Actually, having a fully automatic M16 makes them LESS of a threat than having a (decent) regular gun.
You're leting your fear and paranoia, combined with ignorance, make you want to force people to live the way you like..
But you have an inalienable right to defend yourself.
If we didn't have cannons and battle ships and other privately owned, state of the art weaponry around the time of the revolution, we'd still be a british colony.
Yep, that's right, those weapons were all state of the art and privately owned.
you didn't hear people walking around going "Hey, jebediah! Do you REALLY need a cannon?"
Bolt actions are used, ironically, mostly be snipers and people who want to shoot at targets at long distances.
No, I do not think that we should pre-emptively try and prevent people from doing harm. They still do massive harm with cars. But since they have a license, you can't say "you were incompetant!"
Hold people responsible for their actions-- fully. Trying to prevent them does not prevent the irresponsible, as only the responsible follow the laws.
You know, if people thought like you do during the times this country was a colony, we'd still be a colony.
After all, teh battle ships, cannon and other heavy military armaments that we used to fight off the british were all PRIVATELY OWNED.
The ratio of gun mis-use to gun use is easy to know... in fact you can calculate it. According to the stats I've seen (I'm not sure what year it was, but recenly) there are about 15,000 people killed by guns in the USA each year-- including suicides, murder, and accidents. I would consider only murder a gun-mis-use, but we'll just use the whole number and round it up to 20,000, ok?
On the other hand, there were 10 billion rounds of ammunition fired in the USA in the same year. Most of which hit paper targets, or were otherwise used properly-- hunting, etc.
Thus, one in 500,000 uses of a gun is a misues. If you exclude suicide and accidents, the figure is probably one in a million!!
So, you think that all guns should be illegal, and a 100 pound girl should have no defense against a 200 pound man who is raping her? That people who live in rural alaska should have no defense against a brown bear or polar bear?
That people should not be allowed to go shooting at paper targets?
Because of YOUR insecurity?
There is no risk to the general public-- the RISK is in NOT having guns.. IF you look at crime stats, in every plac where guns are bannd, crime is skyrocketing. In places where people carry guns regulary-- not just have the right to have them, but to carry them as well-- crime is low.
I think you're ignorant of guns, and gun culture and you're letting your insecurity, fear and posisbly bigotry (or perception of right-wing racists gun toters) influence your political position.
Did you know that every gun law that's been enacted in this country was designed iwth a racist purpose? To keep down the blacks back in the old days, etc.
I assume that this is in reference to our pre-emptive attack on Iraq.
No! I wasn't even thinking about Iraq, let alone talking about it.
The NAP is about initiating force in any situation. For instance, I don't have the right to force you to stop smoking. To not stand naked in the middle of your property. To take your moeny from you to pay for things I like (which is what taxation is)... to wear a helmet when you drive your motorcycle, etc.
All these situations, and thousands of others, are ones where laws have been enacted-- and backed with a policeman's bullet-- to force people to do things that others want them to, without cause. That is initiation of force.
Please go check out the shockwave file I referenced, it gives a better explanation than I can here.
Wrong. Because with a graduated income tax -- or even a flat-percentage tax -- those making more money contribute more to the tax-system,
This is flat out false. This is a common perception, but it is not true. The poor pay a higher tax burden because more of their money goes into things that have sales tax,etc.
Someone making $7k a year is capable of taking care of their childrens needs, though barely-- if they get to keep all $7k. You're saying that its moral for the government to STEAL (At gunpoint, remember) $3,500 of that money and then give them a $1500 per year subsidy!
Your position is based on a misunderstanding of basic economics. The government destroys value in its taxation emthods, thus the value returned is always far less-- and most of the government budget goes to things other than what any parrticular individual (Say a poor mother) needs (like roads in other states, etc.)
Thus, the poorest people in this country are still getting benefits far less valuable than the taxes they are paying.
He doesn't want to legalize gay marriage on the national level-- according to his position papers.
"Health care for poor children" Ha! He signed into law the requriemetn that they not have health care in teh first place!
You don't know what human rights is. That's the problem.
Human rights is letting poor people have access to jobs so that tehy don't need government handouts- not taxing them to hell and then giving them a little bit back and talking about how much you've don for "poor children".
Now you're going to tell me he's opposed to murdering puppies too, eh!
No. You're still asleep, rationalizing away the issues I brought up.
Both the democrats and the republicans are authoritarian socialists.
What is an authoritarian socialist? Well, the more common name is fascist, or Nazi.
They want total government control over the people and the economy.
Both parties endorse these principles and are working hard to make them come to fruition.
The differences you see are differences in strategy, and you confuse them for differences in principle.
When dean introduces a bill to legalize gay marriage on a national basis, then I will retract my claim that he is anti-gay. Until he does that, he is anti-gay.
There is no compromize in the defense of human rights. You say "be more practical". "Bein practical" is what led Bill Clinton to criminalize homosexuality in two different areas where it was not criminal before! Marriage and the military if you have a short memory.
