Slashdot Mirror
"Choice Blindness" Can Transform Conservatives Into Liberals - and Vice Versa
ananyo writes "When U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney said last year that he was not even going to try to reach 47% of the US electorate, and that he would focus on the 5–10% thought to be floating voters, he was articulating a commonly held opinion: that most voters are locked in to their ideological party loyalty. But Lars Hall, a cognitive scientist at Lund University in Sweden, knew better. When Hall and his colleagues tested the rigidity of people's political attitudes and voting intentions during Sweden's 2010 general election, they discovered that loyalty was malleable: nearly half of all voters were open to changing their minds. Hall's group polled 162 voters during the final weeks of the election campaign, asking them which of two opposing political coalitions — conservative or social democrat/green — they intended to vote for. The researchers also asked voters to rate where they stood on 12 key political issues, including tax rates and nuclear power. The person conducting the experiment secretly filled in an identical survey with the reverse of the voter's answers, and used sleight-of-hand to exchange the answer sheets, placing the voter in the opposite political camp. The researcher invited the voter to give reasons for their manipulated opinions, then summarized their score to give a probable political affiliation and asked again who they intended to vote for. On the basis of the manipulated score, 10% of the subjects switched their voting intentions, from right to left wing or vice versa. Another 19% changed from firm support of their preferred coalition to undecided. A further 18% had been undecided before the survey, indicating that as many as 47% of the electorate were open to changing their minds, in sharp contrast to the 10% of voters identified as undecided in Swedish polls at the time (research paper). Hall has used a similar sleight of hand before to show that our moral compass can often be easily reversed."
The mentality between countries are enormous. For example Canada seems like the US but it isn't. Canada thinks the US are evil and sue-happy. They are very liberal because they don't want to become what the US is. I'm not joking, this is pretty much the general consensus on why people vote liberal in Canada from the people I've talked to. Being raised there, I know this mentality well too. But in the US, there's a huge barrier between left and right. The left want their set of ideologies to be met, and the right want their own. The differences are too vast, but the ones that aren't democrat or republican will stick around even as for an independent party. But let's face it, at the end of the day an individual vote does not matter. The united states is a republic, not a democracy.
So it seems the study basically is demonstrating that some people are more amenable to a symbol of authority telling them what they actually think/believe. Although the extent to which it is important that the authority is perceived to be 'neutral' isn't clear from the study.
Like the magnetic poles themselves. Nothing is absolute, except change...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
You're kind of a moron, aren't you? Assuming that your opinion is the "right" one on all of the topics you list. A big part of the problem is that we limit ourselves to two opinions... liberal and conservative... and then stick to that opinion on all issues.
Personally, I'm liberal on a small portion of topics (mostly social), but fairly conservative on a wide range of other topics. Therefore if I have to label myself, I'd call myself conservative. However, if I were to list where I stand on the current "hot topics", most people would peg me as liberal.
Hey, you can have different opinions on different topics. Who knew?
Because of the slight of hand and then confrontation, I would think it is more like people just rationalize the circumstances and then seek to defend the supposed position they took (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(making_excuses)) I also wonder if the researcher had any white lab coat, etc. that made them seem more authoritative?
What I do not see is an actual change of opinion.
no comment
One thing I've noticed (read: pure anecdote) is that most people who are enthusiastic about their party don't behave much differently from sports fans of opposing teams. It doesn't really matter what their side does, what matters is which letter wins the game. Even on Slashdot I've confronted a few people who say "well my side never does x abhorrent behavior" when all of ten seconds worth of Google found the opposite.
Personally I simply avoid registering to vote because all that happens is I get calls from people telling me to vote for their guy and they can't really explain why. For example I got a call from somebody on Matt Salmon's team telling me that they would repeal Obama Care, and lower medical costs through deregulation. Being a libertarian, that is music to my ears because I know from experience that red tape does raise costs in the medical field significantly. However when I asked what he would deregulate and how that would help, he didn't even know. But he expects me to vote for his guy anyways.
No thanks. I'd only register to vote if there was actually a significant movement to balance the budget and prevent what I see as an otherwise inevitable catastrophic economic collapse. I don't think that will ever happen though. Once you add social entitlements, no matter how unsustainable or unaffordable, they're basically impossible to get rid of. The best you can do is hedge your assets (gold is a horrible idea BTW) and grab your ankles.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
I agree. that's why we need more libertarians in office.
1. corporates won't get special privileges and can't use the government to control markets. They'll actually have to invest their own money in themselvse to improve their positions instead of the taxpayers' money to buy politicians and law.
2. women would have a chance to earn the respect based on their success at relevant life challenges, same as men. The left wing built system bias towards women/against men hurts both genders. It keeps women dependent on the state while inequitably stealing opportunity from men. it also breeds stereotype-based hatred in both genders. Cultural marxism helps no one but the state.
3. #2 also applies to gays. They should have a right to live how they wish like everyone else. They don't deserve the special privileges or attention they get from the left.
4. The argument for gun control is childish at best: "daddy maybe if we make the guns go away no one will kill one another anymore". If the left would address the issues in its own public education system, we'd have fewer klebolds and lanzas out there. If we have people targeting school decades after graduation, there's definitely something rotten in denmark. Of course, it's easier for the left to accuse the other side than it is to face its own demons. People (and hence organizations) that can do this have hit a milestone to adulthood. The rest are still children. Children are easier to control and manipulate.
5. there are libertarians and anarchocapitalists who want to privatize everything, but most don't. There are also liberals who worship karl marx and are members of the USA communist party. Most do not and are not. Your point here is a fallacy.
People are exposed to both sides quite often, yet it doesn't change them, so catching them off guard and asking them to defend it really doesn't prove much of anything. Even he himself admits it probably won't stick.
It's nothing more than a party trick a magician or hypnotist would use.
If your eyes have been open, it is pretty clear very many people are no longer using any kind of logic. Most political attitudes today are tribally based. Very rarely do people honestly consider what the other person is saying.
Dogmatists simply can't conceive that anyone else would behave or perceive differently than them. They are the mold from which everyone else must de rigeur be cast.
is that a large portion of Swedes lie about when they will change their minds.
It actually doesn't matter that the sample is such a small percentage of the population. It's size that matters, not percent.* A sample of 162 will be just as statistically relevant whether the population size is 9.5 million or only 10,000 (assuming the sample is taken properly). There may be other issues with the study, but this isn't one of them.
(At least that's what I learned last quarter in intro statistics. Feel free to correct me if I missed anything)
*Though if the sample is drawn without replacement (i.e. putting each subject back in the pool before choosing the next), the sample should be under 10% of the population.
Anybody want a peanut?
I took a political quiz recently for fun, which pegged me as Democrat (I guess D & R were the only two outcomes)... which is funny, because I'm pretty solid in Libertarian ideals. Which also tends to be socially liberal, and conservative on other issues.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
The statistical power of a sample has pretty much zilch dependence on the population size being sampled (until you reach a near-unity portion of the population being sampled); 162 of 9.5 Million provides no less hypothesis-testing power than 162 of 1000 (assuming sampling is properly uniform; a caveat here is that the researcher has a sample of 162 voluntary-survey-responders). While it might have been nice to include statistical error bars on the percentages in the summary, the "in 9.5 Million" is irrelevant to the robustness of conclusions drawn from a sample of 162.
Most people don't know any of the science behind nuclear power, global warming, environmental protection, or race relations. Whether it's Democrats or Republicans, their beliefs about these subjects are based purely on what their favorite political personality tells them. So if you try to justify their position, they start spouting nonsense, and they probably don't remember what their position is if they are on their own to make a choice.
As for the presidential candidates, in practice, they were interchangeable: both Obama and Romney were bent on violating the Constitution, civil liberties, and handing large amounts of money to their buddies and constituents, at the cost of everybody else. We happened to get Obama, and he has delivered on that program "beautifully". Obama's pride and overconfidence makes it even easier for special interest groups to pull his strings than Bush's simplicity.
3. #2 also applies to gays. They should have a right to live how they wish like everyone else. They don't deserve the special privileges or attention they get from the left.
What special privileges do you suppose liberals are trying to get for gays. The right to marry the person of their choice just like a heterosexual can?. The right to not be bullied for being different than the majority of other people? The right to adopt children? The right to not be demonized? The right to dress and act how they want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else? You mean those special privileges?
4. The argument for gun control is childish at best: "daddy maybe if we make the guns go away no one will kill one another anymore". If the left would address the issues in its own public education system, we'd have fewer klebolds and lanzas out there.
Got any evidence for that. Any at all?
"When U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney said last year that he was not even going to try to reach 47% of the US electorate"
Got to wonder about an article that starts out this way. Grant you, I haven't gone back and reviewed the video in a while. Still, I'm pretty sure what he said was that about 47% of the population wouldn't be interested in him and a platform for a smaller government. I certainly don't recall anything even approaching the notion that he was going to ignore half the population. That is a LOT different than focusing your message on those you think would be most interested in your message.
Every campaign focuses their attention on those votes they're most likely to get. You didn't see Obama spending a lot of his campaign in states that weren't likely to go his way no matter what. Certainly he had his strategy sessions that had they been publicly released wouldn't be especially flattering either.
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
Sorry but us Americans are stubborn assholes who dont care about the issues all we care about is what the party says on the issue.
Hi. I'm an American too. We aren't all stubborn assholes. Case in point, I tracked down this poster and told a truck full of passing conservatives that a single mother lived at the poster's home address and was collecting welfare. I don't think we'll be seeing him after tonight.
Somewhat more seriously though, to the international community: We're sick of the two-party system too. It's a joke; Nobody really feels their interests are well-represented by either party. As a result, we've taken to discussing politics like it's a sporting event -- we bet on which team will win, scream and dance around in our underwear in front of the TV during the national debates, and get drunk and then either cry, or riot, when our team wins. Because while our political system is shit, we still really, really enjoy watching people we don't like fail. Take Romney for example -- his epic failure kept me happy (and warm!) through most of the frigid Midwestern winter.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I end up pretty similar. I have both liberal and conservative ideas. I also have some ideas that people will say are liberal or conservative that I have for completely different reasons. Some ideas I see as neither liberal or conservative, they just make sense when considering costs.
For instance if doing X costs Y dollars but preventing the problem costs Z and ZY then I propose we do prevention. It is not liberal or conservative.
What I find it comes down to though is that I care more about social issues that economic ones. So I end up voting for the liberal side even though I agree with the conservatives on many points. My views on abortion is that I don't have the right to make that choice for someone else , they should have that choice. My views on gay marriage are the same. It is not something I am going to do it, it won't harm me in any way but I have seen friends die in the hospital and I have talked to people that could not be with their loved ones because of laws that only allow family and I consider that wrong as hell if not outright evil.
If the republicans took a more liberal social policy and an actual conservative fiscal policy I would find it much easier to support them. I don't really like the democrats fiscal policies very much but I still support them because I believe people should have the right to marry who they want and have an abortion if they want.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
In my opinion a lot of people confuse libertarians with anarchists. For example, they assume libertarians are against any and all regulation. We're just against unreasonable regulation. For example, vocal libertarians such as John Stossel support the EPA regulating soot emissions from cars so that we can have clean air. But we hate regulations that for example make certain medications and surgeries needlessly expensive, or surgeries commonly performed overseas with great results that are banned here.
We're also very vocal against handing tax money to private corporations. For example, PBS is insanely profitable (its executives make over 300,000 per year) yet how dare anybody suggest we stop handing them free money, because clearly that means they hate children.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
The only problem I have with gun control is I don't think it will work anymore. In the past I think that magazine limits, more background checks etc would work. Now with 3D printers becoming cheap and available and the technology improving rapidly I don't think there is anything that can realistically be done to control how many people have guns and what kinds of guns they have or how large the magazines are. I don't see the point in passing ineffectual laws.
Overall we do have to come up with a system to decrease gun violence but controlling guns is probably not the way to do it.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
3. #2 also applies to gays. They should have a right to live how they wish like everyone else. They don't deserve the special privileges or attention they get from the left.
The hell?
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
The biggest problem with politics is that the very vocal participants are always the extremists, one way or another. Most people really don't care all that much about either party aside from one or two specific positions, like gun control or taxes or abortion rights. It's kind of like how you can't find many libertarians that are actually libertarian across a wide range of topics outside of "small government." Or like how someone will be a hardcore republican simply because they want to own firearms.
Our political choices have way more to do with fighting *against* something than *for* something, which is sad considering this is supposed to be the land of liberty and justice for all.
This study is pretty obviously not statistically relevant
That's a really great statement there, and I'mma let you finish, but statistical relevance has no relevance here. It's a intellectual-sounding mean-nothing. What you meant was probably statistical significance. And the test of significance is met if the result is unlikely to have happened by chance alone.
You're going to have a hard time justifying a position that this guy's results were just a statistical fluke. You may disagree with the results. You may disagree with the method. You may even disagree with the hypothesis. But you can't say it is a "belief". The only belief here is your own: Specifically, that you believe people's political orientations can't be easily changed because you believe your political orientation is less malleable than what the author has demonstrated.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
In the US there are no left wing parties. As an example, "socialist" can be used as an insult there. From the outside, all US politicians are right wing (meaning that they are not for wealth redistribution or any other left wing concept). It's not that hard to change from strongly conservative to not that strongly conservative.
I treat political parties like phone providers. If they don't connect with me I switch.
I'll register as whatever the dominant party is in a district so that my vote in the primary counts, because sometimes your vote is worthless in the general election. This happens most frequently with the Democratic Party in cities.
That doesn't mean "I'm a Democrat". It means that I'm using the provider that works best, and strategically using the system just like they do.
Party loyalty? For most people it makes no sense. With few exceptions, you are an idiot to claim loyalty to a party, or to think of it as virtuous. The exceptions? Influence peddlers and politicians. Lawyers also tend to be creatures of party, even if they don't get very far in the hierarchy. It's ugly though. I know a very intelligent Republican who fits into the lawyer category, and hearing him argue that Palin was a good choice was just hilarious. Now the party to which he is so loyal is disagreeing with him over immigration so they can get teh votez. Loyalty? Principal? Parties have no such thing. Loyalty to a party? Maybe it's silly for everybody, not just the common man.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Don't vote for the 2 major parties. Vote for a 3rd party, write in a name or just put none of the above. If you live in a state that's already overwhelmingly Democrat or overwhelmingly Republican, you might as well vote for a 3rd party candidate. They're less likely in the pockets of the major donors. It's time to send a message to the career politicians and switch out the incumbents.
