at over $200 billion. Even taxing at 0.001%, you're costing him more tax than he actually earns at his job.
Now she's right that if he gets a loan, it's not income and not taxable. However, when he sells stock to pay his loans, guess what? It gets taxed.
The ProPublica tax document leak showed that these rich people typically pay about 20-30% in effective federal taxes. Bezos paid $1 billion in the four years covered, for instance, and it was something like a 23% effective tax rate.
There was a dubious character in there, however. It was Bloomberg. He paid an effective tax rate over the 4 years of about 2.9%. I'd be checking on that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joshuamorgan3387 I'm not saying it's too hard to comprehend. What I am saying is that it takes an immense amount of specialized knowledge to understand. That people like myself, Elizabeth Warren, you, nor David Pakman have the expertise to say anything will work. That's why I'm reticent to provide you with an alternative solution. What's much easier is to see glaring issues with certain policies. In this case, staying in context of the video, we see with the few nations that have a wealth tax, it doesn't add much at all to their government revenues, and the issue, which I did demonstrate, that some people would be required to pay more in taxes than they receive in actual income.
"who pays realistically little to no taxes"
The ProPublica tax document leak shows otherwise. Over a 4-year period, the individuals they covered paid between 19% and 30% as an effective federal tax rate. Bezos, for instance, provided the federal government alone with $1 billion over that 4-year period. Musk, who paid the highest effective tax rate, paid almost half a billion to the federal government alone. This is not including what they're also paying to state and local governments. So no, they are paying, and your honest position would be you feel they're not paying enough to satisfy you. With that being said, Bloomberg should be in your crosshairs. Over those 4 years, he paid an effective tax rate to the feds of 3%.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cheesecakedelicious You did commit an argument ad hominem fallacy by stating, "I'm sure he might be smart and charismatic and personable, but... turns out those qualities don't actually jive that strongly with good research, which is kind of orthogonal if not negatively correlated to his personality," when these things have nothing to do with one another. It's also a strawman argument. You made the assumption because I said he was an awesome person was a supporting argument as to why he's a good researcher. He's a good researcher because he publishes research which adds a lot of quality to the body of science.
Skepticism is useless and is tantamount to just being a contrarian as it begins with a doubt to the truth when the truth is an unknown. Critical analysis is useful, and it doesn't begin with a presumption of untruth. When you begin with a presumption of untruth, then it's very easy to bias an analysis through that lens--especially when you're motivated to do so. When you begin with genuine curiosity, you presume neither fact nor fiction, which assists in establishing better and varying assumptions through which to view research.
You're arguing yourself into epistemological nihilism. You can read the paper. You can determine who has quoted the paper and why. Which you apparently have done the former, given your next paragraph. Why not present the ratio directly? Because data isn't presented to the public in that way. It's presented in a way that it must be thought about to certain levels to understand. For instance, a 2018 headline from CNN reads, "Walmart's CEO earns 1,188 times as much as the company's median worker". According to media industry research, some 60% of people will read no further than that. I'm using this headline because it stuck out as particularly egregious use of numbers. I checked the SEC filings for Walmart and looked a bit deeper into it to see if the CEO's salary impacted worker's wages. As it turns out, his entire $24M compensation package divided among the 2 million workers would amount to about 46 cents per two-week check. So what was the point of the headline--or even the existence of the article itself? The design of the experiment is very good in how it reflects the way numbers are abused in popular communication to convey a certain emotion to the reader versus seeking to be accurate, requiring astute readers to think deeper than being presented information as accurately as possible.
That is the world of information we all navigate on a daily basis, and so experiments to better understand how people perceive the data they receive are well-designed when they reflect that environment. And those binary outcomes are what people walk away with. Many will read the aforementioned CNN headline and walk away with the belief that Walmart's CEO is taking so much compensation that he's bankrupting his workers. Others will delve deeper into the assumption that the CEO's compensation hurts workers which is allowed to hang without resolution. The research was to determine whether political leaning impacted how problems were approached, and whether education (science comprehension theory) mattered or politics (identity-protective cognition thesis) mattered here. They controlled for the education with the politically neutral question regarding skin cream. Then they tested against that control with politically charged questions (e.g. guns). This is a very well-designed experiment.
1
-
1
-
@cheesecakedelicious 2. More people need to read their Descartes then. With sound reasoning, there's no need to be a nihilist. Just remember what George Box said: "All models are inaccurate, but some are useful." As long as we're able to use the body of science to a useful degree to at least some ends predict what will happen in our world, it's of consequence and useful.
3) "Did the authors actually think science-comprehension theory would win? I argue, no, they didn't, not seriously. They deliberately baked their expectation of a result into the design of the experiment. "
By what reasoning do you believe this? They controlled with an apolitical question and the results showed numeracy mattered, creating a divide between the well-educated and the less-educated. Then they asked a political question and didn't see that same divide. How is that baking any assumption into the design of the experiment?
I feel like you're assuming because they got a certain result, they then must have had bias in the design and therefore got the result they sought. Are you sure that you're not biased towards yourself, with a concern that this study might reflect you, causing you to attempt to undermine the study for identity protection?
People, by and large, do believe outrageous, easily-disprovable things, no matter their education level and given all the time in the world for them to consider, ponder, and verify. For instance, do you know how many people on the left (the statistically well-educated partisan alignment) still believe that US defense spending accounts for over half of all government spending because of a headline that caught fire many years ago?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Those who made a tool or those who were not involved in the act, as a sense of good justice, hold zero responsibility for the acts of those who misuse those tools. This is an asinine perversion of justice.
Furthermore, if you put out a law that reads that all gun sales must be brokered by an FFL (and therefore requiring a background check), it would pass with flying colors. Instead, we get very long, very complex bills that include things that reasonable people wanting to preserve the rights of the militia's arms ownership would never pass. So look to your Democrat legislator and ask why they can't just offer a simple bill that everyone wants.
"Cop killer" bullets are just another name for military surplus. They're not only designed to kill law enforcement. They're just a surplus relatively cheap intermediate cartridge. That's why the law didn't pass. It's just putting a heavier burden on people who want to go out and shoot while spending a little less money.
And, no, the issue is not saying terrorists should have weapons, but those who have not been given due process (which is not necessary to be put on a terrorist watch list/no fly list) should not be capable of having weapons. You're literally idiots.
You hate the idea of a rather anti-gun government, in a rather anti-gun culture being able to trace your weapon. Don't blame them either.
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
1
-
@atsylor5549 The world is actually really simple. You're not responsible for someone else who did wrong. You enjoy that right, but for some reason, when it comes to arms, everyone who supports the right is responsible for those infinitesimally small few that do wrong. It boggles my mind how such mass hysteria could lead to such a perversion of justice.
Please, give me something that you think I would disagree with this on. I invite you to try to think of something that I would say, "Hold up," on in this regards.
"Why don’t Republican lawmakers introduce the very simple common sense gun laws that you speak of?"
Because those of us who support arms ownership want to roll back at this point. After nearly a CENTURY of compromise, and your side always coming back for more, we're done.
"The answer is because they do not want any further gun regulation and even if a simple universal background check bill was introduced, they’d still vote against it."
Good. Despite the fact that I'm generally not Republican, it's one thing they actually get right.
"They will refuse to give in in anyway to gun reform even if that reform will be helpful."
I haven't seen the "reform" that would be helpful.
"They do not want to be perceived even in the slightest way as being against complete and total fun freedom"
Yeah, imagine being for freedom. In America. Ha. Every time I hear a leftist preach about freedom and rights while at the same time being total authoritarians on a natural, inalienable right, I just have to laugh at the hypocrisy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@atsylor5549 "At least if you want to take it out on a public road it has to be registered and insured."
Yes, which would mean not all cars. Where I grew up, plenty of people had vehicles solely for getting around their property that never left their property. But registration and licensure is about using on roads that everyone pays for. Everyone does not pay for my person, so they have no say in how I defend it. I am a proponent of establishing a gun-safe and knowledgeable culture, however. In that, I think that every one (at least males as a requirement) should get what I got and get gun safety and marksmanship training in school. This would ensure everyone is up to snuff -- especially considering they are part of the militia, even if it will be disused.
"In many states you can buy a gun in a store then sell it to whoever you want to."
In no state can you do this. Just like in no state must you submit papers to say you're going out and where you're going to, but you can still abuse that liberty to rob a store. It doesn't mean that we're ok with stores being robbed because we don't track everyone's movement. I'm sure you would agree with that. It's absurd then that we would say that because someone can do this illegal thing, if we don't take steps against liberty to actively prevent it, we are de facto condoning it. That's just absurd.
"There’s huge hikes in gun laws now. And they’re so big almost anyone can buy a gun when ever they want."
I think autocorrect got you. You're saying there's a hike in what?
"And when I said our right ate infringed on everyday wasn’t an argument to do it more. It was an argument to show that’s just how life works."
And, again, that doesn't mean we should continue with it.
"Nobody sane wants complete freedom because that’s anarchy and it’s not pretty."
Complete freedom is not anarchy. No government is anarchy. But until you do something wrong, what's wrong with complete freedom? I think you're the one who needs the reality check here. We can chase the rabbit hole of safety for a long ways. This is a right you don't care about, but why does that magically make it different from a right you do care about in that it is of some value to even discuss limiting it? I'm quite sure that you would not ascent to every infringement simply because it's demonstrably safer. Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote, "Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem." It means that dangerous liberty is preferable to peaceful slavery. We could start everyone in prison until they've proven they can be a good, well-adjusted citizen -- a license to to live in society. Crime would be nonexistent. Is that really a serious discussion you would like to have? All of these paths lead to a rather scary dystopian future.
