I'm so glad you have a stance on gun control laws, but it's disappointing your analogy is no where near fitting or otherwise even comes close to making a sound argument.
Semi-automatic hand guns don't have a functional purpose that is beneficial to society-- yet they are the most popular choice of weapon amongst mass murderers. An escalator has a lot of functionality and increases standard life by making transportation easier, while retaining statistically insignificant risk. Guns like rifles are good for hunting and have a purpose, but laws should restrict weapons that are designed for multi-target / crowd fire (a thing never needed in hunting non-humans). This means society has the opportunity to reduce significant safety risks with little (actually no) reduction in functionality and ease of living. Laws should, and are, created with a cost/benefit analysis. When the benefit doesn't outweigh the cost, it shouldn't be a law.
Or would you better relate to an extremist response like--- Oh so we should allow random strangers and even allow kids to buy/use/handle grenades, machine guns, missiles, nukes, war chemicals and etc..if you say no you're a CNN watching liberal homosexual extremist.
Simply applying the same arguments against guns to another public safety hazard.
Machine guns (which the AR-15 is NOT) are legal to own as are destructive devices such as grenades, even sound suppressors, they are simply subject to the 1936 NFA.
Since the anti-gun groups have done a pretty good job in convincing the public that the AR-15 and modern civilian versions of the AK-47 are the same thing as military assault rifles, your confusion about such guns is understandable, but not justifyable
I understand there are legal guns-- I was saying that semi-automatic handguns and other multi-target / crowd fire guns should be illegal. What functionality does an Uzi have, other than that it's easy to conceal and can quickly take out a crowd of people? We only need rifles and shotguns for (spread shot for bird) hunting. Most mass murdering is done with semi-automatic handguns.. most hunting is not done with semi-automatic handguns..
Why should we allow something, that throughout history, has proven to be far more hurtful than beneficial to society?
Well for one reason it is our Constitutional right and for two incorrectly termed "assault weapons" make up less than 2% of gun crimes in the US.
Are you also in favor of banning cars that can go faster than 75mph? Or simply just cars that are meant for racing like Ferrari's from the road? Just because we don't "need" them doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed to have them, that's the idea of freedom.
Freedom by your definition means we should be able to kill anyone we want. We don't "need" laws, doesn't mean we shouldn't have them. You will always have freedom of choice, the purpose of gov't is to make bad choices less likely via restrictions and punishment. And I am all for the idea of cars having built in speed limits. Heck, I'd go so far as to encourage those limits to be in tune with road navigation that make sure you don't exceed the street limit by over 5-10 miles an hour.
Because unlike you, I comprehend and rationalize pros and cons. Whereas you don't care about the cons.. as long as you can do whatever you want, you're happy. I, on the other hand, care about our society as a whole and how that legislation effects us all. Does it restrict us more or does it protect us more? Gun control laws currently are insufficient. Semi-automatic handguns should be illegal. They account for the majority of all mass murders (>50%), yet not 0.001% of hunting.
My response to your latest two comments will take several comments for me to fully respond to, I kindly ask for you to bare with me.
First and foremost I would like to appologize, I did not clarify when my sharade was over and that I was going to be serious from then on and it caused confusion. Is it just me or did some of the comments on this answer get deleted? Anyway, everything I have said directly to you, meaning not my question, but all of my comments, were serious, again I appologize...
Anyway as for your comments about car speeds, there is not a single country in the world that actually has such a law to my knowledge. We can debate back and forth about why it is a good idea or a bad idea for days on end but when it really comes down to it do you honestly think you would be able to gain support for it? Americans in general are very wary of the government stepping in and saying "we're trying to make you safer" because they know that means that they're going to take away a...
Freedom and the public is finally starting to catch on about how the government keeps removing freedoms in the name of "the greater good" or "safety".
At the end of the day while it MIGHT still make people a LITTLE safer, it will piss a very large number of people off.
As for guns, may I ask if you have ever actually shot a gun? Semi-automatic pistols make up 80% of newly manufactured handguns. All makes and models of semi-automatic handguns considered and semi-automatic handguns are the...
Most commonly owned guns in the country by far.
Are you fimiliar with the Supreme Court cases of DC vs. Heller in 2008 or City of Chicago vs. McDonald in 2010? The Heller case, in short, confirmed and secured that Americans have the right to own "commonly used" guns disconnected from military service for lawful purposes and lawful purposes is not limited to hunting. Lawful purposes also include self defense, both from crime and tyranny.
The later McDonald case got a 30-year standing ban on...
Handguns (I believe ALL handguns, not just semi-automatics) repealed because the Supreme Court ruled that handguns were in "common use" and therefore protected by the Second Ammendment. DC had a similar ban on handguns which was repealed because of the 2008 Heller ruling.
This man Heller has another case that is going through lower courts as we speak regarding the DC ban on incorrectly labeled "assault weapons" and high-capacity magazines (magazines that hold more than 10 bullets). We won't...
See that case go before the Supreme Court for another couple years I expect.
As for handguns not being used for hunting, that isn't correct either. There aren't a particurally large number of people who do it, but there are some people who hunt with handguns only, and they hunt large game. They use guns like the Desert Eagle, Ruger Blackhawk and Redhawk, Smith & Wesson 66 and (my personal favorite) the Smith & Wesson 500. All of which are actually revolvers except the Desert Eagle.
I've...
Heard a few politicians say lately that nobody hunts with an "assault weapon" which is also not true. While it may not be overly common, there are people who hunt with AR-15s and civilian AK-47s.
But even it nobody did the Second Ammendment was not written for hunting or simple defense against wildlife, it was written to be a permenant threat against the government so as to protect the rights and freedoms of the people and to keep the government from becoming tyranical. Have you not heard...
Some of the quotes about the Second Ammendment made by some of the Founding Fathers? "The beauty of the Second Ammendment is it won't be needed until they try to take it" "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" "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" "The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom
of the press" All of these...
Were quotes by Thomas Jefferson, George Washington had some interesting things to say as well: "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference...
They deserve a place of honor with all that's good." There are also MANY more from George Mason, James Madison, Thomas Paine, John Adams and all those other major historical figures. A simple google search will turn them up.
That about does it, only other thing is I want to reaffirm my appology from earlier, I should have been more clear. My comment about the point of laws was intentionally irrational and I did not mean it.
Alright, so going forth with the more serious, logical nature of this debate..
I think it is fair to say, that the main purpose of an AK, or an Uzi, in terms of proper use of a weapon, is not hunting nor self-defense. These types of weapons are most commonly bought for entertainment via target practice. And you are right that people should have the freedom to entertain or protect themselves in any manner that does not hurt society.
However, it would be irresponsible to say we don't have a problem with these weapons consistently being used inappropriately. So your argument is, don't punish the many for the acts of the few.. but some limitations are a necessity to make crime more difficult. Protecting people's right to live has always triumphed over people's right to HOW they live. So we have two freedoms-- to live vs to entertain/protect yourself (w/ a gun). The former more important, the latter more frequent.
It would be impractical to choose one or the other, in life we have to compromise. Full freedom to guns to anyone-- like buying gum from the store.. is not a solution anyone would be happy with. A full out ban is not the appropriate solution either. I believe guns need to be more difficult to obtain, and that their variety should be limited outside places licensed for target practice. I think this allows the pleasure of shooting certain guns, w/o the cost of having them on the streets.
Once again I already pointed out the fact that AKs and Uzis make up less than 2% of gun crimes. While they certainly have entertainment value, they are the key firearms for use in the event of a tyrannical government.
What good would they do locked away at a gun club 50 miles away in the middle of nowhere in that case? Also you do know the difference between semi-automatic and fully automatic right?
The guns themselves pose no threat to society, they are merely a tool no different from a...
Knife or a sword or a crossbow or even an axe or a hammer. All of these things can be used as weapons and depending on how you utilize them.
You know Timothy McVeigh managed to blow up a large building using just a rented truck and a couple hundred pounds of fertilizer right? James Holmes had rigged his apartment to
Blow up in a similar manner right? With a trip to Home Depot and then a Uhaul facility I or anybody else can do much more damage than Holmes did for a lot less money and trouble of acquiring an AR-15.
Why is it only with guns that people stop looking at the perpetrator and start looking at the tool?
What is your solution to these other far more (potentially) dangerous things in society?
link I remember that, the fan ended up being drunk. Think of the positives and entertainment escalators give us:
https://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=CLbL692yKDAhttps://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=JIPK2NQ85Fc&feature=relatedhttps://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=eSLAXzh8z1s
Uh, no. That guy was doing something stupid and irresponsible. He paid for his actions. I feel bad for his family but not for him. He was sliding down the railing... what makes you think that he wouldn't do the same thing on a staircase? Should we ban staircases too based on that logic? People need to act responsibly.
There are so many things in today's world that are death traps. Cars, motorcycles, swimming pools... you name it, it's probably dangerous in some way. Like I said, it comes down to acting sensibly and responsibly.
Escalators have been known to liberate people of their toes if they're wearing sandels too so it's very clear that escalators are very dangerous, stairs and elevators are perfectly reasonable alternatives.
After all, if you are too impatient to wait for an elevator but too out of shape to use stairs then you really shouldn't be doing something other than working out right?
Really? You think that elevators are a safer alternative? There is always a possibility that cables can break or fail and you will be dropped several stories. Or even that you'll get stuck in one, which is f***ing scary, believe me. I was stuck in an elevator for almost 5 hours once.
I'm not going to stop riding escalators just because I might get injured. That's a ridiculous attitude to have when going about your daily life. I take responsibility for my own damn actions.
Walking down the street could be a "death trap". Hell, I think we should all just live in bulletproof, stab-proof, escalator-proof bubbles from now on.
@QA Your logic does not make any sense whatsoever. Anything is a hazard. What about kitchen knives? Or spoons? Come on man, most of the stuff you're saying has no logical base.
The Houston Chronicle, citing Houston police, reported that the 45-year old man was trying to slide down the outside of the handrail on an escalator and fell three stories to the pavement below.
the 45-year old man was trying to slide down the outside of the handrail on an escalator
slide down the outside of the handrail
That was not the escalator's fault. People just have to be careful. People cut themselves with knives by accident (and tragically on purpose sometimes), and we're not going to ban those.
why don't we just ban the universe what if everything just disapp-
The man was trying to slide down the outside of the handrail... enough said. Perhaps if he tried using the escalator in the way it was intended for this wouldn't have happened. I see no reason in banning it. I mean people who are going to act stupid and do stuff like that will get hurt just like you can get hurt by using a staircase as well if you're doing stupid stuff.
People CAN jump off buildings, should we ban buildings? People CAN drive into walls, should we ban cars and walls? People CAN cut themselves slicing bagels, should we ban kitchen knives and bagels? Also, people CAN fall down flights of stairs, happens all the time, and people CAN get stuck in elevators, so we should all live on flat ground, have no buildings, walk eveywhere, and eat bananas off a tree. :P
Opinion
19Opinion
I AGREE! It's also time to ban parks, because there is a one in 347000 chance that kids might get abducted!
And cars! so many accidents all the time!
and BATHROOMS! holy sh*t that is a DEATH TRAP! People die in those every day by slipping on tiles!
And chickens, because they can cause salmonella.
In fact all birds and pigs, cause they can transfer flues to humans.