This is only true given a certain set of underlying assumptions about the backing distribution, which are often poorly controlled for in experiments like this.
You didn't read my post very closely, did you? Like the part where I said "until you reach a near-unity portion of the population being sampled," which is exactly the special case you're complaining about? Please go back to your second-grade reading comprehension class (and it was the poster above, not me, who was in the intro maths course).
I agree. that's why we need more :snip:
I think you didn't read the article. What this guy is saying is, you can get more of anybody in office by simply lying about their answers after having them take a survey. If you hire a whole bunch of people to do this before an election, maybe you can swing it your way. It's certainly no less ethical than how candidates buy,er, I mean, win elections today.
The rest of your comment was such an attention-whoring grab to support your own idiosyncratic beliefs and annoyingly full of logic fail that you should probably stay away from hospitals, nuclear reactors, or anything else that has digital components, at least for a few days until the fail has time to boil off.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Libertarians are nice, but what we really need is more sane people.
TFS says that as many as 47% of voters were open to changing their minds, but what percentage of those for whom we vote fall into that category? Other than drastically changing positions for the purpose of pandering to different crowds, how many politicians can hear a reasonable argument for/against a certain topic and actually be swayed?
On the other hand, how many politicians are pure party line? Repub? Must be super rich, at least slightly racist and misogynist, oppose gay rights, strongly support the 2nd amendment, love wars, hate abortion or a woman's right to chose, etc etc. Liberal? The exact opposite of all of that... with no room for middle ground. When the people we vote into office (and the talking heads on Fox, MSNBC, etc) join the 47% willing to change their minds, then we might actually be getting somewhere.
This signature is false.
Clearly it isn't the same, because if you had "sampled" the entire comment before you responded, you would have read the part about reaching a near-unity portion, you would have got a different result!
Australia came up with a much more strict gun control laws after a massacre at a place called Newtown.
The result is that they have a much lower rate of gun violence compared to before the gun control laws.
Gun control works.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
So I'm guessing the other 81% said "Hey! You changed my answers!" No, I did not RTFA. The 19% are too stupid to realize answers they JUST GAVE have been switched. If RTFA shows otherwise, then the summary is pretty s#!++y.
"Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins
Something tells me the political parties in Sweden are not as divisive as in the US (I have no knowledge of Swedish politics, but I could imagine both parties being reasonably sane, and not extreme, and probably both to the left of Obama).
You know, if all it took to be equal was a declaration stating "You are now equal", African-Americans would have been free in 1865. But the real world is considerably more complex, and good intentions not backed by powerful resolve and yes, sometimes force of law and even of arms, often end up becoming empty sentiments. The US government's unwillingness to protect African-Americans from institutionalized racism in the northern states and from the more overt political, judicial and legislative racism in the southern states meant all the high rhetoric of the Abolitionists, The Emancipation Proclamation, and, no kidding, even a goddamned amendment to the Constitution did little bloody good until the Executive finally started doing things like putting soldiers between vile racists and black teenagers just trying to enjoy their lawful and natural rights, supposedly guaranteed nearly a century before.
Keep a bird in a cage most of its life, then declare if free and chuck if out the window. See how that works.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The entire political system today is based entirely on an illusion of choice. With the help of mainstream media the entire country is spoon fed two political ideologies based on ancient structures that neither party follow. 99% of all US media is political opinion talking heads and death stories. Every presidential election the country is somehow mysteriously divided 49/51 with the "popular" candidate winning. The same 2-3 family networks have been in power for ages and there is no chance of any 3rd party getting into the big family. There is very little difference in how each party votes on legislation and neither party sticks with their parties ideologies. If people voted based on what their candidates actually did in office instead of what their favorite parties wikipedia description says they are supposed to do we might have a different country. The only thing politicians are concerned about are pushing through legislation that favors their donators/lobbyists and staying in power so they are set for retirement. People need to stop watching all news channels and pay attention to what politicians are doing all year every year instead of 3 months every 4 years.
Also glad to see you dont grasp you are part of the minority. :)
So you are for regulations where they are successful and making a net positive impact and against regulations where they are useless or hurting without net positive impact? Is that you call "libertarians"? I call it "common sense".
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
Having more than 2 options is very confusing to the Facebook / American Idol / iPhone crowd. You are being rude and inconsiderate by merely suggesting there might be more than 2 points of view --- are you trying to hurt these peoples mental capabilities or what?
Because the conservatives will have raised a hefty charity pool among themselves and mailed it anonymously to the address, while a Prius full of liberals would have done nothing, smug in the satisfaction that the tax dollars from the truck full of conservatives kept the single mother in bondage to the liberal government?
You don't watch the news much, do you? They're trying to turn public education into an actual Hunger Games... do you really think they're into charity?
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
We're in a mess, but direct democracy would screw up the mess that much more. Hello, proposition 8? Mob rule will never accomplish much.
--Jim (me)
What special privileges do you suppose liberals are trying to get for gays.
"Hate Crime" legislation comes to mind. Typical "liberal" bullshit. They completely choke on solutions to the actual problems (I will ever maintain that there's no legitimate objection to gay marriage), but give them half a chance and they'll make another group of delicate snowflakes who need to be "protected".
"All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others," indeed.
Whether you vote Demican or Republicrat, you're basically voting the same thing. Increased government control and eroding personal liberties. You can argue on the what and how, but the why is already pretty much a fait accompli.
People flip between parties because the parties offer similar platforms. It's just a question of which gives the most bread and offers the most entertaining circuses.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
We're just against unreasonable regulation.
In my experience, opinions vary *wildly* amongst self-defined libertarians as to the definition of "unreasonable".
For example, PBS is insanely profitable (its executives make over 300,000 per year) yet how dare anybody suggest we stop handing them free money, because clearly that means they hate children.
The Federally chartered Corporation for Public Broadcasting was created by Congress specifically to keep PBS alive in the late 60s.
I don't think you hate kids, I just think your ideology is based on a poor grasp of public policy.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
The article gets it wrong. It says:
...most voters are locked in to their ideological party loyalty. But Lars Hall, a cognitive scientist at Lund University in Sweden, knew better.
1) Voters are not locked into their *ideological* party. They are locked into their *political* party. This is a very important difference!
Most people follow the color, the banner, or the party name -- not the philosophy. Philosophy is something people think about, study, and decide upon using rational thought. But political parties (at least in the US) rarely actually follow a philoshy. The usually use the looser term "platform" which consists of a series of malleable ideas that can actually mean the exact opposite of what the original underlying philisophy might have once been.
Ex: Republicans are "fiscally conservative" thus they are against welfare spending. Not quite! They are against welfare for the poor and minorities. But they are in favor of welfare for the elderly and veterans. The true "conservative" is fiscally conservative equally to all people. Republicans tend to believe in states rights: except for marijuana, gay marriage, and gambling. George HW Bush campaigned on the conservative principle of getting out of the affairs of other nations. Then he invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. One can play the same game for democrats too. Party != Philosophy.
2) "Political magic" and "Voter manipulation" as it is called in the article does not mean the voter changed their actual vote. People often act and sound more open minded then they actually are once they walk into the polling booth.
Remember there are several definitions of fairness: equality and equity. I'm a fan of equity..ie earned reward.
Typical liberal doctrine says they want equal rights.Yet their methods (laws passed, policies enacted) build systemic bias in society that benefits one group over another under the assumption (or made up malarkey) that there's an existing, systemic, opposing bias (some would call this a conspiracy theory). To my knowledge, there are no federal laws creating quotas for gays yet.. If they retain power long enough, you can bet there will be eventually. I don't just want rights for gays. I want rights for every citizen.
---
For the immediate future, you're right. However, history has shown that governments tend to draw more and more power to themselves no matter how they're designed to resist that natural tendency. So, when deciding policy, I'd rather encourage a culture that knows how to handle firearms and stand up for its rights, than a soccer mom culture that fears its own shadow. The latter is easily manipulated into losing other rights, not just because it's not armed, but because it has learned helplessness syndrome. From a psychological perspective, taking gun rights away just helps grow that soccer mom impotence.
I realize that today's culture is not the midwest of the 1880s, but I dont want it becoming the 'soft' (or even eastern bloc) socialism of 1980s+ Europe either. There are elements from the former that we need to relearn in order to keep us away from the latter.
"Libertarian" covers a whole gamut of political opinions, ranging from anarcho-capitalists (think Ayn Rand) to anarcho-communism (abolishing of private property), weaving between straight up-anarchists (no rules) and closer-to-mainstream minarchists (less rules). It's largely a meaningless term, unless further qualified.
Minarchists (what the GP is most probably referring to) generally enumerate the functions government should provide, and limit regulations to those functions. Which particular functions they believe government should provide varies from viewpoint to viewpoint, but often includes things like military, border security, justice and police, contract enforcement, responsibility for the commons, and regulation of natural monopolies (roughly in order from most accepted to least).
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
That can't be said enough. wish i had points.
I LIVE in the USA and it's so much worse having to live with their ignorance as it tears up the once great nation (or that is what I was taught, maybe it never was all that great.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Did you miss the part where he said "until you reach a near-unity proportion"? Unity is what your 162/162 example is. Seems like you need to take some statistics courses.
It's no different than Fan Boys of Microsoft or Apple.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Speaking of Fan Boys and Homers...
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Take a look at Political Compass. It at least splits economic and social issues, and does a decent job of explaining the different combinations. It also nicely shows how the Democrats and Republicans aren't as different overall as they would have you believe.
I'd bet that if you conducted the experiment in the USA the results wouldn't be much different. People are people.
I think that it did work in the past and will continue to work very short term into the future. I just think it will be ineffective in 5-10 years and so a different solution must be found. If we try to solve the problem entirely with gun control then all the causes of violence will remain but the availability of guns via 3D printing will increase.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
And here is a classic example of tribalism.
I worked with a young lady who gleeful told me of going to school in Ithaca, New York and going to protest George H. Bush. She didn't even give me time to ask and went on to say they didn't know why, it was just the thing to do.
Tribalism. Face Painters, Homers, Fan Boys. All the same.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Judgement free zones are not a right. See, the problem with identity politics is that certain groups are shielded from criticism. So the employer of a gay person has to tread lightly when the gay employee doesn't do a good job, or risk a lawsuit. This is true for women and non-white people as well. Any accusation can be deflected with a counteraccusation of discrimination (or in the case with women, outright assault). Conversely, when a protected group member gets a promotion/access to exclusive schooling/wins a legal case etc, the unprotected groups are left wondering whether this person got it by earning it, or due to (legal or white knighted) political manipulation. This PC culture has invaded nearly every aspect of life.
People in free societies do not have the right to not be criticized because the same right to wear their shit on their shoulders if they choose gives others the right to criticize (or complement) in response. In order to protect this, our culture needs to (re)learn the coping skills that, really, all people should have learned by age 15. What we have today is a culture that runs crying to the courts every time its butt gets hurt. The solution is to fix the oversensitivity, not to whitewash everything down to the lowest common denominator in order to avoid offense. The latter builds even more sensitive people who'll bitch about even smaller minutiae.
--
The people advocating for restrictions should be the ones who have to justify themselves.
--
I think there's plenty of examples, both from media outlets and in anecdotal experiences about the passive aggressive bullying and psychological manipulation that goes on in american public schools these days. The fact these shooters are targeting schools (for many, the one they graduated from) instead of just going apeshit in random places with lots more targets, suggests that their school experiences played a large role in their motivations.
Simply locking the tools away will not stop people from taking things apart. All it might do is raise the difficulty bar slightly, so instead of 26 kids dying by gunfire, it'll be 260 kids dying from a homemade explosive. The latter is harder to make/use and thus needs more motivation, but it does a lot more damage The right way to deal with these kinds of issues is to find the systemic sources and minimize them. Jumping to reactionary containment policies just builds pressure to the next critical point, resulting in more extreme reactions and counterreactions that are ultimately self defeating for everyone.
First of all, it's the rate of violence that matters, not the rate of "gun violence". Being shot to death isn't any worse than being poisoned or stabbed to death. Secondly, the rate of violent crime in the US is down by more than half over the same time period, so maybe it's the gun laws an maybe it isn't. Finally, improved safety is not an especially good reason to give up on important freedoms. Banning guns or imposing strict controls only sounds reasonable to people who don't value their gun rights in the first place.
Actually, it seems they are trying to get parents on welfare to give a shit about their kids. Something that decidedly is not happening now.
Ad before you even start, just ask any teacher what the biggest problem is at low income school...lack of parental involvement.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
What would be your suggestion on moving away from the current situation?
Same here. The only 2 planks of the republican party I agree with are smaller government and gun control is (usually) wrong. Yet those are my 2 strongest beliefs, hence I tend to vote republican even when the candidate is a total douchebag. To my mind, keeping taxes down and protecting the 2nd amendment override my feelings on gay marriage, abortion, evolution in schools, immigration, racism, ... oh jeez everytime I do this I wonder why I still support republicans.
AFAIK, none.
There's a lot of "privileges" that blacks get, though; and some of those can actually be detrimental. For example, black students are more likely to get the "privilege" of getting remidial classes, even if they don't need them (and would be better off in regular, or even advanced, classes).
sorry, forgot to say one more thing.. as far as marriage goes, I think the state should not get involved with it, period. That frees up legal adults to enter whatever contracts they like with whomever they like.
As far as bullying goes, like I said in my other post, a lot of it comes from the systemic problems in schools, but as individuals, kids need to learn coping skills to deal with it, and adults need to be more tolerant of schoolyard squabbling.. better they have it out with fists in 6th grade than let it simmer in passive aggressive squabbling until losing it senior year. Of course, fist fights result in borderline expulsions nowadays: a prime example of that oversensitive culture overreacting.
Adoption isn't a right. It's a privilege and for good reason.
Anyone has a right to dress and act how they choose, but, like I said before, others also have the right to judge you fit or unfit in some context as a result. It's society's job to ensure children mature and become as personally secure as possible. It is not society's job to encourage and then prop up insecurity, no matter what the hilarys, obamas, and other sob story hucksters of identity politics would have us think.
Bullet control. You can print all the guns you like but what you going shoot out of them?
I'm not daring enough to suggest that I have all the answers to make things better, but I know enough to know what would make things worse. Before we start improving, we have to stop getting worse.
