let any asshole drive a car who wants to, no need to prove he knows the rules of the road. completely acceptable way for society to deal with cars on the road
there were plenty of test for arms in the 1700s: regular life
life was rural, with french, british, and spanish on the border, hostile native americans, and wild animals
you needed a gun to get yourself something to eat
a call to arms was a community necessity, for basic survival
your average nine year old then was more proficient with a tricky and complicated musket, than most gun owners are with a point-and-click gun today. they had to be. to live
so in the founder's mind, proficiency was necessary. "well-regulated"
we need testing and training today, only because driving to mcdonalds in suburbia does not require a fire arm. it's individual action that motivates gun ownership today, not the community call. and it's hand guns, not muskets. the concern is crime, not hostile forces. any old douchebag who wants a gun can get one, and not know the first fucking thing about how to use it proficiently and safely
so we have to enforce the proficiency and safety training the founding fathers depended upon that was, only back then, part and parcel of gun ownership
it's obvious what the founders intended, it's not my opinion. "well-regulated." i'd love to see variosu douchebgas dance around that term, and argue for irresponsible gun use. the legal status quo is obviously untenable and will change. and you're right: so what, someone still has to change it. so we shall. don't you agree you should know how to use a gun before using it? the founding fathers sure did: "well-regulated." what is the point of arguing otherwise exactly?
but we have plenty of gun ranges, and it would be an easy legal accommodation to appoint many gun ranges (not too far away from any american) as places people can go and get training, and take a test, and get a license. heck, it's more business for the gun ranges, they'd love it
just like we do with driver's ed: there's no chicken and egg problem. you drive around in a car with a guy sitting next to you who also has brakes and a steering column. then you sit in a classroom and hear about the rules of the road and take a test
it's not nutty to have a gun instructor have special training guns you can use on the range to show you are proficient and understand the points of safety, and then get tested on that
it works in every one of our fucking social and economic peers
japan, germany, uk, france, australia, canada... heck even switzerland which gun lovers love to cite because of the high gun ownership rate, while conveniently forgetting all the rules about guns in switzerland they would scream about if they actually understood them
if we have actual rules about gun ownership: proficiency and safety, like the fucking founders intended, we can cut down on our disgusting and horrifying homicide rate because of easy guns
do you consider our sky high homicide rate a problem? you should
want a gun? GET A GUN. just prove you are proficient and understand safety
the constitutional fashion of the day is frequently overridden by later courts. there are dozens of major issues like this. slavery and segregation for example
at one point, the highest court of the land upheld prohibiting all alcohol
that was obviously fucking stupid. and quickly reversed
it doesn't take a random yahoo on the internet to point out the fact that the supreme court is often later reversed. and that a random voice on the internet, me, just made you aware of the fact, doesn't change the fact. i can see you want to avoid the simple fact though, which says something about your intellectual honesty. shoot the messenger and you can avoid the message even if it is right?
the second amendment says a "well-regulated militia." aka, well-trained. it's not very controversial. it's quite plain. and yet the legal status quo today completely ignore the founding fathers obvious intent
well-regulated means well-trained, translated from 1700s english to today
that's a fact. look it up yourself
and i know what the broken status quo is
the intent of the founding fathers was you had to know how to use the fucking gun. we've lost that intent of the founding fathers, and it's time to get back to our constitutional roots
or do you think it's ok any mouth breathing retard who wants a gun and doesn't know how to use it safely and proficiently should get one easily? you do understand what that has meant for the usa in terms of a sky high homicide rate compared to our peers, right? the founding fathers could foresee this problem, why can't you see the actual problem in front of you? what is the point of trying to defend a broken status quo exactly?
get a gun. any gun you want. just know how to use it safely and proficiently as a requirement of owning that gun
not because i said so, but because the founding fathers did
which translated to today's meaning is "well-trained"
dirty harry constitutional activism in the last century (a freak out over crime, which was actually solved by better policing and sentencing) has meant we have easy guns for every hothead douchebag who wants one. and so the usa has a sky high homicide rate compared to its social and economic peers, who have actual gun regulation
but if we followed the actual intent of the founding father's second amendment, they were saying we need *well-trained* gun owners. the founding fathers linked proficiency with ownership. their words. the text of second amendment. not the reinterpretation of activist judges from the last century. we fucked up with prohibition, and reversed that. time to reverse the legal fuck up over firearms from the last century
all we need is testing and licensing before you get a gun. like we do with cars, an equally dangerous tool that any mouth breathing retard should not get just because he wants one
"when guns are outlawed, only outlaws..."