Blow jobs, because the trauma on the cells in the back of the throat can cause throat cancer.
In fact, everyone quick! Step inside a closet with some spinach! Oh no, what if you get a splinter and that splinter gets infected and you die!
Why ban them? Just ban stupid people from using them.
In most cases, incidents with escalators are brought on by the person, not the escalator itself.
I got hurt on an escalator when I was a kid. I was messing around at the top, lost my balance and fell down to the bottom. Cut my lip open and had to get 6 stitches.
That wasn't the escalators fault lol
That dog weighs more than me!
A lot of people aren't as knowledgeable about dogs as they think they are. They have no idea how to properly introduce them into a home, and don't even consider that maybe the dog isn't a good fit for their family. So if anyone gets banned, it should be stupid people, not dogs. Or escalators.
Bubbles could be dangerous though. Imagine if someone slips and falls--they could end up bouncing down a hill, unable to stop. I think squares would be better.
That guy climbed onto the handrail of an escalator and fell off. Where's the problem? Just another case of natural selection.
Every child knows how to use an escalator, it's perfectly safe. We didn't have a serious incident here in the German speaking parts of Europe for the last - I don't know - since ever?
That dog was new to the home. The lady probably wasn't reading the signals he was giving that he was uncomfortable with whatever situation was going on at the time. A dog that size can do major damage with little effort.
And I'll put good money that the guy who fell from the escalator had alcohol in his system. There should be more to that story since it has literally no information about what happened.
Is the question about the escalator or the person? Let's say people all did the right thing when they got on an escalator. Then would it be time to ban escalators.
Guns is an extreme example, but if you need to, you could compare death rates attributable to guns versus escalators. While you're at it, you can compare death rates and injuries from escalators to about 1,000 other activities. When you're done, let me know where escalators rank.
We can ban cars, and then there are the 100 children or so that drown in toilets each year. Gotta ban guns, cars and toilets and whatever else is ahead of escalators.
You should never watch the show a 1000 ways to die... Just saying
Oh no no we're just going to make a government agency that does everything for the people, the people just need to stay home and do nothing but call up the government saying they need this or that.
And when they have to go to work the government will drive them with highly trained drivers so as to prevent car accidents.
I think they could be improved, but they aren't all that dangerous when properly used.
Escalators injure 11,000 people a year...
Cars KILL 42, 636 people a year.
Personally, I think we should get busy banning high speed metal death traps before moving stairs...
The escalator did nothing wrong. It doesn't need to be banned.
Sorry but no I think the only danger comes from human stupidity.
It would be a nice change to see people not be lazy and use stairs, but I do not find escalators to be a death trap in disguise.
Or, you know, we can ban the idiots from going near them. They will wear a giant helmet that says to keep them away from escalators, revolving doors, and cross walks.
In fact, they will need special clearance to even leave the house.
AT THE VERY LEAST they should be banned from poorer neighborhoods and children denied access. Elsewhere, property owners should be made to pay an escalator tax.
I was probably brainwashed by Fox News.
What 45 year old man tries to slide down the arm of an escalator?
Your gun control spoof isn't very thinly veiled :P
We should consider banning escalators because we're such f***ing fatasses these days :P
Seriously, though ... I don't think we need to have single meals with 2,000 calories in them without people knowing that there are. Likewise, I don't see a problem with needing to have a license for a firearm, like we do to drive.
The NRA takes the stand of "Guns should be available to anybody, anywhere, anytime with no restrictions" because gun control groups are the exact opposite "No guns to anybody at all except those who enforce what we tell them to enforce" because the NRA knows what they want will get watered down. So they can start at no restrictions and give up ground to requiring a lisence is OK in exchange for no restrictions on what can and can't be owned by a private citizen.
That's what I mean ... both sides have gotten ridiculous, when most normal people are somewhere in the middle. This is all issues, not just gun control.
My thing is if someone kills a few people with a knife or a car or a home-made bomb or ANYTHING other than a gun everybody always says it was the person. But when someone uses a gun to kill a couple people suddenly it's the gun's fault, not so much the person using it.
So I'm just trying to show the error of the gun control advocates logic by applying their EXACT SAME TRAIN OF THOUGHT to other things.
I think it's the EASE of killing ... and not just a couple, but a few dozen. Also, the people getting killed in the crossfire of gang warfare with a "spray bullets" approach. It happens in our cities very often and even more in Mexico. Not admitting how easy it is to mow down a dozen or more bystanders using some of the guns that are available does not add strength to the gun advocate's argument. I think you have to admit it, rather than try to talk around that fact.
If you want to talk about facts how about this one: the AR-15 rifle is the single most commonly owned firearm in the US when you consider all its varients.
Now how about another fact: incidents in which an AR-15 is used in a crime are exceedingly rare. They do happen don't get me wrong, but handguns of various types are BY FAR the most commonly used gun type in crimes.
And another fact while we're at it: Americans are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist.
Far reaching gun advocates statements are skewed and the anti-gun crowds facts are skewed. I have no agenda here and I work in PR, I know how to spin.
"We're both bad, but they're worse." ... Still not a compelling argument to the common person. Average Americans want some middle ground, I firmly believe.
What middle ground to propose? You either have a right or you don't.
The Supreme Court Heller case in 2010 asserted that guns that are in "common use" are protected by the second ammendment. That case dealt directly with handguns and there was no mention of rifles speifically but the same plaintiff has another case in the works called Heller II dealing specifically with incorrectly named "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines.
I find registration to be middle ground. Making it a crime for felons to own firearms. Etc. I like people owning guns, but I don't like the idea of bozos with no training thinking they are vigilante justice and shooting erratically. Most people I know are responsible with their guns, but there are some who aren't -- just like with vehicles. You want to make penalties for people who act irresponsibly with their guns, just like with their automobiles.
I KNOW that ... I'm in favor of those kinds of measures. I'd like to see more mandatory training courses (at affordable rates) so random hacks know how to use their weapon. I worry more about idiots thinking they're Dirty Harry than about things like the Colorado massacre, which is largely unpreventable.
noooo! the smart people need to use it. teh stupid people can take the slide.
Oooo, that's an idea, we'll create a big expensive government agency for people to apply to be able to use escalators and those deemed fit will get a lisence to that effect and we'll have trained and federally lisenced personell to guard each and every escalator and before someone wants to use it they'll ask the person for that lisence.
Brilliant idea!
I don;t think we should ban escalators because of just one fan falls. Alcohol may have been a factor in that accident. There are sensors in some escalators that shut down if anything is caught.
I don't agree with banning alcohol either (even though I don't drink). If one fan is dumb enough to get drunk and ride the rails, then shame on him. These are ways to control the population anyways.
Are you not in favor of banning guns either?
Between cars and alcohol, it would take guns 5 years, maybe more, to kill as many people as cars and alchol do in one year yet we have millions of people trying to ban guns.
I don't get why we have so many people trying to ban guns yet I never hear anybody talk about banning alcohol or cars or other dangerous things in life like escalators.
If public safety is the issue then why is it not focused on all aspects?
I think guns should only be owned by military and law enforcement. I see no reason why people should own guns. Escalators are far from dangerous. They kill maybe hundreds a year in the whole world...you have a better chance of getting struck by lightning...four times.
Banning cars are dumb...because w/o cars there would be no innovation. How can we get ideas and products across with no transporation?
What about alcohol? Alcohol kills more people in one year than guns kill in 3, though cars are by far the most common cause of death than anything else, one out of every 88 people will die in a car accident.
As for guns, this whole question was just meant to apply the same public safety arguments to another public safety hazard, see how it doesn't make sense?
You can't fix stupid.
No. You can make as many laws as you want, ban as much as you want, even cover every thing in existence with Styrofoam. None of that will stop people from making stupid decisions.
If you've ever watched a newscast or read a newspaper, you know that people still break the law. Having more laws will not only NOT make things better, but it will suppress or eliminate the freedoms that people do have right now.
Oh, wow, you've called me a wacko. I'm gonna go cry to my mommy now.
I don't watch Fox news. Especially after they insulted my country and everyone who lives here. They can all kiss my ass.
People breaking the law is not a legitimate reasoning for having no laws. Unless you support freedom to commit murder w/o consequence?
Besides that, laws don't rid anyone of freedom. You can do anything you're capable of! Laws only create consequences for actions that are harmful to society.
So sorry, but laws have a purpose that the police enforce. Laws and knowledge of punishment prevents loads of crimes (or if we didn't have law, I guess they'd just be called evil/immoral actions).
haha I hope this is a joke. Take a slinky to an escalator, I guarantee you won't think poorly of escalators again.
Ok are you being sarcastic or do you actually think that?
Because it said the guy was trying to SLIDE down the handrail. It's his own fault he died.
Oh give me an opportunity, I can find a way to kill someone with an escalator.
How about knives then? Cars? Rocks? Laptop computers? Hammers? Axes? Saws? Everyday handtools? Two-by-fours? Small appliances? TVs? Pens? Pencils? Doors? Rope? Bodies of water? Pipes? flamable and/or explosive chemicals and fertilizers? Plastic bags? Bricks? Ovens? Matches? Darts? Dogs? Human hands?
Just about anything that can be picked up is a potential weapon, why is there so much focus on guns?
Can you kill someone with an escalator from afar? Can you carry an escalator in your purse and throw it at that person? Can you fit multiple escalators in your bag and kill multiple people in a matter of seconds?
It's not the same. You can go on all day, trying to find loopholes but that's not gonna change the facts.
that's a dumb reason to ban escalators. Dude was a dumbass.
I do think they should change escalators to flat ones, not stairs anymore.
I agree. Escalators are expensive, require maintenance, and have been gruesomely dangerous in several cases. Elevators aren't perfect either.
Water buoyancy is the safest known method for traveling up!
Lol, well people want to ban other things for dumb reasons
What about personal responsiblity.
Wow! My cousin really told me that she was more afraid of these than she was of elevators...
I think there's worse things to ban then worry about escalators. I personally think their fuuuun
I think at the same time they should limit car speeds to 25 mph. Think of how many lives that would save.
Just as I suspected.
he would of just slid down the stair rails if there was one there instead lol
can you please explain to me how stairs would of prevented this?
Totally agree! Thank you for being so politically wise.
I think they are just fine as long as the user pays attention.. don't mess around and people won't get hurt
There should be a law in the united states to get people to work out and diet. GOSH
Ahem, FOX news, not a reliable source.
we don't need more government control...
That wasn't sarcasm.
If you don't want government control but you vote democrat then you're a walking contradiction. You don't have to agree with me, but if you don't please do yourself one simple favor:
Take a step back, a deep breath and clear your mind completely, forget about conservitive and liberal and all that crap and just completely clear your mind. Then, take a good, long, hard look at the history of the democrat party. All they ever want to do is increase government control.
holy sh*t, dude. I was being sarcastic... You, a conservative, ask for complete government control over the escalator industry. I tried to remind you what you are asking by sarcastically assuming your position. Not only did you not pick up on it, but after I told you there was sarcasm involved, you still did not pick up on it. What the hell? How did your brain learn human speech?
The same way it learned to read, and the same way it learned that in most cases it's nearly impossible to detect tone through text.
You assumed I was being sarcastic by my history of posts, fair enough.