Being principled in the defense of liberty is no vice!
"If you don't vote, understand that you are expressing acceptance of the status quo, and the big-two political parties are thoroughly happy that you do so. "
On the contrary-- that's just what you tell yourself to justify your support for tyranny.
ITs not a democracy if a majorty-- not a majority of voters-- a majority of the people didn't endorse the idea.
IF the only choices are both ones you don't endorse then your only option is to not vote.
That you choose to believe these people are expressing acceptance is your little rationalization to justify imposing your will on them.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is the sheep being well armed and contesting the vote.
The national rifle association is a gun control organization masquarading as a hunting club.
All the rest of my points stand.
Until Dean comes out and demands the immediate repeal of the Patriot act, he's an endorser-- after all his state iscomplying while other states have taken a stand.
As to socialism, you have to understand socialism. When you figure out it that its not just what they practiced in the USSR, you'll see that both candidates are squarely behind it.
I'm sorry, Marxists are not economists. Marxism was discredited many decades ago, and Keynes along with him.
That you are so ignorant of the economy that you think the president changes it inside of a few months, is a sad commentary. Any presidential effects on the economy, good or bad, take at least 6 months-- yet our economy had tanked before bush took office.
I'm not a fan of bush, nor clinton. When you get out of your "us good, them evil" box, maybe you can learn something about economics.
I recommend "Economics in one lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. Then you can move on to other books, like The Machinery of FReedom by David Friedmans son.
Or just go to www.mises.org and read all their free books.
There's no reason to be ignorant of economics... and the hisotry of fialure of certain economic ideas. (Which were doomed to fail because they were constructed to try and justify marxism.)
Actually, silencers-- which really aren't silencers, but are noise suppressors-- have been banned since 1934.
What the 1994 law bans is having a threaded barrel! Yep, threads are banned! Isn't that totally absurd?
A flash suppressor, by the way, is a practical safety device.
And when was the last time we had a drive by bayonetting?
ITs an ignorant law put forth by evil people and supported by idiots who just think guns are "scary".
Their comparison of hunting rifles to "Assault weapons" is absurd-- hunting rifles have the exact same rate of fire-- they're trying to keep the idiots thinking that assault weapons are machine guns-- and machine guns have been banned since 1934.
You shouldn't have an opinion on what guns should be allowed when you don't know anything about them. Not that such ignorance has stopped our congresscum.
The AK-47 round-- a 7.62x39mm is far less powerful than the typical.308 Winchester hunting round. And many hunting rounds are even more powerful.
That said, an AK-47 is not a bad hunting rifle, due to its extreme reliability in dirty environments.
Certainly there are people who hunt with smaller than 7.62x39mm, but they're usually hunting varmints rather than game.
Wow, only six years? Your equity must be something like %2 of the loan, or so.
If you actually sell it for $125k, that's one thing. But you can't really compare the deal until you close and you look at the actual amount of money you get out of the house.
You've been renting your house, you just don't realize it. You haven't gotten any equity because the mortgage is front loaded. All the appreciation of the house has been due to deflation of the dollar over that time period (The dollar is inflated %8.6 a year, so you're actually not getting all the value out even at $125k... ) "Inflation" as commonly put forth is a fabricated number based on manipulated price baskets.... but that's getting into too much detail.
On the other hand, if you had invested the difference, you would have made a big chunk of money in the stock market-- if you'd invested wisely. The "market is down" stuff is due to the overall market-- not wise investments. (And wise investmetns aren't that hard to make.)
When I said people buy houses with too much space-- you fit the bill. Not that you SHOULDN'T have all the entertaining space you want-- clearly you want it and so you're buying it. Just realize its not an investment.
Basically, you're making the error of looking at the dollars you get out at the end, and not doing a compound annual return analysis on them, nor taking into account inflation (the dollars at the end are worth less) nor fully taking into account the costs of the house-- the $8k figure is a good start, but extra furniture, higher heating bills, probably more gas consumption, taxes, fees, etc all add up.
Nobody likes to hear they made a bad investment-- especially when such large figures are involved. And maybe the plasure you got from having that house was extremely valuable to you, such that there's no point in talking about it-- in which case, great- more power too you-- just realize you're buying that pleasure, not investing your money.
It doesn't really matter whether the downpayment is large or not. IF its large, then that is money you've set aside that is only growing at inflation (or less). The mortgage is always front loaded on interest. So, if you've been in the house less than 9 years, its the mortgage where you really lose out. The downpayment money, that you then get out in equity on the other end is not a factor. (Its like putting it in a CD).
So, where my analysis breaks down is if you buy the house and then live in it for 10-15 years AFTER you've paid off the mortgage. Then houses start to look like a decent investment, when compared to the stock market (or bonds).
I think if you really add up all the numbers after selling the house, you'll find I've been correct-- especialyl if you count hte thousands of ways you spend more money (updating fixtures, running ethernet cable) that you wouldn't on an apartment.
Hey, but at least you've listened to my heresey without pronouncing me demonic, as most people do. People really HATE to hear that their house was a bad investment...