i'm saying you every right to a gun, you have to prove you can use it first. a statement any *responsible* gun owner agrees with. all of the problems with guns is from hotheads easily getting one. make it harder to get one, the hot heads simply don't use a gun. they use a knife, which is far less lethal, because they aren't trying hard in life: they are casual hot heads or genuinely deranged. if it is hard to get one, they don't have the ability to try that hard. the same hard concentration they lack because any sleight or flush of anger makes them start shooting. proof:
oh sure, criminal masterminds will get any gun they want. and use that gun carefully: they are criminal masterminds. they won't shoot up street corners or discos or movie houses, which is the fucking problem in the usa, because guns are so easy for any asshole to get
"there's too many illegal guns out there already..." yeah, it will take awhile to drain the swamp. progress will be slow and delayed for years as police mop up all the unlawful guns out there. as if just because doing the right thing is hard, that that is somehow a valid argument against doing the right thing
now the crazy part:
guaranteed i will get responses to this comment from people screaming i am stealing all guns. I AM SAYING GO AHEAD AND GET A GUN. just prove you can use one safely and proficiently first LIKE THE FUCKING FOUNDING FATHERS INTENDED. a statement any actual responsible gun owner agrees with
still, you will hear "WHY YOU WANNA GRAB MA GUN" (wheeze, gurgle), just because i am saying you need to prove you can use a gun before you get one. hardly earth shattering, completely moderate, agreed to by a majority of responsible gun owners. but the kneejerk propagandized morons will act like i'm out to steal all guns. fucking pathetic brain dead zombie retards
i'm not a troll. i am bothered by propagandized morons ruining public discourse in this country
you. have. no. fucking. clue. what. totalitarianism. is
really. objectively accurate statement. for you to use that word in the context of american politics renders you an ignorant joke. that is objectively true, not a baseless insult
analogy: your definition of totalitarian is like me calling you a pedophile because you hugged a kid once
if you want to sound intelligent and matter to reality, use words that actually mean things. or continue to bark "totalitarian" like a low intelligence propagandized moron herp derping to alex jones. your choice
except on every single one of these policies, republicans are far more worse or openly promise, as jeb bush just did, to do far worse
yet you have this amazing cognitive dissonance where right wing media will pillory democrats for doing something republican candidates do far worse. "as a republican, i hate that the democrats do {X}, that's why i will vote republican" (who will do far worse on X)
at which point we have to address the air head idealists who will reject both parties and insist on ideological purity before they ever vote. thereby, making themselves not matter, and helping the guy further from them ideologically win
we are talking about POLITICS folks. the very nature of the topic is compromise. with politics and voting your job is to steer the boat of your society in the right direction by putting your hand amongst thousands on the steering wheel. not refusing to help unless the boat magically transports to where you are at ideologically first
you vote the party *closer* to you ideologically. that's as good a deal as you will ever get, in any society, ever possible. by refusing to participate until a choice matches you ideology, you are simply announcing your social immaturity and/ or stupidity on what politics is. it is YOUR job to wiggle a little bit in your ideological straightjacket and *influence*. rather than demand full ideological compliance before you participate. that's an ignorant temper tantrum
that being said, my dream for 2016 is trump v sanders. then sanders can win as trump is a fucking joke, and i will vote sanders with glee, as i love sanders
but if it's something like rubio v clinton, vote clinton! don't stay home ebcause it's not sanders. and if the contest is close, and enough air head idealist morons throw away their vote on sanders as a protest vote, or don't show up to vote, then guess what? then our next president will be rubio. and it's your fucking fault, for being an airhead idealist: you split the left wing vote. even though there are more on the left, you let the republicans win
so i love sanders. but depending upon the nominees, i will be voting for clinton who stands a better chance of beating a serious republican contender
that's called realpolitik
that's call strategy
idealism only gets you things like gwbush "beating" gore in 2000 (gore actually won the popular vote) because just enough morons on the left voted for nader when they should have voted strategically for gore
that is the real effect of voting idealistically instead of realistically: 8 years of a republican moron who got us in a ruinous war and cratered our economy and moved us backwards on progress on social issues
"i am a true muslim, i believe in helping my neighbor, providing for my family, and basic justice"
"i am a true muslim, i believe in raping kafir young girls, beheading unbelievers, and reestablishing the caliphate by war"
the world you live in is full of people who call themselves various labels with completely different meanings, some meanings even contradictory
it is up to you to listen carefully and evaluate what they say, and figure out what they really stand for, no matter what fucking label they use. that is as good a deal as you will ever get
the world does not come with the easy, accurate labels you want. and nobody makes the cogent arguments you want them to lead with. they all go "i am a {X}" (meaning of {X} unclear)
people call themselves all sorts of things for completely ignorant and historically inaccurate reasons. you have to figure it out. you don't get a better deal. that's my point. do you understand?