"They should just do one particular law at a time that everyone agrees on. Instead filling the bill with shit you know will end up getting the whole thing shot down"
Well, we have agreed at least on one thing then.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Biden_is_demented You're not thinking critically here. That is 3,550 people dying a year. Just to put that in perspective, there are about 10,000 gun murders in the US a year. And most of those 3,550 didn't die from direct combat action, making it impossible to determine if they wouldn't have died anyway.
The 9/11 attack wasn't to cripple military might as part of an invasion the country being invaded started by invading a neighboring country and not stopping when told to. The Persian Gulf War was a clear declaration of war after advising time and again that if the invasion didn't stop, it would lead to their invasion. Instead, 9/11 was the targeting of civilians for the express purpose to undermine democracy -- terrorism.
I'd give you that the Pentagon may have been a valid military target, and the WH if the plane made it there. However, the citizens in the planes are still a major issue there.
"by your definition"
What I said is that those just going to work or just taking a flight were very clearly non-combatants. That's far from a "definition". It's a spectrum, is what I said.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rsteeb I'm not the one who needs to check the stats, because I already know them. You, however, do, because you don't know them. There were about 40,000 gun deaths in 2019 including justifiable homicides, murder, mass murder, suicide, accidents, et al. Of all studies, the most stringent was able to find no less than 55,000 cases of defensive gun use per year. That's still a net benefit even presuming everything in your favor that we possibly can.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/231032617.pdf
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@2tamz603 "but it's wrong for me to stand up to ppl being hateful towards me?"
Nope. Never said that at all. I'm just saying you get collateral damage when you opt to go nuclear in your choice of language. And you're gonna be living with those consequences whether you realize it or not.
I got a unique view on life after death. If this lump of hydrocarbons became self-conscious and became me, and that lump of hydrocarbons became self-conscious and made you, then it's possible for us to become just as self-aware as we are in these bodies in different bodies in the future. Maybe this isn't our first time around even. My point is, given my view, I have an interest to try to make people think and act in a way I think is the best for a future consciousness that I perceive as myself, whoever that turns out to be: male, female, white, black, indigenous, religious, irreligious, etc. Maybe that makes me insufferable, but interest and virtue are inseparable, as it's been said. And my interest is a concern for having to live in a future world of hate. That's karma to me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ok, listen very carefully now. There are three (3) branches of government. There is the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch. Which branch do you think would be responsible for making gun laws? Pro tip: making law is also known as LEGISLATION.
Now that you have that straight, a constitution creates a government. In the United States, our federal constitution is a document of positive powers, meaning that if it's not in there, congress can't legislate on it. Guess what's not in there? Ownership of arms. Now, to double down on this power not granted, the Bill of Rights was also made which includes the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment says that ownership of arms shall not be infringed. Now, since we're having to walk you through this step-by-step, I'm sure that's a bit too fancy of English for you, so I'll break it down. "Shall not" is an imperative meaning under no circumstances do this thing. The thing they are to not do is "infringe" which means to undermine or hinder in any way. What is to not be infringed on is the people's ownership and bearing of arms.
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is actually not bad journalism. There were a couple of issues I noted.
I feel to be completely honest, if you're noting that the AR-15 types is used in a number of high-profile mass shootings, it's worth noting, IMO to be balanced, that most mass shootings, including the second deadliest (Virginia Tech), are done with handguns.
Civilians can buy automatic weapons, but they are NFA weapons. They cannot be bought new. The automatic weapons that are owned are all that can be owned right now. Only new automatic weapons were banned with the passing of the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) and its Hughes' amendment. What are legally defined as machineguns that were already registered on the NFA are legally owned and transferrable. There are currently 630,019 machineguns registered on the NFA.
When it comes to bump firing, you can do that with any semi-automatic weapon, including a pistol as well. You don't need a special stock to do it. You can just hold your finger stiff and do it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
zarplex, giving a guy who makes $15,000 a year gross ($12,000 a year after taxes) an extra $250 a month in his pocket shrinks fluidity of currency? I guarantee you that he's going to spend that, and it helps economy local to himself rather than only the economies local to IRS employees who, of course, take a piece of that $250 that he pays before it eventually gets back around to him. That guy's also only going to get about $100 a month in food stamps.
And, yeah, we'll be transitioning to a machine-driven communism eventually, but that's not within the foreseeable future. As people find it harder to get jobs, eventually the risk of being an entrepreneur will outweigh the security in working for someone else, and there will be an explosion of people taking the risks to work for themselves, including acquiring these machines on their own.
Capitalism isn't failing, but government is. Every person has the natural right to land to farm to subsist. The government denies them that. The government controls 2.27 billion acres of land and won't let people homestead on it. That's land no one else owns -- just the government. No one would have to go hungry if they were allowed to have arms for hunting and land for planting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Godhelpus62 I said, "The federal government cannot dictate state responses to a pandemic." You argued, "That’s the BS line they fed you to avoid taking responsibility for not protecting the people during a pandemic. ... The federal government is responsible for stepping in during a national emergency (which he declared) and setting policy and putting in place protections and a strategy for saving lives." You're definitely backpedaling from this initial argument.
He did exercise his just emergency powers, if that's what you want to argue, such as forcing GM to create ventilators after contract negotiations were taking too long: "Trump orders GM to make ventilators under Defense Production Act" Modern Healthcare. He banned export of PPE: "Trump bans export of coronavirus protection gear, says he’s ‘not happy with 3M’" CNBC. He signed into law authorization for the military to manufacture PPE: "Trump signs Defense Protection Act to manufacture PPE for COVID-19" CIDRAP. These are a few examples. Some of these went into effect in late March, others on April 2nd when the Nurses' Union made an official request on April 2nd: "National Nurses United urges the president to order an immediate increase in PPE production." HealthLeaders.
It is absolutely true that part of the issue with the response, the world over -- not just with the United States, is that everyone was wholesale lied to about the virulence of this infection by China. The virus appeared and was known to the Chinese government in November. The WHO wasn't even alerted to its presence until December 31st. In January, the data showed it was no worse than swine flu (which wasn't much of an issue in its time). It wasn't until Jan 30th that the WHO even declared an international health emergency, 3 months after it first appeared. Given what we know of the Coronavirus now and its R-naught, it was far, far too late already by that point. China, meanwhile, has data destroyed and there are independent journalists who attempted to sound the warning early who are still missing.
Yes, we can have a discussion regarding if there was more that Trump could have done, but we need to have that discussion from an HONEST and KNOWLEDGEABLE place, and we should not shy away from holding China and governors and mayors responsible for their parts in making this the worst pandemic in the last 100 years for fear that it will lessen Trump's responsibility for what he did and didn't do that promoted the rate of infection of the virus.
1
-
@Godhelpus62 Dictating to the states is all I said. What were you arguing against then? Those headlines were all specifically bills and EO's he signed into law. I picked them for the same reason as you: I don't trust him on his word. Just because he forced the creation of PPE's and vents doesn't mean that production can still meet demand.
The Coronavirus was probably already here before anyone outside of China even knew it existed, to be frank, since it first showed up in November, before the holidays. WHO didn't even know about its existence until Dec 31st. They didn't declare an international health emergency until Jan 30th. They even met on the 20th of January to discuss whether or not to declare an international health emergency at that time, and even they felt it was premature at that time. The day after the WHO declared an international health emergency, he did take action. The US along with 22 other countries at the same time took action to restrict travel, freeing up emergency funds and begin planning. Trump's not wrong that the media was seriously over-hyping it based on the information we had in January and February.
If governors and mayors don't have the resources to manage health emergencies, that's still their fault. It's their responsibility to handle their states' responses. Each state has public health departments in each county and major municipality that are trained to handle pandemics, endemics, biological attacks, and more. They have no excuse for sitting on their hands, claiming to be waiting on orders from Trump.
In January and February, the information given showed it as basically being a flu-like infection with more severe symptoms with virulence about equivalent to H1N1 from 2009. There was no issue at that time, and the media as well hyped that up. They did the same thing this time. They were merely the proverbial broken clock. Yeah, Trump's an idiot. I won't argue that. He wasn't pushing hydroxychloroquine, however. Saying it looks promising is hardly pushing anything. His idea that it works as a prophylactic is just asinine. If it helps, and that's a huge if because we don't have the data to even say one way or the other, it only reduces the severity of viral pneumonia after infection. It's not a prophylactic.
I'm heading to bed, and don't know if I'm going to continue the conversation beyond tonight, but I appreciate you for being open-minded and partaking in calm, honest dialogue. Too many on here are more like William Baird, and this comments section needs more people like you.
1
-
@Godhelpus62 First and foremost, before anything else, I wish that you hadn't lost your brother. Since you did ask a direct question, and since you are a very kind and reasonable person, I'm happy to come back to answer your question. No, I have no faith in any higher power, even an "unpersonable" one.
I don't think Trump is all that you claim, however. Sheltering Jennifer Hudson, free of charge, after her family was murdered because she was scared and hurting is not the action of an inherently evil man. Inherently evil people don't do actions that earn them the Tree of Life award. Trump obviously has his issues, but I think to paint him and his agenda as evil is unreasonable.