If I have to pick one thing that might have a chance at breaking the two party system, then I'd suggest holding instant runoff elections for popular contests.
--Jim (me)
"nearly half of all voters were open to changing their minds", they say.
Which means that *more* than half are not.
Those are the ones to be really worried about... because close-mindedness only breeds prejudice and bigotry,
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
If you are really interested in what libertarians think about corporatism and what their policy would be in regard to it if they had power, why don't you, I don't know, like, ASK THEM? THIS also might possibly cause you to re-examine things. Just google "libertarianism corporatism". I can certainly recommend investigating some of the top site hits; it was helpful to me. Libertarianism and CLASSICAL liberalism (not the abortion of liberal socialism as found in most of the West) share so many points, they are practically the same thing.
Hint: you entirely miss the point of libertarianism with your comment. Maybe libertarian policies if implemented would work to bring about what libertarians say they want, or maybe it's an unworkable pipe dream, but it propose REAL solutions to the problems you seem to care about.
Banning guns or imposing strict controls only sounds reasonable to people who don't value their gun rights in the first place.
You don't have to ban guns, just enact reasonable measure to ensure only appropriate guns are available for appropriate means. And you're right, it does sounds reasonable to people who value things like health, education and safety over some redneck fascination with a weapon.
Bullying can also go way over the line and teachers rarely step in to stop it. Kids do learn coping skills, they are not always skills you want them to learn. Some of them have learned that shooting their classmates gets rid of the problem. It is hard to stand up to 20+ kids that want to beat you up because the teacher pointed out that you wrecked the curve for the entire class. You start to learn other methods to deal with problems. You do things like read up on human anatomy and learn nerve strikes. Kids are some of the nastiest creatures around and adults can and should intervene to keep things from getting out of hand.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
"Remember there are several definitions of fairness: equality and equity. I'm a fan of equity..ie earned reward."
And I don't think a person should need to earn the privilege of not being disparaged or having their rights abridged. Equity is meaningless in a system where some people start so far behind that they never see any reward and other people start so far ahead that they never have to care.
"Yet their methods (laws passed, policies enacted) build systemic bias in society that benefits one group over another under the assumption (or made up malarkey) that there's an existing, systemic, opposing bias (some would call this a conspiracy theory)."
So when multiple states pass laws expressly and intentionally limiting the rights of homosexuals, it is "malarkey" to suggest that this is the result of a conspiracy against homosexuals? And liberals are wrong to wish to address laws and policies intended to curtail the rights of homosexuals with laws and policies intended to ensure those rights? What do you expect them to do, sit around and sing "Kumbaya" until everything gets magically better?
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
He does have a bit of a point. Who would want to vote for the party who filibustered the civil rights act?
From 1967 to 2009 they had a KKK leader as a primary leader of their party. (Byrd's first elected office was when he was elected to a KKK leadership position.)
Regarding women, they voted 170-85 against women's right to vote.
So he's got a point, who would want to vote for that party, the Democrats? I'd sure go with the party that voted FOR women's rights (Republicans 81-34 for women's right to vote , 1915), the party who pushed the Civil Rights Act through against the democrat filibuster, etc.
Bullet control is likely to work much better for a while. We seem farther off for doing things like molecular construction which you would need for making bullets. Background checks for buying bullets is probably also a very good idea. I just don't see much hope in controlling the actual guns and so it mostly just serves as a PR issue but it won't change anything.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
That is what I love about Colorado. I think it is one of only two states where you can put state constitutional amendments on the ballot. That is how things like balanced budgets, laws about election financing (until the supreme court overturned that one for everyone with money= speech) and many other good things. Politicians will never vote for term limits or pretty much anything else to limit their power, they won't pass laws requiring fracking to be done in a safe manner and inspected. Thankfully here the votes can sign a petition, put it on the ballot and vote for it directly. Even with marijuana legalization the state government is carrying that out and even though the governor disagrees with it he is still actively getting it working because that is what the people voted for.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
sorry I missed the 'not'. been a long day.
A lot of that came about from the Matthew Shepard case. Everybody involved, including the prosecutor, believed that his sexuality had nothing to do with his murder. The perp just got off of a meth binge was looking for somebody to rob for drug money. The only people who believed it was about his sexuality was Shepard's mom and the court of public opinion.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
My "health, education and safety" haven't been impacted by guns so far, and that's the case for most people. While its true that some fall victim to accidents with guns or violence carried out with guns, it's not by any means a major public health crisis. It's a problem that's on the decline and even if it weren't there are other ways to address it than by restricting access to guns.
And as for "some redneck fascination with a weapon," do I sound like a redneck to you? I just don't want another "war on drugs" based some nonexistent public health crisis.
After the assault weapons ban expired crime dropped. If we're to use correlation we can "prove" exactly the opposite point. Fact is that this is social science and drawing firm conclusions from data correlations are questionable at best.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
I think the state should not get involved with it, period.
If the state is going to grant legal rights such as inheritance and over 1000 others it has to be involved.
The general idea for 'hate crimes' is a person commits a major felony, from a select list of violent felonies, AND the evidence indicates there are additional consequences to many other people AND the perp meant to produce those consequences. That's how these laws are written in the overwhelming majority of cases, that the prosecution has to prove ALL those things. I.e Criminal X committed, for example, Murder One, and Criminal X also indicated there was intention to make many other people suffer, fear for their lives, stop exercising their rights, or otherwise be injured. Whether it's a klansman hanging a black man for having made efforts to get more black people to the polls on election day, or a rapist sending a letter to the local paper warning all women to get back to the home or be presumed whores who deserve what he's dishing out, the person charged has to commit a major felony, and has to make threats or otherwise indicate they are trying to do additional harm to others by it. So why is it a conservative position to be soft on particularly violent murderers and rapists who are trying to add more victims to their talley? How did the conservative movement ever become the appologists for the worst of the worst? How does this idea that liberals are the ones soft on crime persist when self appointed spokesmen for the right are reduced to trying to oppose punishing murderers and rapists for aggravating circumstances? Read the actual laws, not what some nut such as Coulter has said about them, and decide for yourself.
Who is John Cabal?
Well what do you mean by positive impact? In my opinion, regulations shouldn't extend to e.g. the trans fat, salt, msg, or sugar content of food. I think it is common sense that these are unreasonable regulations and shouldn't exist. That's just mothering people. I've already got a mother. I don't need a second one who if I disobey I'll be forced to go to jail.
Can it have a positive impact? I suppose some derp who only eats whatever he can find at the corner vendor might see a positive impact, until he goes down to the grocery store and buys it anyways. That's not common sense, that's just being a self righteous douche who thinks he should have the ability to say what thou shalt not do. Thus the reason for my overall view of the democratic party.
I'm also in favor of the unconditional legalization of all narcotic substances (I'm looking at you, Chuck Schumer) and I think it's a bit stupid that we have an entire month dedicated to 12% of the population.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
So the original poster is trying to tell us that the "Lie" is a proven technique for swaying a political outcome?
I think we may already have known that one, but thanks.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
It does seem that, in the USA, the "two party" system has pretty much locked things up.
You have different positions on "seemingly" opposite sides... but the "sides" are artificial. There are lots of folks like you. The problem is the current setup has polarized everyone into one camp or the other, when, in reality, they are BOTH chiseling away our rights. Neither side ever UNDOES what the other side does, just adds their own rules, as they take turns in power.
The way things are going, we will soon be back to a two tier society - the ruling class and the serfs. America had a pretty good run at letting the free go, for a while, but now it is going back to traditional ways...
>>I will ever maintain that there's no legitimate objection to gay marriage
I agree. I am in a gay relationship with my younger brother (27), who is bi and has a girlfriend. While I am not sexually attracted to her, I like her a lot and the three of us would like to get married. However, due to current laws against incest, polygamy, and gay marriage, that's not likely to happen. We are all consenting adults; why shouldn't we be allowed to have a group marriage? I could see a potential issue if it involved minors, but if one more Republi-fascist compares our living situation to bestiality (which I find disgusting, but whatever floats your boat), I'll scream.
3. #2 also applies to gays. They should have a right to live how they wish like everyone else. They don't deserve the special privileges or attention they get from the left.
What special privileges do you suppose liberals are trying to get for gays. The right to marry the person of their choice just like a heterosexual can?.
The special privileges granted to married couples. How about we just do away with those entirely? Allow people to form whatever family units they want. Don't give special tax statuses. Allow inheritance under uniform rules. Allow whomever somebody wants to be involved in medical decisions.
Recognizing gay marriage perpetuates the problem; the real solution is to de-recognize marriage as a special state of being. Just let people make their own decisions.
Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
Well, if the Republicans of 1915 were running in current races, that would be a different matter. Heck, even the Republican party that supported Reagan-era top marginal tax rates (higher top tax rates than now) would provide a nice alternative slightly to the left of Obama. But the Republicans (and Democrats) of 2012 have little to do with groups of the same name from decades ago. With the exception of Byrd, most of the notorious anti-civil-rights Democrats (like the long-lived Strom Thurmond) eventually switched party affiliations, and ended their careers as Republican candidates. The "Southern Strategy" era, where the Republican party intentionally courted the racist vote to turn the once-solidly-blue South into the solid "red" area today was remarkably successful, and cemented the modern Republican party as undisputed champions of neo-Confederate racists and the Religious "women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen" Right.
So, if you're blind to the last several decades of history, you might accidentally vote for the Republican party assuming that they were progressives in civil and gender rights. However, assuming you haven't Rip-Van-Winkled the last couple decades away in slumber, it's pretty obvious where the party currently stands.
That's one thing I love about calling myself libertarian. There isn't much room for pigeonholing when you think about it. Look at slashdot, there are a bunch of self identified liberal commenters on here who are anti-gun control. Yet when they call themselves liberal, it's generally assumed to be that they are in favor of gun control.
A sometimes perk of identifying as libertarian, it that seems everybody likes to give you their ration of shit, and it's nice because you get to damage their credibility when you break their straw man arguments (e.g. attacking you on positions that you've never held) which enables you to better speak amongst the noise of everybody else coming down upon you for not falling in line with the popular view.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
>> And you're right, it does sounds reasonable to people who value things like health, education and safety over some redneck fascination with a weapon.
I don't own a gun, but quite honestly, I'd be very happy with laws requiring gun ownership and training. The second amendment is what guarantees the rest. If anything, gun laws are already too restrictive; we'd have no chance against our own government toe to toe.
Sorry but us Americans are stubborn assholes who dont care about the issues all we care about is what the party says on the issue.
Hi. I'm an American too. We aren't all stubborn assholes. Case in point, I tracked down this poster and told a truck full of passing conservatives that a single mother lived at the poster's home address and was collecting welfare. I don't think we'll be seeing him after tonight.
(notice: no malice intended or implied in the below, on the contrary)
;) Yeap... I have to admit there exist Americans that aren't only stubborn but also inventive/imaginative assholes; the later make use of stubborn only assholes as a maneuver mass to achieve their purpose (still stubbornly followed). :)
Sounds like you are pretty close to a successful lobby career, is that what you are training for?
(ducks)
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
What would be your suggestion on moving away from the current situation?
But... that's elementary!! Immigrate, of course.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
"When U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney said last year that he was not even going to try to reach 47% of the US electorate"
Got to wonder about an article that starts out this way. Grant you, I haven't gone back and reviewed the video in a while. Still, I'm pretty sure what he said was that about 47% of the population wouldn't be interested in him and a platform for a smaller government.
Well, after five seconds of googling I found:
Romney: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what it looks like. I mean, when you ask those peoplewe do all these polls—I find it amazing—we poll all these people, see where you stand on the polls, but 45 percent of the people will go with a Republican, and 48 or 4
I did enjoy, however, how you removed the inflammatory notion that "there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it" and replaced it with "a platform for a smaller government."
It's amusing to call out one summary as being inaccurate and replace it with your own inaccuracies. I found the line you quoted from the summary more accurate about Romney's "giving up on them" attitude than your "they refuse a small government."
Every campaign focuses their attention on those votes they're most likely to get. You didn't see Obama spending a lot of his campaign in states that weren't likely to go his way no matter what. Certainly he had his strategy sessions that had they been publicly released wouldn't be especially flattering either.
So quote them. Go ahead, you don't think he's mindful of what he says to a large group of people? Your accusations that Obama was just as bad as Romney are backed up with absolutely zero citations.
My work here is dung.
That's funny. You couple your stunning ignorance regarding the value of the 2nd amendment with lunacy like "appropriate guns for appropriate means", and who gets to decide that? Ohh right enlightened folks like you, I'll bet. Aaaand to top it off you insult gun owners by regarding them as brain dead white trash.
You have loads of credibility after that. No wonder your laughable anti-gun "arguments" never gain traction with people who think for themselves.
What's wrong with a Will? Can't we agree that if I don't write down who I want to inherit my crap it gets sold off, my debts repaid, and if there's anything left it's donated to education?
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
I just took a poll. Based on that poll, 100% of Americans think you are wrong. The sample size of my poll: one.
Obviously a sample size of 1 is useless, 2 slightly less useless, and 10 nearly useless. A sample size of ALL would perfectly represent the population. Therefore we can see the general rule - the larger the sample size, the more accurate it is.
Minor correction: Ayn Rand was no anarcho-capitalist. Indeed, she wrote quite a bit about how the anarchists (including the anarcho-capitalists) were a bunch of idiots and any "anarcho-"system would quickly devolve into dictatorship. She was a "minarchist" using your terms: the proper role of government is police, courts, and military.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
As Crocodile Dundee pointed out, there are knives, and then there are knives.
Regarding the recent spree stabbing in Texas involving 14 victims, it's said he used an x-acto type hobby knife, i.e. among pointy things it ranks pretty low on the danger scale. As much as I've researched, I've never been able to find what sort of blade the most recent spree-stabber in China used, for all we know it was something equivalent. Prior Chinese nutters used kitchen knives and cleavers, and many of their victims didn't fare so well.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
I haven't watched cable TV in a long time now, and lost interest in politics (mostly) over a year ago, but as I recall Fox didn't really do that. In fact, most of the stuff I heard about Fox didn't even end up being true. They follow the same format as everybody else from what I could determine. They have soft news and hard news. Slashdot actually had an article not long ago that found MSNBC is far more biased than Fox, hell Chris Matthews basically calls everybody a racist every other day, but nobody ever talks about that.