there's Feminism, the decades old effort to promote equal rights for women, which is a real and valid fight. consider the treatment of women in the Muslim world and other places like rural India. do women have a valid fight in those places against institutionalized degradation of women? they do: education denied, no right to drive a car, no right to dress as they want, etc
that's called Feminism
then there's "feminism", this sort of whiny inconsequential hurt feelings by navel gazing socially immature tumblr losers
of course "feminism" is a joke. but Feminism is not
likewise, "social justice", the hyperbolic nonsense from people who have no sense of proportionality or reason in their rants, is bullshit, but Social Justice, the decades old effort to combat systemic hatred and exclusion, is real, and valid
don't mistake some socially retarded internet trolls and their "causes" for the actual causes they claim to stand for
so germany is a totalitarian state? uk? canada? france? japan?
just because of universal healthcare?
you know, all of the modern democracies with robust rights for their citizens?
are we a totalitarian state because we have government run police? government run fire houses? the police are literally the essential ingredient to run a police state. so why aren't you hysterically pissing in your pants over the fact we have government run police genius?
how about we go to a "capitalist" system with those? don't pay your police bill, no 911 answer. don't pay for fire, we let your house burn. that sound better than what we have?
healthcare is the same
all of our social and economic peers have figured this out. by trying to be "capitalist" about a system which is a natural monopoly, like police and fire, we pay 10x-1,000x what other modern countries pay for healthcare, for lower quality care. all we do is funnel money to financial parasites. it's not capitalist. it never will be capitalist. like fire service. like police. look up "natural monopoly" and educate your ignorant ass
do you think? or do you regurgitate the word "totalitarianism" like a trained monkey herp derping to alex jones? without even fucking understanding what the fucking word means
as for the insults, your "understanding" of what totalitarianism is renders you a complete moron on the topic. again, not an insult: an accurate objective appraisal of the quality of your words, to be so fucking ignorant about what totalitarianism really is and describing the usa as such, just because we don't want to pay fucking insane sums for our fucking healthcare
you are a propagandized retard. really. you do not fucking understand anything you are fucking herp derping about. i have no respect for you. you've earned my disrespect by your words being so fucking DUMB
like i said, you have no fucking clue what you are talking about
if you play so fast and loose with these definitions, and do not understand the massive difference between an actual totalitarian state like north korea, and germany or japan, for example, only because you can criticize them in the same fashion as you do the usa, it simply means you are a simpleton who is talking about subject matter you just don't fucking understand. really
there is no proportionality or reason on your thinking. you equate fuck ups with entire ideologies. you point to affairs, twist the meaning and the import, then paint things in a retarded propaganda fashion. like fucking universal healthcare, which the majority of modern democracies use, you call that totalitarian! fucking moronic
i pity you, i really do. to live in such a dimwitted low wattage skull. you're a hysterical propagandized retard, that's all you are on this subject matter. you're just embarrassing yourself. it's pretty sad that people can be such pathetic clueless pieces of shit
the bogeyman of the "welfare queen" is an old lie that conservatives use to justify a point of view where you are actually denying desperate assistance to people who genuinely need it
but you don't care about actual facts, you decide based on your stereotypical weak minded hate
north korea is a totalitarian state. by calling obama a totalitarian, you merely announce yourself as a fucking moron who doesn't even understand the words he uses
not a baseless insult: if you think the obama presidency is anything remotely near the concept of totalitarianism, you are simply, objectively, a dumb person who doesn't understand what the fuck he is talking about
but it's the only way conservatives understand life: in the abstract
actual human life, like the life of the mother who can't take care of a baby now and won't be able to love it, or a starving actual child, or a young man sent off to a moronic war: there's no empathy there from conservatives. "poor life choices!" "entitlements!" conservatism is just a form of degradation of basic human empathy. there's no care or love. pro-life my ass
