The part where he wants to redistribute wealth - well, all but his - from the wallets of the workers (like me) to those who choose not to.
Reaganomics did work, it worked quite well, thank you very much. How can you argue against the fact that decreasing people's taxes increases their spending? The US received more tax revenue after Reagans policies went in than before. Charitable giving was higher than before or since.
I say, bring it on. It works better than Kerry's tax-everything-that-moves policies.
Many of those are the 'big truth' such as Kerry's flipflopping. Subsizing jobs overseas - isn't this something we've stupidly done for the last 20-30 years? I believe it is. Guess both parties are idiots on that one. As for the rich getting richer, well, that notion is itself the 'big lie.' If you believe that to be true, you've been hoodwinked, my friend.
And how exactly is the UN relevent? A group that allows Syria & North Korea to head the human rights council? Please.
Bush never said Iraq had nukes. Not once.
What abortion? What cocaine use? Are you talking about the Kitty Kelley lies? Its funny how you liberals will believe anything bad you hear about Bush, despite there being ZERO evidence. Hey, I'll start one - GW Bush kicked me in the shin once when I was a kid. Yep; he was running for Texas legislature, and I was in Midland, and he just kicked me in the shin. The bastard. Now, go tell Kitty.... What's funny is that only one person is credited for the info on Bush's cocaine use at Camp David, and she flat out calls Kelley a liar, saying she never said that. But, you'll go on believing it, because mindlessness is what Lib's do.
Iraq *did* have connections with al Qaeda, this has been proven.
Again, by looking at these, they are either true, or based on lies told by Democrats. Big lie, indeed....
To advance in this discussion one of us need to cough up some numbers of purchase parity power (PPP).
This is a good point. Certainly, I was able to live much cheaper in Europe than I live here. However, the disparity doesn't seem to be linear, more logarhythmic. Hope I spelled that right. I'd like to see numbers, but really, what I personally saw with my own eyes from living there is more proof than some cooked statistics would show me anyway. I stand by my statement that the poor in America live better than the middle class in Europe.
Wonder what level of income people that are sentenced for killing another person have, compared to the national average (or middle value)
Or the level of income of people to get off *cough*OJ*cough*.;)
Which SS decision agrees that it is a collective right? None. Many refer to it as an individual right.
What's funny is that the authors of the 2nd amendment didn't write the bill of rights then knock off figuring their work was done. Most of them were prolific - and opinionated - writers, all of whom wrote that the goal is 'for every man' to be armed. You can argue against the wisdom of carrying arms all you want; an argument against what the framers meant, when they wrote prolifically about that topic, would be ridiculous.
You didn't answer parent post - how was Twirlip's post off-topic? It wasn't. It was the poster, not what he posted, and the reply as much as admitted this.
Like that woman who was raped and murdered in New York, and screamed for help, and people just yelled out their windows a couple of times - but no one called the cops or went to investigate? That kind of community?
One can't always determine who his or her community may be. Yes, it'd be great to depend on your neighbors to help out; in reality, it simply doesn't happen.
There must have been other circumstances; under Texas law, if you shoot someone at night while they are in the act of comitting a crime such as theft, arson, or vandalism, then no crime has been comitted by you.... You can not be charged, and even if some overzealous MF DA does charge you, you will be no-billed by the grand jury. A jury can't decide, "Well, the law says he is allowed to do this, but we think otherwise," and convict.
Like I say, other circumstances must be in play; I'd kinda like to know the story, if you happen to have a link or more details.
Thanks
The second ammendment is designed to allow the states to form militias
No, the 2nd amendment is to DISALLOW the government from making ANY legislation that prevents the PEOPLE from owning/carrying firearms. It says people, not state, in the amendment.
And, if you doubt that, please find an arms/firearms quote by anyone who was an author of the declaration of independence or the Bill of Rights that suggests anything other than the individual rights view.
My only stupidity is replying to an AC asshole, but at any rate, here goes:
How can you say he didn't intend to harm anyone? Done a little midnight robbery yourself? Good for you, I admire your desire to relieve other people of the fruits of their labors without harming their physical selves. Then why do you have a gun? To prevent me from stopping you.... Stopping you from stealing from me... That makes sense.
I've got a better idea - lets see what happens when people who commit armed robbery get shot and killed. Oh, yeah, I forget - that does happen! And you know what? That particular robber never does it again! Great!
Letting citizens easy access to guns is what's the problem in the first place: ANYONE can become a criminal, very easily.
This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read on Slashdot, and that's a difficult task; congrats. You are saying that access to guns creates criminals. Kinda like, flies create garbage. I have access to guns, and haven't become a criminal; you presumably do not have access to guns, yet where you live you still have criminals. Where is your cause/effect?
I'll answer that myself - it is up your ass, where your head is.