I think the major beef that people have with Fox news is that its soft news leans right whereas the rest lean left. So naturally, it catches the most heat.
From my perspective, either they are all doing that or they all aren't. And you're basically falling into the same trap that I'm talking about. You're pitching them on one side and rooting for the other side.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
"Sample of 162 in 9.5 Million"
This is the dumbest goddamn thing you can say about statistics.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Too bad for you I watched Jon Stewart tonight. Seriously, I don't get why Republicans think they can bamboozle everybody with history
You didn't need to specifically tell us that you get your news and information from a comedian, that's obvious.
Sorry to be throwing all those historical facts at you. I know Maher-Stewart drones prefer wishes over facts.
Facts are stubborn things.
Disregard my post, I didn't read GP carefully. I believe you are correct, assuming several things are true. That assumes that the sample is small compared to the population. Sampling 10 people of 30 will be more accurate than 10 people of 3 million.
Further, it assumes the sample size is "large", I believe. A small sample can more accurately represent a small population than it can a large population. (Ask four kernel developers their opinion of ext4 and you'll likely get respresentatoie opinions. Ask four Americans about abortion and you've learned nothing.) A large sample, however, can represent any size population ROUGHLY equally.
You cannot grant rights. Rights are things you have because it is your right. Rights are not given by the state/constitution/whatever. The promise to uphold our rights are what the state is there to assure.
I would find this maybe sensical if the Republicans had, in the last ten or twenty years, ever actually tried to advocate for policies that were likely to actually lead to lower taxes. You can't be the party of small government while creating whole new categories of quasi-law-enforcement with unlimited powers and no accountability, and proposing to spend millions of dollars of taxpayer money trying to force the creation of Creationist-friendly textbooks, prevent women from getting abortions, prevent gay people from marrying, and so on.
They aren't the party of smaller government, and haven't been in a long time. They are the party that uses the phrase "small government" a lot while constantly looking for new ways to expand government powers and spend more money.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
This!!! When parents act like kids themselves, there is no hope. The older a child and teenager gets, the more solidified said behavior becomes in the brain. They grow up, have kids of their own and the cycle repeats. The root causes are systemic. Issues range from single parents to said parents being so busy trying to make ends meet that school becomes the new "day care". Teachers aren't allowed to teach and the educational curriculum is a joke. No, it's worst than a joke. It actually damages the minds of children to actually learn as they get older in life.
America has lost it's core family values to consumerism. Pure and simple. Conservatism is *dead* as a political institution. A lot of people are extremely happy about that. But society can only last so long on hubris, vanity, and narcissism before the whole system implodes. And it all started with the 1960's counterculture. These things take time before it reaches the crescendo like we have today.
Life is not for the lazy.
To make it easy, suppose a sample size of one and a population of four. You can say with certainty that "at least 25% of the Morris family thinks Bush sucked and Obama sucks twice as bad". So for a small population, even a sample size of ONE tells you something.
Compare to a sample size of one and a population of four million - you can draw no conclusion for the large population.
If the population is very large, and the sample is large, it doesn't much matter just how "very large" the population is.
For example, PBS is insanely profitable (its executives make over 300,000 per year) yet how dare anybody suggest we stop handing them free money, because clearly that means they hate children.
That's not true. Maybe you didn't know it was a lie, and are just stating what you honestly believe to be fact, but it's a lie all the same. I blame Romney for creating this ridiculous talking point in the debates last year.
You can review PBS's financial statements for yourself. They lost ~$30 million in the past year, and a similar amount the year before -- page 5, "Change in net assets" row, "Total" columns for both 2012 and 2011.
They've got enough money that they could last for a while without public funding, but not forever. Cutting executive pay wouldn't make a difference. Also, I find it funny that banks need to pay millions of dollars of tax payer bailout dollars as bonuses to retain "top talent", but it's outrageous when PBS or schools want to spend a fraction of that to keep their top employees.
And really, it's a trivial cost for tax payers to bear (something like $1 per person per year), and provides our kids with educational programming that doesn't smother them with ads or ADHD-inducing hyperactive crap.
America doesn't have a financially liberal party
Really? Because the Republicans want to tax me and liberally give to oil and defense subsidies and CEOs, while the Democrats want to tax me and liberally give to the health insurance companies and alternate energy subsidies and CEOs.
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
That's as relevant as the individuals who mention that Lincoln was a Republican, suggesting that his party should earn your loyalty more than a century later. The world of politics doesn't quite work like that, friend.
The social realities of gun violence in Australia are different than the social realities of the US.
In the US, the vast majority of gun violence is gang-related. I'd have to find the numbers again, but they seemed to indicate that the US has less non-gang gun violence per capita than other western countries with strict gun control. You average American Joe, even those nutter redneck stereotypes, respect firearms, generally treat them safely, and generally do not use them as a crutch through which to turn to violence. It's the problems of poverty, social and racial segregation, erosion of strong family units, and cultures of anti-authority and anti-success that breed gangs and their related violence here. In factual, statistical reality, gun violence is not a widespread problem cutting through the general cross-section of America; it's localized to gang-ridden areas, and those numbers are large enough to skew the averages.
Given all of this, I doubt the efficacy of gun control laws to significantly impede the access of firearms to organized criminal groups who already procure their weapons through illegal means. The only type of gun control that would work against the majority of gun violence in America would be that which targeted the illegal channels, not the legal owners. All of the proposed legislation I've heard about only ever talks about regulating legal sales.
What you call "common sense" in this case is anathema to standard politics. Political parties work by funneling money through regulations, not by using regulations to do the right thing. It is a major shift here in political ideology to have a party actually stand on this type of platform.
"Really? Because the Republicans want to tax me and liberally give to oil and defense subsidies and CEOs, while the Democrats want to tax me and liberally give to the health insurance companies and alternate energy subsidies and CEOs."
A bit simplified, but for an outsider like me, it sure looks that way.
This finding will be good for the Democrats, since it's science, Republicans won't touch it with a ten foot pole, after all they have their own statistics as we saw the last election.
4. The argument for gun control is childish at best: "daddy maybe if we make the guns go away no one will kill one another anymore".
The problem with this childish argument is that it is supported by evidence. You can't just label it "childish" and hope it would dissappear. Look at this stats: http://www.buzzfeed.com/bookofodds/who-is-most-likely-to-murder-you-1dx6 and see, that most people likely to murder you have easy access to your guns, be them acquaintances, girlfriends, boyfriends, parents, children or spouses.
Given, that 60% percent of gun related deaths are suicides, it looks as if having a gun is dangerous mainly to yourself and your close environment more than to everyone else. Not having a gun in your environment will thus lower your chance of dying by firearms down to slightly more than 1/20 (1,600 deaths vs. 31,000).
I would disagree on your assessment. As someone who is culturally a Democrat, there's a hell of a lot of Democrats who want to interfere with your personal life and this has become more and more acceptable in the past 20 years. We're at the point where the government regulating the salt content of your food is acceptable to some Democrats. (I mean seriously, the science is shaky, and there are people like me who train 15+ hours a week, have low blood pressure, and almost never eat out, and if I want to order a burger and fries the government needs to enforce it to be bland for health reasons that will never, ever occur to my body?)
You don't speak for all libertarians, I am against all regulations completely. There should be no government involvement in anything beyond what is absolutely minimal authorisation provided by the Constitution and there is nothing there about any air or soot.
I am FOR regulations, I am for regulations by the free market, not by any person, don't care who that person is and what they think they know and what they think we should do.
You can't handle the truth.
No more than 22% of the manipulated answers were detected, and 92% of the study participants accepted the manipulated summary score as their own.
Which appears to indicate that a least 14% accepted the manipulated answers as their own after detecting that they were manipulated. I'd also suggest that this study has a pretty significant bias because if you find someone with no short term memory who is somehow really fooled into believing that the opposite answers are their own, they may go along so as not to appear foolish i.e. they have not changed their mind but rather than admit to completely misreading the survey they just agree to save face.
Hall has used a similar sleight of hand before to show that our moral compass can often be easily reversed.
Wait, what? Wasn't this article all about politics? What in the universe does that have to do with morality?
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
Newtown? I think you mean Port Arthur. Maybe you thought Newtown (there are three or four or so places with that name in Australia according to Wikipedia) because the killer was from New Town (note the space), Hobart.
Also, the level of gun violence in Australia is still about the same level it was. Mostly confined to "criminal bikie gangs" ("outlaw motorcycle gangs").
Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia says:
"Firearm laws in Tasmania and Queensland remained relatively relaxed for longarms. In 1995, Tasmania had the second lowest rate of homicides per head of population."
Etc.
In other words, I think that you are not correct.
HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
Are you suggesting that there are people who wake up in the morning and go "Hey, that regulation is totally unreasonable, so I'll support it 100%"?
See: Goldilocks, porridge.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The republicans are a financially conservative party that wants to interfere with your personal life
The democrats are a financially conservative party that doesn't want to interfere with your personal life
America doesn't have a financially liberal party
Er. fiscal conservative = "One who favors a balanced budget, prefering spending cuts or tax increases to borrowing, and wants to decrease government size, and promote a free market."
Liberal = "Generous, willing to give unsparingly" (etc.) E.g. don't sprinkle salt on your food so liberally.
So, both major parties in the USA are very liberal in how they spend other people's money (they just have different priorities). Also, both of them want to interfere in your personal life. E.g. the Dems don't want you to use drugs, and the Repubs don't want you to have an abortion (or use drugs). Both parties are also on the right-wing (e.g. strong supporters of corporatism).
I think what you meant to write was "America doesn't have a financially conservative party".
HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
Guns kill easier than poison or knifes. Most gun deaths are not premeditated murders. Those are actually really really rare. You could do a premeditated murder with poison, but not the kind of killing that happens with guns. It doesn't matter if you get killed by a gun or a knofe, but it's way easier to kill someone with a gun than knife. Didn't you just have some nut running around and stabbing people? If I remeber correctly tens injured, zero dead, and someone took the knife man down before police arrived? Now what if he had had a gun?
I don't live in the USA, and my constitution doesn't guarantee me a right to bear arms. I don't feel like i'm missing some important right. I could get a gun if I wanted, a legal one too. I'd just have to take shooting as a hobby (any kind, hunting included, or even gun building). I don't see the need to have a gun to start a revolution. We'll jsut burn everything, and starve the government to death if the need comes.
I am FOR regulations, I am for regulations by the free market [...]
You mean like DRM?
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
Maybe it was written by Democrats as a trick to transform your political standing.
That's fine if you don't think it's important. But I don't have any intention of killing you, and I do think its important, so you have no good reason to try to userp my judgement on the matter. Neither of us really knows who is right, so maybe it would be better if we keep out of each others business, right?
It is not liberal or conservative.
Indeed, TFS also seems to imply that people who are willing to change their minds (47%) are comparable to people who haven't made up their mind (%10). They are two separate groups, 10% have not formed an opinion, 47% have formed an opinion and are willing to change it if faced with credible contra-evidence I think the best you can conclude from those two statistics is that the remaining 43% don't need to think about the issues, having picked their team they will remain loyal and enthusiastic cheer leaders, no matter what the outcome.
To Summarize:
10% vote "none of the above"
47% admit they have imperfect knowledge and vote on their current understanding of the competing policies/proposals.
43% put loyalty above every other virtue and will always vote for their team
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Having more than 2 options is very confusing to the Facebook / American Idol / iPhone crowd. You are being rude and inconsiderate by merely suggesting there might be more than 2 points of view --- are you trying to hurt these peoples mental capabilities or what?
That's why facebook hasn't got a "don't like" button - imagine the mental strain on some of the Facebook crowd if you had to decide between "like", "dislike", or ignoring a post.
Wait, we are supposed to vote for our best interests? Here I am voting for people that claim to believe that all people should be treated equally under the law. I should be voting for the guy that promises jobs and special rights for middle aged white guys at the expense of everyone else. Also since I don't use drugs I guess my pro drug legalization position is wrong as well. Wow, it's all so clear now! I don't have to look at secondary and tertiary effects of policies to see how they will work in the real world and only vote for the person that promises me stuff. This is great. I'm off to watch cable news.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
In the Luis Buñuel film That Obscure Object of Desire two actress play the same role. They don't look very much alike, and there is no logic behind which actress appears in which scene. Many people see the film, and if no one points this out they don't notice anything is strange. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That_Obscure_Object_of_Desire
The phenomena is interesting in and of itself, but this is clearly not research, but a stunt to get publicity.
Why is Snark Required?
The democrats are a ... party that doesn't want to interfere with your personal life
Where did you get this idea?
The summary is of course adapted for American audiences with different definitions of many political terms than other parts of the world, but I would still like to offer my corrections of the political situation. The "Conservatives" mentioned are not conservatives, they are mostly liberals, ranging from a self-professed "liberal-conservative" party to a liberal party, a "social values" Christian party which is however very liberal in terms of economic politics nowadays, and a "Center party" (the name is a misnomer, the party has veered far to the right since its golden days). Personally I think the closest description of their collective politics is some type of neoliberal. The other "block", consisting of the Social Democrats, the Left Party and the Greens is not so homogeneous in terms of their political stances as the right-wing, the Social Democrats and the Greens are nowadays essentially liberals, not much difference from the government except for a few minor details, and the Left Party is the only socialist party and the only party that actually advocates something to the left of the status quo.
And regarding the actual topic, I'm not at all surprised, there is very little difference between the two "blocks" as a whole (the exception being the Left Party on the left and (in terms of issues related to a single issue) Sweden Democrats on the "populist" right) and people (unfortunately) mostly vote for purely superficial reasons like how they "percieve" a certain politician.
You're not surprised that there isn't an Asian American month, Jewish American month, Gay American month...? Now a White American month, well that would be just racist.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
If you don't mind me trying to get the first thread back on track, the results quoted here apply to Sweden, not necessarily the U.S.
Sweden has a multi-party parliamentary system. Parliamentary system do create inequality that favors established parties, especially first-past-the-post ones like the U.K. Yet, their process of government formation means electing small parties isn't automatic pork suicide for districts. So at least some small parties get in and influence the direction for future changes.
In other words, Swedes change their mind because they've some choice. American parties more resemble sports teams. Yes, one plays nastier than the other, but fundamentally Americans might not change their minds because neither party represents much meaningful change.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
I think that the grandparent is wrong because of his beliefs, but wrongly held belief by the grandparent poster is that he understand statistics enough to criticise this study.