you mean pro-birth, not pro-life
once the baby is in the world: fuck him. starve to death, freeze, don't get an education, die from an easily treatable condition, die in a moronic war, shoot first ask questions later, go to death row, get shot running from police brutality: fuck you, just die already. that's "pro-life" conservatism
the most entitled people on this planet are conservatives: they are entitled to a society that be preserved according a mythological superior conservative past that never actually existed, and they are entitled to dictate to you how to run your private social life. "small government!"... unless it has to do with who you marry or how you plan your births
meanwhile they get angry at entitlements like: healthcare, education, housing, clothing, food. because someone is poor. of course, if you are poor, it is 100% because of your own life failures, never what the society structures your possible life choices as: "put food on the table but be buried in a payday loan"... your poor life choices! pfffft
it's a pathological hateful creed, and it's quite pathetic so many losers can have their buttons pushed on these issues and vote for plutocrat agendas. they're just ignorant tools. just look at the hoopla over abortion and planned parenthood right now: "ignore the economy, war drums, police misconduct, social inequality, healthcare problems... some lady is going to remove a blob in her body that is just as alive as 20 year old!"
i am pro-life! they say. except if there is a war to fight or a convict to execute or they ran from a cop or they want housing, food, clothing, an education, then fuck them... but i'm pro-life, really!
perennial conservative wedge issue, used to deliver the morons to vote for the plutocrat agenda which keeps us all mired. dependable useful fools for a cause which keeps us all poor
europe, land of free healthcare and cheap college and four weeks vacation, has much higher happiness and are richer societies
america, land of "get cancer and lose your house" and "become a slave under a crushing loan if you want an education" and "work 70 hours to barely tread water, vacation? lol" is less happy and poorer
because a true meritocracy, which conservatives apparently love, requires a level playing field, which means removing most of the problems of where you start in life: rich or poor (healthcare and education), as the determination of your fate
what conservatives policies really get us (whether they know it and not admit to it, the plutocrats, or simply don't know it, the propagandized morons) is classism: rich, you do fine. poor, die early and work your ass off and do *not* get ahead, as the fable promises
oh sure, you *should* work hard and get ahead. a proper society is a meritocracy. but since reagan the middle class is on a long term decline due to the plutocrat loving policies we get. the policies conservatives support means: if your daddy is rich, you'll get a cushy job due to connections and coast through life. impossible to fail no matter how hard you fuck up. and if your poor, work your ass off and lose everything due to one problem in life, the kind we all encounter
so you don't mind if i come over and kill you and take your stuff
social darwinism is the failure of applying the rule of the jungle to human society
the simple fact is, we make the rules in human society, and we can enforce anything we want. we can use the spear as you say, to enforce basic fairness. and we do, and we shall. ever hear of a revolution?
human morality, basic right and wrong, has nothing to do with survival of the fittest in a darwinian sense. darwinian is: strongest guy kills second strongest guy and fucks all the women. we don't actually agree with that model, and we use the spears to go *against* your derivative ignorant wanna-be tough guy crap
to follow your "thinking", there wouldn't be any morality or right and wrong
you're the problem, your derivative, ignorant, amoral thinking. you are, genuinely, objectively, based on the words you have written here, a low intelligence loser
Slashdot Mirror
the point of the second amendment was, and is, to prevent government stepping all over the people, right?
so therefore any douchebag who doesn't know his ass from a gun barrel should use one, and satisfies that requirement?
i know some who don't think so: the founding fathers: "well-regulated"
arguing for irresponsible gun use: that's so brave of you. and directly contradictory to the obvious and plain intent of the founders
you're right
let any asshole drive a car who wants to, no need to prove he knows the rules of the road. completely acceptable way for society to deal with cars on the road
is that your point?