The one policy and stance that I truly, at its core, find overwhelmingly negative is his Mexican immigration stance, and while he's not entirely wrong on some of the issues he states therein (gangs/cartels/etc.), I disagree with his method for dealing with it. Just to take an aside for a moment, that's not to say I'm in agreement with all of his other policies, but this one I believe is the worst by far in its effects to the point where I believe there's little room for discussion. I see the rise of cartels and drug lords as a consequence of drug enforcement, which is first an infringement on natural rights that gave a handle for criminals to become overwhelmingly powerful. Human migration as well is a natural right that humans partook in long before civilization and governments existed. We should be respecting and protecting that right. I don't think this policy comes from an evil place (e.g. he just hates Mexicans); I think it comes from an ignorant and misplaced sense of justice. I also support ownership of arms, and, to me, making it difficult for a regular person or family from Mexico or any nation to come here to live and work because some people would abuse that ability, is akin to taking the arms of someone who never did any wrong because another person committed a mass shooting. Liberty is inherently dangerous, and being willing to sacrifice the liberty of others to seek safety is a logic that finds us all in prison.
I think a lot of what you view Trump is doing is not actually occurring. The media says A LOT of things. The media is almost never entirely right and sometimes completely wrong. Their headlines are probably the worst offender of sensible people the world over. TYT and other "new age" media are some of the worst offenders in this arena. I really don't have the time to address everything, but in our busy, daily lives, it's extremely difficult to really have time to learn the inner workings of our extremely complex government system so as to actually understand the implications of policy. We rely on people to condense this stuff down for us, and those people whose job that is are very much letting us down. Don't think that I'm just talking about left-wing media either. The internet is my source of left-wing media: TYT, Vox, Buzzfeed, etc. While I'm out working I get my right-wing media on the radio: Limbaugh, Joe Pags, Glenn Beck, etc. Almost never are any of them, left or right, actually correct in their political reporting and commentary.
To give a quick example, since I'd already researched it, the narrative that Trump had fired/ended Obama's pandemic response team is probably one of the issues that you've heard and took for granted is true. However, if you understand internal, daily affairs of government, that claim sounds just way too tied up and neat to be realistic. It also simply assumes that the unit was useful. The Associated Press actually did a good write-up regarding the complexities therein in a fact-check article titled "Partly false claim: Trump fired entire pandemic response team in 2018." This gives a better view of the actual reality of the situation with multiple viewpoints. After reading that article, you can see where a conversation can actually begin so as to discuss whether this, in hindsight, helped or hindered the response.
You view the economy thing as greed. This is very difficult, as a Lockean myself, to really wrap my head around how best to manage government power, fulfilling natural human needs and addressing the situation in the best way possible. I do have a different point of view, in regards to this, from your own. We are absolutely blessed that we can even stay home for extended periods of time without dying. Life is work, and that's not negotiable; that's just the nature of our being human. Society helps us, a little bit, rise above our natures, but it's not able to do so indefinitely. I live in a blue state (Oregon), and we have begun reopening here. Do I have my concerns? Absolutely. My wife has rheumatoid arthritis and so a purposefully suppressed immune system to keep that immune system from attacking her joints. She also has asthma. We're both getting to our 50's. If she catches this stuff, there's honestly not much of a chance for her survival. So I have a dog in this fight. We definitely don't want to overwhelm our medical systems so that people are dying without even having access to currently available care. However, as long as there is equipment and staff available to handle the number of concurrently sick, deaths that then happen are nature taking its course, as hard as it is. Since you're Christian, I'm sure you're familiar with the scripture that reads that God put eternity in our hearts, and that's the truth. Death is probably the worst thing to handle as part of being alive. Being a Christian, I presume you also believe that death is the price we pay for our sin. Your brother's debt, for his part, is now paid back to God, and remembering that may provide some comfort, I hope.
I do appreciate your thoughts, point of view, good sense of decorum, attitude, demeanor and the wonderful conversation. This channel really does need more people like yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I disagree with waiting periods, licensing, etc. Instant background checks is fine as long as it doesn't make a registry, and I'm all for requiring all gun sales to be brokered by an FFL (and thereby necessarily requires a 4473 and NICS check). The reason I'm against waiting periods and licensing is because people who suddenly realize they need a gun won't be able to necessarily get them in time, and I'm not going to vote in legislation that will negate their natural right to defend their life. An example of this was a New England woman who never even thought of owning a gun until she broke up with her ex, and she was legitimately afraid he was going to kill or severely hurt her. She purchased a long rifle (IIRC, could have been a shotgun) to keep in her house for defense, but she was waiting on a concealed carry permit to come through. It didn't come through before her ex stabbed her to death on her front porch. I'd rather them both have guns if that's what it takes than him having a knife and her having only her hands, or even both of them having hands, because, chances are, a male's going to be at a significant advantage over a woman.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@donjoseph9325 You're the one that needs to understand the difference between socialism and communism/socialism, I think. Marxist theorist Eduard Bernstein is the person that conflated a welfare state with communism by positing that welfare was a method of peaceful communist revolution to bring socialism into being.
Welfare and social spending is unequivocally not socialism nor communism. Socialism is the worker ownership of the means of production, trade, and distribution. In the US, does the worker own the road service company that the government contracts? No. Does the worker own the defense companies like Hughes or TWA that the federal government provides contracts to? No. These are all privately owned companies. The public may fund it for the common welfare, but despite the names being somewhat similar, social spending is not in any way equivalent to social spending.
Almost every country is 100% capitalist. That is, even if the government does involve itself in some industries, there is no exclusion of a private person owning the means of production in those same industries.
Nations like China or Vietnam are not 100% socialist because, for instance, China runs on about 60% private industry at this point, with about 40% of industry required to be worker owned.
So what's your rebuttal, or am I already above your paygrade?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Zucchinna, I know this will be long, but please read this through thoroughly. I fight against immigration laws, as they infringe on people's rights to freedom of movement as part of their liberty (while Congress is given the power to set standards and processes for naturalization of aliens, they aren't given the power to control what aliens come in the first place). I fight against asset forfeiture laws as they're infringements on the right to property. Those are an example of some of the things that you might agree with that I fight for.
When it comes to healthcare, it can't be a natural right, because it requires someone else to do something for you. If it were a right, you would have the authority to force someone who didn't want to care for you to care for you, and that's definitely something I think we both agree is wrong and tantamount to slavery -- even if paid, it's involuntary servitude if it's coerced. As such, it is a positive right that requires law to make it a right. As such, this becomes a utilitarian argument -- what is best? The US has over $2 trillion flowing through the medical system annually (according to Kaiser's data), and that helps attract the greatest minds together, which increases efficiency in finding those cures. Clearly we can't support $2 trillion through the government. As such, we must have a single-payer system. Currently the US provides over half of the world's spending on medical research, and we're far ahead of everyone else in developing those cures. On the other hand, some people don't have access to those cures we develop. It's a zero-sum game, and so we have to be very careful to balance R&D with coverage. The summary of these facts is that people may die from otherwise treatable disease without insurance, but people may also die from disease that could have been otherwise cured.
Certainly we do have some good programs. For instance, we have a cure for Hepatitis C now, thanks in part to our funding in research. The cost of the regiment is $60,000. The pharmaceutical company that provides the drug will provide the drug for free to those who can't afford it. That's a great system and has a minimal impact on R&D. However, there are always those people who fall between the cracks. Those who make just enough to not qualify but still have life issues that prevent them from affording it.
So with all of this backstory into my thought process on the matter, what's my opinion? I believe that we can have our system that supports this immense effort in R&D as well as have legislation to ensure that everyone gets the care that they need. In that way, I have no issue with considering healthcare a right. However, it is a positive right because it requires law to make it a right.
When it comes to drinkable water, this is also a positive right. When it comes to a natural right, people have a right to gather, purify, and drink their own water. The water system provided is, like healthcare, a service. Still, we can't have people with inordinate amounts of lead, methane, or other contaminants in their water (in fact, there should be ZERO lead in water. Our systems are not built to handle lead well at all because we didn't evolve being exposed to it.). There is also a matter of required trust on the side of the consumer that these systems will reliably provide potable water. One can't reasonably be expected to have a lab ready to test water each time they go for a glass to ensure its safety.
So, my opinion on this matter? The government has the very important responsibility to ensure that water systems are as flawless as they can be.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jojov5344 You say that the Founding Fathers didn't believe in the individual ownership interpretation (presumably meaning of the Second Amendment). I prefer to speak of them as the individuals they are, rather than having to infer that the Founding Fathers were some type of hive mind. As such, I can point to Jefferson, for instance, who wrote in the original draft of Virginia's constitution, "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms." Jefferson also wrote to William Smith, "...what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." He was speaking of individual farmers who took up arms against the government and engaged in firefights and occupations of government buildings and facilities. It's also noteworthy that he stood by this idea despite thinking that they were ignorant on the matter regarding which they were upset.
Benjamin Franklin wrote to the English Governor from the Pennsylvania Assembly, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition..."
St. George Tucker wrote in Blackstone's, "The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
Samuel Adams wrote in the proceedings of the Massachusetts constitutional convention, "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 28, "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government... The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
The issue is that you're not well-read on the matter. Anyone can fool you into believing anything they want if they have available real estate in your mind left vacant by a lack of knowledge on the matter.