You are looking at it from a very warped direction.
Lets put it in perspective:
Someone breaks into my house, armed, and I am not. I am now at the complete whim of a violent criminal. What he says, goes. Or I or my family are killed.
Or......
Someone breaks into my house, I am armed, now he has the choice to immediately stop what he is doing. If he drops my shit and runs away, great, I go clean out my pants and call the pigs. If he decides to do something aggressive, then he has made that choice, and will be shot quite a bit.
Now, you tell me, which is the greatest evil: allowing one's own family to be brutalized, or to defend that family, hopefully without having to shoot anyone.
I disagree. This is a statement that makes all crime seem equiv. to Jean Valjean stealing bread to keep his daughter from starving. It has been said that people who live below the fabled 'poverty level' in the US live at a higher standard of living than most middle class folks in Europe. I've lived in Europe, and from what I've seen, I believe this to be true. So, those gangbangers killing other gangbangers are going home to their subsidized houses, eating subsidized food, wearing $150 shoes and driving pimped out vehicles worth more than I make in a year, own cell phones and video cameras; in short, these people are not living in poverty with no hope for getting out but for stealing from the 'ultra rich' (they usually steal from their neighbors, anyway).
by arming yourself against an armed assailant, you are more likely to get shot.
Bunk. This is illogical in addition to being complete fallacy. If you are armed, you have a chance against the armed assailant; unarmed, you rely completely on him. No, thanks, I'll take my chances with a gun over trusting a proven antisocial criminal threatening me with death.
So you admit you are a stupid cock. Figures. In this case, the post DIDN'T deserve it. It had nothing to do with slamming your ultra-leftwing bullshit.
You know, its funny.... As much as I read this and the parent, I can't quite think of why it has been rated as, currently, '-1,Flamebait.'
Then I realized - this is Twirlip. And this is Slashdot. Populated by Slashholes who probably hate having their silly lefty ideas thrown into the garbage disposal by Twirlip, and hey, now they have modpoints to use to get back at him!
What 'Big Lie'? That is more of a left-wing strategy. ie, Michael Moore's movie/books; taking credit for the economic growth of the 90's (Must have been that huge fucking tax increase that left us with so much more to spend); taking credit for lowered violent crime rates (must have been the midnight basketball); suggesting socialism works, healthcare or otherwise (Must be the oh-so-financially stable healthcare systems in Great Britain that make you say that).... And so on.
Just think of how many there would be if the law abiding people (like myself) who are exercising our god-given right, affirmed in the 2nd amendment, to defend ourselves with our privately owned firearms, whilst the criminals still have their guns.
I myself used a firearm to defend myself, so I find it arrogance in the extreme when someone who knows absolutely nothing about it begins spouting his idiocy.
If you don't want a firearm, that's fine, and you can stay your happy ass in oh-so-safe Great Britain. We'll get along fine without you.
Wow, dragging this old thing out. This study was completely destroyed years ago (it is not from '98, I read it in '93 or '94), its statistics model was - I want to say flawed, but no, it was skewed to show what Kellermann wanted to show.
On the contrary, handguns are used about 1.2million times per year in the US to avert a criminal act.
Funny - everyone else associated with him says he didn't feel this way, and I figure the personnel officer that knew him for 17 years, his son, and his wife just might, possibly, know more about it than you.
I think Bush's unprovoked war in Iraq and the resulting disaster for the war on terrorism
Dude, what planet are you living on? Unprovoked? Hardly. It has been shown time and again that Iraqi agents had met with al Qaida representatives in Europe and the mid east; what were they doing, trading coupons? Hussein admitted to having WMD programs and stockpiles. He spent about a decade playing with the UN, kicking the inspectors out if they got to close, and now I'm supposed to believe that, despite no proof of doing so, he voluntarily got rid of these WMD? If by 'got rid of' you mean 'sent to friendly neighboring country which also supports terrorism,' then yes. Any other option is absurd.
Now, how is the 'disaster for the war on terrorism' relevent? What disaster? Our military has kicked the shit out of those idiots in their own back yard. Are they still hiding and killing? Sure; the Israelis have been dealing with this shit for 60 years; the British before that. But to call it disaster, when numerous incidents of terrorism have been averted - well, you *are* ready for a tin hat, aren't you?
Slashdot Mirror
But I've never seen a grown man naked, so, we're good there.
Reaganomics did work, it worked quite well, thank you very much. How can you argue against the fact that decreasing people's taxes increases their spending? The US received more tax revenue after Reagans policies went in than before. Charitable giving was higher than before or since.
I say, bring it on. It works better than Kerry's tax-everything-that-moves policies.
And how exactly is the UN relevent? A group that allows Syria & North Korea to head the human rights council? Please.
Bush never said Iraq had nukes. Not once.