there were plenty of test for arms in the 1700s: regular life
life was rural, with french, british, and spanish on the border, hostile native americans, and wild animals
you needed a gun to get yourself something to eat
a call to arms was a community necessity, for basic survival
your average nine year old then was more proficient with a tricky and complicated musket, than most gun owners are with a point-and-click gun today. they had to be. to live
so in the founder's mind, proficiency was necessary. "well-regulated"
we need testing and training today, only because driving to mcdonalds in suburbia does not require a fire arm. it's individual action that motivates gun ownership today, not the community call. and it's hand guns, not muskets. the concern is crime, not hostile forces. any old douchebag who wants a gun can get one, and not know the first fucking thing about how to use it proficiently and safely
so we have to enforce the proficiency and safety training the founding fathers depended upon that was, only back then, part and parcel of gun ownership
it's obvious what the founders intended, it's not my opinion. "well-regulated." i'd love to see variosu douchebgas dance around that term, and argue for irresponsible gun use. the legal status quo is obviously untenable and will change. and you're right: so what, someone still has to change it. so we shall. don't you agree you should know how to use a gun before using it? the founding fathers sure did: "well-regulated." what is the point of arguing otherwise exactly?
so you're saying "well-regulated" means the government should regulate guns heavily?
i'm not saying that
you are
i understand and thanks for your point
but we have plenty of gun ranges, and it would be an easy legal accommodation to appoint many gun ranges (not too far away from any american) as places people can go and get training, and take a test, and get a license. heck, it's more business for the gun ranges, they'd love it
just like we do with driver's ed: there's no chicken and egg problem. you drive around in a car with a guy sitting next to you who also has brakes and a steering column. then you sit in a classroom and hear about the rules of the road and take a test
it's not nutty to have a gun instructor have special training guns you can use on the range to show you are proficient and understand the points of safety, and then get tested on that
it works in every one of our fucking social and economic peers
japan, germany, uk, france, australia, canada... heck even switzerland which gun lovers love to cite because of the high gun ownership rate, while conveniently forgetting all the rules about guns in switzerland they would scream about if they actually understood them
if we have actual rules about gun ownership: proficiency and safety, like the fucking founders intended, we can cut down on our disgusting and horrifying homicide rate because of easy guns
do you consider our sky high homicide rate a problem? you should
want a gun? GET A GUN. just prove you are proficient and understand safety
why is that so fucking controversial?
the constitutional fashion of the day is frequently overridden by later courts. there are dozens of major issues like this. slavery and segregation for example
at one point, the highest court of the land upheld prohibiting all alcohol
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/...
that was obviously fucking stupid. and quickly reversed
it doesn't take a random yahoo on the internet to point out the fact that the supreme court is often later reversed. and that a random voice on the internet, me, just made you aware of the fact, doesn't change the fact. i can see you want to avoid the simple fact though, which says something about your intellectual honesty. shoot the messenger and you can avoid the message even if it is right?
the second amendment says a "well-regulated militia." aka, well-trained. it's not very controversial. it's quite plain. and yet the legal status quo today completely ignore the founding fathers obvious intent
so that will change
well-regulated means well-trained, translated from 1700s english to today
that's a fact. look it up yourself
and i know what the broken status quo is
the intent of the founding fathers was you had to know how to use the fucking gun. we've lost that intent of the founding fathers, and it's time to get back to our constitutional roots
or do you think it's ok any mouth breathing retard who wants a gun and doesn't know how to use it safely and proficiently should get one easily? you do understand what that has meant for the usa in terms of a sky high homicide rate compared to our peers, right? the founding fathers could foresee this problem, why can't you see the actual problem in front of you? what is the point of trying to defend a broken status quo exactly?
get a gun. any gun you want. just know how to use it safely and proficiently as a requirement of owning that gun
not because i said so, but because the founding fathers did
it refers to a "well-regulated" militia
which translated to today's meaning is "well-trained"
dirty harry constitutional activism in the last century (a freak out over crime, which was actually solved by better policing and sentencing) has meant we have easy guns for every hothead douchebag who wants one. and so the usa has a sky high homicide rate compared to its social and economic peers, who have actual gun regulation
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/8...