1
-
1
-
@gregghanson6095 The natural state of man is so much more than you give it. You seem to believe that without society and government, man is incapable of existing. This is demonstrably false. Observable facts don't change. It's empirical that we have a natural right to self-defense. How could we have survived and evolved otherwise to even get to the point to make civilization. In our nature, we don't have claws, large fangs, venoms, poisons nor overpowering strength, but what we do have is our brains that help us fashion wicked and deadly weaponry for the purpose of self-preservation. Every other animal has a right to defend itself using whatever means it can, but you believe humanity doesn't have that right because of what reason? Because of your sensibilities which are not rooted in any objective facts of the nature of humanity.
These are not hawks I'm quoting, and their views are not contradictory. If you gave me, personally, your leave to manage your daily activity, and I begin to make plans that are not in your best interests, what is it you do? You take back control of your own affairs, I imagine. Now what do you do when I use violence and the threat of violence to stay in control of you? The only way you could break free from my control over you is to use violence yourself.
I'm neither right nor left. Who I am is comprised of a complex set of beliefs that are as varied as there are political topics to be discussed. I do not accept anything I'm given, but I personally and critically review every subject for myself and review others' opinions with scrutiny and criticism without regard to political affiliation and party lines. There are times when I must accept authority on a matter too complex for me to reasonably study (macroeconomics is a perfect example), but when I must do so, I seek to gain a consensus among equal authorities. What I am is staunchly anti-authoritarian, because not I, nor anyone else, can know what's best for others as individuals. That is for them to decide for themselves, not me nor anyone else. I'll not have their blood on my hands when my decisions I've made for them lead to their injury or death. As a society we can hold those individuals accountable for their actions, but not before their actions as though we have the ability of precognition.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ryan, "we" is referencing everyone. While some people don't understand how science works -- specifically data science, those of us who do, review the research or meta results and make educated decisions. The rest just listen to whimsical, uneducated reporting that tells you what to believe when it comes to that. I personally think that in our modern world, our primary and secondary education system needs to focus more on understanding research science because it's truly so important in the decisions we make in our lives. Specifically, what research science does, doesn't do, its abilities, its shortcomings, and how to decipher what it's saying. Until then, it's the blind media leading the blind viewers -- unless, like I said, there's an unbiased science adviser on board.
ratatatuff & b00kwyrm, I'm not saying Monsanto is right or wrong. I'm not saying the EPA's decision is right or wrong. I'm saying that the summary of the research given in this video and the summary of the decisions made is extremely presumptuous, and they don't offer valid arguments for the accusations it offers. Their claims' validity depend on you believing more that the EPA was paid off to classify the chemical differently because you're ignorant that further studies can change the outlook of a substance (specifically this is true with data science). I can say for sure that non-data studies that have directly shown the chemical to be carcinogenic, have required the use of copious amounts of glyphosate to exhibit DNA damage resulting in cancerous or precancerous cells.
I'm also not saying that you should take my word on it or even that you should definitely trust the science completely. I'm saying that you should understand the science and make an educated decision. Don't just be a zombie parrot.
For myself? I have other options besides RoundUp -- like just pulling them out of the ground. It's not worth the risk to me. That's my educated decision. It doesn't have to be everyone's. At this point, we simply don't have enough knowledge to have a definitive right answer. Just be educated. I can't stress that point enough.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm all for the support of this riot. I'm all for the government fighting back. This is what liberty and democracy looks like. I'm sorry if you're too squeamish for it. While the last quote is long, it's imperative for many people that come to this channel to read and understand.
"Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -Jean-Jacques Rousseau
------------------
"And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure." -Thomas Jefferson regarding Shays' Rebellion
------------------
"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
"This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
"Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
"It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
"There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume." -George Washington, Farewell Address
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Syntax-Savvy "It's all the stock options and severance packages and crap that aren't taxed unless they sell."
If you find a rare Babe Ruth baseball card in your attic, should you have to pay taxes on what it sold for previously before you sell it? Why does that make sense to you?
"A ceos salary is tiny compared to the assets they aquire via other means which is where the labor is taken."
"Example, my job charges about 250 an hour for my work/labor I see 60 to 80. As the one who did the work why is so little going to me?"
Where do you think it's going? How much are the facilities, energy, maintenance, taxes, how much goes back into purchasing materials necessary to perform work? The list can go on. That's where a glut of revenues go. The next biggest chunk of revenues after that goes to you for the specific value you provided a customer.
I calculated for Walmart, and all CEO and board compensation (not just M1 funds, but the entire compensation packages) as well as all dividends for their stock, it accounts for about $10 per employee paycheck (2-week pay periods). That's it.
"I mean Mcdonalds makes it a habit to tell employees how to do 2 jobs and apply for government assistance. Yet they make millions in profits. It's not that they can't pay the employees for their labor they just want to off load it to government subsidies aka middle class."
Since McDonald's is paying taxes for it, why shouldn't they benefit from it? And they're not netting millions -- they're netting billions. $4.73B in 2020. If they gave up all of that, spent nothing on advertising and expansion or putting anything in the coffers to make payrolls during loss periods, each employee would get an extra... wait for it... $55 per week. $55 per week for a lack of security doesn't seem like a good exchange.
1
-
@Syntax-Savvy "Dude who cares about that. Are we forgetting what profit means. It's the money left over after all you mentioned has been paid off."
For your work, you gave how much the clients are charged versus how much you get. So in that case, it's your portion of the revenue, not the profits. All of that matters there.
"Also, I've been remote for 6 years so facilities, electricity and all that you speak of is my house it takes burden off of them but does it come back to me or does it go to profit margins?"
I don't know your job. You can tell me whatever you please. I'm sure there's still at least one FBO and overhead. Maybe not and you're being screwed. It should be easy for you to negotiate better salary since you actually know the revenue you bring in versus your share.
"I pay taxes should I be able to claim unemployment while also working?"
Given that you're not unemployed while working, why would you?
"You don't get to off load your RISK onto the public."
Again, if you're being taxed for it, why not?
"If you can't pay your employees enough to not be on assistance you don't deserve to be a business."
Maybe if they weren't taxed so heavily for food stamps and welfare that you don't expect them to get an advantage from, they could. Maybe if the employees weren't taxed 20% of their income, they'd have more money.
You didn't address the actual figures I provided you. What does that $55 extra dollars a week mean to a McDonald's employee? And keep in mind, this is at the expense of their paycheck security.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@degui1224 "I'll repeat again, all I'm saying is that there are a lot of factors that affect all of this."
Factors that you're apparently incapable of listing. I've done this kind of thing professionally -- statistics and research -- so I'm pretty confident in my ability in this arena. The fact that you can't nail down exactly what complications you see in the information I've given shows me that you don't know yourself. You just want complications to be there, whether they are or not, because if there are none, it threatens your worldview. I would suspect that you identify who you are as a person so closely with your worldview, that anything which endangers that worldview is defended similar as an attack against you as a person.
I can identify where there are issues in data, how it's collated and presented. I agree I may not be 100%, which is why I asked you for specifics regarding possible complications with the data, which you failed to give (well, you went off into why tax brackets exist, but that's complete non-sequitur). You did not address my issues with both the problematic outcomes of taxing wealth as well as my issues with your critical thinking and filtering skills. Few people have developed good critical thinking and filtering skills. A number of those people simply can't develop them, as research has shown. I have no idea where you lie, but if you insist there are problems but are incapable of enumerating those problems, I have to figure you're somewhere within that spectrum. I doubt you'd withhold information that could help your argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@a.vulcan6282 I would generally agree with that, but it would require a constitutional convention and successful adding of an amendment. I think it could work, but there would be huge hurdles to overcome in the details. Such as, who collects those taxes, who manages the money, how is money distributed, who manages the various districts' day-to-day affairs, who determines pay rates, teacher's union issues, and so so much more. Before we even thought about giving control, a solid plan would have to be in place to resolve all issues, guaranteed to pass the House and Senate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DirtyRedMuzik
1. Do you not understand that the Constitution gives an exhaustive list of everything that Congress may make laws on? Congress can't make laws on anything outside of that. Nothing in the Constitution gives them the authority to make laws regarding immigration -- only citizenship.
2. John Locke, and others, have a great deal to do with the Founding Fathers' views on government and civilization. The natural rights as argued and established by these Enlightenment writers were self-evident to the Founding Fathers. Clearly not so to people today. You see this when Hamilton wrote in Federalist 84, "For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?" Meaning that in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the Congress isn't given power to restrict the press and therefore the First Amendment would be superfluous as Congress wouldn't have the power to even make a law regarding it.
3. Saying that it wasn't 100 years, it was 99, so you're wrong in this matter is as pedantic as it comes. It changes nothing about the point I was making. Naturalization and immigration are not in the least intertwined. One can reside in the US as an alien without ever becoming naturalized. And there were no laws on immigration because Congress isn't allowed to make laws regarding immigration.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AndyPresto75 Well Lenin was like 120 years ago, and Marx was 150, so you're not brushed up on your history, I can see. And there are no socialist countries in Europe, so you don't know much about that either. If you're thinking of countries like Sweden, it's capitalist. And the idea of the "mixed economy" of capitalist systems and strong welfare states as a method of peaceful revolution towards communism was invented by Eduard Bernstein who lived at the same time Marx did, so ................... WHAT?! Do you actually know ANYTHING about the ideologies you espouse? I feel like I know your own ideologies better than you do, you poor fool.