I assumed you were being serious because liberals can never seem to remain consistant. Even you yourself have said that it's okay to use shady tactics to get something passed, but only if it's something liberals want, conservitives aren't allowed to do that (you didn't use those exact words).
But your statement implies that I suck at BEING sarcastic, had you said "Do all conservitives suck at detecting sarcasm as badly as you?" Then I would have thought differently.
You honestly think I want to ban escaltors? I was trying to apply the same logic anti-gun groups use to another public safety hazard and when I'm confronted with logic that pro-gun groups use I revert to the typical liberal trump cards of FOX News and racism.
Doesn't make much sense this way does it?
I've tried being clear in the past, but it doesn't seem to work with conservatives. I've found it really doesn't matter what I say - they'll argue with whatever they can win against, neglecting to consider the actual words I've spoken.
as to the issue itself, I still think it is funny that you are demanding government control over business. It's as if you can understand that it can be useful, but first you have to be told why. In other words, there are many things that haven't been told.
The only control government should have over buisness is that they ensure whatever product/service they provide does what they say it will do and it will not kill/cause serious harm if used properly. I don't need to be told why, I have my reasons for wanting those regulations in place.
Perhaps if you made more sense you wouldn't have to argue with people so often.
I've found it makes no difference how much sense I make. Conservatives will not accept perspectives that deviate from their own. It doesn't matter if their own perspective is burdened with inconsistency and egregious ironies. Trying to point them out only pisses them off until they invariably resort to name calling and using the ignore button. But, fortunately there is an endless supply of conservatives to argue with, so I don't mind.
anyway, as to your point, I think you'll find that just about every single government regulation can be justified as an attempt to prevent death or serious harm. Before you fly off the handle over this, please understand that I don't think the justification is honest, but every single regulation was at one point presented to the general populace as a way to save lives, and they bought it.
A lot can get passed into law under the guise of public safety, doesn't make it right.
It's funny how I feel the same way about liberals as you do about conservitives. The one key difference however is that conservitives generally are trying to keep the government limited in scope and power, as it was intended to be under the Constitution.
I have my own issues with conservitives and I do not consider myself one of them. I have my own libertarian-esque political viewpoints, it's not really...
My fault that libertarianism is what the country was founded on nor is it my fault that libertarianism is far more in line with conservitivism than it is liberalism. In fact liberalism is in probably 90% of all aspects the exact opposite of libertarianism, which is why the liberals label libertarians as "anarchists".
But enough about that, I have a question specifically for you (thought I may ask it to NotJustAnotherGuy as well)...
I don't consider either of them to be assault weapons. I know you have a hard time understanding what people say when they disagree with you, but seriously? I've done nothing but disagree with gun control laws.
Liberals and libertarians tend to agree on social laws (i.e. that there shouldn't be any), but we disagree over regulation of business. Liberals think business should be watched closely by regulators, libertarians think only the free market should decide the success of business.
Conservatives and libertarians agree on business regulation, and the reason why you think conservatives and libertarians are more closely aligned is because the conservative media mostly talks about business regulation, and rarely brings up social regulation. If they did, you would either find yourself agreeing that people need more laws governing them (making you a conservative), or you would find the difference between you and conservatives ever widening.
Also, your assertion that the country was founded on libertarianism is one of those thing that can never be proven. Sure, you can find obscure quotes that support it, but you could also find obscure quotes that refute it.
Not only can it not be proven, but it is also irrelevant. The constitution of this country was built to remain adaptable. It is a completely different world than it was in the 1800's. Agony over living by the traditions set by the long dead is why we declared independence.
I already told you how far I believe buisness regulations should be able to go and it was more than zero. Also as a firearms instructor I am in favor of not letting felons and mentally unstable people have guns and am even in favor of safety classes as a requirement, in fact I'm on the fence if just basic safety courses go far enough.
As far as social laws go, I fully agree that there shouldn't be any, the government has no right to be telling me or anybody else what acceptable behavior is...
Unless of course you're starting to hurt other people.
But as I said, for buisness regulation I think it should be very minimal at best. There is no reason to have more regulations than it does what they say it will do and it is safe to use when it is properly used.
Liberals go on and on about how tougher regulations need to be put in place and the reality is that's a signifigant portion of, if not the whole reason, why we are in the economic crisis we are in. Everybody wants to blame Bush...
But nobody wants to talk about how Jimmy Carter implemented regultion on banks that basically forced them lower their standards for giving out loans or how Clinton signed NAFTA which sent jobs overseas, something that would have been unprofitable otherwise.
"Most bad government has grown out of too much government" - Thomas Jefferson.
You say that the reality is that regulation is why we are in the economic crisis.
first, what is your evidence of this? Jimmy carter was the president 30 years ago - It is a stretch to blame him for today's problems considering there has been 15 congresses and, I think, 6 presidents since then. NAFTA was a huge screw-up, yeah - liberals are way ahead of you on beating that drum. We were the ones opposing it in the first place while you conservatives paraded it as the road to a freer market.
second, what economic crisis? The stock market has been at an all-time high for years, as have corporate profits. If you think that this doesn't imply a fully recovered economy, then all you are saying is that trickle-down economics doesn't actually work at all, which is more-or-less the basis of all liberal thought.
Bank de-regulation was the major contributing factor to the great depression. Bush tried it again and, what do you know, we fell into another recession. Of course he gets blamed.
When you borrow $100 and when the bill comes you only pay $15, then the next bill you're back at right around $100 due to interest, but you figure it isn't a big deal, just pay $15 again. This begins a pattern that eventually damages your overall spending power, emphisis on "eventually". Carter merely began the pattern, it took a long while but a few years ago we finally began to see the effects of borrowing more money than you can afford to pay back, thus our housing crisis.
I've ask you...
right, but every single congress since then has repeated the same action. It's only now that Obama is in office that anyone has decided to say anything about it - of course, no politician is actually serious about doing anything about it, they just want to be voted in so they can spend the debt how they want to spend it.
Before and I will ask you again, where do you get your information? NAFTA passed 234-200 in the House with 102 of those votes being democrat then 61-38 in the Senate, 27 being democrat, that seems prettty bipartisan to me. On top of that Clinton could have vetoed it but he came out in support of it saying that it meant good paying jobs for Americans.
Our unemployment rate is starting to rise again, if you claim that our economy is doing so good then why are these companies not hiring? I'll...
my information comes from the fact that I, and my liberal friends, were the ones protesting NAFTA, much to the disgust of conservatives. It doesn't matter what democrats voted - they do not represent liberals.
and I do not claim that our economy is doing so good - I claim that the stock market and corporate profits are at all-time highs, and still we have a high unemployment rate. My claim is that trickle-down economics doesn't work.
Tell you why because they're afraid Obama will raise taxes and create more regulations like he talks about doing constantly. If he does that might mean getting less from an employee than they're putting into that employee, hence loss of profit which equals bad buisness.
If Obama would have kept his yap shut about increasing taxes and regulations this might be a different situation but the damage is already done, companies will not hire unless ABSOLUTELY NESSESARY under Obama.
as to that I'm going to have to question your sources. Businesses don't hire unless it is absolutely necessary - it doesn't really matter what the tax rate is. I used to work for a manufacturing company and it was my job to reduce the number of employees needed by increasing throughput by other means. Eliminating unnecessary jobs always results in profit - no matter the tax rate. This is why trickle-down economics does not work.
I work for US Airways and we are severely understaffed in the city I work in. Unless everything goes perfect to the T (which in transportation, NEVER happens, EVER) we have planes that end up getting delayed for hours, doing damage to the bottom line.
But guess what? They will not hire even though they are making more money now than they ever have been because they have to work around more regulations than probably any other industry. They won't hire because it costs them money to hire and...
While right this second it would make sense cost-benefit wise, if Obama gets a second term they have no idea what regulations or taxes he's going to want to impose and what that might mean for their bottom line. From a buisnesss perspective it is better to "skeleton crew" overall operations and take operational hits than to bloster staffing levels and then in 2 years be loosing money again because of a new regulation or tax.
right. hiring will result in more damage to the bottom line than flight delays, so they choose the latter. Lower taxes will not making hiring cheaper than the cost of flight delays, or there would have been a hiring frenzy when bush first implemented the tax cuts - and there wasn't.
Actually there was, they hired thousands of people during the Bush years and even took on additional costs by entering contracts with other airlines that have small operations in cities where US Airways has large operations, forcing them to hire more people.
Now all those contracts are gone and we laid off almost 200 people just this past June.
as for regulation, well, it's a profession in which massive amounts of people go flying miles above the ground. Remember that not causing harm thing you are in favor of? Well, pretty much any square inch of a jet could be the cause of hundreds of deaths, except possibly the seats.
And I'm guessing all their layoffs occurred shortly after the stock market crash? Like the rest of the country? But that had nothing to do with taxes. Where I used to work we were understaffed as well. It had nothing to do with regulation or taxes - it was simply more profitable. It was my job to mitigate the damage and retrofit everything to accommodate fewer people, and we got orders out on time. Our suffering meant nothing as long as the job was getting done.
Like with guns, politicians know nothing about airplanes. Aircraft manufacturers supply buyers with manuels about how to keep the planes working correctly and following those manuels falls under the whole "will not kill/cause harm is used properly". Plus it is in the airlines best interest to do so anyway since plane crashes cost money.
now you're just arguing over price, which I will readily admit I have no knowledge of. I know enough about aerodynamics, jet engines, and electronics to theoretically design a jet, but that's if I spent a couple of years brushing up on it and even then it is certain to have enough errors to sink a ship. I couldn't tell you where the line should be drawn, but at least we are in agreement that there should certainly be a line.
So you don't think the large teams of engineers with all the technology at their disposal are capable of building a jet and saying "if this breaks, do this to fix it"? You don't fly do you?
And maybe he and all the other democrats that had just taken office hadn't actually done anything yet, but they sure as hell had been doing a lot of talking about what they're going to do. Speculation can be more damaging than action, as gun laws show.
I know that at least two jets crash per year, despite all the glorious teams of engineers and their technology.
Where I worked, they told us that the threat of new regulations and taxes was a good excuse to let go of people they did not need, without facing a public outcry. The simple fact is we still got by, and so have you. The amount of people they let go is calculated to maximize profits, and nothing else.
2 out of every 3 plane crashes are caused by pilot error.
And you know, you have a point, every single company in the country does things the exact same way, there is ZERO difference of opinion nor is there an variation in the way they figure cost/benefit and there is no difference in the needs of different companies.
I could get into a nice long explanation about the hoops we have to jump through to satisfy all the regulations in the airline industry but somehow I doubt it will do anything.
Other way around, you brought up your company first.
Companies hire when they need more people, they will hire in good times when they could get away with not hiring, but better productivity equals better for the bottom line. But in bad times, they will not hire unless they simply cannot function if they don't, sometimes they won't even hire then.
If that wasn't true, why did your company have more people than it needed prior to the crash?
it was a new company, so they were still working out the numbers. They overhired just to be safe, but started cutting people the moment they were given an excuse to do so. Plus, as I was leaving, they were just picking up new business that would double their profits - and with 150 employees they planned to hire only 10 more for this new business. And what's better is they sent three engineers to Japan (myself included) to try to figure out how to cut that down to 8.
But once again you're referring only to how your company decided to run its buisness. One of your competitors might figure they'll hire an extra 2 people in the interest of better service to your customers figuring it will attract more potential customers.