but if we followed the actual intent of the founding father's second amendment, they were saying we need *well-trained* gun owners. the founding fathers linked proficiency with ownership. their words. the text of second amendment. not the reinterpretation of activist judges from the last century. we fucked up with prohibition, and reversed that. time to reverse the legal fuck up over firearms from the last century
all we need is testing and licensing before you get a gun. like we do with cars, an equally dangerous tool that any mouth breathing retard should not get just because he wants one
"when guns are outlawed, only outlaws..."
i'm saying you every right to a gun, you have to prove you can use it first. a statement any *responsible* gun owner agrees with. all of the problems with guns is from hotheads easily getting one. make it harder to get one, the hot heads simply don't use a gun. they use a knife, which is far less lethal, because they aren't trying hard in life: they are casual hot heads or genuinely deranged. if it is hard to get one, they don't have the ability to try that hard. the same hard concentration they lack because any sleight or flush of anger makes them start shooting. proof:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
oh sure, criminal masterminds will get any gun they want. and use that gun carefully: they are criminal masterminds. they won't shoot up street corners or discos or movie houses, which is the fucking problem in the usa, because guns are so easy for any asshole to get
"there's too many illegal guns out there already..." yeah, it will take awhile to drain the swamp. progress will be slow and delayed for years as police mop up all the unlawful guns out there. as if just because doing the right thing is hard, that that is somehow a valid argument against doing the right thing
now the crazy part:
guaranteed i will get responses to this comment from people screaming i am stealing all guns. I AM SAYING GO AHEAD AND GET A GUN. just prove you can use one safely and proficiently first LIKE THE FUCKING FOUNDING FATHERS INTENDED. a statement any actual responsible gun owner agrees with
still, you will hear "WHY YOU WANNA GRAB MA GUN" (wheeze, gurgle), just because i am saying you need to prove you can use a gun before you get one. hardly earth shattering, completely moderate, agreed to by a majority of responsible gun owners. but the kneejerk propagandized morons will act like i'm out to steal all guns. fucking pathetic brain dead zombie retards
get back alex jones, you conspiratard
i'm not a troll. i am bothered by propagandized morons ruining public discourse in this country
you. have. no. fucking. clue. what. totalitarianism. is
really. objectively accurate statement. for you to use that word in the context of american politics renders you an ignorant joke. that is objectively true, not a baseless insult
analogy: your definition of totalitarian is like me calling you a pedophile because you hugged a kid once
if you want to sound intelligent and matter to reality, use words that actually mean things. or continue to bark "totalitarian" like a low intelligence propagandized moron herp derping to alex jones. your choice
"democrats bailed out banksters"
"democrats take money from corporations"
"obama admin spies on people"
"obama uses drones"
etc., etc.
except on every single one of these policies, republicans are far more worse or openly promise, as jeb bush just did, to do far worse
yet you have this amazing cognitive dissonance where right wing media will pillory democrats for doing something republican candidates do far worse. "as a republican, i hate that the democrats do {X}, that's why i will vote republican" (who will do far worse on X)
at which point we have to address the air head idealists who will reject both parties and insist on ideological purity before they ever vote. thereby, making themselves not matter, and helping the guy further from them ideologically win
we are talking about POLITICS folks. the very nature of the topic is compromise. with politics and voting your job is to steer the boat of your society in the right direction by putting your hand amongst thousands on the steering wheel. not refusing to help unless the boat magically transports to where you are at ideologically first
you vote the party *closer* to you ideologically. that's as good a deal as you will ever get, in any society, ever possible. by refusing to participate until a choice matches you ideology, you are simply announcing your social immaturity and/ or stupidity on what politics is. it is YOUR job to wiggle a little bit in your ideological straightjacket and *influence*. rather than demand full ideological compliance before you participate. that's an ignorant temper tantrum
that being said, my dream for 2016 is trump v sanders. then sanders can win as trump is a fucking joke, and i will vote sanders with glee, as i love sanders
but if it's something like rubio v clinton, vote clinton! don't stay home ebcause it's not sanders. and if the contest is close, and enough air head idealist morons throw away their vote on sanders as a protest vote, or don't show up to vote, then guess what? then our next president will be rubio. and it's your fucking fault, for being an airhead idealist: you split the left wing vote. even though there are more on the left, you let the republicans win
so i love sanders. but depending upon the nominees, i will be voting for clinton who stands a better chance of beating a serious republican contender
that's called realpolitik
that's call strategy
idealism only gets you things like gwbush "beating" gore in 2000 (gore actually won the popular vote) because just enough morons on the left voted for nader when they should have voted strategically for gore
that is the real effect of voting idealistically instead of realistically: 8 years of a republican moron who got us in a ruinous war and cratered our economy and moved us backwards on progress on social issues
"i am a true muslim, i believe in helping my neighbor, providing for my family, and basic justice"
"i am a true muslim, i believe in raping kafir young girls, beheading unbelievers, and reestablishing the caliphate by war"
the world you live in is full of people who call themselves various labels with completely different meanings, some meanings even contradictory
it is up to you to listen carefully and evaluate what they say, and figure out what they really stand for, no matter what fucking label they use. that is as good a deal as you will ever get
the world does not come with the easy, accurate labels you want. and nobody makes the cogent arguments you want them to lead with. they all go "i am a {X}" (meaning of {X} unclear)
people call themselves all sorts of things for completely ignorant and historically inaccurate reasons. you have to figure it out. you don't get a better deal. that's my point. do you understand?