When I was looking to buy and ran the numbers, I assumed a %7 growth in the stock market and a %7 growth in the value of the house-- just to be conservative-- and this is what I got. IT may be different in your area if rents are much higher than houses, or some oddity like that. Anyway, I Talked to a CPA friend of mine about it and he said he'd run the same numbers when thinking about buying a house next door to his and decided he was better off staying where he was and investing the money in the market.
But kids also are a factor, and if you are looking purely for prudent financial managment, you wouldn't have kids! They're a money black hole.... so, that's the choice you've made and that's where your money is going.
If people just realized that it isn't a no-brainer to buy a house, or that houses are for many people not a good investment, I'd be less annoyed. Certainly someone who pays off their mortgage and continues to live there for 10 years, and who doesn't have the skills or discipline to invest the money elsewhere is probably doing the best investment program they can, given their situation.
Gun control : Endorsed by both Bush and Dean Gay Rights: Opposed by both Socialism: Endorsed by both US Patriot Act: Endorsed by both Increased Taxation: Endorsed by both Increased Government power: Endorsed by both.
Looks like you agree with the libertarians on most issues.
The Non-aggression principle is the belief that nobody has the right to initiate violence against another. (But people do have the right to defend themselves).
IF you look into it, I think you'll find that the Libertarian position is always consistent with the NAP (People generally define libertarians as people who agree with the NAP), and your disagreements are inconsistent with it-- though this may not be obivous at first.
Also, some of your positions I think may come from misunderstanding some of the implications of free-market economics. For instance, taking money from parents in order to provide a child welfare benefit will always result in less money put into feeding those kids than you would have if you just let the parents keep the money in the first place.
Here's a good flash intoduction to libertarianism, and the NAP:
http://www.lairofluxlucre.com/flash/PhilosophyOf Li berty-english.swf
Not true. Criminals who want them have machine guns. Police who want them have machine guns. Most of the "machine guns" siezed by the ATF in this country are actually not machine guns at all-- but parts siezed from law abiding citizens that the ATF claims could be used to make a machine gun. The reality is, with a regular hunting rifle, a wire hanger and a torch, anyone with basic skills could make a machine gun.
A machine gun is effective at defending yourself from a gang.
But that's neither here nor there-- you have an inherent right to own a machine gun even if all you want to do is go in your back yard and shoot paper targets.
You're making the error of confusing the tool-- that is the gun-- with the people.
Guns are not evil, only people can be evil.
Someone having a machine gun is no more a threat than them having a regular gun. What makes them a threat is whether they are a responsible, law abiding citizen or a criminal.
The fact is, there is some percentage of the population that is criminal-- all societies have them. But gun laws jail innocent non-criminals on technicalities FAR MORE than they do criminals. All the gun laws in this country were enacted to support the eventual goal of banning all guns.
Supporting any of them is effectively supporting that goal.
Since the full auto ban went into effect in the thirties, of the people who have been allowed to own machine guns since then (Which you can be, if you go thru the hoops) the only incident where a lawfully owned one was used in a crime was a COP who used it to kill his wife. A task he could have easily done with any rifle.
And don't get me started on the "Assault weapons ban"... they actually passed a law that bans SAFETY FEATURES from RIFLES!!!
And idiots still support it. Why? Because they think "Assualt weapons" (a made up term) means "full auto machine gun".
The AWB, like the NFA and all gun laws are just steps along the path to elimianting the right of self defense.
And its not because they are lazy or irresponsible.
ITs because they recognize the choice is a false one.
Every time an elegible voter doesnt' vote, that's a vote for NOTA-- None of the above.
NOTA has won the presidency the last couple times.
That should tell you something.
Eventually, all those non-voters (And I'm not talking about the few who wanted to but got held up by something) will find something they DO support--- and there will be a massive change in this country.
That thing is libertarianism. Most americans support human rights, and inevitably, that will lead them to libertarianism.... it just hasn't reached critial mass yet.
(And you better hope it does, otherwise, the alternative is the socialist fascism our "leaders" are working so hard to create.)
While I disagree with your politics, what I find far more offensive is that your post is currently moderateid "Score: 0 Insightful".
The mods are modding purely on political possition, and that's abhorrent.
But then, what do you expect from Liberals! (Hmm, I disagree with the Conservative, but I am not surprised at Liberals suppressing alternate viewpoints-- oh heavens, what could I be?!!?)
On gay rights, I wont' tell you what religion to practice, you dont' tell me what religion to practice. Deal? Marriage is a religiou issue, its protected by the first ammendment. You want yours, I got no problem with that. What justification do you have to try to legislate keeping me from practiicing mine?
FWIW, Once I worked for Microsoft and had an indian national as my boss. His accent was a little difficult, but he was a good guy. This was in Redmond. I think he could kick your ass in any programming contest, so I think Microsoft made the right decision in that case. (Not that I'm a fan of Microsoft.)
You mean like Clinton raising taxes, cutting services, killing the economy, and banning gay marriage?