Some facts about Sweden: They actually tend to have a lower corporate tax rate than in the US (20.6%). Sweden's income tax rate (national and local) ranges from a real rate of about 7% to 60% (10% to 72% before deductions). The only time you don't pay taxes is if you're making the equivalent to about $200 a month. Essentially, no one is exempt from taxes. The top tax bracket of 72% (~60% real) is equivalent to about US$60,000. You get to take home about US $40,800 of the first 60,000, then everything else beyond that pretty much 100% goes to the government when you consider the 60% federal and local taxes and the 25% VAT as well (12% on food and the like). You're essentially hard capped on earnings at $60,000 a year. I'm good.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Figgatella First, disagreeing with you and thinking that you shouldn't be allowed to just say "whatever" when challenged while you're spreading false information does not make me a troll.
What do you mean you're a scientist? Do you mean you're a research scientist? No actual researcher would ever say something as ridiculous as, "Actually China just came out and said it really didn’t make difference according to their study." That statement shouldn't even make sense to a researcher. If you said that to a researcher, they'd ask, "That's one study. What does the body of research indicate?" When they found there were 2 data studies covering only 80 cases, they'd plainly state, "We'd need more data to come to any kind of conclusion." Instead, you just take the latest report and run with it as fact. That is painfully layman.
Second, it only appears to be a contradiction because you're ignorant. I don't mean that as an insult, but you simply don't know. There's nothing wrong with not knowing, but your attitude is definitely showing a lot of Dunning-Kruger effect.
I think you might be missing that we're talking about two different formulations of a drug here. Chloroquine phosphate is approved for use in China for the treatment of Covid-19. 3 of the above 4 studies are on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine because it's less toxic than chloroquine phosphate. Chloroquine phosphate has shown to have an LD50 of 330mg/kg in rats. Hydroxychloroquine has shown to have an LD50 of 1240 mg/kg in rats.
Above, there is one causative study showing it may help, one small-sample study supporting the hypothesis that it helps, and a third small-sample study showing that it didn't improve over control. This is hardly conclusive either way and is only for the hydroxychloroquine formulation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@caitiff52 As a matter of fact, the Constitution does not give the the power of judicial review to the SCOTUS. That came following the Marbury v Madison decision in 1803. Jefferson wrote regarding the matter to Spencer Roane in 1819:
"I go further than you do, if I understand rightly your quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that ‘the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other depart[ments] of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.’ if this opinion be sound, then indeed is our constitution a compleat felo de se. for intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independant, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others; and to that one too which is unelected by, and independent of, the nation. for experience has already shewn that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow; that such opinions as the one you combat, sent cautiously out, as you observe also by detachment, not belonging to the case often, but sought for out of it, as if to rally the public opinion beforehand to their views, and to indicate the line they are to walk in, have been so quietly passed over as never to have excited animadversion, even in a speech of any one of the body entrusted with impeachment. the constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please. it should be remembered as an axiom of eternal truth in politics that whatever power in any government is independant, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice as fast as that relaxes. independance can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. they are inherently independant of all but moral law. my construction of the constitution is very different from that you quote. it is that each department is truly independant of the others, and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the constitution in the cases submitted to it’s action; and especially where it is to act ultimately and without appeal."
And if you ask me, he was very right. This Supreme Court abused this power to uphold racist anti-black laws, bans against Chinese immigrants in 1875, federal gun restrictions and more.
1
-
@caitiff52 Brutus wrote, "There is no power above them, to control any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controlled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel independent of heaven itself."
Hamilton retorted:
"But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill senses of humor in the society. These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws. Here also the firmness of the judicial magistracy is of vast importance in mitigating the severity and confining the operation of such laws. It not only serves to moderate the immediate mischiefs of those which may have been passed, but it operates as a check upon the legislative body in passing them; who, perceiving that obstacles to the success of iniquitous intention are to be expected from the scruples of the courts, are in a manner compelled, by the very motives of the injustice they meditate, to qualify their attempts. This is a circumstance calculated to have more influence upon the character of our governments, than but few may be aware of."
Now, I ask you, which has proved to be a more accurate depiction of the SCOTUS? And do you think that really is in line with the system of checks and balances that were set up, or is it a political puppet of dictatorial power as we see the vehement war over SCOTUS seats between the two primary parties?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PADE1RTW Whether immigrants or long-standing natural citizens, when parents get in trouble with the law, their children are very commonly taken into state care. That really only makes sense. I'm going by the state of the law currently, not what I'm alright with or the way I think things should be. Personally, I think that part of keeping our sovereignty and borders has nothing to do with saying who can or cannot come into the country, regardless of the reason. A respect for the natural rights of people demands that we do not require anyone coming into the country to check in with the government (citizenship is a different matter that's wholly under the purview of government).
However, with the state of things as they are, these kids are being as well treated as can be expected... They're being fed well, provided education and activities, given structured days, and healthcare. There may be areas where there can be improvements, but it's definitely not a house of horrors. Still, as I said, I would prefer to not see anything of the sort happening for the simple exercise of the natural right to move about freely.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I never called you a commie or tonto. Keep track of who says what. You have a beef with Joe Bloggs being racist, not me. Joe Bloggs, or anyone like him, definitely isn't my "buddy". This is like me saying, "You know who also believed in gun control? HITLER!" However, I know that's logically fallacious and you should too.
Natural rights is in no one's power to infringe on. Just the same as it wasn't in the power of the United States to take your land, you, nor anyone else, has the right to disarm anyone else outside of the due process of law. I'm not ignoring what you're saying -- I'm addressing it quite directly with providence. That's why I'm referencing The Federalist Papers, philosophies that lay out objective political morality (rather than a subjective view of morality), and actually explaining exactly what the preamble of the Second Amendment is referencing and the wording of the operative clause. If you don't see how this is a logical and direct rebuttal to your statements, then I'm not sure what to tell you.
You've yet to present an argument of why these guns don't belong in society. You're only presenting a repeated argumentum ad lapidem fallacy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Alkay678 Just because someone doesn't want to give you everything when others must work for it and therefore an expectation exists that you also do something that's desired by others (i.e. marketable) doesn't make one Republican. It means that you're expected to contribute to society a little more than you take.
If you are given money to go to school to get a better education to earn more, and you do, pay it back. Does that system need tweaking? Yes. Absolutely. Horrid stories come from the way student loans are managed currently. That doesn't mean we should throw out the baby with the bathwater, however. Those who don't go to school aren't burdened with additional taxes because of our system, and low-skill/no-skill labor is not subsidizing students that go off to make much more than they will.
Just because we understand a federal minimum wage of $15 an hour is asinine but understand the nuance that it may need to be more like $20 an hour in a place like Los Angeles, doesn't make up Republican. It means we understand local economic needs and limits outside of our urban bubble.
Just because we're not backing every food safety standard or everything the FDA wants to do doesn't make us Republican. It means we understand that sometimes those standards are intended to push out new competition by setting the initial bar to succeed too high, giving large mutli-state/multi-national corporations under-the-table monopolies. This also goes back to the federal minimum wage too.
Just because we understand the enormous complexities of what it would take to actually get efficient universal healthcare running, and that implementing MFA under the current framework would be disastrous, it doesn't make us Republicans. It means we understand that the framework doesn't exist to support it well enough to succeed as envisioned.
Just because you still think that the defense budget takes up over half of federal spending doesn't change the fact that it sits at about 15% of federal spending. Just because you still think that taxes don't benefit the people, it doesn't change the fact that over half of the $4 trillion in average federal spending is spent on Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security.
Just because you think the federal government is the end-all and be-all of legislation doesn't make it so. The federal government has a very limited set of legislative authority as outlined in the Constitution, capable of making legislation on about 20 items.
I could go on ad nauseam, but I'll save you the trouble of reading it all. I'm sure you're already thinking I'm an idiot, but that doesn't affect me. I don't base my opinion on what's popular--I base it on what's right and just by the best information that I can get.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@caelanj6788 Now my actual opinion on this matter is that single payer healthcare is not a win-win. I would say it's arguable that it kills a lot more people than those few who fall through the cracks in our for-profit system. Right now, all of those nations stand on the shoulders of US funding in R&D into medicine. If there's a new development, more often than not, it's coming from the US. A lot of that stems from the over $2 trillion of revenue that runs through our system, attracting together the brightest minds to solve our medical issues. If the US went single-payer, there goes all of the money, and you just get a brain drain. I'd rather cure ALS, for instance, than cover everyone with a single-payer system, and this is a zero-sum game, because single-payer is all about making it affordable to do (meaning less money). Single-payer also has its issues as any government bureaucracy does. Ask a medical professional which patient has less paperwork and by how much: a person on Medicare/Medicaid or private insurance. Ask who is denied more frequently for treatment. Figure out how to keep the R&D funded while covering everyone, I'm supporting that idea. The free market, properly regulated, also does work, as we see in the US. They each have different problems, and I think we can do better than both.
Now, of course I understood what he was trying to say. I already stated as much. You didn't read everything, I'm guessing (understandably -- this isn't an insult as it's just a long ass thread). I said I'm trying to get him to learn how to think to know how to communicate what he's actually trying to say to be more effective at persuasion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Messenger, the Constitution wasn't even ratified until 1787 and the Bill of Rights not until 1791. I'm not sure where you're getting the 1752 year from. It was Madison in 1789 who was the one who brought to the House floor the request for a Bill of Rights.