Who modded this "insightbful"? Neither party is financially (you probably meant "fiscally") responsible. Whether you agree with it or not, confiscating more of my income and further restricting what firearms I can purchase both i"interfere with [my] personal life"
If gun control was responsible for saving just one life then it would be worth it. Violence isn't going away and you're right to suggest that the impact might be limited but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done. In the 5-10 years you suggest this law might be effective, more needs to be done. I don't see the short term potential as a reason for doing nothing though.
Which is funny considering Adam Lanza while he attended public school briefly as an elementary student and for a short time in high school, he was primarily either in catholic school or home schooled.
Sweden is a North European country. The EU is compared to the US a liberal, left wind conglomerate of states. And in the EU the northern countries are even more on the liberal and social side of the spectrum. They have a very low Gini coefficient while the US one is as high as the one in China. Or in other words it has the worst Gini coefficient in a developed country. Their median education is one of the best, the potential to feel left alone is at a minimum. In such environment are the chance higher, that people become open minded.
The far right in the US, are not open to normal communication or discussion. They made their mind up. That is similar to those who believe in conspiracy theories, they reject facts and arguments, because they do not fit their believe. For the rest, that study has a valid point, but I wouldn't hope that the potential to convince people to accept reason can be converted in convinced people.
You would if you were selected out of a group because of your race, gender, religious beliefs, etc and then attacked because the attacker felt you and all your ilk should suffer. Or are you saying in that case the attacker should get off scott free because maybe society made him do it?
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
I'd sure go with the party that voted FOR women's rights (Republicans 81-34 for women's right to vote , 1915), the party who pushed the Civil Rights Act through against the democrat filibuster, etc.
The fallacy of: once right, always right.
Just because a certain party has the better idea than the other once, doesn't mean they always have the most rational/moral/correct position.
IMO, at the current time, both parties' actions are horrible, and both of their agendas are not in the best interests of the country.
IMO, it's time to abolish Democrat and Republican parties, and give the spotlight to some new ideas.
That requires things like lead control. Casting and reloading is remarkably easy.
Secondly, the rate of violent crime in the US is down by more than half over the same time period
Oh there is something to be said for Australia's gun control. While the US's gun and violent crime rate has gone down, only Australia's gun crime rate has gone down over that same period of time. Their violent crime rate has gone up while the trend in the rest of the world is to go down.
Personally, I've always found zealots of either side are far more similar than different. Sure they may have superficial differences in beliefs, etc, but their manner, approach, and fundamental motivations seem very much the same.
-Styopa
If you actually read my comment, you'll note that I included the term "overwhelmingly" . If the votes are 70/30, you could vote for a 3rd party without affecting the distribution much. People have got to stop voting along party lines, when the 2 party system isn't working. If you're in a swing state, or when the race is close, then you're right, it would mess things up. But if you're not, it's time to vote for that 3rd party and send a message that you're willing to mess with the status quo. Until the voting system changes, this is really only the first thing you can do. The 2nd is to write to your representatives, whether you voted for them or not. People that will take the time to write in are more likely to vote, so they're more likely to listen. If enough people write in, with a single issue directed message, maybe something could be done to overcome the current lobbying that's buying their votes.
Direct Democracy/Mob rule is what brought California the 3 strikes law that's now overwhelming prison populations. It's what brought prop 13 that's caused the state's debt problems, which they've been "mitigating" over the years by raising sales tax and state income tax as well as a host of other "creative" taxes everywhere else. It's what brought Prop 8, which would not pass if it was introduced on the ballot a few years from now. Mob rule makes a mess of things as laws get passed on whims and need to be quickly fixed years later, but with broken fixes, instead of repeals.
Given, that 60% percent of gun related deaths are suicides, it looks as if having a gun is dangerous mainly to yourself and your close environment more than to everyone else. Not having a gun in your environment will thus lower your chance of dying by firearms down to slightly more than 1/20 (1,600 deaths vs. 31,000).
Given that nearly 100% of razor blade related deaths are suicides, it looks like having a razor blade is dangerous mainly to yourself and your close environment more than to everyone else. Not having a razor blade in your environment will thus lower your chance of dying by slit wrists.
You should be comparing the number of owned guns to the number of guns used in suicides to determine the danger of owning a gun (as if someone suicidal wouldn't find a different way to kill themselves; ie "being suicidal is dangerous mainly to yourself").
"In the united states, on the other hand, there are only two choices."
Wrong. People are just too brainwashed to consider ALL of their choices.
"each party would sooner take a bullet than agree with something the other said."
Wrong again. What you're watching is political theater. For example, a big argument about an $80B reduction in the annual spending increase is ridiculous in the context of a $1.3T budget deficit. Both parties obviously agree that we should have a massive government and do nothing about the deficit. The other big arguments are mostly emotional BS like gay marriage and abortion. The genuinely important things like war, fiscal policy, trade policy, monetary policy and civil liberties are never the subjects of bitter debate. Gun control is probably the only important issue where there is real political opposition.
I mostly agree. I think in the short run direct democracy can be incredibly effective. It can work well in situations where every participant is dedicated to studying the issues and has the ability to weigh and discuss them. The problem is that situations like that can only exist in artificial conditions and not, say, in a general population where everyone's automatically a citizen by birthright.
Everything will be taken away from you.
I don't think there is one within the generations alive right now. The only real plan I think is to simply live, expand options as much as possible for the next generation and then die to make room. Then repeat as needed until incremental change makes for a wider one or at least provides for additional options for our great great grandkids to work with.
Everything will be taken away from you.
Right, and neither of those two things are fiscally liberal. Hence both main parties in America are not fiscally liberal.
Why the "Really?", what contradiction do you see with those two claims?
Nope, your definitions are just wrong.
Economic liberalism otherwise known as being fiscally liberal, means the opposite of what you seem to think.
The "liberal" doesn't mean "liberal in how they spend other people's money", it's an economic system in which as many of the economic decisions as possible are made by individuals (as opposed to collectives) - the complete opposite of the government deciding how money will be spent.
Sports teams!...haha that is totally true, and the news media has really pushed that direction in the last 10 years. The whole "red vs blue" I think is a trite way of getting Joe Sixpack (the average person) to get interested in politics and increase viewership and voter participation, but oversimplifies it to the point of absurdity and really needs to go away.
But one plays nastier? Which one is that? Politics is politics, and the only politicians that are nice are the ones that either don't have to compete, or have no chance of winning. Politicians from swing constituencies tend to be more nasty, cold, and calculating. I live in a suburban Republican monoculture, and the reps have more of an "administrative" vibe..
I agree with the other comments, it would be nice if there were more variety allowed in the system like in, say, Sweden or the UK. I for one am a devout atheist and despise religious fruitbats, but I also despise overly exuberant government spending, and I'm not alone...but there is no option for that here, you have to take one or the other and that's it!
The real path to male liberation
Oh and before anybody gives me crud for the exuberant government spending comment, in the South voting party line actually does work how you would traditionally expect it to, as opposed to the North where the line is quite a bit more muddled.
The real path to male liberation
smaller government != keeping taxes down.
Smaller government essentially boils down to keeping government spending down. In America that has exactly nothing to do with keeping taxes down. In a sane world it would of course, but we aren't in one.
My "health, education and safety" haven't been impacted by guns so far, and that's the case for most people.
I think you're mistaken. 30,000 people each year die of GSW, and few of them are the victim of random gun violence. 75% of domestic violence homicides are GSW, and you'd be surprised how many of those perpetrators are genuinely remorseful and shocked by their own behavior after they've sobered up and calmed down. Restricting guns won't take away domestic violence, but it will reduce the lethality of the weapon at hand in a fit of rage. Now, it's true that "most people" won't be killed by domestic violence, but I don't think that's any reason to dismiss these people.
All schools, from kindergarten to grad school, have elaborate emergency response programs specifically to deal with the threat of gun violence. In the wake of Newtown, many of them are hiring or adding armed security. True, most students will never see an on-campus shooting, but they do see the metal detectors, the prison-like security does influence their attitudes, and the costs of maintaining this security does come out of the education budget.
Public policy is about weighing the immediate cost to the individual against the diffuse benefit to society. If it were just about weight the cost to the individual against the benefit to that same individual, we'd call it "economics," and it wouldn't be nearly as hard to figure out.
If gun control was responsible for saving just one life then it would be worth it. Violence isn't going away and you're right to suggest that the impact might be limited but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done. In the 5-10 years you suggest this law might be effective, more needs to be done. I don't see the short term potential as a reason for doing nothing though.
If knife control was responsible for saving one life....
If candy control was responsible for saving one life....
If free speech control was.....
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
The republicans are a financially conservative party that wants to interfere with your personal life
The democrats are a financially conservative party that doesn't want to interfere with your personal life
I think if you check the voting record and the actual history of their behaviour, you'll find that you're mistaken on almost all points. Don't just fall for the glossy brochures and TV ads, and don't rely on your recollection of what they were like when you were a kid. Ask what they do now instead. For example, obviously neither of them are financially conservative, and which party did Chris Dodd call home?
You're welcome.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
your wishy-washy political views allow them the split your vote and control the nation. In the end they'll have you voting the corporate party line (and lining their pockets with your hard work) in a desperate effort to hold out on whatever those issues are.
I know the Grandparent is trolling, but he's more or less right. Everything he touches on is economics (even women's rights more or less boil down to money. Rich women had rights and power even in the 1800s). The trouble is, while you're busy being confused about what matters to you and voting on your 'gut instinct' the corps are single issue: money. Your Money. They want it, and with guys like you they're going to get it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I'm a democrat, and much as I hate to admit it he's right. My solution is to always vote as far left as I can. Turn the country left.
As for why he's right, half a percent of the population donates almost all the money in politics. If you're going to be in politics, the top 0.5% are going to make that decision.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Liberal vs Conservative. Even if Americans have no real choice the illusion is there, and the study seems to be more about a universal truth: people can easily be made to change their tune on what looks like a deeply held belief.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You've done a very fine job of refuting the shill's post. Unfortunately, we still have Rand Paul spouting similar nonsense at places like Howard University.
I don't know any details but that's bizarre, was it 14 individual assaults all on people by themselves?
I can't see how you could do that with an x-acto knife in a largish group without there being an available stick or even just a bag of books and someone who has done the tiniest bit of training and can control distance. Sure it's very likely you are going to get cut, but it's unlikely it'll be "your are dead" serious, and it's just as likely you'll smash his hand.
Though I guess, ironically, it's Texas so maybe without a gun handy they can't work out how to defend themselves.
Until you are a member of a group who must constantly put up with abuse and discrimination, your analysis is worthless. I am a white man and I have seen first hand the kind of shit my type does to darker people and to those of the other gender. Open your eyes. It isn't just that "protected classes" are crybabies. They are actual victims of actual abuse and discrimination on a daily fucking basis. Your jealousy over their "special treatment" is akin to wanting the money someone "won" in a lawsuit for being sexually abused for decades - it isn't fucking worth it. And until you suffer similarly, you'll never understand.
The general idea for 'hate crimes' is a person commits a major felony, from a select list of violent felonies, AND the evidence indicates there are additional consequences to many other people AND the perp meant to produce those consequences. That's how these laws are written in the overwhelming majority of cases, that the prosecution has to prove ALL those things. I.e Criminal X committed, for example, Murder One, and Criminal X also indicated there was intention to make many other people suffer, fear for their lives, stop exercising their rights, or otherwise be injured. Whether it's a klansman hanging a black man for having made efforts to get more black people to the polls on election day, or a rapist sending a letter to the local paper warning all women to get back to the home or be presumed whores who deserve what he's dishing out, the person charged has to commit a major felony, and has to make threats or otherwise indicate they are trying to do additional harm to others by it. So why is it a conservative position to be soft on particularly violent murderers and rapists who are trying to add more victims to their talley? How did the conservative movement ever become the appologists for the worst of the worst? How does this idea that liberals are the ones soft on crime persist when self appointed spokesmen for the right are reduced to trying to oppose punishing murderers and rapists for aggravating circumstances? Read the actual laws, not what some nut such as Coulter has said about them, and decide for yourself.
Wow, your description of hate crime law makes it sound reasonable. But in the real world that isn't how it works. In your story, a woman killer, killing other women and sending that letter to the local paper would fit and get extra penalties for it being a hate crime. But it can't be a hate crime because she is the same gender as her victims. A black person can't get perpetrate a hate crime on another black person. It is against the definition. And the way laws are used is not always the same as how they sound. In the real world the prosecutors will try to find every possible law that might apply, and if you are a non-minority who injured a minority they will try to fit in the hate crime laws also. Somehow a minority injuring a non-minority doesn't get the hate crime attention though.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
I hear the term "free market" a lot when talking to Americans. What i have never heard is one instance of a "free market" that actually existed, in what context whatsoever. Do you have an example for me? And maybe even some data?
just enact reasonable measure to ensure only appropriate guns are available for appropriate means
Who decides what's appropriate? I strongly suspect that my definition of appropriate is quite a bit different from yours.
I'd like to see a substantial fraction of stable, law-abiding citizens armed at all times, and in all places, which is why I teach concealed weapon permit classes. I'd also like to see lots of military-style arms in private homes, and I'd specifically like to ensure that the government does not know who does or does not have them, since an important part of their purpose is to maintain the appropriate balance of power between the citizenry and the government. Oh, and people who like to hunt or shoot for sport should have those guns as well, though that's not nearly as important.
And, for that matter, there are plenty of people who disagree with you in the other direction as well, who feel that only soldiers and law enforcement officials should have guns. So for those people the appropriate means would be military training/action and law enforcement only.
My point is that your statement is vacuous, until we can reach some consensus on what "appropriate guns" and "appropriate means" mean.
However, we actually already have a clear definition, given in the prefatory clause of the second amendment. Historical analysis including evidence from contemporary state constitutions, writings of the founders, and especially some of the first laws passed after ratification of the bill of rights make it abundantly clear that the purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that all members of the militia (all able-bodied men 18 through 45) had ready access to appropriate military arms, to be able to form the foot soldiers for the national defensive force, which lacked only organization and some training to be prepared for battle, to repel invasion or to overthrow local tyranny. In the early 21st century, therefore, the appropriate guns for that purpose are M4 and M16 assault rifles -- and by "assault rifles" I mean real, select-fire rifles, not the semi-automatic rifles generally available to civilians. In US v Miller, the Supreme Court laid out this view when they determined that weapons appropriate for military use are what is protected by the second amendment.