Oh, and he also banned hunting rifles too. (There's no such thing as an "Assualt weapon" it's a made up term designed to be scary)
Yeah, and he almost socialised medicine, which would have requried everybody to have a government ID card-- imagine how easy it would be for the [insert poltiical enemy of the momeny] to be rounded up and sent off to concentration camps with a national ID card!
Clinton was only a "moderate" because people's view of the situation is so screwed up that they can't even remember what it was like to have a decent president. (I don't think we've had one since at least roosevelt-- this hasn't been a free country since 1913.)
Whateve your position-- pro-gay rights, pro-choice, anti-drug war.... all the candidates presented are ones who will do nothing to support it. And the anti-gun atittude from liberals is truely the mark of people who do not know their history. (Or pay attention to the fact that in places where there is wide ownership of guns, crime is lower. Where they are banned, like Washington DC, New York and London, crime-- even gun crime-- is skyrocketing.)
when you only have leftist answers availible, you only get leftist choices.
That poll is a pure scam. IT says I support Dean %52.
But I'm a supporter of human rights, I support liberty, freedom and oppose socialism.
Thus Dean, and all other fascists (like Bush) are the antithesis of what I support. Yet this survey says I support bush %68 as well.
I imagine they get to post numbers like "Libertarians who took our poll supported dean %52!" and "Republican support Dean %70!" and crap like that.
For most of those questions, only leftist answers were there. For insance, on gun control the two choices are a Gun ban organization and a gun control organization (The NRA is pro-gun control, like howard dean). There were no organizations that support the basic human right for my teenage daughter to defend herself from a rapist. Let alone those who support the second ammendment (Which merely recognizes, NOT GRANTS, the RKBA).
I could go on and on. I bet Dean is pro-drug prosecution, anti-gay rights, and pro-socialism. Just like all the democrats we've seen in recent years. (There really is no difference between the parties-- two flavors of the same agenda.)
I will not vote for anyone who does not take a %100 pro-human rights stand.
And that means, they must end slavery (eg: taxation, where %50 of the time we work for massa state rather than ourselves)-- they must respect the right to defend oneself. The right to marry who one wants (Clinton signed and 2/3 of the democrats voted for that anti-gay marriage law! ) The right to free speech (violated by the "campaign finance reform") the right to privacy (violated by the patriot act-- which drew wide support from democrats and republicans both).... and end US adventurism abroad (another policy the democrats nad republicans both support).
Americans Laugh at Iraqis only getting to vote for Saddam Hussien, ignorant of the fact that they don't have democracy either-- you only get two choices (because third parties are barred from running effectvie campaigns and have to sue for the right to run).... and your two choices are identical.... they just make a lot of hot air about differences.
And you buy it! IF you stand for human rights-- or even just the Bill of rights-- and you vote for Dean you are a hypocrite. Same if you vote for Bush.
Don't keep electing these guys who arrogantly violate their promises and cliamed positions and then rub your noses in it. And dont' be one of the brownshirts goose steppign around demanding political correctness and insisting that Bush is evil, but all the democrats who voted RIGHT ALONG WITH HIM are somehow different.
Go ahead and disregard everything I say from now on- its not uncommon for people to refuse to believe the truth-- and not surprisingly, if you did the math you'd see that what I say is true.
Houses appreciate at the rate of inflation, or a bit less. Houses also have a significant amount of maintenance money that has to be put into them. At least %2 of the value of the house, per year. On top of that, they have real estate taxes, and all that.
Every analysis I've seen that talks about investing in houses (Except for those that say buy a house and rent it out to someone else) fail to take into account the costs of buying the house.
On the other hand, if you lived in an apartment, you'd have enough living space (people who buy houses buy too much house) and you could invest the difference. The average house owner sells their house in 7 years. In that time period, Just looking at real estate commissions alone, they have lost money! Even if the house appreciates, they have virtually no equity at that point. And they certainly haven't made back the commission and closing fees-- but have to pay another set of them to get out of the house.
The only reason people buy houses is because they don't have the discipline to invest their money-- it doesn't make sense as an investment-- even when compared to inflation adjusted treasuries.
But you'll never hear that from a real estate agent!
And so people like you-- who I assume have never done the math-- just blindly take the house salesman's investment advice.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, having a fully automatic M16 makes them LESS of a threat than having a (decent) regular gun.
You're leting your fear and paranoia, combined with ignorance, make you want to force people to live the way you like..
But you have an inalienable right to defend yourself.
If we didn't have cannons and battle ships and other privately owned, state of the art weaponry around the time of the revolution, we'd still be a british colony.
Yep, that's right, those weapons were all state of the art and privately owned.
you didn't hear people walking around going "Hey, jebediah! Do you REALLY need a cannon?"
A semi-automatic rifle IS A hunting rifle.
Bolt actions are used, ironically, mostly be snipers and people who want to shoot at targets at long distances.
No, I do not think that we should pre-emptively try and prevent people from doing harm. They still do massive harm with cars. But since they have a license, you can't say "you were incompetant!"