Of course you have companies that are dispicable like that, do you know the capitalist method to deal with them?
Yes, I asked about your company *having more people than it needed* you neglected to mention that they were a new company until after I asked. You went on to explain how they decided to continue in their expansion, two seperate issues.
We still manage to get flights out on time, but not nearly as many as we would if they increased staffing levels 5%. We are required to use a set number of people for certain things (like moving airplanes) so that means expensive overtime.
overtime is more profitable than hiring new workers. we had our people working 10 hour shifts, instead of hiring new workers. That was intentional. Once it was determined how many people working 10 hour shifts it would take to meet the demand, it then fell on us engineers to figure out how to cut back on overtime.
It works differently in the airlines. If the PM shift has 10 crews that means a minimum of 30 people are REQUIRED per regulation (3 per crew). If 4 of those crews are short one guy and another is short 2 guys that means 6 people from the AM shift can volenteer to stay for an additional 8 hour shift of time and a half when they've already been there for 8 hours.
The only other way is just let those crews stay short but that means people on different crews need to backfill other crews which means..
Once a full crew gets done doing its assigned flight, one of its members must go over to another crew to give them the third person they need to function. This causes delays in every aspect which means passengers missing connections as well as bags missing flights, crews late for other flights, all of which cost money.
You realize flights are suppoed to take off within a certain amount of time after their scheduled departure time right? It's called a slot system and if flights miss their slot..
Due to a delay that is the fault of the operating carrier they get fined. The reason for it is to encourage consistant and smooth-flowing airport operations. A single plane going out late can signifigantly disrupt an airport operation and that means for EVERYBODY, not just the operating carrier.
anyway, you didn't take the bait. You were supposed to point out that all of the things that the government mandates employers provide their employees make it cheaper to force overtime than hire new workers. Which is true. And it's also the heart of the liberal vs conservative arguement. Conservatives think (correctly) that if we reduced the compensation the government requires business to provide their employees, then businesses will hire more employees.
However, liberals see that as a slippery slope. Business will compensate their employees for as little as they can get away with. if this was not true they wouldn't be worried about such mandates, because they would already far exceed such tiny requirements. When the benefits of being employed are diminished to the point that it doesn't make up for the sacrafice of time and health to do the job, what's the point of being employed?
boycott and hope other people don't write you off as a lunatic? Yeah, that's been tried. It doesn't work out so well. You aren't going to get the word out through anything except the national media, and good luck with that when the person you are trying to boycott spends millions in advertising to the same national media sources. I'm sure they will happily give up their millions of dollars because you lost a foot on the job or something...
Oh? When was it tried?
And even so, if what you're saying is correct why does any company out there pay its employees more than minimum wage? Why do they increase how much they pay the longer they are there?
It's not just the company itself that it needs to worry about, insurance companies insure buisnesses too you know and if insurance companies have to increase their premiums then the companies they insure need to pay more and they need to insruace every employee.
Everything is connected.
When was it tried? Seriously? Easiest example is Walmart. There are entire books out on their evils. You won't hear a peep about it in the national media though.
Raises are a calculated minimum effort to prevent useful employees from moving on - a small investment to prevent the costs associated with retraining new workers. Skilled labor is another thing altogether, though. That is a result of a limited pool of skilled laborers, which I would say is a result of a cheap education system.
You mean the womens strike? I heard about that in the national news.
It failed because people continued to not only work for Walmart but to pick up the slack of the loss of labor. That and their timing was pretty bad.
People have been trained quite well to bend over backwards to keep their job because they've been well trained by banks (thanks to Carter) to believe that they can live beyond their means.
I told you, everything is connected.
you mean thanks to carter and every congress and president since then, right?
and I don't mean the womens strike... I mean everything about walmart, really. If the employees at a walmart unionize they will close it down and build a new one next door. the way their advertising superpower and ability to undercut regular market prices (for a time) allow them to flush out local business, and that's exactly what they do. Overseas child labor. demands on pattent rights to hold products... and so on
Carter forced the banks to give loans to unqualified applicants (he just didn't say it like that) so no, that was him alone.
So do like any capitalist should do, don't shop there. Personally I only buy brand-name things like food and electronics there. But liberals hate capitalism so you probably shop there just to stick it to the capitalists.
and every congress since carter has not reversed that decision. Unless you are suggesting that only the 'bad loans' from 30 years ago are the ones responsible for today's problems.
and as I mentioned, walmart has a way of flushing out the competition by temporary price gouging, such that there is ultimately no alternative. I don't understand how you think boycotts against international corporations are even a little bit feasible. Name one that worked.
The democrats had plenty of opportunities to overturn Carters screw up but they didn't, so don't just blame republicans.
A mass boycott would have worked long ago but I already told you people have been trained to feel lucky they have a job and to pay for something at the lowest possible price so Walmart was able to get a foothold and were able to become what they are today.
who said anything about blaming republicans? I'm only saying that you shouldn't rest the blame soley on carter.
so you are saying a mass boycott can not work today. Does that mean it isn't the capitalist's method of dealing with a company like that? Surely there is something with some chance of sucess at your disposal, right?
what tools might those be? You say the liberals are "trying" to take them away, that only means you still have them. So why haven't you used them? Also, I doubt liberals are doing any such thing (But I'll hear you out).
also, even if liberals are somehow to blame for your complete inability to take any free-market action against abusive business practices, the fact remains that you are unable to do anything about abusive business practices. So, the free market is not the solution.
What the hell? I left a comment here hours ago, what happened to it? Oh well.
Remember the Occupy movement not too long ago? Freedom of assembley and freedom of speech, both taken away by Bloomberg's dogs better known as the NYPD. In California, pepper sprayed for a sit-down protest that was peaceful. NY and CA, both liberal states.
So there go the only reasonable weapons we have to combat greed and corruption, now basically all we have left is guns and liberals want those gone too.
liberals don't want guns gone. anyway is shooting CEOs really your plan?
and as you well know, just because a "state" is the majority liberal doesn't mean that everyone in the state is liberal. All government law enforcement positions are dominated by those with the conservative mentality - it has to be, as the job is the very essence of conservative ideals (protect the rich, regulate the common people).
Are you even sure you know what the priorities of police are? I thought I knew until I took a few firearms courses taught by police.
But I grow weary of this debate, mainly because you claim to be a liberal but whenever an unpopular viewpoint of liberals comes up you try to claim that those politicians aren't real liberals (a hint for you, your attempts to distance yourself from self-proclaimed liberals who are in power is not working).
At the end of the day if the liberals that are in power..
the liberals are not in power. There are maybe two congressmen that align themselves with the liberal agenda. The rest are, at best, left-leaning moderates.
The police priorities are the same as every business priority - make money. They get federal grants for marijuana arrests and make money directly through speeding tickets and such, but the compensation for catching murderers and rapists just isn't there.
Had free reign the private sector would cease to exist, we would have no forms of entertainment, we'd all be paying 75% income taxes, we wouldn't be allowed to leave our homes without supervision and you know how all those people that have all that power that you hate? They'd be getting paid billions a year to do nothing but have people executed for not obeying their whim.
that's all scare tactics employed by the conservative media, and is nonsense. Their sponsors want money, but obviously they can't just tell you "hey look, our sponsors want some more money, so vote for our guy or they won't get it." So they come up with crazy apocalyptic talk (which you recited quite admirably, by the way) to scare everyone out of voting for the guy who plans to give that money to someone else. I guess you can't fault them if it works, but I didn't know anyone really believed it
It is clearly implied in your previous comment, very first line because you specifically said "conservitive media", implying the liberal media does not do the same thing.
But as I said, I'm tired of this, clearly we are not going to reach any kind of consensus. Just do me one small favor, pay very close attention to what happens to the unemployment rate in the first 18 months of the next presidential term.
when you say something is implied when it wasn't, that's called a fabrication.
and I don't know. I don't listen to Obama's speeches. But anyway, you're doing that thing conservatives do where they try to guess the next argument someone makes, under the assumption that it automatically loses validity just because it was predictable. All that really says is that you've heard this argument before, to the point of exhaustion, yet still haven't thought of a response.
also, as to the unemployment rate in the first 18 months of the next presidential term, I can tell you exactly what will happen:
if romney wins and the unemployment rate doesn't fall, it will be because he inherited a mess.
if rmoney wins and unemployment does fall, it will be because of his policies.
if obama wins and the unemployment rate doesn't fall, it will be because he inherited a mess.
if obama wins and the unemployment rate does fall, it will be because of his policies.
but, really, for any one person to take credit or blame is pretty silly. As you pointed out, this mess is the result of 30+ years of bad decisions. There are simply too many variables for anyone to come up with a verifiable solution. If anyone (Obama or Romney) is successful in the repair of the economy, that success is going to be largely due to luck.
How about we knock it down to 6 months then?
And look up Obama's "you didn't build that" speech. He basically said that the government is responsible for any and all successful buisnesses. This caused outrage among buisness owners large and small. So Obama later claimed that he was refering to infrastructure like highways and bridges.
Most people didn't believe him.
oh that speech. I did see that somewhere. I think he said something along the lines of "There are roads and bridges and infrastructure your company depends on and - if you got a business - you didn't build that." I think when he made the claim that he was referring to infrastructure he was really just trying to point out a fact: that he did say it in his speech.
Most people don't believe him because they don't want to. As you (and Clint Eastwood) have shown, imaginary opponents are much easier.
That raises the question: "why would people rather believe a lie that helps them affirm their opposing point of view, instead of adapting their point of view to the facts?" I often wonder that myself, actually. The easy answer is racism - i.e. that they are going to oppose obama no matter what so any excuse given for doing so is accepted as sound reasoning, without question - but I don't really buy the whole racism thing. He wouldn't have been elected in the first place, if that were true.
So, I don't know what it is. But it is present, and the speech that you yourself referenced is solid evidence of it. He said one thing, and there are ample copies of it everywhere, but you believe he didn't say it. I can't think of an explanation for this. I mean, it's like that episode of star trek - there are four lights. I don't know what else to say.
and 6 months is fine. The time frame won't change the excuses given. Anyway, 6 months isn't even enough time for new policy to take effect..
"6 months isn't enough time for new policy to take effect" Exactly my point.
So you admit to having not seen the speech (at least not all of it) but you believe all the things Obama and his team of liars - I mean advisors, say, OK, I getcha.
If that were true why are so many small buisness owners now so pissed at him?
I have seen that clip of the speech, which you clearly have not. It's a lot easier to believe something was said after you hear it. In fact, it's hard to not believe it, unless, of course, you are avoiding hearing it for some reason.
And why are so many small business owners pissed because of it? Well, what did you think Romney was buying with his record-shattering campaign contributions? Anger directed at his opposition. Once the polls close, it really doesn't matter if the reasons were valid.
And yes, before you say it, the Obama camp is just as guilty. That's politics. I mean, what would you do if someone took your words out of context and spent billions trying to get people to believe that you meant something you didn't mean, and everyone believed them? If asked, you would probably say something along the lines of "but that isn't what I meant. If you listen to the whole sentence, that becomes clear." That's exactly what Obama is saying.
Looks like you get the 100th comment!