“the legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution”
This is referencing the Constitutional convention, and doesn't have anything to do with the Bill of Rights. Madison didn't trust those setting up the Constitution because he saw clear intent at an ultimate, central power, and, therefore, he was saying that their writings and concepts are certainly not what we'd want to follow in regards to interpretation of the Constitution, and that the wordings and tweaks he fought to make should be taken plainly, and not through the filter of the Federalists. There is no big secret. He didn't want his efforts to be twisted to make it seem like his ideas were Federalist. In fact, you are doing what Madison specifically said not to do: You're seeking a key through a Federalist cipher, and he was not a Federalist.
What makes you think that Benjamin Franklin was writing about anything other than foreign relations? Seriously, do you think you're living in a Dan Brown novel? You're quite literally insane if you really believe this paranoid nonsense you're spewing. I must say, however, that this is some of the most amazing mental gymnastics I've ever seen. If it ever becomes an Olympic sport, your nations will be winning golds in it for decades to come.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ClownScript Thanks for your honest question, and I agree it's a valid question to ask. Every nation has its own sovereignty and runs itself as it sees fit. However, the principles of Enlightenment writers such as Locke and Rousseau, I find, hold true. A healthy nation is a nation which fundamentally and unerringly respects the liberty and natural rights of the individual.
Through this, a guarantee is made that all individuals are better off within civilization in every way as opposed to subsistence living when that is done. Under such principles, civilization's only authority extends so as to make a person whole, to the best of its ability, in the case of infringement and after the fact. This infringement is based on the principles found in The Second Treatise of Government. It is not a perfectly safe or secure nation, and I believe no one could sell such a system indefinitely, but it is one that promotes happiness for its citizens the best.
Even China, who has jingoism and propaganda down to a science, is incapable of maintaining peace and unity under its authoritarian regime. The United States is currently an awkward and variable amalgamation of libertarian and authoritarian. That authoritarianism part is a significant contributor of our current pains and unrest.
1
-
Uncomfortable Truth You're conflating "human rights" with "natural rights". These are not the same. Human rights are subjective standards of living. Natural rights are a mode to seek to establish objective morality in governance.
The concept of natural rights began with philosophers such as Plato, but were distilled using more modern methods of rationalism during the Enlightenment period. The Second Treatise of Government is one of the best texts on this matter. It's about 90 pages or so and can be found on The Gutenberg Project or similar sites as it is a work that has fallen into the public domain. While I believe Locke's work is better for its brevity and completeness combined, another fundamental work is Jean-Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract. Reading other writers contemporary of these works such as Hobbes Leviathan or Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature is greatly beneficial if you can manage.
"And what do you mean, move to another area? Does this mean across borders?"
Borders are simply invisible lines we all agree to abide by (or are otherwise capable of holding through might). While some look at these borders as safety for those inside, they are, in my opinion, best viewed as protection for those outside of those borders by containing the effects of political ideologies and structures. A use of borders to bolster tribalism is a poor use of those borders.
Tribalism has served us well for our survival, but our technological advancements have outpaced our humanity now. The alleles that promote such tribalism are now doing us a disservice in our modern world.
"And does alien residents mean open borders?"
Yes, and this is as the Founders intended it. Please, take careful note of the Constitution. The Constitution, as I'm sure you know but not all that read this may, is a document of positive powers. What powers are granted to the federal government must be explicitly stated within the Constitution itself. The Founders purposefully did not give power over immigration to the federal government. Instead, they specifically gave power only over naturalization -- that is the path to citizenship. Residing as an alien was open to all of the law-abiding.
When the Alien & Sedition Acts were passed, Jefferson had a number of choice words about that legislation. Though, even that was only to eject resident aliens who may pose a threat if war arose (specifically the French were the concern at that time). It wasn't until 99 years after the United States declared its independence that the first proper immigration laws as we know them first cropped up, starting with the Page Act in 1875 which banned the immigration of Chinese women.
"As far as healthcare, who is to judge whether someone is capable of contributing, or what that
Constitutes?"
If you buy health insurance, then you are contributing sufficiently. The point is to add value to civilization where enough desire parting with their money enough for one to make their basic needs. Such a trade medium allows for what contribution is being open to the interpretation of every individual in society.
"As far as disability, I know tons of people who faked their disability to gain early retirement and Also some people who probably should be on disability. ."
No system made by man will be perfect. As with justice, due process is adhered to, we attempt to structure that due process as fair as possible, and it is our truth. As Hamilton wrote, to paraphrase, if men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels governed man, no checks on government would be necessary. But so long as man rules man, it will be imperfect, and we are left with the best imperfect man can muster to keep it in check. For the Founders (to a slightly lesser extent the Framer/federalist subset), this meant granulating to the most local region as can be managed the majority of governmental powers. Because those within a local community are more likely going to share similar visions of governance and be more personally attached to the affairs of the region than a far-removed central government. That the federal government manages such cases perhaps is fairly significant as to why there are these cases of fraud and and undue denials.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ernstbtmn No, you very specifically said, and I copied and pasted (and I'm copying and pasting here again), "aka there is no PROOF either way, they attacked him, BECAUSE he was a Bernie Sanders supporter."
But that's not the point. The point is that they did attack someone without knowing, and someone who wasn't any of those things. They clearly don't have a very high level of scrutiny for who they decide to take the property of and attack. As I said, if that's a group you support, reevaluate your understanding of justice, peace and unity.
"Because I don't recall BLM telling anyone, let along, 4 women of color-3 of which, where born in America-to go back to their own country. OR, do I need to keep pointing out this nuance?"
I do recall Sherelle Smith saying, "Y’all burning down shit we need in our community. Take that shit to the suburbs. Burn that shit down! We need our shit! We need our weaves. I don’t wear it. But we need it," with a bunch of BLM leaders and protesters oorahing her on.
1
-
@ernstbtmn The only reason you would have to argue, "And by YOUR logic, 'right-wingers' should be considered, terrorist right?," would be to have a belief that I would be interested in defending the actions of those whose beliefs are on the right side of the spectrum, thus trying to underscore your assumption of hypocrisy. Don't try to get cute with me.
"Meanwhile, 90% of Black folks, would disagree."
If I were interested in popularity over attempting to find objective truth, I'd run for some office and be making the real easy money.
"Because BLM doesn't condemn EVERYONE/ANYONE who does something against THEIR beliefs, that means they are somehow complicit in said action.
"
I guarantee you that if someone were out there on my name doing anything I disagree with (especially anything that I feel hinders my goals of justice, unity and peace), I'm going to be damn quick, strong and decisive in deriding that activity. That is not me, and I wouldn't want anyone for a second thinking that it was something that I was condoning, even through silence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaeldebellis4202 You'll have to excuse me if I question your self-appeal to authority as an intellectual given your random capitalizations of nouns. Biology, chimps, serotonin, bonobos, oxytocin, dopamine, neurotransmitter, behavior, nor evolutionary psychology should be capitalized. What words you choose to capitalize have no rhyme or reason to them.
I'm normally not fussed with details in language like these, but you are claiming yourself as an authority greater than a multi-published Ph.D. holder, clinical psychologist, and professor.
Regardless if there's a positive or negative correlation with serotonin and aggressiveness, which is observed one way or another with both humans and lobsters, the argument that this is evidence of an inherent, biological tendency among even the most ancient of species towards developing hierarchies doesn't change.
1
-
@michaeldebellis4202 Where he gets the lobster thing from is the paper, "Serotonin and aggressive motivation in crustaceans: Altering the decision to retreat." Meaning that if varying stimuli of wins and losses change how a creature behaves, that then inherently stratifies behavior, creating varying class structures of creatures by their own biology. This is provided as an alternative to the argument that hierarchies in humanity are constructs of the human mind and we could get rid of them. He's not saying anything novel to the body of literature on the matter. He's informing people who think we could just wish away hierarchies of the body of literature.
Now, you bring up some good points. My counter point is simple: Half of the world would still vote for someone like Trump. What I mean by that, is that everyone is at a different level of cognitive ability. Dawkins' view of overcoming biology only works some of the time. And, arguably, only when a certain level of cognition is blessed to a person by their genetics, they attain a fair level of critical thinking skills to utilize that cognitive ability, and finally that they are physiologically well-adjusted and not, for instance, a psychopath. That leaves us with a very small portion of the population that can readily "choose" that. To use a phrase from my neck of the woods: And if a bullfrog had wings, it wouldn't bump its ass when it hopped.
Scientists are very smart, but they often make the mistake of thinking what they are capable of, everyone is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@XXCoeusXX "You do have to read between the lines when you look at what they say about them."
Sure... It's like the lie that Proud Boys are white supremacists. This from a report for reasons given why a deputy was fired in Clark County, WA. The SAIC from Portland that provided them the intel came out and said they don't do that kind of classification, so the Clark Co SO was wrong to make the inference. They were asked for information of who the FBI watching. They advised them there are some people with white supremacist ties in Proud Boys, but that is not anywhere near the same as the "Proud Boys being white supremacist". There's no "reading between the lines".
"They claim tens of thousands, but that's hard to verify, and has incentive to inflate. You also can't be sure only 6 were there."
Really? Even if it's 100 members, 6 of them acting independently but in concert only with one another is still not a lot.
"Although if they were to follow their oath, I would imagine they should have been there to defend the capitol from the insurrectionists. But they bought into "the big lie" which then makes their judgment lacking and their motives questionable."