My view is consistent with that original intent.
If you hold a view that is different, not only do you need to build consensus around your view, but you also need to amend the Constitution again to bring it around to your view, or at least convince courts that the "reasonable measures" you'd like to enact can survive strict scrutiny, because while the Supreme Court has not yet established a standard of scrutiny for second amendment issues, that's the only one that makes any sense given the stark language and the history of the amendment.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Does that hold true even if it also costs one life? What about two? Ten? One Hundred? Gun control is an unmeasured trade-off - removing guns does not stop criminals completely, but does remove the ability of the honest to defend against those criminals. Attempts to measure the valuation of the trade-off are always influences by outside concerns, so are neither objective nor provably accurate.
You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
"This stuff really wants a proper factory, but there's no reason a network of people couldn't work together to make modern ammunition."
Although at the moment they don't have to because bullets are like candy.
Remember: guns don't kill people, rapidly moving pieces of metal do.
The original intent of hate crimes, at east at the Federal level, was to give Federal law enforcement authorities and Federal courts the powers to arrest and convict civil rights abusers (like lynch mobs) in areas of the US where local and state authorities were profoundly unwilling to pursue such individuals.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You can't be the party of small government while creating whole new categories of quasi-law-enforcement with unlimited powers and no accountability
Just so you know, both parties aggressively pursue the expanded police state. If anything, the Dems push the boundaries and the GOP solidifies the gains.
Obviously you don't understand what free market is and you don't know history.
USA had free market (mostly, as free as it got) in 19th century. No gov't intervention in business, no regulating individuals and businesses, no income related taxes, no wealth taxes, no money printing (except for a short period of time in USA when the Continentals were in existence and then failed spectacularly).
There was no EPA, FDA, SS, Medicare, minimum wage, dep't of education, energy, commerce, interior, agriculture, HUD, F&F, FHA, FDIC, Fed, IRS, FBI, etc.etc. There was no standing army mostly.
That's what a free market is - ABSENCE of all of those things, so when you say: "I have never heard", I say, well, ignorance is bliss.
Today the freest markets are found in Southeast Asia, in Switzerland to a degree. Look at Singapore, no minimum wage, very little regulations, no unemployment (1.8%, what's that, people in vacations and in transit between jobs). There are no gov't guarantees for anything, housing, banking, there is no gov't deposit insurance, there is no universal health care, it's done mostly privately, the pensions are a private matter.
China is remarkably free in terms of commerce, maybe not politics, but definitely it provides a very liberal approach to business investments.
So when you say: there is or there was no free market, you are not understanding what it is. Actually ancient Rome had a relatively free trade market before it turned into an empire. The free trade market gave it the power that allowed Rome to rise above others, then the mob saw it and wanted to get a huge piece of it without actually earning it, they wanted a subsidy and they got a number of dictators, one after the other, until the empire fell. They also devalued their money by coin clipping, same as almost all governments are doing today.
You can't handle the truth.
The problem with "free market proponents" is that they tend to privatise profits and socialize costs. The big bank bailouts and other bailouts of GM and other too-big-to-fail companies are one example. On the one hand the cooperations always tell "don't tax the employers" but then they want tax money to bail them out.
The other problem are hidden costs. Garbage disposal for example. You can throw your garbage in the woods, but then maybe after 10 years you have all kind of stuff in the ground water that harms all (like heavy metals). This cost is hidden, because the cooperation that dumps the garbage in the woods does not need to pay. Here comes taxes and collect this hidden costs.
And the other is regulation. This is a public safety issue. Self-control and self-regulation do not work and it cannot work. It's just a simple conflict of interests. Fresh water, fresh air, salmonella in the food, anti-biotics in the food, etc. pp. Also regulation helps to cut down on the hidden costs. If 10,000 people gets sick because of salmonella in the food that are hidden costs. The sick can't work, need to go to doctor, that are costs. But the food processing plant is not paying this costs.
Furthermore, public services. Hospitals, police, fire, health care, schools needs to be public. Profit making and public services do not work. You can argue about "free loaders" and "law-of-jungle" and some other crap. But we are social people and not some animals. There are many reasons why someone becomes dependent. Be it sickness, accidents, crime. If you really believe in "law-of-jungle" go to Somalia or some other third-world country with no functional government.
At last, there is infrastructure. IMHO Internet lines should be public infrastructure like roads. And invenstition to technology. Of course that is just a short list and very basic, I don't have the time to write a whole thesis. This all must be done of course with minimal waste, efficient and minimal corruption.
Do you mean sugar drinks or fast food? That is hidden costs. Of course it shouldn't be forbidden, but it should be regulated and taxed like any other dangerous substance.
And about your 12% month. Do you have to participate? Stay at home, stay at work, watch TV. What do you care what some people do? Tells a lot about your character that you can't just be happy for your fellow citizens, that are not bothering you in any way.
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
.. in that you take what you can through bribery and manipulation.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
I am not anonymous coward, but am taken aback by your candor.
True intellectuals avoid this kind of condescension. 2nd grade, really? Why not just make a teaching moment and take the high road?
Instead you chose to participate in my survery, and the results are in. Statistically speaking, based on a sample of 2/100 of your posts, I can reliably determine you're an egotistical twat.
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
So it's wrong to judge a party for their positions from 1957, because that was OMG 56 years ago and things have changed dramatically, But because of the election strategy used in 1968, we should all assume that everything is exactly the same as it was 45 years ago and nothing at all has changed, and all the same party leaders are in charge?
I think you have fallen into a partisan fallacy that provides excuses for supporting your team rather than taking an objective view of the current environment. Are we supposed to ignore all the damage that liberal Democratic policies have done to minority communities over the last 40 years? All based on a battle between the parties to secure the "racist vote" over 40 years ago? Do you really think that constituency is (in 2013) so prevalent in the electorate that political strategists think they can win elections by catering to them?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
The general idea for 'hate crimes' is a person commits a major felony, from a select list of violent felonies, AND the evidence indicates there are additional consequences to many other people AND the perp meant to produce those consequences.
What's amazing is you actually trying to claim that hate crime prosecutions are actually handled this way. It's demonstrably false. People are charged with a "hate crime" whenever they are NOT a member of a "protected" group (but the victim is), and there is some media coverage of the crime. That's pretty much it. It's more to do with perceived community hatred of the perpetrator than it is the perpetrator's intent.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I think the state should not get involved with it, period.
If the state is going to grant legal rights such as inheritance and over 1000 others it has to be involved.
To reach this conclusion you have to start with the premise that the State has the right to your money and property. Try starting with the premise that they do not, and you realize that the State has simply fooled you into being a slave that requires you to prostrate yourself before it and request to be allowed to keep your own stuff, and dispose of it as you see fit.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
No, they use the American definition of "Fiscal conservative", which treats each word separately.
Conservative = "Favoring the maintenance of the status quo"
Fiscal status quo in the USA = "Deficits, Deficits, Deficits for the last 50+ years".
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
In his book, The Righteous Mind, Jon Haidt covers this phenomenon quite thoroughly. It comes down to this: in spite of what we might like to think, most of our beliefs are built on uncontrollable, gut reactions. Our thinking and explanations of those reactions are post-hoc justifications to convince others that we are correct and that they should be on our side. In this case, the gut reaction has simply been replaced by a vote. If the participants believed that to be their response to the situation, it's not surprising that they would construct post-hoc rationalizations to justify their behavior.
Australia came up with a much more strict gun control laws after a massacre at a place called Newtown. The result is that they have a much lower rate of gun violence compared to before the gun control laws. Gun control works.
You're wrong, gun crime went way up. In fact, they didn't even have laws on the books to deal with home invasion before the ban, because it was pretty unheard of. Since the gun ban, home invasions have become epidemic.
The only statistically significant positive change that can came from banning guns was a drop in the suicide rate.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
When we make up our minds we don't change them (EVER!!) Persuasion doesn't matter, Facts don't matter. We're not like those mamby pamby Euros.
Recognizing gay marriage perpetuates the problem; the real solution is to de-recognize marriage as a special state of being. Just let people make their own decisions.
Ah. So in your scenario anybody who wants can hang out in the hopsiptal room of a horribly injured person and perhaps even make medical decisions for them, because for all you know that person may be the most important person in said injured person's self-designated "family"? When a person dies without a will (as most of us do), the entire USA splits their estate? Their small children (particularly babies), go to whom? State homes? Handed out first-come-first served? Joint custody with every adult who wants it? And I could put anyone I want on my "family" medical insurance? So I could perhaps start subletting my family medical coverage to people on ebay?
Seriously dude, think this through. There's thousands of very good reasons why the state recognizes marraige that have nothing whatsoever to do with procreation or religon.
Nope, my in-laws are Tea Partiers. I call em ducks when I see ducks.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
The election strategy used in 1968 continued to shape and inform the party into the present era. Republicans *still* win the Southern vote, based on appeals to racist fear-mongering and appeasing the Religious Right voting block. Have you ever been in the South, and seen the electoral strategies and messages being sent to fire up the "base" of white males with confederate flags on their cars? I agree that the Democratic party hasn't been particularly great for minority communities the last many years --- but they get away with it because the Republicans are proud to advertise that they'd make things even worse for minorities, so the Democrats have a solid lock on the "lesser of two evils" vote. The Democrats aren't "my team," and when not voting strategically to prevent an even worse far-right nutter from gaining office, I vote for candidates with better than the Democrat's "just be glad we're not Republicans!" platform.
> Assuming that your opinion is the "right"
He doesn't have to be "right". We live in a democracy. We tolerate the "wrong". In fact, we tolerate the "really really wrong". That's what separates us from Communists and Nazis.
He's free to his opinion in broad terms and also in terms of each individual issue he mentioned.
This highlights the problem of a study of this kind. You might like today's Republican and despise tomorrows. They're not made in a factory. Nor should they appear as such.
THAT is another problematic aspect of Communism and Fascism. Too much "party discipline".
If there aren't plenty of DINOs and RINOs, then it's not a democracy.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The right to marry the person (emphasis mine) of their choice just like a heterosexual can
Question:
I am a heterosexual. Does it mean that, in view of recent court rulings, i can marry a corporation?
The rights of a gun nut are no more or less valuable than the rights of some guy that wants to marry another guy.
And a violent drunk doesn't need a gun to maim or kill anyone.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I don't know about that. Yesterday, some sequence analysis software told me that my sequence had four transmembrane domains, which was expected. However, it gave the probability of each as "1.2."
USA had free market (mostly, as free as it got) in 19th century.
The "free" market before the civil war, where all the work was done by slaves? That sounds like a perfect example of a free market. Or are you talking strictly about 1870 - 1899? The big success of the free market is that the economy grew (very fast) after the civil war? Impressive.
Today the freest markets are found in Southeast Asia, in Switzerland to a degree. Look at Singapore [...]
Singapore is an interesting example. To quote the wiki: "The National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), the sole trade union federation which has a symbiotic relationship with the ruling party, comprises almost 99% of total organized labour. Government policy and pro-activity rather than labour legislation controls general labour and trade union matters. The Employment Act offers little protection to white-collar workers due to an income threshold. The Industrial Arbitration Court handles labour-management disputes that cannot be resolved informally through the Ministry of Manpower. The Singapore Government has stressed the importance of cooperation between unions, management and government (tripartism), as well as the early resolution of disputes."
Actually ancient Rome had a relatively free trade market before it turned into an empire. The free trade market gave it the power that allowed Rome
You seem to be a big fan of slavery.
The reason why the other people I asked didn't give me these examples is because they were not as intellectual dishonest as you are.
So when you say: there is or there was no free market, you are not understanding what it is
Stop lying. I asked for an example. I didn't claim there are none. I do not understand what it is. You are right about that. Is a market without contract laws freer than one that has contract laws? Does criminalization of theft make a market less free? Where is the line? What laws are part of a free market? Which aren't? It all seems pretty arbitrary to me.
You claim the Democrat's aren't "your team", but you have swallowed the propaganda hook line and sinker. This revisionist history has you conflating everything with racism, including the Confederate flag, and, I assume, everything they tell you is a "code word" that somehow everyone on the left seems to recognize as "secret club racist language". Go figure.
Republicans don't win the Southern vote, they do, however, appeal to rural constituencies, and the south has more rural areas than the north. Rural folks own guns, go hunting, grow their own food, tend their own land, and are fiercely independent. Urban dwellers have much different priorities (you can't haul bails of straw on a bicycle).
Not sure why I'm even trying to explain it to you. You seem far too entrenched with the vast right-wing racist conspiracy propaganda for anything to penetrate the circular logic that justifies that viewpoint.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Since when do the republicans *actually* represent smaller government? Certainly, they do no better than democrats when it comes to total spending.
As far as I can tell, when they say "small government" all they really mean is "no regulations on business."
Strongly agree with the first sentence. Strongly disagree with the second. You do remember that the god-awful patriot act was pushed by republicans, right?
When it comes to claiming and not releasing power, I don't see much of any difference.
The "free" market before the civil war, where all the work was done by slaves?
- do you care at all about the words that come out of you? Like do you ever stop for a moment and think: maybe I do not actually know, maybe everything that I heard is garbage?
The industrial revolution in USA in 19th century was not done in the South, it was in the North. This fact alone dismisses your entire argument.
Secondly: slavery is a terrible idea economically, slaves are much more expensive than hired labour. Slaves can only serve as unskilled labour, they require a large upfront capital investment (you have to buy them), they are maintenance heavy, after all, you have to look after your investment. So you have to feed, cloth, shelter them, you have to take care of ALL of their needs, you have to provide medical care, everything (or you lose your money, it's not like sick and dying slaves will do hell of a job).
You can only force a slave to do bare minimum not to be punished, slaves are not good for factory work clearly.
Civil war was unnecessary to free the slaves, it was going to happen regardless like in all other countries, it was uneconomical to use slave labour rather than innovate. Of-course Civil war was about control, central authority, keeping the power in the hands of the federal government, but it's OK, it helped to remove slavery faster.... at the cost of 600,000 lives. Much more than Americans have lost in ANY other conflict. I would say it was a bad idea to have civil war in any case, and it hurt economically speaking, never mind all the human lives lost.
Even with that setback US economy grew more than any other economy in the history of the world until China, but of-course China enjoyed a start with a much greater access to capital, tools, machinery, industrial knowledge that was brought there by capitalists.
comprises almost 99% of total organized labour.