What abortion? What cocaine use? Are you talking about the Kitty Kelley lies? Its funny how you liberals will believe anything bad you hear about Bush, despite there being ZERO evidence. Hey, I'll start one - GW Bush kicked me in the shin once when I was a kid. Yep; he was running for Texas legislature, and I was in Midland, and he just kicked me in the shin. The bastard. Now, go tell Kitty.... What's funny is that only one person is credited for the info on Bush's cocaine use at Camp David, and she flat out calls Kelley a liar, saying she never said that. But, you'll go on believing it, because mindlessness is what Lib's do.
Iraq *did* have connections with al Qaeda, this has been proven.
Again, by looking at these, they are either true, or based on lies told by Democrats. Big lie, indeed....
What's funny is that the authors of the 2nd amendment didn't write the bill of rights then knock off figuring their work was done. Most of them were prolific - and opinionated - writers, all of whom wrote that the goal is 'for every man' to be armed. You can argue against the wisdom of carrying arms all you want; an argument against what the framers meant, when they wrote prolifically about that topic, would be ridiculous.
You didn't answer parent post - how was Twirlip's post off-topic? It wasn't. It was the poster, not what he posted, and the reply as much as admitted this.
I mean, lets say I like it and start using it a lot. It won't be long before it asks me, "David? Who's your favorite Little Rascal? Is it Alfalfa?"
"...or Spanky?"
One can't always determine who his or her community may be. Yes, it'd be great to depend on your neighbors to help out; in reality, it simply doesn't happen.
Idiot. If someone gets hurt - even severely - stealing a radio, then too fucking bad.
I'm only a sophomore, so I'll get one in a couple of years.
Like I say, other circumstances must be in play; I'd kinda like to know the story, if you happen to have a link or more details. Thanks
It does get pretty hot in July.
And, if you doubt that, please find an arms/firearms quote by anyone who was an author of the declaration of independence or the Bill of Rights that suggests anything other than the individual rights view.
How can you say he didn't intend to harm anyone? Done a little midnight robbery yourself? Good for you, I admire your desire to relieve other people of the fruits of their labors without harming their physical selves. Then why do you have a gun? To prevent me from stopping you.... Stopping you from stealing from me... That makes sense.
I've got a better idea - lets see what happens when people who commit armed robbery get shot and killed. Oh, yeah, I forget - that does happen! And you know what? That particular robber never does it again! Great!
This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read on Slashdot, and that's a difficult task; congrats. You are saying that access to guns creates criminals. Kinda like, flies create garbage. I have access to guns, and haven't become a criminal; you presumably do not have access to guns, yet where you live you still have criminals. Where is your cause/effect?I'll answer that myself - it is up your ass, where your head is.
Someone breaks into my house, armed, and I am not. I am now at the complete whim of a violent criminal. What he says, goes. Or I or my family are killed.
Or......
Someone breaks into my house, I am armed, now he has the choice to immediately stop what he is doing. If he drops my shit and runs away, great, I go clean out my pants and call the pigs. If he decides to do something aggressive, then he has made that choice, and will be shot quite a bit.
Now, you tell me, which is the greatest evil: allowing one's own family to be brutalized, or to defend that family, hopefully without having to shoot anyone.
Like we give a shit.....
So, socialism isn't the answer, either.
Idiot.
Then I realized - this is Twirlip. And this is Slashdot. Populated by Slashholes who probably hate having their silly lefty ideas thrown into the garbage disposal by Twirlip, and hey, now they have modpoints to use to get back at him!
What a bunch of dicks.
What 'Big Lie'? That is more of a left-wing strategy. ie, Michael Moore's movie/books; taking credit for the economic growth of the 90's (Must have been that huge fucking tax increase that left us with so much more to spend); taking credit for lowered violent crime rates (must have been the midnight basketball); suggesting socialism works, healthcare or otherwise (Must be the oh-so-financially stable healthcare systems in Great Britain that make you say that).... And so on.
I myself used a firearm to defend myself, so I find it arrogance in the extreme when someone who knows absolutely nothing about it begins spouting his idiocy.
If you don't want a firearm, that's fine, and you can stay your happy ass in oh-so-safe Great Britain. We'll get along fine without you.
On the contrary, handguns are used about 1.2million times per year in the US to avert a criminal act.
Something to think about.
Funny - everyone else associated with him says he didn't feel this way, and I figure the personnel officer that knew him for 17 years, his son, and his wife just might, possibly, know more about it than you.
Now, how is the 'disaster for the war on terrorism' relevent? What disaster? Our military has kicked the shit out of those idiots in their own back yard. Are they still hiding and killing? Sure; the Israelis have been dealing with this shit for 60 years; the British before that. But to call it disaster, when numerous incidents of terrorism have been averted - well, you *are* ready for a tin hat, aren't you?