For the speech, I didn't care personally but my uncle, who owns a small buisness and was a staunch Obama supporter up until that speech, told me all I really needed to know. Regardless of what Obama meant, much like Biden with his "chains" comment, all that matters is how the people interpret him, something those two (along with yourself) don't seem to understand.
You are partially right about that. I don't agree that interpretation is what matters. I don't see how it could, considering interpretation is entirely subjective and limitless in how far it can be from what was actually said.
For example, your very first few words of your last post "For the speech, I didn't care personally..." I could 'interpret' this to mean that you thought it was awesome, and thus you are a Muslim extremist who ought to be arrested.
How did I come up with that interpretation? I could come up with something, sure, especially if it was my job to come up with such thing (i.e. if I were in the employ of Fox News).
That phrase you just dropped in there "told you all you need to know" is terribly telling. "All you need to know" for what purpose? If your purpose is to disagree with Obama, then yes, it has that function. However, if your purpose is to know the facts, then you "need to know" more.
I get this sense that conservatives are not really trying to understand the liberal perspective. They aren't trying to understand why it would result in the catastrophe they've been told it will result in. They simply believe it with all their heart and soul. I, on the other hand, do make an effort to understand conservatives, but it's really hard for me to have a productive conversation with someone who places a higher value on emotional interpretation than on facts and logic.
And you just illustrated my point perfectly. What I meant was I didn't care what he said in the speech, like you, I don't listen to Obama's (or any other president's) speeches but other people do. Someone might mean on thing but how it is worded might make it seem like they meant something else.
A perfect example, last night I talked to a ladyfriend of mine who lives in Russia. She and I had been talking about her moving here and she was interested in becoming a cop. So yesterday I mentioned...
Obama suggests on a daily basis everything I don't want done to my country: Higher taxes and bigger government.
As for what I want to believe, I only see it being plastered on every news station (including NBC and FOX) about small buisness owners who are pissed about Obama's speech, especially RIGHT AFTER the speech was made and before either side could influence public opinion about it. "All I need to know" is how people react to him, and what I know shows more people dislike him than like him
Huh. I didn't know there were people who actually preferred to jump on bandwagons. If the media's filtering through all of the reactions in order to get to the few that they are looking to portray as popular is the way you form your opinions, to each their own, I guess. I didn't know people actively seek popular opinions to adopt as their own. My bad!
Isn't that what democracy is based on, popular opinions?
When 3-4 out of every 5 people I come across whom I also get on the subject with has a negitive view of Obama, it makes me believe he isn't doing a good job. I personally have not been directly affected by Obama's policies but like I told you, when all he ever talks about doing is raising taxes and making government bigger it doesn't make me have a good opinion of him either.
no. democracy is based on everyone having their own opinion and then expressing them via facts so that everyone vote based on which one is the most reasonable. When opinions are manufactured and sold en mass, that isn't a democracy.
Also, he doesn't talk about those things - at least not very often. The conservative media talks about him talking about those thing, but only after they went into a frenzy to reverse their bush-era message of government expansion being a good thing.
You mean the middle class tax hikes Obama wants to impose as well? Do you have a better suggestion about how to get the national debt under control? At least Romney wants to cut all the fat (and there is A LOT of fat) out of the government and make it somewhat sustainable.
There you go about the conservitive media again, so I guess Obamacare was just the conservitive media lieing and Obamacare doesn't actually exist, I certainly wish you were right about that.
What middle class tax hikes? I looked at my 1040s and my taxes have only gone down since 2009. "Cutting the fat" is perfectly acceptable to me, but I think we would find ourselves disagreeing over what parts of the government are expendable. Raising taxes on the very wealthy simply sounds fair. It's not like they do anything useful to earn their money anyway.
obamacare did happen, of course, but it wasn't nearly as bad as the conservative media made it out to be. But then, when your 30% of your ad time is bought by health insurance companies an pharmaceutical companies, of course you are going to oppose a law that causes your customers to spend money on their product instead of on you.
For all the liberals say about how it's not fair to discriminate I can't help but snicker when they all say it's OK to treat the wealthy differently. Let me guess, you want the top 2% to pay a different tax rate than the rest of us? I fail to see how that is different from making blacks use a different water fountain.
heh. I can see how that would be confusing to someone who hasn't faced real discrimination. How is it fair, you ask? Well you see, when black people were told to use a different water fountain, they were also beaten in the streets, burned, hung, and so on. When very rich people are asked to invest a greater amount back into the country that allows them their life of unprecedented luxury, that's slightly different than being murdered.
It wasn't government policy to beat and murder blacks, only to make them use different water fountains and bathrooms and such. It's discrimination no different than sexual or racial or that new "abilist" thing some liberals are toting and you know it.
By the way Romney doesn't want to increase taxes on anybody: link The only time I've ever heard he did was in an Obama campaign commercial.
I don't know it, actually. I understand there is an extremely vague connection, if that's what you mean, but I don't understand why anyone would dwell on it unless they were predisposed to parading around any connection they can muster, because it disagrees with Obama. Slightly higher taxes for those living fantastic lives is never going to equate to the denial of basic dignity or rights for those living already-horrible lives, no matter how you spin it - sorry.
Also, romney raised taxes on the middle class as governor of Massachusetts, and the paul ryan budget also included raising taxes on the middle class. I do believe he "doesn't want to increase taxes on anybody," but what's on paper indicates that he will anyway. Yes, he doesn't have to sign the ryan budget into law, but what republican leaders said they wanted from the beginning was someone who would pass the ryan budget, and with all the money they are giving romney, I can only guess they got it
So just because you say the connection is extremely vauge makes it so huh? It's the exact same thing and anybody with half a brain can see it, you're treating one group of people different than another: link
But I supposed that link is part of the conservitive media, or it simply doesn't represent what you said.
I'm done, have fun living in your dillusional little fantasy world.
The connection is vague because you are connecting the denial of rights to people who are suffering to a slightly higher tax on those who are living better than anyone ever has. "tax" versus "rights" is already a vague comparison. And "rich" versus "poor" is only going to make sense when speaking of opposites. It's vague because of logic, which I know has a liberal bias...
Also, I wanted to throw in here... You do seem to acknowledge that a big chuck of reality is not determined by the facts, but by opinion. And you do seem to further acknowledge that the economy is a some of that big chunk, the success of which is, at least partially, determined by people's opinion of it.
So I ask you, where do the negative opinions of the economy come from? The republicans. Why? Because of politics, of course. They don't care if their negative opinions ruin things...
the just want to get elected, and that isn't going to happen if their opposition is successful.
However, there is one good side to it. If they are elected then they will stop having a negative opinion of what is likely to be the exact same economy. And, as a result, the economy will improve.
But I'm not a fan of this. It's like they are holding the economy hostage until we give them power. They should not be given what they want.
You honestly think republicans are the only ones who do such things?
At least republicans leave our grassroots rights alone (first and second ammendments) and don't keep trying at every turn to take from people who work and are responsible and give to those who are lazy (and often are criminals).
Take Deval Patrick (Gov. of Massachusetts and a liberal), not long ago he fought tooth and nail against legislation that would disallow welfare money to be used to buy p*rn, tatoos, GUNS, jewelery...
And a handful of other completely unnessesary and ludicris items. Why would ANYBODY fight against such a legislation? The only people who would benefit from such a thing are those who shouldn't be on welfare to begin with and are abusing it. Meanwhile the taxpayers are funding it.
We touched on voter ID laws, it's another thing that makes me wonder why someone would be so against it. Discrimination? If you're a citizen how is it discriminating?
Every time I turn around I hear about some...
Liberal doing everything in their power (and sometimes, beyond their power) to help criminals and lazy asses.
Republicans, for all their faults, at least only try to help those who make something of themselves. Personally I deeply wish the libertarian party would gain MUCH more traction MUCH more quickly as they are the only ones who want to keep America the way it was designed.
Meaning no more hindering or helping the private sector.
That's all conservative propaganda. As I have said many times, liberals do not want to take away your personal freedoms - contrarily, they want to expand them.
And if you think being on welfare is such a glamorous life, maybe you should give it a try? The point remains that the only problem republicans seem to have with our economy is the fact that they don't have complete control over it. I'll never understand why people are so quick to trust them. I mean, I don't trust democrats. why do you?
It is NOT propaganda, liberals show it themselves every single day. I'm talking about fundemental rights (free speech, free press, freedom to defend oneself) not personal freedoms like gay marriage or abortion.
And I never said being on welfare was a glamorus life but the FACT that apparently welfare abuse is so widespread that it promted legislative action shows that apparently, people are using welfare for things other than basic nessesities which is what welfare is SOLELY SUPPOSED to be for.
yeah, liberals are in favor of those things too. I know you hear differently from conservative commentators, but you have to understand that conservative leaders don't like the liberal agenda. There really isn't a whole lot to be upset about unless you are a greedy sneak, so, being greedy sneaks, of course they make stuff up.
And the rumor of welfare abuse is widespread - actual welfare abuse is not widespread. In fact, the most prominent abuse of welfare is actually corporate welfare.
If liberals are in favor of those things why are they always trying to take them away?
Or are you going to tell me that the "democrats" I speak of aren't liberals, even though probably 90% of Joe Citizen's will call Deval Patrick or Bill Clinton liberals.
I'm sure if you and I could sit down and go issue to issue one at a time we would find a lot more common ground than either of us think. Thing is, the fine details or our reasoning is probably conflicting.
Could you give an example of a liberal trying to take those things away? I've yet to see a valid case of it. I mean, I do see conservative commentators pretending that something liberals are doing will result in a violation of your first amendment rights, but so far all of the cases I've seen are not actually such a violation. It is just sold as one because, as I said, greedy sneaks can't just say "I want your money," so they say something sneaky instead.
The 1994 VCCLEA is a prime example of a liberal trying to take one of those things away. The only reason it was never challeneged was because it had a sunset provision.
Liberals always try, by and large to make the US more like Europe and there is a reason a lot of Americans don't like that. It's not because the "conservitive media" makes it look bad but because it IS bad. You have borderline police states in several European countries (The UK comes to mind) and their governments have WAY...
Too much power and control over everyday aspects of their lives. America was founded on distrust and dissatisfaction with government and so our government was designed to be limited in size and scope as I've already said numerous times. Americans don't want government control over much, even a lot of democrats say that, but liberals are always trying to make the government bigger and more powerful, it is the complete opposite of what America is supposed to be, and that is why I oppose it.
the VCCLEA banned assault weapons. Alright, kind of a thing, sure. But to suggest that they tried to take away your right to have weapons at all is a bit of a stretch. Anyway, that law was passed specifically because of a sudden surge in gun violence. They figured once people settled down, they wouldn't need it anymore, which is why there was a "sunset provision" in it.
Of course, that doesn't mean I would support this law - but then I can see why they did it.
Liberals are not trying to make the US more like Europe. They wish only to adapt those things in Europe that are functioning where the counterpart in our country is not functioning, or functioning less efficiently.
Liberals are not trying to make government bigger. They are trying to make it work at its intended purpose, which is the protection of its people. It just so happens that the biggest threat to us as citizens is corporate tyranny.
We had some of the most horrific criminal events in our modern history happen while that law was in effect including Columbine and the North Hollywood Shootout. I strongly believe the only reason further gun restriction and possibly even confiscation was only avoided because in the following elections when 20 senators who voted for it lost their seats everybody kind of looked around and was like "ok, not going to go there again".
