Search Results: 200 years

The reactions of the right and left to the recent DC riot and calls for impeachment seem to be rather obvious proof that our political leanings cause a bias in our perception of current political events. Most of those on the right do not perceive that President Trump was trying to incite a riot while those on the left are convinced that is exactly what he did. One tool to facilitate some healing is for you to recognize - if you can - that reasonable people can view events differently and the fact that others have different perceptions does not mean that they are stupid or evil. Thinking people of all political persuasions should want to replace arrogance and self-righteousness with tolerance.

This question is NOT intended to give you one more opportunity to either defend or lynch the president. I am NOT interested in responses that tell me why he should be impeached, or why the left should be sent into exile. I am asking you to look inside of yourself and answer this question:

Do you believe that your political beliefs affect your perception of current political events?

I would go with the latter. So called libertarians like to push this narrative that the principal cause behind the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few is "capitalism corrupted by government resulting in 'corporatism'". The story goes that if we just remove all of the government regulations, the free market will redistribute wealth to the masses. As evidence for this narrative, they point to how dependent the corporations are on government to earn as much wealth as they have. However, this is based on one false assumption: that economics is a zero-sum game. Despite their claims that the free market is some kind of wonderous system that magically works itself out, it's riddles with inefficiencies. The only place where "libertarian" principals are implemented in in the third world which is why the third world looks the way that it does. So yeah, the uber rich would have less than without government involvement but so would everyone else only to a greater degree; the wealthy may have less under a "libertarian" system but without employer-employee and business-consumer regulations, they would exploit the rest of the population even harder and hoarde a greater percentage of the wealth in the country. Just as it's better to be an average person now than a rich man 200 years ago, it's better to be in the the top 5% in a 1st world country than in the top 1% in a third world country. Could the government do more to help the rest of the population versus the rich absolutely (and the reverse is true as well) but the idea that the capitalism is some kind of egalitarian system that can redistribute wealth by the invisible hand of the free market is an idealistic fantasy. What causes "corporatism" is the profit motive infiltrating the government, not the government getting involved in the economy.

i was shocked to see on twitter that the Osheaga music and arts festival ( held in Montreal Quebec ) is selling tickets for an event scheduled for July 30 > August 1 2021 , the festival was cancelled entirely last year. but says subject to covid health and safety protocols if it can go ahead in person with reduced capacity or proof of covid vaccination. or as possibly a drive in event or held virtually online.

i'd be surprised if any large outdoor music festivals go ahead this year due to covid 19 rules , most ban large events and music festivals involve far to many people to be allowed under those rules. even if they allow outdoor events involving 100 or 200 people that wouldn't work for a music festival that typically has 1000's

not sure i'd really want to go to a music festival this year anyways , if covid remains a major issue. i'm not entirely convinced it could be done safely or that people would actually feel comfortable in such an environment , even if they vaccinate some people they won't be able to do everyone by the summer and its not 100% effective in everyone

I've wondered a lot lately about this make believe scenario and what both sides would say if it were proposed, so here it is: The government comes together and proposes a deal to legalize marijuana for recreational use IF we abolish the National Firearms Act which requires a $200 tax stamp, long paperwork, tight restrictions on transportation of NFA restricted items such as SBR'S, select fire guns, SBS, suppressors, and AOW's such as not being able to travel with them across state lines without express permission from the ATF and you have to wait up to a full year for the process to be approved. Would you accept this deal? I'd sign it with flying colors as recreational use of marijuana SHOULD be legal in every state and the NFA is unconstitutional and shouldn't exist.