Hold people responsible for their actions-- fully. Trying to prevent them does not prevent the irresponsible, as only the responsible follow the laws.
You know, if people thought like you do during the times this country was a colony, we'd still be a colony.
After all, teh battle ships, cannon and other heavy military armaments that we used to fight off the british were all PRIVATELY OWNED.
The ratio of gun mis-use to gun use is easy to know... in fact you can calculate it. According to the stats I've seen (I'm not sure what year it was, but recenly) there are about 15,000 people killed by guns in the USA each year-- including suicides, murder, and accidents. I would consider only murder a gun-mis-use, but we'll just use the whole number and round it up to 20,000, ok?
On the other hand, there were 10 billion rounds of ammunition fired in the USA in the same year. Most of which hit paper targets, or were otherwise used properly-- hunting, etc.
Thus, one in 500,000 uses of a gun is a misues. If you exclude suicide and accidents, the figure is probably one in a million!!
So, you think that all guns should be illegal, and a 100 pound girl should have no defense against a 200 pound man who is raping her? That people who live in rural alaska should have no defense against a brown bear or polar bear?
That people should not be allowed to go shooting at paper targets?
Because of YOUR insecurity?
There is no risk to the general public-- the RISK is in NOT having guns.. IF you look at crime stats, in every plac where guns are bannd, crime is skyrocketing. In places where people carry guns regulary-- not just have the right to have them, but to carry them as well-- crime is low.
I think you're ignorant of guns, and gun culture and you're letting your insecurity, fear and posisbly bigotry (or perception of right-wing racists gun toters) influence your political position.
Did you know that every gun law that's been enacted in this country was designed iwth a racist purpose? To keep down the blacks back in the old days, etc.
I assume that this is in reference to our pre-emptive attack on Iraq.
No! I wasn't even thinking about Iraq, let alone talking about it.
The NAP is about initiating force in any situation. For instance, I don't have the right to force you to stop smoking. To not stand naked in the middle of your property. To take your moeny from you to pay for things I like (which is what taxation is)... to wear a helmet when you drive your motorcycle, etc.
All these situations, and thousands of others, are ones where laws have been enacted-- and backed with a policeman's bullet-- to force people to do things that others want them to, without cause. That is initiation of force.
Please go check out the shockwave file I referenced, it gives a better explanation than I can here.
Wrong. Because with a graduated income tax -- or even a flat-percentage tax -- those making more money contribute more to the tax-system,
This is flat out false. This is a common perception, but it is not true. The poor pay a higher tax burden because more of their money goes into things that have sales tax,etc.
Someone making $7k a year is capable of taking care of their childrens needs, though barely-- if they get to keep all $7k. You're saying that its moral for the government to STEAL (At gunpoint, remember) $3,500 of that money and then give them a $1500 per year subsidy!
Your position is based on a misunderstanding of basic economics. The government destroys value in its taxation emthods, thus the value returned is always far less-- and most of the government budget goes to things other than what any parrticular individual (Say a poor mother) needs (like roads in other states, etc.)
Thus, the poorest people in this country are still getting benefits far less valuable than the taxes they are paying.
Ever heard of the broken window fallacy?
Because he was forced to sign that bill.
He doesn't want to legalize gay marriage on the national level-- according to his position papers.
"Health care for poor children" Ha! He signed into law the requriemetn that they not have health care in teh first place!
You don't know what human rights is. That's the problem.
Human rights is letting poor people have access to jobs so that tehy don't need government handouts- not taxing them to hell and then giving them a little bit back and talking about how much you've don for "poor children".
Now you're going to tell me he's opposed to murdering puppies too, eh!
Thanks for providing proof-- note that he does not take a stand to elimiante the criminalization of gay marriage.
Since he mentions the military issue, this omission must be deliberate.
Dean is yet another democrat pretending to be pro-gay.
JUST LIKE CLINTON.
No. You're still asleep, rationalizing away the issues I brought up.
Both the democrats and the republicans are authoritarian socialists.
What is an authoritarian socialist? Well, the more common name is fascist, or Nazi.
They want total government control over the people and the economy.
Both parties endorse these principles and are working hard to make them come to fruition.
The differences you see are differences in strategy, and you confuse them for differences in principle.
When dean introduces a bill to legalize gay marriage on a national basis, then I will retract my claim that he is anti-gay. Until he does that, he is anti-gay.
There is no compromize in the defense of human rights. You say "be more practical". "Bein practical" is what led Bill Clinton to criminalize homosexuality in two different areas where it was not criminal before! Marriage and the military if you have a short memory.
Being principled in the defense of liberty is no vice!
"If you don't vote, understand that you are expressing acceptance of the status quo, and the big-two political parties are thoroughly happy that you do so. "
On the contrary-- that's just what you tell yourself to justify your support for tyranny.
ITs not a democracy if a majorty-- not a majority of voters-- a majority of the people didn't endorse the idea.