- impressive. Until you realise that in Singapore only about 600,000 people are labour union members.
There are over 5,000,000 people living there, so that's a considerable chunk of people, so that's pretty large, about 12% of population. Do you know that their laws are very strict in terms of how they can use the labour union power? The last strike was in .... 1986. There are no significant labour laws, minimum wage is non-existent, yet per capita earnings are highest in the world. Health care spending is mostly private and it's very cheap because it's mostly private and it's free market.
You seem to be a big fan of slavery.
- more nonsense. Slavery in Ancient Rome had nothing to do with their wealth, it was free trade, the open routes to many other parts of the world that allowed build up of wealth. Slavery existed throughout the world pretty much everywhere, yet slavery does NOT lead to wealth generation, freedom does. Ancient Rome a degree of trade freedom that was previously unknown in the world.
Stop lying. I asked for an example. I didn't claim there are none. I do not understand what it is.
- so you are just ignorant then. Freedom is relative. The freer ONE country is compared to another, the more wealth will flow to THAT country. This is what you clearly don't understand. There is a reason Gresham's law works.
If somebody forces labour unions upon employers and somewhere else this is not a law, then the other place is freer and that's where business will be done. Contract laws are necessary, crime laws are necessary, sure. Private property must be protected.
But that's all that a market needs: protection of individual rights and enforcement of contract law.
You can't handle the truth.
group marriages just don't work from a logistical standpoint.
By your reasoning, neither do one-to-one marriages. (Not that I disagree in the slightest).
I'm... not sure if you're mocking idiots who use bullshit like that to argue against gay marriage, or if you're an idiot mocking people who mock the idiots...
Jesus, I've just been meta-Poe'd. I have a headache.
But on radio, Nixon was thought to have had more substance and intellect in the debate.
That's proven to be a myth.
And there's an easy way to test it. Put the debate on and listen to it.
Nixon sounds unprepared, uncertain, makes awkward pauses as if awaiting some confirmation from someone - which never comes as there is no studio audience, he fumbles with words, makes comments which are shot down by Kennedy...
Kennedy DOES look better, there is no denying that, and Nixon's attempts at charm are closer to creepy than charming.
But Nixon lost that debate both on the radio and on TV.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Sorry but us Americans are stubborn assholes who dont care about the issues all we care about is what the party says on the issue.
Hi. I'm an American too. We aren't all stubborn assholes. Case in point, I tracked down this poster and told a truck full of passing conservatives that a single mother lived at the poster's home address and was collecting welfare. I don't think we'll be seeing him after tonight.
Somewhat more seriously though, to the international community: We're sick of the two-party system too. It's a joke; Nobody really feels their interests are well-represented by either party. As a result, we've taken to discussing politics like it's a sporting event -- we bet on which team will win, scream and dance around in our underwear in front of the TV during the national debates, and get drunk and then either cry, or riot, when our team wins. Because while our political system is shit, we still really, really enjoy watching people we don't like fail. Take Romney for example -- his epic failure kept me happy (and warm!) through most of the frigid Midwestern winter.
I know where you are coming from, but here is a big tip on our two party system. Don't try to change it, it really can't be changed, instead change yourself. Parties ultimately exits only as a vehicle to elect officials, no more or less. That is why their platforms change over time, all they are or have ever been doing is selecting a menu of issues that will advance their candidates. They claim to have guiding principles, but in practice it seems each party has at times been on either side of way too many issues. The reason other governments have more parties is because they have proportional representations schemes, the parties are simply a function of how the elections are set up. Is proportional representation better? I suppose that depends on the scheme, but take a close look at how politics works in a country with the scheme you want and make sure you really like what you see.
In the U.S., the real action and power is in special interests. Be it the corporate lobbies, NRA or Green Peace. If you want to be part of change, join and support an NGO, or at least donate money. They are the ones who shape the party platforms and create change. People in political parties are simply interested in power for power’s sake, and just happened to have a opinions on issues, NGOs however actually make and enact change. Understand your relation to the two political parties better and you will get a lot more done. FYI, that is why many corporations donate to both parties, they don’t care about candidates, they care about issues, you should be the same way.
Oh, and by the way, I don't know but I assume that your politics are democratic or liberal (in the modern American sense, as in more government) or 'progressive', whatever that is, am I right?
Here is a comment I left related to slavery and I give examples there of just one of the modern socialist states and how the entire population there was enslaved. I was born there long ago, it just so happens. I could talk about all these other socialist or communist states that did the same thing to their people as USSR and even worse.
I can talk about the democratised slavery of the modern society, where the voting majority votes to enslave a voting minority and this ability to discriminate is used to steal productive output of people (income taxes) and even have a scale of theft graduation ('progressive' income tax), so that's the modern 'civilised' version of slavery.
I see projection on your part when you say that I like slavery, what you mean is that you like slavery, you like your version of slavery.
AFAIC individuals must be free from the oppression of the state, if while being free from oppression of the state an individual signs a contract promising to be a 'slave' of some kind to somebody, that's between them.
They can't sign away their inalienable rights, so you can't actually physically harm and murder them, you can't even own them, but they can be your personal 'slave' when it comes to the output of their labour if you both shake on that, I don't care what you do in private.
However you want a very specific, government enforced type of slavery, not anything voluntary, something coercive and oppressive. Examine your motives, I don't think they are pure.
You can't handle the truth.
Republicans don't win the Southern vote, they do, however, appeal to rural constituencies, and the south has more rural areas than the north.
Here are some statistics, from a University of South Carolina webpage, on the rural/urban breakdown in a bunch of Southern states. Hint: none of the Southern states shown ( SC, NC, GA, TN) are more that 40% rural population (and less than 60% urban). The only overwhelmingly "rural" state is Vermont --- the place that elects self-identified Independent/Socialist candidates. While the "Red South" has a bigger rural proportion than some "strong blue" areas, the simplistic narrative that "Republicans win the vote by supporting Rural folks over Urban" is itself a propaganda piece.
The Republican narrative involves constructing an image of a "real" America, folksy and rural and hard-working and self-sufficient [insert picture of white family holding hunting rifles here], versus the "urban welfare moochers" [insert picture of black people, despite the vast majority of welfare recipients being white]. White city folk, with confederate flags on the pickup truck they drive two blocks to the grocery store, are convinced to identify with the "real America," and vote Republican (so those lazy dark-skinned "urban" people don't take all their hard-earned wages). Ignore the fact that rural America receives much more Federal money per capita (few farms would be self-supporting without big Federal ag. subsidies, infrastructure subsidies, etc.), and "Red" states as a whole receive a net influx of benefits paid for by "Blue" state taxes. Appealing to long-standing racial resentment keeps the white South --- including its majority urban population --- voting Republican, to make sure the "urban" people don't get "handouts".
I am. I'm a straight white man.
Discrimination against us is legal and encouraged.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Not sure why I'm even trying to explain it to you. You seem far too entrenched with the vast right-wing racist conspiracy propaganda for anything to penetrate the circular logic that justifies that viewpoint.
You've managed to validate that quite handily. Here's some statistics for you, but your own preconceived notions will overwhelm any cognitive dissonance is causes anyway: Election results by county.
Your description of the "Republican narrative" is, frankly, stunningly ... Hollywood. It's no wonder the left views black conservatives as traitors or "uncle toms". You should get away from the TV, out of your high-rise apartment, and try exploring fly-over country a bit if you have any desire to understand the world outside of your echo chambers.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I had a similar thing happen. Only the prof threw my score out. I argued with him in the class. My point was if I couldn't make a bunch of business majors actually study for a change I was going to stop putting forth the effort in his class.
I _did_ deserve the only A out of a 400 person lecture.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The republicans want to interfere with your personal life because it's the moral thing to do, and you're an immoral person. The democrats want to interfere with your personal life because they know better than you what's good for you.
Judgement free zones are not a right. See, the problem with identity politics is that certain groups are shielded from criticism. So the employer of a gay person has to tread lightly when the gay employee doesn't do a good job, or risk a lawsuit.
Horseshit. Most states are right-to-work (meaning your employer can fire you for any reason or no reason), and very few states offer any sort of equal opportunity protection for someone who's fired due to sexual orientation.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Adoption isn't a right. It's a privilege and for good reason.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." -- U.S. Constitution, Ninth Amendment
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Freedom is relative
We're getting somewhere :). The mythical free market with all its magic properties doesn't exist. That's basically one point I was trying to make.
The freer ONE country is compared to another, the more wealth will flow to THAT country.
The problem here is that you limit yourself to a one-dimensional model for very complex situations. And that's where and why your model fails. You can check that yourself by figuring out if Singapore has a freer market than Switzerland.
My "health, education and safety" haven't been impacted by guns so far, and that's the case for most people.
Then I'm guessing you don't live in Aurora, Colo. Or Columbine, Colo. Or Sandy Hook, Conn. Or near Fort Hood, Texas.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
I like you. You're a straight shooter. You believe Friday what you believed on Monday.
Entirely in spite of what happened Wednesday.
There actually is an Asian-American/Pacific Islander Awareness Month. It serves to help remind people that not so long ago, Asian immigrants helped build the Transcontinental Railroad, and that even more recently, we thanked Japanese-American citizens for their contributions by locking them up in internment camps.
In contrast, find me a group that's received better treatment by default than straight white men.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
I am against all regulations completely.
You might like Somalia this time of year, then.
there is nothing there about any air or soot.
But there is something in there about "common welfare," isn't there? Idiot.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
I'm not sure how to answer the first question. The best that I can say is except for whatever the eye-witnesses saw or the police know, the details are mostly speculation.
I can say this from personal experience, though: more often than not, people who don't have experience with stress-inducing situations are like dumb sheep when confronted with violence. If someone were to yell "Oh my god he's stabbing people!" 4.5 out of 5 people will turn around on the spot and stare like an idiot until the gravity of the situation finally sinks in, which is usually sometime after the melee is over. The remainder will have the wherewithal to retreat or retaliate.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
I assume that your politics are democratic or liberal (in the modern American sense, as in more government) or 'progressive', whatever that is, am I right?
No.
For anyone else following this discussion thread: do check the parent poster's "Here's some statistics for you" link. It's absolutely hilarious! I didn't see any actual statistics in it (math is hard! scary innuendo is so much better!), but it's got everything else:
- Relying on FOX News and far-right talk radio for sources? Check!
- Claiming Obama "stole" the election thanks to things like "black Dems were caught stuffing the ballot boxes in Philly and Ohio"? Check!
- George Soros conspiracy? Check!
- Gratuitous picture of Sarah Palin, that has *absolutely nothing to do* with the rest of the article text? Check!
Hard-hitting investigative journalism at its best! Clearly not the product of a conspiracy-believing propaganda-soaked "echo chamber"!
Ah yes, the party from 1915. Let's vote for them.
From 1915 (and before) through 2009 and beyond. In 2009 the Dems had a KKK leader as their leader in the Senate and he'd still be the #2 democrat today if he hadn't died. In 2001, while he was President pro tempore, he was talking about "niggers". That's not a random guy off the street, that's the guy democrats keep electing as a top leader, using the N word to refer to the people who keep voting for him.
Watch any two politicians, one democrat and one republican. Count how many times each says racial words like "black people", "minorities", etc. I'll bet you $100 the Democrat will use racist language at least four times as much as the republican. It's insulting that they think my wife, because she's black, is too stupid to get into school on her own merits, or get a job on based on her hard work. It disgusts me that they imply that because she's female, that means she's helpless.
We're getting somewhere :). The mythical free market with all its magic properties doesn't exist. That's basically one point I was trying to make.
- free market is the opposite of the non-free market, and what the world consists of today is most non-free market, that's why so much capital flows into a very limited space today, that's why the productive output comes from very few countries today.
Saying that free market doesn't exist is pretty meaningless when we know that some markets are freer than others and we know which way to move to make a market more or less free.
Computer hardware industry is freer than insurance industry for example and software industry is freer than hardware industry.
The reason for it is relative difficulty of government control over such things. It's more difficult to regulate hardware industry than it is to regulate insurance industry and it is even more difficult to regulate software industry than it is to regulate hardware industry.
It does not mean that we should be content with the insurance industry being so regulated, we want all industries to be free of regulations.
You can't handle the truth.
You might like Somalia this time of year, then.
- I do actually.
But there is something in there about "common welfare," isn't there? Idiot.
Is 'idiot' your handle? Because common welfare has nothing to do with soot or air, obviously that's the kind of stretch that gives unlimited power to the government, which was and never the intent. If government's powers were to be unlimited, then why bother with Senate, Congress, SCOTUS, elections in general, why not just have a King or any other type of a dictator?
No, general welfare only means promotion of more freedoms, not less, not fewer freedoms, more. Which means having a say in how the States try to take freedoms away, being able to prevent one State from discriminating against others by creating artificial barriers to entry to people moving between states. Preventing States for example from imposing State level licensing for anything (so your driver license is valid in all states, so should be your doctor's license as an example).
You are the idiot, you clearly don't understand the basic principles of what a Constitutional Republic is.
You can't handle the truth.
I would find this maybe sensical if the Republicans had, in the last ten or twenty years, ever actually tried to advocate for policies that were likely to actually lead to lower taxes.
...
They aren't the party of smaller government, and haven't been in a long time. They are the party that uses the phrase "small government" a lot while constantly looking for new ways to expand government powers and spend more money.
I'll put forth that they never have been. From Lincoln on, the Republicans have been for larger government taking more control in the US. They were liberal and making changes, although those changes may have not been what would be considered leftist changes (and they still are with Bush creating an entire new department of the government). They weren't even conservative as both parties had their conservative factions till the Democrats decided to back civil rights and the Dixiecrats got upset, broke up the solid South and later were invited to the Republicans by Nixon and cultivated for their money by Reagan. Today, those Southern conservative, state's right desiring people who are upset a black man is president would be Republican in name only except they are taking over the party. Still, they are hardly the historical pro-civil rights, pro-conservation, pro-union (or at least anti-corruption) party the Republicans were for their first hundred years.
One life is not worth the trampling of freedoms and rights guaranteed to the individual.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
So it's wrong to judge a party for their positions from 1957, because that was OMG 56 years ago and things have changed dramatically,...
Yes, because that's when they began to change. That's when the Dixiecrats started becoming Republicans only to later call themselves the Tea Party and attempt to take over their new party.