there's Feminism, the decades old effort to promote equal rights for women, which is a real and valid fight. consider the treatment of women in the Muslim world and other places like rural India. do women have a valid fight in those places against institutionalized degradation of women? they do: education denied, no right to drive a car, no right to dress as they want, etc
that's called Feminism
then there's "feminism", this sort of whiny inconsequential hurt feelings by navel gazing socially immature tumblr losers
of course "feminism" is a joke. but Feminism is not
likewise, "social justice", the hyperbolic nonsense from people who have no sense of proportionality or reason in their rants, is bullshit, but Social Justice, the decades old effort to combat systemic hatred and exclusion, is real, and valid
don't mistake some socially retarded internet trolls and their "causes" for the actual causes they claim to stand for
so germany is a totalitarian state? uk? canada? france? japan?
just because of universal healthcare?
you know, all of the modern democracies with robust rights for their citizens?
are we a totalitarian state because we have government run police? government run fire houses? the police are literally the essential ingredient to run a police state. so why aren't you hysterically pissing in your pants over the fact we have government run police genius?
how about we go to a "capitalist" system with those? don't pay your police bill, no 911 answer. don't pay for fire, we let your house burn. that sound better than what we have?
healthcare is the same
all of our social and economic peers have figured this out. by trying to be "capitalist" about a system which is a natural monopoly, like police and fire, we pay 10x-1,000x what other modern countries pay for healthcare, for lower quality care. all we do is funnel money to financial parasites. it's not capitalist. it never will be capitalist. like fire service. like police. look up "natural monopoly" and educate your ignorant ass
do you think? or do you regurgitate the word "totalitarianism" like a trained monkey herp derping to alex jones? without even fucking understanding what the fucking word means
as for the insults, your "understanding" of what totalitarianism is renders you a complete moron on the topic. again, not an insult: an accurate objective appraisal of the quality of your words, to be so fucking ignorant about what totalitarianism really is and describing the usa as such, just because we don't want to pay fucking insane sums for our fucking healthcare
you are a propagandized retard. really. you do not fucking understand anything you are fucking herp derping about. i have no respect for you. you've earned my disrespect by your words being so fucking DUMB
like i said, you have no fucking clue what you are talking about
if you play so fast and loose with these definitions, and do not understand the massive difference between an actual totalitarian state like north korea, and germany or japan, for example, only because you can criticize them in the same fashion as you do the usa, it simply means you are a simpleton who is talking about subject matter you just don't fucking understand. really
there is no proportionality or reason on your thinking. you equate fuck ups with entire ideologies. you point to affairs, twist the meaning and the import, then paint things in a retarded propaganda fashion. like fucking universal healthcare, which the majority of modern democracies use, you call that totalitarian! fucking moronic
i pity you, i really do. to live in such a dimwitted low wattage skull. you're a hysterical propagandized retard, that's all you are on this subject matter. you're just embarrassing yourself. it's pretty sad that people can be such pathetic clueless pieces of shit
yeah, like old people
what a moron
the bogeyman of the "welfare queen" is an old lie that conservatives use to justify a point of view where you are actually denying desperate assistance to people who genuinely need it
but you don't care about actual facts, you decide based on your stereotypical weak minded hate
north korea is a totalitarian state. by calling obama a totalitarian, you merely announce yourself as a fucking moron who doesn't even understand the words he uses
not a baseless insult: if you think the obama presidency is anything remotely near the concept of totalitarianism, you are simply, objectively, a dumb person who doesn't understand what the fuck he is talking about
"i'm against abortions because it's done by government men in black helicopters"
a blob is not a human life
it could be, someday
but it isn't when it is removed
it's just a fucking blob
but it's the only way conservatives understand life: in the abstract