They don't want to make it more like Europe you say? Then what...
Is Obamacare? To me it seems like an attempt (a very flawed attempt) to create some kind of socialized healthcare system that is popular in Europe. Why is Obama in favor of doing what the Brits did in the late 80s and ban all guns? Why does he want to raise taxes on the rich and get more and more people on some kind of government aid? Why does he want to do all these things that Europe does? Hm... Seems to me like he wants us to be like Europe.
Don't want to make government bigger... Wow, Im...
Not even sure where to begin on that one... Did it ever occur to you that the US government was NEVER intended nor designed to be involved AT ALL in the private sector (private sector being any individual or organization not directly connected to the government, meaning they do not work for the government)? The government is already so much bigger than it was supposed to be that if Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were alive today we would have been thrust into a second Civil War over...
One hundred years ago (or at the very least when FDR intorduced his New Deal monstrosity).
The fact is liberals, by common understanding (common understanding being the personification in Obama, Clinton, Biden, Fienstien, Yee, etc) never push anything other than anti-American crap and have corrupted our country so badly that we're the laughing stock of the world.
Republicans aren't much better mind you, but they're somewhat more in-line with what America SHOULD be.
The healthcare system in Europe is better than the one in U.S. That's one of those things Europe does better that liberals are trying to adopt. That doesn't mean we want celebrate the queen's birthday.
Obama is not in favor of banning all guns. He does want to raise taxes on the rich because it makes fiscal sense. There are two sides to this issue: what we spend and what we tax. Due to significant debt (more than 50% of which is from republicans), what we spend has a lower limit.
In order to not accumulate more debt, we then must raise taxes. If we raise taxes on people who already have very little, that only makes their situation worse, they can't afford to consume, and our economy crashes. However, if we raise taxes on people who have plenty, they have more customers since the middle and lower classes have more money, so they have to hire more anyway to meet demands, and thus they make more profit negating the higher taxes.
And it's so lame when people bring up the intentions of the founder's. That was over 200 years ago. We didn't have jets or even cars back then. The only intentions of the founder's that mattered was this: that the country remain adaptable. As was demonstrated by the steel industry monopoly in the early 1900's, if this country is to survive at all, we need to have some check and balance on corporate power, which is a role the government has taken up (who better?).
and large corporations requires a large government to check them. I don't like it either, but that's just history.
And you say Obama never pushed anything but anti-American crap. A couple of things wrong with this. One, what is "American"? You don't get to decide what is and isn't American. Fox News doesn't get to decide (though they try). I think exactly what I said: adaptability is the essence of America.
so I could name a number of things that he 'pushed' that I thought were American, but you just say it wasn't. Even if it was something you agreed was "American" you would just say he didn't really have a role in pushing it, because your maintaining your bias is more important to you than consolidating with facts. For whatever reason conservatives pride being un-adaptable, which I find anti-American.
Second, could you name something you thought he 'pushed' that was anti-American?
Clearly you know nothing of facts and very little, if anything, of history.
You don't get to decide what is American either, I didn't decide it myself, the founding fathers did and I simply echo their sentiment. EVERY SINGLE quote from the founding fathers clearly illustrates (to anybody with at least mediocre comprehension skills) that the role of the government is not to protect the people from anything other than foriegn attacks and to keep the peace domestically. You don't get too decide...
Who the enemy is and you don't get to decide what is and is not correct. You keep saying that I am biased when every single piece of information that I use to form my opinions derives from things the founding fathers said and did. Well, tough sh*t that you don't agree with them, THEY are the ones who decided what America was to be like.
And yeah, it was 200 or so years ago, your point? The country was founded to be a certain way no matter what the time is and that way is described in the...
Constitution, again if you don't like it tough sh*t.
It is clear as day that Obama and most other liberals are about as anti-America as you can get and they've done a really good job brainwashing the American people unfortunately. George Washington didn't want our currency to have the faces of our leaders on it because that's what the English did, they wanted to be so much UNlike Europe that they went all the way down to that tiny detail.
Obama doesn't want to ban all guns you say? Jesus...
Do you have selective listening or are you more dillusional than I thought? Have you seen his record in Illinois? He voted in favor of EVERY SINGLE gun control law they have and in 2008 part of his campaign was "making the assault weapons ban permenant" and the only reason he hasn't pushed for it is because he knows Americans are not in favor of it.
Go back to your little fantasy world, when you get an education and get MUCH more in-tough with reality come talk to me.
every single quote that you've seen from an era when multi-national corporations didn't exist, you mean? Yeah, I get that. It doesn't change the fact that things have changed since then. There are new elements to consider, and it doesn't help anything by ignoring them on the basis that they weren't around for the founders to consider. The entire government, as outlined in the constitution, is set up very specifically to progress with changes to society, not to prevent changes.
You have as much say in the interpretation of the constitution as I do. So, if you don't like that my opinion cancels out yours, to you I echo your sentiments and say "tough sh*t." To me, it is clear that conservatives are about as anti-America as one can get. They want a plutocracy where opinion is bought and an education system so poorly funded that no one is intelligent enough to oppose.
And george washington didn't want a 2-party system from the very beginning. He made that very clear.
It's funny how this opinion of a founder is probably among the most relevant to today's problems (this has reached well over 100 comments of partisan bickering, for example), yet the conservative media doesn't trumpet it. Why on earth not? The less conservative media doesn't either, of course, and probably for the same reasons. The conservative media isn't going to say anything about it unless they can use his quote in the context of something that bashes liberals. Which, of course doesn't count
You seem to enjoy your illusion that you are in the majority on this. But you aren't. For every conservative who thinks the supremely rich are worthy of unwavering trust, there is a liberal out there thinking the opposite (and for every one of those, there are three additional people who don't really give a crap).
Anyway, it is a little odd that you would ask that I become in touch with reality considering you are the one who has repeatedly stated that the facts are less important than opinion.
A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise 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, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities.
There is one Thomas Jefferson quote for you. If applied to modern times it sounds to me like he's preaching against welfare and these "entitlement"...
Programs and against government interfearing in private pursuits, such as buisnesses.
And actually corperations did exist back then, as shows another Jefferson quote: I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
But this once again says nothing about how it is the governments job to do so. As the previous quote reads, it seems it is ultimately...
You basically said Obama wants to ban assault rifles but isn't actually going to because the public doesn't want him to. So what's the problem? That's the way representation is supposed to work. Republicans are the ones invading places like Iraq when ~80% of the country is opposed to it. I'd rather have a guy who talks about it but then doesn't do it when he sees people don't want him to, instead of the guy who tries to sell us his agenda and then goes for it even if we didn't buy it.
The people's job to "crush" the evil corperations that you speak of.
Now before you tell me that I contradicted myself go back a few comments and read the part where I said you and I could probably find a lot more common ground than we think, but don't mistake that for me being in favor of Obama. It is Obama's policies on pretty much everything else that make me despise him.
I didn't want Romney but he can't possibly do any worse than Obama, it simply isn't possible.
You tell me that I think the rich are worthy of unwavering trust, at what point did I say that? I don't trust anybody but a very small handful, hence why I carry a gun everywhere I go.
But you seem to be under the impression that the government is worthy of unwavering trust and should be given completely free reign to with the private sector what it sees fit because you believe they are working in the best interests of the public. There is Jefferson quote for that too.
And Obama won't have...
That's the fundamental problem with conservative philosophy: the people ARE the government. I don't know who has managed to convince all of the conservatives that the government can't be communicated with, but that is one of those self-fulfilling prophecies. I write my congressman and senators weekly for every bill on the floor, and always get a response. Granted, there isn't much to have an opinion on these days, but still. You can do it too!
Anything to loose by implementing any kind of law he wants, be it on guns or anything else, if he gets a second term. In fact he has said that if he wins a second term that republicans will "have to" listen to him, as if he believes that checks and balances doesn't matter and that he thinks he will be supreme if he wins and that everybody else will have to bow down to him.
Or is MSNBC the conservitive media trying to corrupt everybody's mind?
I'm generalizing conservatives like you have generalized liberals. Doesn't feel too good, eh? Apparently it must have because then you go right back to doing it yourself... No, the government is not worthy of unwavering trust. That's why I'm always writing to my representatives, because I do not trust them to make good decisions on my behalf. You can't do that with a corporation, though. You can provide feedback on their products, but not on their policies.
Maybe in swing states they're more inclined to listen to their people but in partisan states like the one I live in they don't, they just do what they want. Are you sure they're not just telling you what you want to hear?
And if democrats have anything to say about it the people will have no voice whatsoever, they'd do whatever they want claiming that it's "for the greater good" or some bullsh*t like that because they ALWAYS DO.
Obama can not implement laws. Congress implements laws. The best he can do is veto them. And if he does manage to push one through a republican controlled congress and signs it into law, if it is truly a constitutional violation, the courts will rule it as such and the problem fixes itself.
As I said before, you can choose not to do buisness with a corperation, unlike the government.
And there you go trusting that justice will prevail, if that were true Obamacare would have been ruled unconstitutional. Calvin Coodilage once said "it is much more important to stop bad laws than to create good ones" and I would rather not take chances in that regard.
You're saying a lot of interpretation of what Obama believes, and it is just that: interpretation. You do not know. It is someone trying to rally you against him, and it seems to be going well.
So you're saying that you have been writing your representatives? I'm guessing I've misunderstood your words, because I doubt it.
And contrarily, democrats thrive on feedback from their constituency. I've gone through four different representatives. Three of which were democrats.
All of the democrats always got back to me with something that at least acknowledged that they read my letters. The republican basically copied and pasted his party platform.
And no, you can't always chose not to do business with a corporation. You gotta eat. You gotta have a job. Probably a car to get you there. And so on. You can choose not to support a particular corporation, sure, but you're just going to bolster a different one.
Obamacare was not unconstitutional. Why would it have been ruled as such? Because conservatives don't want to pay for other people's health care? What do they think health insurance is? Is it because they don't want a government bureaucrat between them and their doctor? Where did they think their health insurance provider was? Because they don't want to be forced to pay? You're not. No one is forcing you to make enough money to have to pay the tax.
"Someone trying to rally you against him", MSNBC wants to rally people FOR Obama, not against him, I came up with that interpretation all by my onesies. To me, he said "If I win, what I say goes and the republicans will just have to go with it".
No representitives in Massachusetts ever bother to reply to me, except Scott Brown when I was asking for clarification of a state law. Again, strongly blue state, they have nothing to worry about unlike in Iowa.
And so according to you corperations...
Are into everything, apparently there are no small buisnesses where you live, there are many near me (though I'll admit you have me on vehicles).
Obamacare is unconstitutional not because of the subject matter, it is unconstitutional because the logic used by John Roberts is that congress has the power to tax people for NOT buying something. The only reason the liberal justices voted in favor of it was because of its subject matter, if a law was put in place that said everybody needs to buy...
Oh, I did learn one helpful hint: be polite but don't give up. If you disagree with your representatives, that doesn't mean you should immediately go monkey sh*t and unleash an onslaught of interpreted accusations. They'll just ignore that. Try to stick to the facts. Also, if they don't get back to you in a week or so, write another letter. They'll ignore rudeness at every turn, but they eventually succumb to persistence. I learned that when I had a republican Rep.