IF the only choices are both ones you don't endorse then your only option is to not vote.
That you choose to believe these people are expressing acceptance is your little rationalization to justify imposing your will on them.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is the sheep being well armed and contesting the vote.
The national rifle association is a gun control organization masquarading as a hunting club.
All the rest of my points stand.
Until Dean comes out and demands the immediate repeal of the Patriot act, he's an endorser-- after all his state iscomplying while other states have taken a stand.
As to socialism, you have to understand socialism. When you figure out it that its not just what they practiced in the USSR, you'll see that both candidates are squarely behind it.
I'm sorry, Marxists are not economists. Marxism was discredited many decades ago, and Keynes along with him.
That you are so ignorant of the economy that you think the president changes it inside of a few months, is a sad commentary. Any presidential effects on the economy, good or bad, take at least 6 months-- yet our economy had tanked before bush took office.
I'm not a fan of bush, nor clinton. When you get out of your "us good, them evil" box, maybe you can learn something about economics.
I recommend "Economics in one lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. Then you can move on to other books, like The Machinery of FReedom by David Friedmans son.
Or just go to www.mises.org and read all their free books.
There's no reason to be ignorant of economics... and the hisotry of fialure of certain economic ideas. (Which were doomed to fail because they were constructed to try and justify marxism.)
Oh, and did you know the 1968 gun control law was a plagerized version of hitlers law?
Why do anti-fascists care about guns so much?
Here's your answer:
http://www.lneilsmith.com/whyguns.html
"Oh? And what history would that be? Afghanistan, Iraq, Nazi Germany, etc. falling to dictators despite lax gun laws?"
Like I said, you don't know your history. The reason the Jews were rounded up in germany is because hitler passed gun registration and disarmed them.
Every country that has had gun registration has had a holocaust not too long afterwards.
Everyone in favor of gun control, raise your right hand-- in hitlarian salute!
See what Jews have to say about the issue:
http://www.jpfo.org/nazideathcamps.htm
Actually, silencers-- which really aren't silencers, but are noise suppressors-- have been banned since 1934.
What the 1994 law bans is having a threaded barrel! Yep, threads are banned! Isn't that totally absurd?
A flash suppressor, by the way, is a practical safety device.
And when was the last time we had a drive by bayonetting?
ITs an ignorant law put forth by evil people and supported by idiots who just think guns are "scary".
Their comparison of hunting rifles to "Assault weapons" is absurd-- hunting rifles have the exact same rate of fire-- they're trying to keep the idiots thinking that assault weapons are machine guns-- and machine guns have been banned since 1934.
You shouldn't have an opinion on what guns should be allowed when you don't know anything about them. Not that such ignorance has stopped our congresscum.
The AK-47 round-- a 7.62x39mm is far less powerful than the typical
That said, an AK-47 is not a bad hunting rifle, due to its extreme reliability in dirty environments.
Certainly there are people who hunt with smaller than 7.62x39mm, but they're usually hunting varmints rather than game.
Wow, only six years? Your equity must be something like %2 of the loan, or so.
If you actually sell it for $125k, that's one thing. But you can't really compare the deal until you close and you look at the actual amount of money you get out of the house.
You've been renting your house, you just don't realize it. You haven't gotten any equity because the mortgage is front loaded. All the appreciation of the house has been due to deflation of the dollar over that time period (The dollar is inflated %8.6 a year, so you're actually not getting all the value out even at $125k... ) "Inflation" as commonly put forth is a fabricated number based on manipulated price baskets.
On the other hand, if you had invested the difference, you would have made a big chunk of money in the stock market-- if you'd invested wisely. The "market is down" stuff is due to the overall market-- not wise investments. (And wise investmetns aren't that hard to make.)
When I said people buy houses with too much space-- you fit the bill. Not that you SHOULDN'T have all the entertaining space you want-- clearly you want it and so you're buying it. Just realize its not an investment.
Basically, you're making the error of looking at the dollars you get out at the end, and not doing a compound annual return analysis on them, nor taking into account inflation (the dollars at the end are worth less) nor fully taking into account the costs of the house-- the $8k figure is a good start, but extra furniture, higher heating bills, probably more gas consumption, taxes, fees, etc all add up.
Nobody likes to hear they made a bad investment-- especially when such large figures are involved. And maybe the plasure you got from having that house was extremely valuable to you, such that there's no point in talking about it-- in which case, great- more power too you-- just realize you're buying that pleasure, not investing your money.
It doesn't really matter whether the downpayment is large or not. IF its large, then that is money you've set aside that is only growing at inflation (or less). The mortgage is always front loaded on interest. So, if you've been in the house less than 9 years, its the mortgage where you really lose out. The downpayment money, that you then get out in equity on the other end is not a factor. (Its like putting it in a CD).
So, where my analysis breaks down is if you buy the house and then live in it for 10-15 years AFTER you've paid off the mortgage. Then houses start to look like a decent investment, when compared to the stock market (or bonds).