actual human life, like the life of the mother who can't take care of a baby now and won't be able to love it, or a starving actual child, or a young man sent off to a moronic war: there's no empathy there from conservatives. "poor life choices!" "entitlements!" conservatism is just a form of degradation of basic human empathy. there's no care or love. pro-life my ass
you mean pro-birth, not pro-life
once the baby is in the world: fuck him. starve to death, freeze, don't get an education, die from an easily treatable condition, die in a moronic war, shoot first ask questions later, go to death row, get shot running from police brutality: fuck you, just die already. that's "pro-life" conservatism
happy to relocate == responsible? explain that connection
your rootlessness just tells me you have no life
the most entitled people on this planet are conservatives: they are entitled to a society that be preserved according a mythological superior conservative past that never actually existed, and they are entitled to dictate to you how to run your private social life. "small government!" ... unless it has to do with who you marry or how you plan your births
meanwhile they get angry at entitlements like: healthcare, education, housing, clothing, food. because someone is poor. of course, if you are poor, it is 100% because of your own life failures, never what the society structures your possible life choices as: "put food on the table but be buried in a payday loan"... your poor life choices! pfffft
it's a pathological hateful creed, and it's quite pathetic so many losers can have their buttons pushed on these issues and vote for plutocrat agendas. they're just ignorant tools. just look at the hoopla over abortion and planned parenthood right now: "ignore the economy, war drums, police misconduct, social inequality, healthcare problems... some lady is going to remove a blob in her body that is just as alive as 20 year old!"
i am pro-life! they say. except if there is a war to fight or a convict to execute or they ran from a cop or they want housing, food, clothing, an education, then fuck them... but i'm pro-life, really!
perennial conservative wedge issue, used to deliver the morons to vote for the plutocrat agenda which keeps us all mired. dependable useful fools for a cause which keeps us all poor
europe, land of free healthcare and cheap college and four weeks vacation, has much higher happiness and are richer societies
america, land of "get cancer and lose your house" and "become a slave under a crushing loan if you want an education" and "work 70 hours to barely tread water, vacation? lol" is less happy and poorer
because a true meritocracy, which conservatives apparently love, requires a level playing field, which means removing most of the problems of where you start in life: rich or poor (healthcare and education), as the determination of your fate
what conservatives policies really get us (whether they know it and not admit to it, the plutocrats, or simply don't know it, the propagandized morons) is classism: rich, you do fine. poor, die early and work your ass off and do *not* get ahead, as the fable promises
oh sure, you *should* work hard and get ahead. a proper society is a meritocracy. but since reagan the middle class is on a long term decline due to the plutocrat loving policies we get. the policies conservatives support means: if your daddy is rich, you'll get a cushy job due to connections and coast through life. impossible to fail no matter how hard you fuck up. and if your poor, work your ass off and lose everything due to one problem in life, the kind we all encounter
so you don't mind if i come over and kill you and take your stuff
social darwinism is the failure of applying the rule of the jungle to human society
the simple fact is, we make the rules in human society, and we can enforce anything we want. we can use the spear as you say, to enforce basic fairness. and we do, and we shall. ever hear of a revolution?
human morality, basic right and wrong, has nothing to do with survival of the fittest in a darwinian sense. darwinian is: strongest guy kills second strongest guy and fucks all the women. we don't actually agree with that model, and we use the spears to go *against* your derivative ignorant wanna-be tough guy crap
to follow your "thinking", there wouldn't be any morality or right and wrong
you're the problem, your derivative, ignorant, amoral thinking. you are, genuinely, objectively, based on the words you have written here, a low intelligence loser
maybe you're in a band with your best buds and you can't move and break up the band
maybe you love surfing and you have to be near a warm beach with waves
etc., etc.
or maybe you're a useless, low intelligence internet troll who has to work for a company that allows tor or proxies
does the last problem sound familiar?