The above claim is approximately independent of the characteristics of the population distribution. What is more important is whether the sampling procedure is biased/non-representative.
Is 'idiot' your handle? Because common welfare has nothing to do with soot or air ...
Right. So when you have thousands of folks dying from asthma attacks, emphysema, lung cancer, etc., that has nothing to do with "common welfare"? Got it, duly noted ... and damn glad you're not in a position to influence anyone who matters with your whack-job beliefs.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Useless ad-hominems. The results are the results. If you don't like the source, find one yourself the same way I did.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I am. I'm a straight white man.
Discrimination against us is legal and encouraged.
Bullshit. You are a privileged crybaby. You do not have to put up with constant berating and discrimination at every turn.
So it's wrong to judge a party for their positions from 1957, because that was OMG 56 years ago and things have changed dramatically,...
Yes, because that's when they began to change. That's when the Dixiecrats started becoming Republicans only to later call themselves the Tea Party and attempt to take over their new party.
So the Tea Party is made up of former Dixiecrats? Makes perfect sense to me. I'm just trying to figure out why people keep calling the Republicans racists if the Tea Party are the Dixiecrats that decided the Republican party isn't racist enough anymore...
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Oh, I don't have to influence anybody, my position is self-sufficient and it will become the reality that all will have to face simply via the market economic mechanism of interest rates. It's the failure of the currency that will dumper the growth of government (and indeed will reverse it), it's like taking a beach ball and trying to push it underwater, deeper and deeper, eventually it will fly out and the deeper you push it the faster it will come out and the higher it will jump up.
This idea that government is there to regulate individuals to 'preserve air' is complete nonsense, it is not the job of any government to do any such thing, it's the job of the free market to take care of air if that becomes a problem.
But I am also happy that I don't have to influence anybody "who matters" for my points to become reality, it's just going to happen without any influence on anybody.
You can't handle the truth.
Ah, yes, you're completely right about that. What I was trying to get at, and communicated incorrectly, was that better behaved distributions can cover up sloppy sample technique.
we know that some markets are freer than others
As I already said in the post you just replied to: The error you are making is that you limit yourself to one dimension, one variable that you call "freedom". A model with one variable can only describe trivial systems. Economic systems in the real world are more complex. The examples you give are just a demonstration of confirmation bias. It's as easy to see for them that different, orthogonal variables are needed to describe the system as it was for the List of countries you gave above.
Unfortunately your only reaction to me mentioning some of these dimensions were some random insults about how stupid and ignorant I am and that of course I must be a liberal, clearly one of the others, a communists progressive nazi nigerian. That's why I have no interest in continuing this conversation. Have a nice day, sir.
In contrast, find me a group that's received better treatment by default than straight white men.
Rich straight white men?
I'm just saying...
Fanatically anti-fanatical
So don't continue the conversation, I am not forcing you to.
There is only one freedom, which is individual freedom. There are no other freedoms. There are no group freedoms, there are no gay freedoms, no racial freedoms, no gender freedoms, etc.etc. There is only individual freedom and government steals that freedom whenever it passes another law, regulation or a tax.
You can't handle the truth.
IRV. Hanging, dimpled, spindled, and mutilated chads be damned.
You cannot be convicted of a "hate crime" at all. There is no such thing. You can be convicted of a crime, and the punishment varies on the severity.
Completely false. "if a perpetrator was arrested, a prosecutor would have two choices. If the prosecutor chooses to simply charge the perpetrator with criminal damage to property, he or she would only have to prove that the defendant threw the brick though the window. Alternatively, the prosecutor could proceed on the hate crime charge and seek higher penalties."
"Some prosecutors have expressed a reluctance to prosecute bias crimes because of the additional evidentiary burden at trial, but proving the element of intent at trial is not unique to hate crime statutes. Many criminal offenses — including possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver, aggravated battery or assault on a peace officer, or murder in the first degree — require additional intent elements to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt."
So it is in fact a crime you must charge someone with. Sentencing hearings are used to determine penalties after conviction of a crime, but that is not how a "hate crime" works. Your description is just incorrect.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Any type of income or wealth tax is theft of property but the graduated tax (the so called 'progressive' tax) is just pure discrimination.
It's all immoral and unconstitutional, it's all theft of property and treatment of people differently under law based on their specific circumstances, so it's discrimination.
Yeah, all those poor rich folks and all the discrimination against them. Why, they might actually be able to get ahead in life if it weren't for all the discrimination! I'm surprised they don't all give up their wealth so they can reap the benefits of lower taxation. Can you believe that almost half the country doesn't pay income taxes at all? Boy, do they have it good!
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
there you go, you believe that it is OK to discriminate against people, to discriminate in the application of laws against people based on their circumstances, and you believe that it is even necessary in order to achieve your technocratic goals of 'social justice' and basically trying to even out outcomes.
Your sarcastic remark is simply the proof positive of the idea in my comments that it is what the mob is about, not about laws, not about individual freedoms, it's about theft because there are more people within that mob that has a common theme, which is to 'fix the injustice' (which is where the idea of 'social justice' comes from), they see it as injustice that they do not have something that somebody else has, they want force of government to take it and give it to them.
Actually based on some comments on /. I have proof positive that some in the mob don't even care if they get the proceeds of the theft, they just want to use the threat of government violence to steal from those who have more, they don't even particularly care if they themselves are going to benefit from that theft (most likely not).
It's pure jealousy, greed, stupidity, mobocracy and total lawlessness, discrimination, theft and at some point it turns to murder.
You can't handle the truth.
"Man I would blow your fucking head off, if I could afford it!" ~Chris Rock
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
I hate to tell you this, but he's right. There is no truly "fiscally liberal" party. To be fiscally liberal, they would have to be firmly in favor (not just in favor because it's the "in" thing) of practices that many Americans openly call communist â" things like subsidies for low-income workers without any other means to support themselves, tax breaks for the poor, and other things that attempt to spread wealth around instead of concentrating it in the hands of a few exclusive groups. That's what being "fiscally liberal" is. The description that both political camps are fiscally conservative is apt; Republicans want to concentrate money in the hands of corporate executives, the military, and law enforcement (with some also trying to funnel money to religious causes), while Democrats want to concentrate money in the hands of different corporate executives and the government as a whole instead of a few specific branches of it. To quote the Bard, "A pox on both your Houses" â" because neither camp cares about anything outside of their narrow band of interest.
You're right about bombing. The deadliest mass murder at a school was in Bath, 38 dead from dynamite back in the 20s. There's really nothing stopping someone from filling his pickup with an ANFO bomb and doing another OK City with hundreds dead. Sure, we trace the chemicals now, but that's only to identify the perp -- who's planning to die anyway.
You cannot be convicted of a "hate crime" at all. There is no such thing. You can be convicted of a crime, and the punishment varies on the severity.
This is incorrect.
Same as the difference between charging "reckless endangerment" and "Second degree murder". Each has a variable punishment, but they are NOT the same CRIME.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
You can't be convicted of a "hate crime" without the CRIME part.
"Involuntary manslaughter" and "Premeditated murder" are NOT the SAME CRIME. Murder is NOT a "penalty enhancement" to speeding -
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Where do you get this idea that they are "insanely profitable"? They give almost all of their money to local PBS stations (90%).
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
Sweden has a multi-party parliamentary system.(...) In other words, Swedes change their mind because they've some choice
Ifi I had mod points today you would got one +1 instightful
One thing I've noticed is that there are two kinds of people with strong opinions. Type I is of below-average intelligence, and they hold strong opinions because they're closed-minded. Type II is highly intelligent and very openminded, and, after thinking deeply about issues, they reject ideas that are illogical or unworkable. Opinions that survive that rigorous test deserve to be strongly held.
And then there are people who think everyone with strong opinions is closed-minded -- essentially, they don't recognize the existence of Type II. They accuse people with strong opinions of having a "black-and-white" view of the world. Ironically, they themselves have a black-and-white view of their fellow humans: people with strong opinions = bad, people like themselves = good.
I simply avoid registering to vote because all that happens is I get calls from people telling me to vote for their guy and they can't really explain why. For example I got a call from somebody on Matt Salmon's team telling me that they would repeal Obama Care, and lower medical costs through deregulation. Being a libertarian, that is music to my ears because I know from experience that red tape does raise costs in the medical field significantly. However when I asked what he would deregulate and how that would help, he didn't even know. But he expects me to vote for his guy anyways.
You can't expect a low-level campaign worker -- probably an unpaid volunteer -- to be able to articulate the specific nuances of his candidate's platform. At least this campaign worker knew enough to embrace the correct guiding principle. A worse aspect of political campaigns are bumper stickers or roadside signs that display only the candidate's name, and give you no clue about their positions. If some voters can actually be swayed by these information-less signs, that's pretty sad. If voters can't be swayed by them, I wish the candidates would learn to redirect their resources into media that actually conveys information.
The best you can do is hedge your assets (gold is a horrible idea
What is a good way to hedge, then?
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
they're pretty evenly divided between wanting slow upward wealth redistribution, or very rapid upward wealth redistribution
An even more accurate way to say this -- which is backed up by their actions and proposals -- is that some want wealth redistribution programs to continue to grow faster than GDP (with no regard to the unsustainability of this), and the rest want wealth redistribution programs to grow at a sustainable rate.
There are (in theory) actual budget cuts, and then there are Washington-style "cuts," which are actually budget increases that don't quite live up to the expectation of faster-than-GDP growth. I know of only one politician who proposed actual cuts -- and that politician was voted out in November.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Got a link? I've not heard of any politician, of any party, proposing to spend millions of dollars of taxpayer money trying to force the creation of Creationist-friendly textbooks. (There's no need to... such textbooks already exist, and are used by a small minority of home-schooling parents.)
But even if some politician had proposed this, it and similar follies wouldn't account for the enormous size of government. Try looking at a pie chart: the hugest slice of federal spending is entitlements. Try looking at an animated pie chart that shows how fast that slice is growing. It's terrifying.
In 2010, one of my friends thought defense cuts could bring about a balanced budget. Then I showed him a pie chart of the 2009 federal budget. The deficit was $1413 billion, and if the $600 billion defense budget had been cut by 100%, we still would have been left with a deficit of $813 billion! (By comparison, Dubya's largest deficit was $459 billion.)
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
A party willing to prosecute those who intimidate voters, regardless of race, is truly more progressive in civil rights than a party that selectively prosecutes members of certain races, and drops charges against members of other races.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Wow you just can't help being obstinate in your ignorance, can you? You could try doing a little research to see if maybe you're wrong before you keep embarrassing yourself with loudly proclaiming your ignorance.
Prove it. Provide for me a hate crime that stands alone in the penal code.
You could have found it yourself, and I don't know why I'm bothering to keep making an effort to educate you. Quick Googling found this one in Alabama, and this one in California.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
The Ninth Amendment in no way implies that "adoption is a Right". It does imply that it is POSSIBLE that it's a Right.
As to whether it IS a Right is a matter for the Supremes or a Constitutional Amendment.
Note that the Tenth Amendment would tend to make the issue of adoption (sans a Supreme Court ruling to the contrary, or a Constitutional Amendment) a matter for the several States to decide on an individual basis.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The republicans are a financially conservative party that wants to interfere with your personal life
The democrats are a financially conservative party that doesn't want to interfere with your personal life. America doesn't have a financially liberal party</quote>
Most Republicans do not care who you screw, or what label you give to your partner; but they think the traditional definition of marriage should be retained. This is exactly what Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and most congressional Democrats believed until about 12 or18 months or so.
Most Republicans believe that it is morally wrong to kill babies. If killing babies is part of your personal life, then I guess they do want to interfere in that respect.
Democrats are fiscally conservative? You means "Democrats" plural, as in there is more than one who thinks that way? Can you name two, or even one?
You don't have to ban homosexuality, just enact reasonable measures to ensure only "appropriate" sex acts are committed. It does sound reasonable to people who like health, education and safety over some liberal fascination with gay sex.
Don't understand your second sentence anyway. Value health? As a health issue, guns are WAY down on the list. Education? No relation, except that liberals tend to not be educated on the subject. Safety? You'd avocate taking away the means for people to be safe against criminals?
"When U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney said last year that he was not even going to try to reach 47% of the US electorate, and that he would focus on the 5–10% thought to be floating voters, he was articulating a commonly held opinion: that most voters are locked in to their ideological party loyalty.
Anybody who has ever been around a bunch of individuals who consider themselves to be "of the right", "well-to-do", and "powerful" knows better: Mitt was trying to represent himself as "one of them" by slamming as many of the American people as possible.
lolll...that's what those people holding those beliefs do, especially if they're consuming alcohol. You should hear 'em talk about "unions" (one drink), "labor" (two drinks), and a bizarre mixture of "entitlement spending" and "Perhaps there is something to eugenics..." (three drinks).
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
As to whether it IS a Right is a matter for the Supremes or a Constitutional Amendment.
It's a right by default. That's what the Ninth Amendment means. There may be prevailing reasons for states or the federal government to limit the right, but it is a right nonetheless.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
The wealthy are not discriminated against, and a progressive tax system is not discriminatory. Every dollar in each bracket is taxed the same, regardless of one's "circumstance". Your first $8925 is taxed at 10%, just like mine, just like everyone.
It's not about jealousy. It's about the fact that the wealthy have benefited from this society much more than others have. And as much as they would like to think it's because they're just that awesome, that's not really the case. Isn't it reasonable that they should pay more back into the system that made them so fabulously wealthy? If not, then let them "go Galt" and form their own society so they stop leeching off the work of everyone else.
It's also about the fact that wealth brings power in this country. If you have enough money you can have an out-sized influence on government and society. In a representative democracy that is not healthy, as it allows individuals to use the power of corporations and the state to enact their own narrow agenda. Don't believe me? Ask Intuit why the tax code is still so complicated, or why Wall Street got bailed out while Main Street was left to rot. When a white billionaire can't get a loan, or a cab, or a table at a restaurant or an audience with his representative, or is harassed by police while walking down the street, you can talk to me about discrimination. Until then, the wealthy seem to be overcoming their adversity just fine.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Since those whom we label conservatives are actually liberals, albeit more classically liberal than the progressive liberals we call liberals, it shouldn't be surprising that opinions could change . That is, both are extremes of the liberal point of view which values individual freedom, and the policies surrounding that freedom are more often in dispute than the value of freedom. Or one would hope.
-- Jimtown Kelly