I think if you really add up all the numbers after selling the house, you'll find I've been correct-- especialyl if you count hte thousands of ways you spend more money (updating fixtures, running ethernet cable) that you wouldn't on an apartment.
Hey, but at least you've listened to my heresey without pronouncing me demonic, as most people do. People really HATE to hear that their house was a bad investment...
When I was looking to buy and ran the numbers, I assumed a %7 growth in the stock market and a %7 growth in the value of the house-- just to be conservative-- and this is what I got. IT may be different in your area if rents are much higher than houses, or some oddity like that. Anyway, I Talked to a CPA friend of mine about it and he said he'd run the same numbers when thinking about buying a house next door to his and decided he was better off staying where he was and investing the money in the market.
But kids also are a factor, and if you are looking purely for prudent financial managment, you wouldn't have kids! They're a money black hole.... so, that's the choice you've made and that's where your money is going.
If people just realized that it isn't a no-brainer to buy a house, or that houses are for many people not a good investment, I'd be less annoyed. Certainly someone who pays off their mortgage and continues to live there for 10 years, and who doesn't have the skills or discipline to invest the money elsewhere is probably doing the best investment program they can, given their situation.
Good luck, and lets hope you get that $125k!
Oh, we get the general idea, its just wrong.
Look at the issues:
Gun control : Endorsed by both Bush and Dean
Gay Rights: Opposed by both
Socialism: Endorsed by both
US Patriot Act: Endorsed by both
Increased Taxation: Endorsed by both
Increased Government power: Endorsed by both.
Where's the difference?
Looks like you agree with the libertarians on most issues.
The Non-aggression principle is the belief that nobody has the right to initiate violence against another. (But people do have the right to defend themselves).
IF you look into it, I think you'll find that the Libertarian position is always consistent with the NAP (People generally define libertarians as people who agree with the NAP), and your disagreements are inconsistent with it-- though this may not be obivous at first.
Also, some of your positions I think may come from misunderstanding some of the implications of free-market economics. For instance, taking money from parents in order to provide a child welfare benefit will always result in less money put into feeding those kids than you would have if you just let the parents keep the money in the first place.
Here's a good flash intoduction to libertarianism, and the NAP:
http://www.lairofluxlucre.com/flash/PhilosophyO
Not true. Criminals who want them have machine guns. Police who want them have machine guns. Most of the "machine guns" siezed by the ATF in this country are actually not machine guns at all-- but parts siezed from law abiding citizens that the ATF claims could be used to make a machine gun. The reality is, with a regular hunting rifle, a wire hanger and a torch, anyone with basic skills could make a machine gun.
A machine gun is effective at defending yourself from a gang.
But that's neither here nor there-- you have an inherent right to own a machine gun even if all you want to do is go in your back yard and shoot paper targets.
You're making the error of confusing the tool-- that is the gun-- with the people.
Guns are not evil, only people can be evil.
Someone having a machine gun is no more a threat than them having a regular gun. What makes them a threat is whether they are a responsible, law abiding citizen or a criminal.
The fact is, there is some percentage of the population that is criminal-- all societies have them. But gun laws jail innocent non-criminals on technicalities FAR MORE than they do criminals. All the gun laws in this country were enacted to support the eventual goal of banning all guns.
Supporting any of them is effectively supporting that goal.
Since the full auto ban went into effect in the thirties, of the people who have been allowed to own machine guns since then (Which you can be, if you go thru the hoops) the only incident where a lawfully owned one was used in a crime was a COP who used it to kill his wife. A task he could have easily done with any rifle.
And don't get me started on the "Assault weapons ban"... they actually passed a law that bans SAFETY FEATURES from RIFLES!!!
And idiots still support it. Why? Because they think "Assualt weapons" (a made up term) means "full auto machine gun".
The AWB, like the NFA and all gun laws are just steps along the path to elimianting the right of self defense.
Hmmmm.
Anti free trade.
Pro Slavery (taxation)
Anti-abortion
A gun grabber.
That's a straight republican ticket there, Hanzo.
Why be independant when the republicans have the same agenda?
Actually, MOST americans don't vote.
And its not because they are lazy or irresponsible.
ITs because they recognize the choice is a false one.
Every time an elegible voter doesnt' vote, that's a vote for NOTA-- None of the above.
NOTA has won the presidency the last couple times.
That should tell you something.
Eventually, all those non-voters (And I'm not talking about the few who wanted to but got held up by something) will find something they DO support--- and there will be a massive change in this country.
That thing is libertarianism. Most americans support human rights, and inevitably, that will lead them to libertarianism.... it just hasn't reached critial mass yet.
(And you better hope it does, otherwise, the alternative is the socialist fascism our "leaders" are working so hard to create.)
While I disagree with your politics, what I find far more offensive is that your post is currently moderateid "Score: 0 Insightful".
The mods are modding purely on political possition, and that's abhorrent.
But then, what do you expect from Liberals! (Hmm, I disagree with the Conservative, but I am not surprised at Liberals suppressing alternate viewpoints-- oh heavens, what could I be?!!?)