It doesn't matter what your point of view of their point of view is. It's unjudicial to judge on such subjectivity. I'll put a quote from Thomas Jefferson at the end to demonstrate a better way of looking at a situation like this. Yes, before you invariably ask, I apply this same view to BLM and Antifa protests and riots.
"Gun confiscation? Please cite."
Anderson Cooper: "To gun owners out there who say that a Biden administration means they're going to come for my guns..."
Biden: "Bingo. You're right if you have an assault weapon. The fact of the matter is that they should be illegal. Period."
Thank god for the split Senate.
Biden forgets his duty as pointed out in the Constitution items 15 & 16 of Article I, Section 8:
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia..."
Or why the Second Amendment was written which can be found in George Mason's address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention and Federalist 46 (e.g. the militia would not be allowed to atrophy as the British had done by guaranteeing citizens could arm themselves without any infringement (undermining).
"Federal Immigration laws is not an overstep, you're nuts if you think so. Unless there is something in particular you have a problem with, then please cite."
So then this is for you to prove. Your claim is that the federal government has been granted the authority to control who can or cannot come into the nation. Please cite where in the Constitution it is given this power (tip: naturalization is not immigration).
"While I think many drugs should just be decriminalized, there would still be reasons to have the DEA. Like medical drug crimes, trafficking etc. Them existing is not an overstep."
Same as above. Where is the federal government granted this power?
"Patriot Act? The one signed in by Bush, and renewed by Obama, yeah we can agree on that being a huge overstep. But wtf is a militia going to do about data monitoring? All they can do is attack servers until the internet is down across the US, there really is no brute force method to solve that one."
The point is to demonstrate that tyranny exists, not asking how exactly a militia stops it. Once you agree that the federal government has become tyrannical, then it's just nitpicking after that.
"Let's not pretend the oath keepers are fighting conservatives on their oversteps..."
Do you think Oath Keepers are excited about things like the Patriot Act? Mother Jones wrote an article, part of which reads, "Rand Cardwell, who organized multiple chapters in Tennessee, only woke up, he told me, when the government began bailing out big companies and left ordinary people in the cold: 'Pain causes action,' he said. For others here, the aha moment came with the Patriot Act or when federal troops and contractors confiscated weapons in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina."
Outside of the weapons confiscation, that doesn't sound too right-wing to me. Being angry about feds bailing out corporations and the passing of the Patriot Act?
"I guess you are really pissed about the Florida law regarding teen genital inspection then hu?"
I don't know the law, but you certainly make it sound horrific. I presume it's related to bathroom use in schools for those claiming transgender status? If my suspicion is correct, yeah, it's asinine.
Quote from Thomas Jefferson:
"And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure."
1
-
@XXCoeusXX So apparently YouTube has a limit on length of comment. It's coming in two parts. Part 1 first.
Proud Boys are led by an Afro-Cuban. Just... what?
"Ahh assault rifles, yeah I have no problem with people not having them, they are meant for . . umm what was it. Assault . There is no reason for citizens to have them, otherwise there would be no point in having the police or even military domestically. I mean really if people should have assault weapons why not tanks, or drones, or c4. Your question was about government overstepping, and you asked my opinion, so the government taking assault weapons is not overstepping, they should have never been in the hands of citizens."
Meant for assault? Yeah, that's the point of weapons in general. There is no requirement for "need" in the Constitution. The imperative is to not infringe. That means to not in any way undermine or limit ownership of arms. People can have tanks, drones and C4. James Madison explained one of the reasons for the people to have arms in Federalist 46. Please read this paragraph (take special note of the bold)...
"Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."
"It's funny you have a problem with them taking assault weapons but in the next breathe say Biden is in charge of organizing and arming them. If he is in charge of how they are armed, then taking the assault weapons falls within his purview. It doesn't work in only the 'give us more weapons' direction."
That would be arming which is the opposite of *disarming*. But hey, Hamilton predicted you'd say this 245 years before you said it. And he wrote about it in principle Federalist 84. Read this paragraph...
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."
1
-
1
-
@XXCoeusXX The racism was never there in the first place.
Why do they specify handgun? Why do they specify submachine gun? It's just a name to describe a set of common features. The first assault rifle was the STG-44, the Sturmgewehr, which means assault gun. So the name has stuck for rifles with a detachable box magazines chambered for an intermediate cartridge (meaning smaller than other rifle cartridges) with selective fire.
If you don't think we can't buy tanks, you need to do some research. There are only two things which are explicitly banned from private ownership by federal law: surface-to-air missiles that lock onto targets and automatic weapons made after 1986. That's it. And the Hughes' Amendment to the FOPA that banned machineguns is extremely unconstitutional, and when it passed, it was an absolute circus in the proceedings.
"Your logic leads everyone to own weapons of mass destruction. If someone has something that neutralizes your fists, get guns, if someone has something that neutralizes guns, get explosives, . . get tanks, . . get drones, . . get H-bomb."
That's quite the slippery slope fallacy that has never been shown to be true. What I expect is to not punish innocent people because someone else did something illegal.
"TBH I don't give a crap what people said 245 years ago..."
Of course you don't. As I said, nothing is sacred in your search for security and safety. Remember how I said your desires punish those who never and would never do wrong because others broke the law? By following your logic to its end, we put everyone in prison until they can prove to the government that they can be good and contributing members of society. That's the same you want to do to the natural right of arms, if you even allow them to have them at all. All are assumed guilty and less deserving of life and liberty than others that have proven themselves to your authoritarian government. Your ideology ends in quite the dystopian shithole. But if you think that's too far, then you're just drawing an arbitrary line where you no longer give up liberty for safety; however, I have a feeling that line is only crossed when it comes to a liberty that impacts you. As long as it's not a liberty that you care about, it's expendable. That's rather psychopathic. Have you considered a career as a politician, lawyer or CEO?
"You deify these people as if they knew everything."
No, I've read the Enlightenment philosophies which provide a capstone upon thousands of years of political study going back to the Grecco-Roman empires. I find the theories to be sound and reasonable and maxims true for all times.
"I'm not going to continuously read these essays."
That's part of my problem with you. You're woefully ignorant.
"Now we are playing semantics with arming vs disarming."
Yes. They literally mean the opposite of one another, and the former term is included while the latter is not.
"They shouldn't have been armed with assault weapons in the first place. If anything they weren't following the rules by allowing them to be armed in the first place with assault weapons."
That makes literally no sense whatsoever. "They shouldn't have been armed with..." Says what or who?
They knew the constitution wasn't perfect, they made it so amendments could/would be made. So to say "because it isn't in the constitution" is absurd.
The Constitution is a document of positive powers. If you don't know that, then you don't belong in this conversation. Yes, you can amend the Constitution, but you're ignorant if you think it's a valid use of the Constitution to amend it so as to infringe on liberty, because natural law always supersedes civil law. And that's where your lack of knowledge and experience comes into play. You don't understand the wide-reaching implications of such legislation. But, if you want to try, go ahead and amend the Constitution. That's what's required to even have a pretense of legally doing what you want to do.
1
-
@XXCoeusXX "Forget the government agencies that have evaluated the groups, why let that get in the way."
No government agency has said contrary to what I've stated.
"It's not that I think we can't buy tanks, it's that, other than collecting to put into a museum, there should be no 'armed' purposed of buying tanks for citizens."
Should? According to you. You don't matter. The Constitution does. The Constitution doesn't provide the federal government the power to infringe on an individual's ability to procure arms.
"Conservatives use the slippery slope all the time."
Ah, whataboutism now...
"If it weren't for DMV regulations on cars, people would be arming their cars to be tanks. The hummer is basically the trial run for "do people want their cars to be militarized". It's not slippery if there were manufacturing processes that made it easy for citizens to own, because then the issue would be here, as opposed to a hypothetical slope."
So the only reason people don't is their state DMVs? lol.... Alright then. Have you not noticed how rare Humvees are?
"...and then you use the steepest of slippery slopes to apply it to..." It's clear that over the past 220 years, there is an ever creeping advancement to infringe on liberty. First it was the SCOTUS taking for itself the power of sole interpreter of the Constitution. Then it was preventing free black people from voting. Then it was weapons starting with the Bowie knife (oddly immediately after the last Founder died, likely because they knew the backlash it would get). Then it was on to immigration. Then we get into more arms. Then we get into banning of alcohol. Then we start seeing asset forfeiture laws. Then we get into substance control starting with the attack on the hemp industry. Then we continue on with more weapon control. Then we get the Patriot Act. Now we're getting to the point of speech control. This isn't a slippery slope fallacy, it's a slippery slope we're in the process of actively sliding down, and you're too blind to see where it ends up.
"Because I won't read outdated essays that hardly relate to the issues of today? lol yeah okay."
They are relevant today. You just haven't read them and pondered on them, so you wouldn't even know. Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
"but if you are in charge of arming, that means you are in charge of the weapons they get."
It reads, "The Congress shall have Power ... To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia..." It does not read, "The Congress shall have Power ... To deny arms to the Militia." If you'd read Mason's quote, that's exactly what he was attempting to prevent from happening again since the British (notably William Smith) just did that to them.
"Considering the abuse of assault weapons used to kill our own..."
That 15 or so a year on average...?
"Yeah so to say 'you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre' is definitely infringing on peoples' right to free speech, lol."