We had this discussion about Obamacare before, and I think you blocked me at some point so I couldn't refute your claim. And you have it backwards. congress has the power to tax everybody, and they are, however you can get an exemption from that tax if you have health insurance or can't afford it. It's interpretation! One of the reasons I don't like relying on interpretation is because there are always going to be so many of them, and they can all conflict with one another.
Oh the law about guns can have the you don't need to pay the tax if you already have one or can't afford one too and the liberal justices will still vote against it. Stephen Brewer (I think that's his name) even went on the record to say that Americans do not have the right to keep and bare arms, and this guy is supposed to be an interpreter of the US Constitution.
Anthoney Kennedy tried for a month to get Roberts to change his mind, that alone should tell you something.
your gun analogy is missing a few elements if you want to relate it to health care. I think I spelled them out for you before, but I'll list them briefly:
-guns are essential to survival (they're not).
-you can only rent them, not buy (sort of true, if you consider ammunition)
-the people you rent a gun from retain the right to take it back the moment BEFORE you need to use it (pre-existing conditions).
-the people who rent out guns can refuse to rent one to you if they think you might actually use it.
Those last two are the real kicker, here. It makes business sense to do this (assuming firing the gun is expensive for those who rent out guns), so the only rational way to bar the business from denying the use of guns is to bolster their revenue elsewhere, for example by mandating everyone has a gun. There are other ways, but this is what they went with.
It is not missing any elements because I am not trying to relate it to healthcare, I am simply taking the logic of "congress can tax you for NOT buying something" which is what the individual mandate is. So it is very simple, a law can now be passed that says everybody who does not already have and can afford a gun must now buy a gun or pay a tax. Whether a gun is essential for survival or can be rented or taken away or not, is irrelevent.
*Sigh* Why are you not able to seperate subject matter and fine details? The individual mandate had nothing to do with healthcare itself, it was simply a detail included in the law (along with a 3% capital gains tax hike I heard a couple pilots muttering about and apparently a 15% profit margin cap that you yourself told me about) How are either of those things relevent to people being able to get treated by a doctor?
The 27th ammendment states that congressmen's compensation can't be altered..
Until the beginning of their next term. The 19th ammendment gives women the right to vote. I could go on and on listing laws that have nothing to do with helping people survive.
How about applying it to a new sofa or car or pay a tax? Maybe new shoes every 6 months? A home security system? New linens every month? The logic can be applied to ANYTHING and my point is if it is something liberals are against (such as guns) the liberal justices would vote against it because of the subject matter.
as for the 15% profit margin cap, that was to help ensure that health insurance premiums were being spent on health care instead of on profits. That, too, was getting out of hand. It removes the incentive for a health insurance provider to not let your doctor perform an expensive service, because it is money they have to spend anyway.
If you're right about the 15% profit cap then A LOT of insurance companies will be going out of buisness, that's barely enough to cover operational overhead.
And even if you're wrong, insurace companies will STILL be going out of buisness because in 10 years health insurance will be so expensive only the 1% will be able to afford it
You've come up with one example of a tax on refused services (health care), and clearly assume it is unconstitutional, yet have a problem with the liberal justices ruling it constitutional. I say that is an exception because lives depend on it. You then say that the liberal justices would rule such things unconstitutional if lives did not depend on it. That doesn't really refute my argument.
Read what I said again because clearly you didn't get the message, the tax was not on a service, it was on the choice to NOT GET the service and the only reason the liberal justices voted for it is because it was a liberal-favored idea.
Oh so it's acceptable to make exceptions to laws when YOU think it's ok? Like I said, dillusional fantasy world.
If Obama wins just wait till 2014 when the mandate takes effect, then you'll see premiums skyrocket (believe me, I sincerely hope I'm wrong).
you may want to read what I said again. I said "tax on REFUSED services."
And it isn't an exception to the law. I don't know where you keep coming up with this. Oh wait, yes I do. The conservative interpretation is that it is an exception to the law, but that's just an interpretation. Interpretations are for emotional effect, not for the sake of knowledge. You could just as easily interpret it as a unilateral tax increase for which a lot of people will qualify for an exemption. but you won't.
no you didn't. You've been saying it is a tax on the choice to not get a service since the beginning of the last time we had this discussion - you even corrected my summary of your words when you misread it. I've gone along with your language just to draw out the point that lives depend on it, but the other point still remains that it being "a tax on the choice not to get a service" is an interpretation that could easily have gone the other way.
No it couldn't have gone the other way. It's one thing to levy a tax when you buy something, it's another to levy a tax for NOT buying something, that's never been done before. Whether lives depend on it or not doesn't matter, it's a tax on not buying something no matter how you slice it. Stop being a typical liberal and using guilt to push your agenda.
watch it go the other way: everyone gets a flat tax of ~200 per year. You're exempt from this tax if you have health insurance or make less than ~13000 per year. See? But that interpretation doesn't sound like being forced to buy health insurance so it doesn't violate the constitution, thus it isn't as easy for conservatives to believe
and perhaps you might think human life should be a little more relevant in law if it were your own? Do all conservative problems have to be about interpretation?
"Doesn't sound like being forced to buy health insurance" It sure does to me unless you are content with living below the poverty level, which most people are not. It never ceases to amaze me how ludicris liberals can be when it comes to defending their ideas.
And no, there is not a snowballs chance in hell that I would want MY life to be in the hands of the government, I would trust a complete stranger from the middle of Detroit's 7 Mile before I trusted the government to protect me.
it does to you because you are predisposed to it sounding like that. Can't be helped, I guess. You are entitled to your opinion, and you are entitled to forfeit that in favor of adopting some rich guy's opinion instead. I guess that's your prerogative.
And what if a complete stranger in the middle of detroit's 7 mile is elected to government? then you're really f***ed!
So I'm predisposed to have something sound a certain way but you're not? Funny how that works, do you actually ever listen to yourself talk?
And if som stranger from 7 Mile was elected he'd probably be better than Obama because it would be hard to be any worse, but then again I thought that about Bush too...
I recognize the opinion that you are adamant about it and consider it not-fact on the grounds that there are other equally valid opinions. You do not recognize my opinion and consider yours to be fact on the grounds that there aren't any others. Your method is an example of confirmation bias. Mine is not.
Also, if you seriously believe that, then there is no question about whether or not you are biased. You certainly are.
How is emotion just as valid as fact?
Clearly you have too much time on your hands if you can spend days on end arguing a point that isn't even yours.
So according to you I'm biased because I have an opinion that is different than yours (or whoevers you gave) and have valid reasons for believing the opposing view to be incorrect? Wow, I guess EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD is biased then.
you are biased because you refuse to consider the opposing opinion as having any merit whatsoever. You've said that yours is based on "fact," and that the opposing opinion is based on "emotion." This odd considering that up until now you've repeatedly stated that your opinion is based on interpretation and have vigorously defended an interpretation-based opinion, but aside from that, there are facts backing the opposing opinion, but those you simply disregard as 'irrelevant' or 'anti-American.'
There are things that are anti-American, it's not my fault you suppport anti-American things.
If you can find me a fact that is relevent to the issue at hand (in the case of Obamacare, health insurance is not the issue at hand, taxes and application thereof is the issue at hand) then please tell me.
I would say that your interpretations had merit if they made any sense but they don't. You say Obamacare doesn't force you to buy insurance, but only if you make $13,000 or less a year. That's...
Like me saying I won't shoot you, if you *fill in the blank*. It's contradictory because the middle class makes more than $13,000 a year.
Do a little research on health insurance in Massachusetts, we have the highest rates in the country and guess what, it hasn't done much to solve the problem of medical debt (the number of people owing $500-$1,000 dropped 40% under the law, but those owing more or less it hasn't touched).
but it is your fault that you consider them anti-American.
Health insurance is relevant. You can't just dismiss it because it doesn't support your opinion.
It doesn't force you to buy health insurance no matter what your income is. a ~$200 dollar annual tax is not "force." Threatening to shoot someone is an example of force, yes. Taxing someone $200 and refusing to exempt them unless they buy health insurance is not. Do you see the distinction? Probably not...
*I* am not the one who decided they were anti-American.
Health insurance is only the primary subject matter and is not the root of the problem and as such is irrelevent.
It is a way to control people's day to day lives using taxes and is draconian, you can change the subject matter to whatever you want from cars to underwear and it's still the same "do it or else" attitude used by all the dictators in the UN. Just because they're not using violence to enforce it doesn't make it acceptable.
you are the one who decided that you consider it Anti-American. No matter how deceptive your source of information is, it is still ultimately up to you to choose whether or not to believe it.
It isn't the same. Violence simply isn't the same as a tax. I understand by now you will never see that as relevant, but it is a pretty big deal. Hopefully, you can at least understand why others think it is relevant? No chance? Yeah, didn't think so...
Freedom doesn't mean "do this or *fill in the blank*", regardless of what the blank is filled with, be it death, a whipping or yes, a tax. You keep telling me my "source" is deceptive, but I don't have a source other than my own, completely independant interpretation of what a law does. I've heard all kinds of arguments about what Obamacare is and isn't and NONE of them are exactly the way I see it.
The law forces you to either get health insurance or pay a tax which is a limitation on...
Freedom and a limitation on freedom is anti-American according to everything the Founding Fathers said and practiced and built the country on and stood for.
While yes, violence and taxes are not the same thing, they are both methods that can be used to get someone to do something and using either for that purpose is tyranic and has no place in civilized society, much less what is supposed to be the greatest country in the world, where the government is supposed to be in control of the people.
your use of the word "force" is what I take issue with here.
Anyway, what were your founding father's view on slavery? Do you think perhaps that was a limitation on freedom and thus they, too, were anti-American?
If I were a billionaire and didn't need health insurance, being asked to pay ~200 per year would not force me to buy health insurance. It wouldn't force you either. If you think it would, they you are lying to yourself.
Would you prefer "control"? Or "dictate"? They all work.
Slavery was actually a highly controversial issue when the Constitution was being written, not all were for it. But then when the 1860s rolled around it was a REPUBLICAN who decided to act on outlawing slavery.
The 1% aren't the ones "dictating" that we buy health insurance, the government is. Are you somehow under the impression that I am in the 1%? and once 2017 rolls around it will be $695, not $200.
"control" and "dictate" also are exaggerations. A tax simply doesn't fall into any coercive category.
and whether or not it was controversial doesn't matter. They still favored it in the end.
the "1%" thing isn't what I was going for. Chances are good that whoever you work for is already providing health insurance, so there is no issue. So, the only people who need to worry are the very rich and the very poor, and the very poor are exempt.
"Coerse" then? Looking at the dictionary definition, that term works perfectly.
The republicans still fought for the slaves, meanwhile FDR nearly passed legislation that would have considered all Japanese Americans to be national security threats right after Pearl Harbor.
You said billionairs, all billionairs are in the 1%. And as of right now yes my employer does offer a health insurance benefit, which I still have to pay for. That doesn't mean they will after 2014.
Like I said, a tax simply doesn't fall into any coercive category - that includes coerce itself.
the republicans 100 years ago did. It's a different republican party today.
And pointing out how democrats do it too doesn't really matter, because conservatives are the ones who boast a authority on deciding what is and isn't anti-American/anti-freedom. And you pin all of that on the intentions of the founders, overlooking the fact that they somewhat happily kept slavery alive. Pretty weird.