On gay rights, I wont' tell you what religion to practice, you dont' tell me what religion to practice. Deal? Marriage is a religiou issue, its protected by the first ammendment. You want yours, I got no problem with that. What justification do you have to try to legislate keeping me from practiicing mine?
Uh, No.
FWIW, Once I worked for Microsoft and had an indian national as my boss. His accent was a little difficult, but he was a good guy. This was in Redmond. I think he could kick your ass in any programming contest, so I think Microsoft made the right decision in that case. (Not that I'm a fan of Microsoft.)
You mean like Clinton raising taxes, cutting services, killing the economy, and banning gay marriage?
Oh, and he also banned hunting rifles too. (There's no such thing as an "Assualt weapon" it's a made up term designed to be scary)
Yeah, and he almost socialised medicine, which would have requried everybody to have a government ID card-- imagine how easy it would be for the [insert poltiical enemy of the momeny] to be rounded up and sent off to concentration camps with a national ID card!
Clinton was only a "moderate" because people's view of the situation is so screwed up that they can't even remember what it was like to have a decent president. (I don't think we've had one since at least roosevelt-- this hasn't been a free country since 1913.)
Whateve your position-- pro-gay rights, pro-choice, anti-drug war.... all the candidates presented are ones who will do nothing to support it. And the anti-gun atittude from liberals is truely the mark of people who do not know their history. (Or pay attention to the fact that in places where there is wide ownership of guns, crime is lower. Where they are banned, like Washington DC, New York and London, crime-- even gun crime-- is skyrocketing.)
when you only have leftist answers availible, you only get leftist choices.
That poll is a pure scam. IT says I support Dean %52.
But I'm a supporter of human rights, I support liberty, freedom and oppose socialism.
Thus Dean, and all other fascists (like Bush) are the antithesis of what I support. Yet this survey says I support bush %68 as well.
I imagine they get to post numbers like "Libertarians who took our poll supported dean %52!" and "Republican support Dean %70!" and crap like that.
For most of those questions, only leftist answers were there. For insance, on gun control the two choices are a Gun ban organization and a gun control organization (The NRA is pro-gun control, like howard dean). There were no organizations that support the basic human right for my teenage daughter to defend herself from a rapist. Let alone those who support the second ammendment (Which merely recognizes, NOT GRANTS, the RKBA).
I could go on and on. I bet Dean is pro-drug prosecution, anti-gay rights, and pro-socialism. Just like all the democrats we've seen in recent years. (There really is no difference between the parties-- two flavors of the same agenda.)
I will not vote for anyone who does not take a %100 pro-human rights stand.
And that means, they must end slavery (eg: taxation, where %50 of the time we work for massa state rather than ourselves)-- they must respect the right to defend oneself. The right to marry who one wants (Clinton signed and 2/3 of the democrats voted for that anti-gay marriage law! ) The right to free speech (violated by the "campaign finance reform") the right to privacy (violated by the patriot act-- which drew wide support from democrats and republicans both).... and end US adventurism abroad (another policy the democrats nad republicans both support).
Americans Laugh at Iraqis only getting to vote for Saddam Hussien, ignorant of the fact that they don't have democracy either-- you only get two choices (because third parties are barred from running effectvie campaigns and have to sue for the right to run).... and your two choices are identical.... they just make a lot of hot air about differences.
And you buy it! IF you stand for human rights-- or even just the Bill of rights-- and you vote for Dean you are a hypocrite. Same if you vote for Bush.
Don't keep electing these guys who arrogantly violate their promises and cliamed positions and then rub your noses in it. And dont' be one of the brownshirts goose steppign around demanding political correctness and insisting that Bush is evil, but all the democrats who voted RIGHT ALONG WITH HIM are somehow different.
Wake up, people!
Go ahead and disregard everything I say from now on- its not uncommon for people to refuse to believe the truth-- and not surprisingly, if you did the math you'd see that what I say is true.
Houses appreciate at the rate of inflation, or a bit less. Houses also have a significant amount of maintenance money that has to be put into them. At least %2 of the value of the house, per year. On top of that, they have real estate taxes, and all that.
Every analysis I've seen that talks about investing in houses (Except for those that say buy a house and rent it out to someone else) fail to take into account the costs of buying the house.
On the other hand, if you lived in an apartment, you'd have enough living space (people who buy houses buy too much house) and you could invest the difference. The average house owner sells their house in 7 years. In that time period, Just looking at real estate commissions alone, they have lost money! Even if the house appreciates, they have virtually no equity at that point. And they certainly haven't made back the commission and closing fees-- but have to pay another set of them to get out of the house.
The only reason people buy houses is because they don't have the discipline to invest their money-- it doesn't make sense as an investment-- even when compared to inflation adjusted treasuries.
But you'll never hear that from a real estate agent!
And so people like you-- who I assume have never done the math-- just blindly take the house salesman's investment advice.
I take that as concession of my points.
You guys have such whacked out notions of how the world works... and it's sad, because all you have to do is look around you.