Not that you can still use the word fire. I imagine just about every child would be in serious trouble when Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was released in theaters. It's not the use of the word, it's the intended effect of using the word. If I peacefully own arms, it's like saying, "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire," in a theater. If I shoot someone, that is like acting to deceive a crowd into panic by yelling "FIRE!" in the theater. It's worth noting that everyone that goes to theaters is not then punished for that action by banning them from speaking in the theater or banning the use of certain words in the theater. That preemptive type of legislation isn't what you would stand for in speech, and you shouldn't stand for it when it comes to arms either.
"All rights have a limit,"
You're ignorant of what that means because you refuse to read the founding philosophies. You take it to mean that you can decide to draw the line wherever you please. However, that's not what it means. The Second Treatise of Government by Locke is only 80-some pages long, and you can't even be bothered to educate yourself so you're no longer talking so assuredly about things you know nothing about.
"That's what your whole debate really is, 'I'm not breaking the law, so you should let me do whatever I want'"
Uh... Yeah... What right do you have to infringe on my liberty if I'm not infringing on yours?
"The problem is that if you decide the government is violating the constitution, or that pizza-gate is real, then that puts a lot of others at risk."
Risk is a part of life. You're never going to get rid of risk, and it's futile to try. To attempt to do so at the expense of liberty of those who've done no wrong is cowardice, plain and simple.
"But if you don't want any kind of oversight, there are plenty of places in the world that will let you do whatever you want."
Pretty much the entire Western world has what you're seeking. The US is the last bastion of liberty. Let us have just one to our ideals, as it was founded in principle, in peace.
"A lot of people are ticking time bombs, and the most dangerous ones have assault weapons."
Define a lot. Because 20-25 people a year of 330,000,000 (most by the way using pistols, not assault weapons) doesn't seem like a lot.
To paraphrase Hamilton, if men were angels, we wouldn't need government. Men ruling men means there are no angels involved, and if anything, research has shown that the worst of us tend to be drawn to those positions.
1
-
@XXCoeusXX "If the FBI came right out and called the Oath keepers or proud boys a white supremacist or antigovernmental group"
No they absolutely did not.
From a PBS article ("Portland FBI Head Clarifies Statement On Proud Boys"):
"Cannon said FBI agents presented background at the briefing on domestic threats posed by militias, white supremacists and anarchists.
'In that briefing there was a slide that talked about the Proud Boys,' Cannon said.
"The slide was intended to characterize the potential for violence from individual members of the Proud Boys, according to Cannon, and not to address the group as a whole.
'There have been instances where self-identified Proud Boys have been violent,' he said. 'We do not intend and we do not designate groups, especially broad national groups, as extremists.'
"Clark County prosecuting attorney Tony Golick, who attended the presentation, said it lasted about an hour and a half and touched on 'where these different groups are geographically, the belief systems of these groups and evidence of criminal conduct that had been gathered by the FBI.'
"Cannon said he understands why the Clark County Sheriff’s Office concluded that the Proud Boys had been designated as an extremist group. He said the discussion of the Proud Boys followed information describing the notorious white supremacist group The Order, which the FBI prosecuted for bank robbery and organized crime.""
"The constitution isn't the end all be all of what's allowed."
It quite literally is in the United States. It is the Supreme Law of the Land. It supersedes all other civil laws and government.
"So my opinion is shared amongst agencies of people much smarter than you or I."
lol... Sure, the ATF is smart. They're idiots.
"Owning assault rifles, enough people abuse them that it infringes on others' right to be safe that they need to be taken away."
That's not how liberty works. We don't castrate you because other men commit over 100,000 rapes a year. Unless you want to be castrated for a crime committed by someone else. I still disagree with it for obvious reasons.
"It was in the constitution that black people didn't count as a whole person."
You don't even know the Constitution or history. It is in the Constitution that slaves would be counted towards a state's population at 3/5ths for the sake of representation in the House. Free black individuals were still counted as a whole person. White slaves were also counted at 3/5ths of the count. The idea that "black people didn't count as a whole person" is just so incredibly ignorant that if anyone takes your point of view even marginally seriously after that, I'd be surprised.
"Screw you if what I do is associated with people dying, you should let me continue to do it."
Except since I'm not killing any innocent person, me owning arms is not infringing on anyone else's right to life.
"It Infringes on peoples right to exist without fear from harm!"
No such right exists unless you have found a way to exempt yourself from feeling fear. You don't get to infringe on the liberty of others because you're afraid. The world would be at the mercy of various phobics if that were the case, hoplophobes being only one.
"Who are the people voting in these 'non-angles'"
Angels, not angles. Who are voting humans into governments? Uh... voters maybe...
"Many other places have outlawed guns or have heavy restrictions on guns, and they are doing just fine."
They still have mass shootings.
"Their society isn't crumbling, they aren't under attack."
For now. But I feel for the future generations they'd be selling out if things do turn south. I'm not nearly as myopic as they, or you, are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GenerationX1984 No, being an independent artist is starting your own business. That's just the general issues in starting a business. Are these contractors trying to screw me over or are they reasonable in price and skill? What's my audience? How do I reach them most effectively so they buy my crap? Is this lawyer I'm using to draw up my S-corporation documents taking too long? Is he doing it right? Am I going to get screwed down the line? Hopping from bank to bank to try to sell the business plan to get a loan to afford all of this. Managing marketing materials; ensuring that marketing is reaching my target audience through whichever mediums I have to choose from, whether TV, radio, internet, etc. Managing spending. Managing the books so you even know if you're making money. Reinvesting in further marketing, legal and contract help, but not too much so that you can't pay yourself at the end of the day. There's the tip of the iceberg. There's also everything involved in managing and running the daily business of the business.
It has its unique elements; perhaps instead of a bank to get a loan and contractors, you deal with an agent instead, but none of it is easy. You want it to be easy or something? You think it should be? What qualifies as easy to you? What qualifies as easy to the next person? Does easy also necessarily mean less legal recourse for the public and yourself from disingenuous people? Just like every warning on a product has a good reason for being there, each complexity has a good reason for being there -- that is, some dumb ass came along and ruined the simplicity for us requiring us to plan against such dumbassery in the future.
And in the end it's not bad luck if you fail and good luck if you succeed. If you lean on that, you never learn what you did wrong that caused you to fail and you don't grow.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EmmittBrownBTTF1 "An independent nation with representative democracy is synonymous with Republic."
I didn't say otherwise? Did you expect me to say, "We're a republic not a democracy," but you didn't know how to adjust your comeback when I accurately explained our constitutional republic and in what key ways it differs from a simple democracy or a republic which lacks a constitution?
"The problem is the representatives largely represent the interests of donors"
Research has shown this claim false. (e.g. Effects of Public Opinion on Policy. Page, Shapiro. Cambridge University Press, 01 August 2014)
"You see Fox News trying to make them look naive, crazy and stupid on a daily basis."
I think our two-party system is more of a danger.
"The authority to give huge corporation monsterous tax breaks and fund a gargantuan war machine, and more - can be taken away, by voting."
Define "monstrous." Are you ready to go to a mandatory militia system? I am, but I'm checking on you.
"But sadly too many treat politics as team sport and GOP has done much to seize power despite the policy demands of the majority of Americans."
By "demands of the majority of Americans," you mean based on what you've been told on assumptions extrapolated from limited data, right?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lloydbrowne9397 There are two peer-reviewed meta-analyses reviewing over a dozen papers each. Both find overwhelming evidence that ivermectin may help reduce fatalities, ICU duration, hospital admittance, time to clear, and severity of symptoms. This has been shown to work both as a prophylactic and as a therapeutic in these papers. Now that Pfizer is releasing an expensive, brand-name anti-viral, it's become clear why research on this generic, widely-available, cheap, and apparently effective medicine has been suppressed, with those explaining the research that is out there receiving ridicule like what you've done here and the mainstream media.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nevilleokumu7885 "I understand your bigoted hatred for immigrants but seeking asylum is not a crime in US."
First and foremost, I need to deal with this little asshole statement right here. First, look up the definition of "bigot", because It's not what you think it is. Second, I would see the repeal of all immigration laws and restore the natural right of people to live as a resident alien as they please, without having to check in with mommy government. Don't think that because I'm not bigoted like you -- the definition actually being intolerant of those holding a different opinion from yourself -- that I support what's happening. I'm just actually capable of being impartial and capable of understanding of the law without bias, even if I vehemently disagree with it. So get your head on straight. Learn to use logic and reason and seek unbiased and objective understanding. This is exactly the kind of bullshit that is not going to win you any political arguments and how people like Trump get elected.
Now, seeking asylum isn't illegal, but it is an arrestable offense to enter the country without documentation, whether you intend to claim asylum or not. The law doesn't care if you intend on claiming asylum -- only if you actually did. I-589 must be filled out as quickly as possible with an upper limit of a year. I honestly don't understand why some on your side of the argument keep speciously claiming it's "anti-immigrant" when everyone has been repeating to you ad nauseam that it is no anti-immigration, but that they want those who wish to come here to do it legally, whether that's applying through ordinary channels or expeditiously seeking out an official after illegal entry to claim asylum -- not to just come here and never file.
1
-
1
-
A Gerard, why do you think British forced slavery on its colonies to begin with? It was to control those colonies. England had already abolished slavery within its borders, but would not do the same for its colonies because it used the fear of insurrection to keep the colonists in line. In the American colonies, it was especially effective at dividing up politics by geography. Here, let me give you this from Jefferson's draft of the Declaration of Independence, but didn't make it into the final document because of this effective and evil practice by the English:
"he [King George] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."
Jefferson mic drop, bitch.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1