You say your employer may not provide health insurance after 2014, well, it's law that anyone employing more than 50 people must do so, for one thing, but even so you are speculating. You could just as easily speculate the other way, because that's what speculation is. That you refuse to do so is only an example of confirmation bias.
Just because you don't think it's coertion doesn't mean it isn't.
What is the government going to do if employers refuse to provide it? Fine them? Probably, so it will most likely be cheaper to pay the fine rather than provide health insurance as that will be the case on the individual level since health insurance costs will become so expensive once that mandate kicks in.
All liberals can ever do is lie and twist words around to get what they want.
and just because you think it is coercion doesn't mean it is.
you're speculating over how this will all play out, again. you have nothing to support this speculation other than the speculations of other people, who are ultimately paid by health insurance companies to come up with reasons to oppose it, other than "because health insurance companies want more money".
Wrong again, it is simple cause and effect that should tell anybody with a passable level of comprehension skills that health insurace will go up. And even with someone without said skills, just look at the history of health insurance costs in Massachusetts.
As for the individual mandate being coercion, why not look up the definition of "mandate" and then look back and see that about 70% of Americans were against it and the whole controversy surrounding it.
Easy to say, not so easy to prove. Anyway, as I had previously mentioned, health insurance costs have increased by under 4% in the last two years - that's a record low.
and before this devolves into a semantics argument, I'll simply point out that the word "mandate" is not actually in the bill. That's just the term the republicans started using to make it sound like coercion. See how well that worked?
So your district is prodominantly liberal, see how liberals try skew the numbers? Check what the NATIONAL stats said about it.
And maybe that 4% increase is local to you, or is that nationally? Or did you deliberately leave that aspect out to try and fabricate evidence?
And once again you're trying to downplay and deflect facts, the law says buy health insurance or pay a penalty (tax), plain and simple. Whatever words you want to use to describe it, it's the same, "Do it or be punished".
That district was not predominantly liberal. You jump to conclusions. Costello may have a (D) next to his name, but he is a little right-of-center. The only reason he even holds his position is because he is on the aviation committee, and Scott AFB is in his district (which employs thousands of civilians in the area). They almost shut it down once, but Costello swooped in to save the day there.
The 4% is nationally.
You are interpreting a tax as a penalty again. Why aren't all taxes penalties?
Obama said it was a penalty, not a tax, himself, numerous times before and after the Supreme Court descision.
Don't you mean why aren't all penalties taxes? Is a traffic citation a tax? No, it's a punishment for non-compliance with a law and is used to coerce people from not speeding or running stop signs, no different from the "penalty" of $600 for not buying health insurance under Obamacare.
Because taxes by themselves are not penalties, but they can be used as a tool of coercion as is the case of Obamacare.
And he still continues to call it a penalty even though the only reason it was allowed to stand was because it was "interpreted" as a tax.
Seems interpretation does matter.
yeah, how the supreme court interprets something matters. How media pundits interpret something does not. I'll draw a line there, sure.
If you consider any form of monetary transaction to be 'coercion,' then you simply (fortunately) have never had to suffer real coercion. Maybe try smuggling a ticking device through airport security? You'll find that what follows is a lot different from a tax, and I'm guessing you'll prefer the tax.
By that logic petty theft of a candy bar should be treated the same as a murder.
The level of violence used in coercion doesn't matter, coercion is coercion. In the 30s teachers in Nazi Germany taught a poem to thier students and told them if they don't memorize it by the next day they'll be punished. No violence there, just a vauge threat, but still used to coerce cooperation.
I do not consider "any" form of monetary transaction to be coercion, only the monetary transactions that are mandatory for refusing to do something whatever that something is.
You said something about being forced to smuggle a bomb into an airport and prefering to pay a tax. Let me ask you, I give you the option to have you're entire right arm hacked off with a rusty and blunt machete or having your left small toe surgically removed, which would you prefer? Either way it still sucks.
And do you seriously believe violence is the only method to coercion? If so that explains A LOT.
If a law was passed that said you need to buy 2 pounds of broccoli every single month or pay a $100,000,000,000 tax (or penatly or whatever you want to call it) would you still say it was not coercion?
Using taxes is actually WORSE than using violence to get people to do what you want because, as you demonstrate so well, it fools people into thinking it's good and so they're willing to cooperate.
see, once again, you gave the option between two physical mutilations. You did not add an option of simply paying a couple hundred dollars per year.
all methods of coercion must ultimately trace back to violence, even if it only via an "implied threat." It is true that tax evasion can lead to incarceration, which is coercion, but that's not new to Obamacare. It would be too obvious of you if you suddenly decided to draw that line now...
The dollar amount doesn't matter, it's still "do it or pay".
And you know you're right, all methods of coercion trace back to violence (except bribery and blackmail with incriminating material). Because you see if people refuse to buy health insurance AND refuse to pay the penalty (or is it a tax?) then they get arrested and it probably will be a violent arrest because the person will understand that it is an anti-American law and that will be the sole reason they're not complying.
as I've tried to make clear many times over, I not exactly an advocate for much of what we've discussed. However, your extreme and unwavering opposition to something only invites me to respond with something along the lines of "it's really not as bad as you are making it out to be." If you perceive this sort of response to be the exact opposite bias of your own, then you are only implying that the strength of your convictions are the important part, not the validity of your facts.
So in other words you just like to get people going.
It IS as bad as I am making it out to be, it's just not apparent yet. The validity of the facts is clear but you liberals have never let anything like facts or logic or statistics or legalities get in the way of what you want.
The US, like all other countries, was made to be a certain way that is unique. If you don't like the way we are, move to a country that you do like, there are LOTS to choose from.
You'd probably love China, they...
Just throw people who don't agree with them in jail or simply kill them and the people have ZERO say in how things work, all the power is centralized onto a very few who dictate anything and everything and not only do they allow abortions, they FORCE them onto people who have more than one child.
It's a liberal paradise over there, haven't you heard Obama and some other liberals saying how we should be more like China?
no, I haven't heard that. China does not appeal to me (except for the ladies). And throwing people in jail/killing people for disagreeing with them sounds more like a historically conservative thing to me - it's always the "establishment" that does this, because who else could?
anyway, you're saying that it isn't as bad as you are making out to be, but it will become so. So it it isn't. Your facts are carefully hand-picked by your media to get you to come to the conclusion that you have come to
Of course it sounds like a more historically conservitive thing to you, anything that is bad is because of conservitives right? Conservitives never do any good, only bad, right?
You tell me that "my media" has hand-picked facts, newsflash bud, EVERY SINGLE NEWS ORGANIZATION HAND-PICKS WHAT THEY WANT TO BROADCAST AND WHAT FACTS TO PRESENT IN THEIR BROADCASTS.
And once again, I almost never watch the news and when I do it is whatever station happens to be on when I walk in the room.
Seriously? Back in my day "conservative" and "establishment" were akin to synonyms. That wasn't 'my opinion' that was the way of things. The only thing that has changed since then is some democrats got elected, so now conservatives try to pretend like they are all outsiders to this astoundingly bad economy they once worked so hard to help build.
And, I never said there are some news stations that don't hand-pick their talking points, only reminding you that yours do too. I'd really wish you'd stop trying to tell me I said something I didn't. Focus on literal interpretations of my words, if you don't mind.
You say that you don't really watch the news, yet most of your points could be found, verbatim, on the transcripts at Fox News or Limbaugh, so that's awkward.
Not awkward at all, I hear what this law and that law does and I form my own opinion, I don't let someone else tell me what my opinion is like you seem to.
"Back in my day" well you know what, we're not in your day anymore. Regardless of how wrong or right you are in what you claimed, this is 2012 and if you don't keep up with the times you are left behind, why do you think almost nobody over 60 years old has at least average computer-usage skills?
You also claim that it wasn't your opinion...
it was "just the way of things", well another newsflash, the things I say generally are just the way it is too unless I've missed something (which I DESPERATELY hope I did). And you haven't told me anything that changes how I figure the end result of Obamacare, just different fine details.
Back in your day (you really shouldn't say that, it makes you sound old) were there not people who supported conservitives? Why do you think they would if what you say is true?
my parents were conservatives, yes. But they were strict, greedy, and self-absorbed people, incapable of considering the possibility that they may be wrong. You don't want me (or anyone) using them as the poster-people of conservatives...
you "hear what this law and that law does". Did it ever occur to you that maybe the people you are hearing that from are not being completely honest? Because the people they hear it from are not being honest? The only way to know is to read the law yourself.
Why do you keep saying "the people you are hearing that from"? I've told you many times that almost none of my information comes from others.
So what makes your source of information 100% accurate? When I learned about Obamacare I went pale because I automatically figured this will cause a massive increase in healthcare costs. After the Supreme Court descision my prediction seemed to be reinforced by what happened on the stock market. Health insurance companies stocks dropped sharply while...
Hospital and pharmacudical companies stocks soared. Anybody with any sense of buisness can read that reaction and tell you that the law is going to be devastating for health insurance companies but a godsend to hospitals and big pharma. The only reason ALL stocks in health insurance would drop so drastically (and not just one or two individual companies) at the same time is due to legislation that will hurt them.
How will it hurt them? The only way is by new regulation(s) that take away...
Descisions they can make as a buisness, in this case, denying coverage. Now while I fully agree there is a moral problem here, it did keep costs on the low end and yes, what we were paying before was the low end. So now they have no choice but to give coverage which fixes the moral problem but creates a cost problem, they will have no choice but to raise rates all around to balance out the cost.
Just because you don't like the truth doesn't make it an untruth.
you said "I hear what this law and that law does," unless you are implying some form of communication I am not aware of, how else should one interpret this? Voices in your head?
You say you automatically went pale when you learned about Obamacare, before even knowing what was in the bill. That, my friend, is exactly what a bias does.
I acknowledge that keeping people alive can be expensive. You seem to think that the money is more important. I think human life is. That's our divide!
Part of our divide comes in your inability to comprehend most of what I am saying.
I said LEARNED, not "hear", you know, educated myself on the subject. And from what I learned, it will make health insurance more expensive, not less, I was saying this LONG before anybody in the public eye was saying it, they were still on the socialism part.
Saving lives is great but this law will END lives, not save them because people won't be able to afford insurance, I thought that was one of those...
Equal and opposite reaction things that went without saying but then I'm talking to you, a person with ZERO comprehention skills.
Or perhaps you did comprehend it and just enjoy getting people riled up since you yourself admitted that none of these arguments are your own. Either way, I'm done talking to you.
so you read the bill?
Our divide is only over the fact that you think money is more important than (some) people. If it weren't for that, I would probably agree with you on everything of significance (or, you would agree with me). You say this bill will "end" lives. Please where in the bill you 'learned' that?
I hate them in general. Going down them scares me.
I hope you're kidding...
Well, I think that anyone who thinks escalators should be banned because certain retards like to use them in ways other than intended, such as sliding down the rails, should be euthanized. I have no time for health and safety freaks, government regulation loving, no-brained, 'follower', stupid concerned public citizen, sheep. Let's ban tall buildings, air planes, shoe laces, bicycles, hand-shaking, glass eye-wear, swimming pools, swimming in general, and second floors.
no one would go anywhere then lol
Another lame question, yanw. boring.
I wish we could ban stupid people.
maybe
possibly
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions