The thought of masses of NRA members taking up arms to oppose the repeal of the 13th amendment is laughable.
Well, then it's a good thing I never said that, eh?
Nice strawman there.
Try reading what I wrote next time.
The poster I responded to stated:
Like you're going to be able to defend yourself when the Air Force napalms your "rebel" position.
Which would mean the military actually received orders to attack civilians.
To which I responded:
I've got news for you. I've lived almost my entire life in and around the military, as did my father. If such orders came down, a significant portion, if not the majority, of the military would be pointing their weapons back at the politicians and removing them from power.
Is it too much to ask that you not just make shit up and then respond to that as if I stated it?
Oh, wait...
I'm asking for intellectual honesty from a Progressive.
And best not to forget the biggest totalitarian hell hole at the moment. The US!
Oh wait that doesn't help your argument at all does it.....
Actually, it does. Very much so.
What we're seeing in the US is the result of roughly a century of ever-increasing Progressivism in society and government that's slowly destroying the nation, it's economy, and it's citizen's freedoms.
Too many rights over your own property leaves a mess that persists beyond your lifetime which is harmful to society
Except that the US and the Constitution aren't meant, and were never meant, to protect society, they were and are meant to protect individual freedom.
Once you put collective interests above individual freedom, you have tyranny. History shows this has always been true, and unless humans suddenly change into something other than human, it will always be so.
How covenient of you to point to a recent 5-4 SCOTUS ruling that went your way.
Why aren't mentioning the 1997 decision that went 5-4 against or the 1939 decision, also against, that voted 8-0?
It's ludicrous that the top court, after 200 years hasn't given a completely clear definition of well-regulated militia.
If the military is such a staunch defender of individual freedom then a bunch of open-carrying yahoos isn't going to save society.
The military at least meets the definition of a well-regulated militia.
Arizona's easy acces to guns didn't help Gabby Giffords or the others who were killed or wounded by Jared Loughner. There were more than a few armed among the bystanders but the only one, Joe Zamudio, with the prescence of mind to actually take out his weapon nearly shot the wrong man - an UNARMED civilian who'd wrested away the shooter's weapon.
So...
You've got nothing except hand-waving, bloviation, and fear-mongering.
In my opinion ( and others), the 2nd amendment is wildly and widely misunderstood.
I'm including in parentheses the part that gets dropped by most supporters when they point to its constitutionality
(A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,) the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
That 1st part is as important as the much-touted 2nd part.
Except that the SCOTUS recently ruled exactly the other way. OOPS!
Let's say Obama woke up tomorrow fully possessed by Hitler, Stalin and Attila, how will your pistol or shotgun help in the short term? They have helicopters, tanks, control of the ulitities, etc. Hacker skills would go a lot further fighting against the gov't than trying to pit your Magnum against a 50-cal.
No, *WE* have helicopters, tanks, etc etc.
And who says I *don't* have a Ma Deuce (M2.50 cal heavy machine gun)? It's not illegal, just expensive.
Who do you think makes up a large percentage of conservative gun owners and 2nd Amendment proponents? Military people.
To quote from one of my previous posts:
You speak of the military like they are some kind of brainless machine that just automatically does whatever politicians want, the politician just says "kill all those civilians" and the military will just do it without question.
I've got news for you. I've lived almost my entire life in and around the military, as did my father. If such orders came down, a significant portion, if not the majority, of the military would be pointing their weapons back at the politicians and removing them from power, not killing the citizens.
Don't count on the US Military to do your dirty domestic civilian suppression/pacification work. You may not like which way they point the loud end.
Funny, Thatcher's quip about socialism comes to my mind.
"Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money."
How come you aren't running for president based on your self-evident platform that will lead to guaranteed freedom, wealth and permanent happiness? Oh, right, your ideas are even worse.
As to running for President, no thanks. I like my relative anonymity, freedom, and I also try to avoid cesspools. Slashdot excepted, of course.:)
However, I and many others have always felt that Presidents should be selected from a pool of people who don't want the job, so if that ever came to pass, maybe you'd see a President BlueStrat. I couldn't be much worse than the options we have currently for 2012. You'd just have to hire additional Secret Service agents to prevent my escape.
Yes, the U.S. under Teddy Roosevelt [wikipedia.org] sure looked feudal. Seriously, dude, do you have any idea what the words you use actually mean?
Yes it did, and yes I do.
The Progressives in the 1880s were the first generation of Americans to denounce openly our founding documents.
Even the name "Progressive" reveals their beliefs, as they call themselves "Progressive" because they believe in progressing, or moving beyond, the principles of our founders and the limitations on government power enshrined in the Constitution.
Woodrow Wilson, for example, once warned that "if you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface" - i.e. that part of the Declaration which talks about securing individual natural rights as the only legitimate purpose of government.
Theodore Roosevelt, when using the federal government to take over private businesses during the 1902 coal strike, is reported to have remarked, "To hell with the Constitution when people want coal!" This remark may be apocryphal, but it is a fair representation of how TR viewed these matters.
Teddy Roosevelt was the first President to start turning the Constitution into "just a Goddamned piece of paper".
Under capitalism, the state creates and enforces "property rights" for the aristocrats, using the threat of death/imprisonment to keep the serfs in line.
Pure twaddle.
"Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist." - John Adams
"Now what liberty can there be where property is taken without consent?" - Samuel Adams
"The rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for which the protection of Government was instituted." - James Madison
Point of fact, the Greek economic crisis was largely a creation of banks; trying to fault progressivism is a serious disconnect from reality.
More pure fantasy.
The Greek economic crisis is the direct result of unsustainable Progressive entitlement/benefit/pension spending and unrealistic Progressive economic, financial, and social policies.
As to your slam against capitalism, capitalism sucks. It's horrible. But it's STILL the best system yet invented to empower the common man.
> Capitalism is the only system ever created where wealth is a renewable resource for everyone as long as they are willing to work and/or come up with an idea, skill, invention, or service that has value to someone else.
> Capitalism has raised more people from poverty and raised more people to higher standards of living than any other system ever created.
> Capitalism has allowed more people to live in more freedom than any other system ever invented.
> Capitalism has allowed the US to provide more humanitarian assistance to those in need around the world than any other system or country in history.
For these reasons and many, many more, Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Progressivism, and the so-called "New World Order" are doomed to failure and to taking their rightful places on the garbage heap of history with the other failed ideologies and social systems which are based upon hate, greed, fear, and lust for power.
You haven't heard of the 1st amendment? Hint: It precedes the 2nd amendment you're so zealous about.
OK, fine. Then let's agree that you leave the 2nd Amendment alone, and we'll leave the 1st Amendment alone.
See, that's exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about. You don't mind at all trying to take away people's rights under the 2nd Amendment, but you scream bloody murder when it's a right YOU care about.
Once you go down the road of removing/crippling/restricting rights, don't act all surprised when they get to a right YOU care about.
They came for the gun owners, but I wasn't a gun owner, so I did not speak out. Then they came for my freedom of speech, but there was no way for me or anyone else to defend my free speech.
Just an FYI: Why do you think the founders put those two things as first and second in the list of rights? According to them, it's because without the 2nd Amendment, you can't defend the 1st Amendment, and will quickly lose it.
Love it or hate it, the two most important things our founders believed were, "You can speak out against your government," and "You can defend yourself against your government."
Right. Like you're going to be able to defend yourself when the Air Force napalms your "rebel" position.
You speak of the military like they are some kind of brainless machine that just automatically does whatever politicians want, the politician just says "kill all those civilians" and the military will just do it without question.
I've got news for you. I've lived almost my entire life in and around the military, as did my father. If such orders came down, a significant portion, if not the majority, of the military would be pointing their weapons back at the politicians and removing them from power, not killing the citizens.
If it can work for oil&gas companies, chemical companies, forestry industry, etc, it can work for guys who get off by firing their guns at anything that moves.
America has a long history of putting public safety above private profits.
They tried your ideas in the USSR.
It was a totalitarian hellhole.
It collapsed.
They tried a "kinder, gentler" version of your ideas in Europe.
It's collapsing as we speak.
They're trying your ideas in Venezuela.
It's become a totalitarian hellhole.
Do you see a pattern emerging here?
If you're worried about irresponsible firearm use, then teach safe firearm practices in grade school.
Are you kidding? Just because the Utah State Legislature says that carrying an assault rifle around a mall doesn't count as threatening doesn't mean it's not threatening.
This is a matter of personal individual perceptions, largely based on political viewpoint. Just because you are irrationally afraid, because of your politics, of an inanimate tool doesn't mean everyone is or should be. It does not justify a ban on anything "scary" to a minority subset of the population because of political viewpoint.
As a matter of fact, Liberal/Progressives scare the shit out of me, far more than law abiding citizens carrying firearms. The ideology behind Liberalism/Progressivism (Marxist/Maoist socialist/communist/fascist style totalitarianism) has killed 100's of millions.
Additionally, there isn't even a survival/protection/Constitutional justification as there are for firearms in the case of Liberalism/Progressivism. Let's pass a law to ban Liberal/Progressives and their teachings!
Stop breathing until you're paying someone for it... let me know how that works out for you...
We are already.
We breathe out that nasty pollutant carbon dioxide that we are paying the EPA to regulate, and paying more for the things that those EPA regulations regulate as a consequence.
I told people ~40 years ago that we'd end up paying the government to breathe if government size, scope, and power weren't limited.
I'm just trying to point out how completely and totally fucking irrationally stupid it would be for Iran to nuke ANYTHING, which nobody seems to consider whenever they rattle the saber at Iran. If you're going to hate an entire nation, the least you could do is not make shit up and pretend that their leaders said things they didn't say, or will do things that are tantamount to national suicide.
You make the mistake of assuming that the leaders in Iran are working from the same set of logic and reason you or I do. This is patently false. They operate from radical religious beliefs. They're the type of nutjobs that strap explosives to themselves to commit suicide in order to kill a school full of children.
Ahma-Nutjob believes that it's his "mission from God", to quote the Blues Brothers, to start The Apocalypse in order for the 12th Imam to return to the Earth. He's not the only one in the Iranian government that believes this. Many Shiites do. They don't expect to survive. They believe an apocalypse and their deaths will help bring about the return of the 12th Imam and guarantee them a place in heaven.
It's like expecting logical behavior from cultists. Ain't happening.
You don't need to stop hating Iran.
And, just a point here, I don't "hate" Iran or Iranians. I've lived and worked with Iranian people. I found them to be among some of the most pleasant, friendly, educated, courteous, generous, and hospitable people on the planet. The people in general aren't the problem. It's the radical religious nutjobs running the place that think that slaughter on an apocalyptic scale is their ticket to Paradise.
...blatant propaganda that requires an entire nation's leadership to be committed to suicide.
You mean, as opposed to blatant propaganda that tries to convince people that Iran's leadership isn't committed to it's religious goals that include suicide, despite all the statements they've made stating exactly that?
So, in summary: capitalism isn't the problem, the problem is in letting the capitalists get involved in government.
You're right that capitalism isn't the problem.
Capitalism is the only system ever created where wealth is a renewable resource for anyone and everyone as long as they are willing to work and/or come up with an idea, skill, or invention thatâ(TM)s useful and/or has some value to someone else.
Capitalism has raised more people from poverty and provided a higher standard of living for more people than any other system ever created.
Capitalism has allowed more people to live in more individual freedom than any other system ever invented.
Capitalism has allowed the US to provide more humanitarian assistance to those in need around the world than any other system or country in history.
As to the "capitalists involved in government", I assume you mean corruption and influence-buying. This is why a central government must be kept small and relatively weak, with only those powers and just enough funding to perform only the basic, essential functions of a central government. Anything more, and it guarantees corruption.
The more people, power, and money in a government, the more that human failings become the defining features of that government as a whole.
This is precisely what has happened to the US. The Federal government has grown into a behemoth with incredible power and controlling incredible amounts of wealth. It's become a natural target for corruption. It's simply human nature at work. It turns the "capitalism" that has done so much good for so many people into "crony-capitalism" like we have now that is destructive and evil.
This staffer is simply reflecting the attitudes and viewpoints of the average member of a too-large & powerful, and thus too-corrupt, Federal government that has forgotten that the people are the masters and government the servant.
The larger government becomes, the more tyranny & corruption there will be. It has always been so. It will always be so. At least, as long as humans remain human.
It is simplistic and just plain wrong to label opponents of zionism as "anti-semitic"
Oh yeah?
So, how many times did Palestinian terrorists that crossed into Israel ask their Jewish victims if they were "anti-Zionist" before they killed them, and let them live if they answered "yes"? Do you think it makes any difference to them at all whether the Jews they slaughter are Zionists or not? Are the Jewish babies they deliberately murder in their cribs Zionists too?
Sorry. Semantic word games don't change the reality.
You want to know where I think Israel screwed up? They shouldn't have stopped after 6 days in 1967. They should have kept going until they planted the Israeli flag on top of every attacking Arab country's Capitol and annexed those countries completely, built a synagogue in place of a bulldozed-flat Mecca, and used the stones from Mecca to build Jewish sewage-treatment holding/aeration tanks for new Jewish settlements in Egypt.
If that's what passes for "parenting" in your view, do us ALL a favor.
Don't ever breed.
Part of his/her parenting choice is to attempt to provide some added automated filtering to what comes up on the computer.
Bullcrap. You failed at reading comprehension in school, didn't you?
From TFS:...secure enough they can't just bypass it using a Google search?"
If he's worried about the kids doing a Google search for bad things, then he's sure not sitting there supervising them or he'd see them try it and stop them himself. It's not intended to be "in addition to" it's more like "instead of".
Why don't you not waste his/her time with your wanker response and either just not respond or provide some options?
"Wanker response"? Sod off, Coward! I'm not going to keep quiet when his whole perception that software can keep his kids safe online is total bunk. There *are no* options to give. Even frickin' China can't construct a filter that good (nor has any other nation been able to do it)!
I'm not "wasting his time", I'm actually saving him a ton of time and frustration, not to mention giving the best advice to actually protect his kids, as opposed to trying to hunt down a "magic safe-internet rock" that won't do any more good than that "magic anti-tiger rock" you bought, no matter how few tigers have killed you.
Software won't keep the kids safe any more than the TSA makes anyone safe. As a matter of fact, that's a pretty good analogy. It's like trusting the TSA to keep your kids safe online. Nothing but security theater.
There is no replacement for parental supervision when it comes to limiting what kids see (and who out there sees and talks to *them*!) on the 'net. Software is not capable of doing that, at least not yet.
It's too bad if that's inconvenient to someone's lifestyle. They should have taken that into consideration before they dropped trou to breed.
Slashdot Mirror
The thought of masses of NRA members taking up arms to oppose the repeal of the 13th amendment is laughable.
Well, then it's a good thing I never said that, eh?
Nice strawman there.
Try reading what I wrote next time.
The poster I responded to stated:
Like you're going to be able to defend yourself when the Air Force napalms your "rebel" position.
Which would mean the military actually received orders to attack civilians.
To which I responded:
I've got news for you. I've lived almost my entire life in and around the military, as did my father. If such orders came down, a significant portion, if not the majority, of the military would be pointing their weapons back at the politicians and removing them from power.
Is it too much to ask that you not just make shit up and then respond to that as if I stated it?
Oh, wait...
I'm asking for intellectual honesty from a Progressive.
Never mind.
Strat
And best not to forget the biggest totalitarian hell hole at the moment. The US!
Oh wait that doesn't help your argument at all does it.....
Actually, it does. Very much so.
What we're seeing in the US is the result of roughly a century of ever-increasing Progressivism in society and government that's slowly destroying the nation, it's economy, and it's citizen's freedoms.
Strat
No strat it just proves once again you are an moron.
Ahhhhahahahaha! "an moron" huh?
Yeah, OK there, "Einstein".
How does that foot taste, anyways?
Typical Liberal/Progressive behavior. Ad hominem in place of cogent argument...
Except you can't even get your ad-hom right when attempting to insult someone's intelligence!
Man, I sure was right in my other post...you guys just get funnier and funnier the longer you keep your pie-holes open!
Strat
Too many rights over your own property leaves a mess that persists beyond your lifetime which is harmful to society
Except that the US and the Constitution aren't meant, and were never meant, to protect society, they were and are meant to protect individual freedom.
Once you put collective interests above individual freedom, you have tyranny. History shows this has always been true, and unless humans suddenly change into something other than human, it will always be so.
Strat
But then children won't learn to grow up with an irrational fear of guns.
Yeah, can't have that! That would interfere with the Progressive indoctrination of the children to be helpless and dependent serfs!
They might even grow up not needing a gargantuan all-powerful government!
They might even start [gasp!!] thinking for themselves!!!
The horror!!!
I see that my OP is now down to "-1 Troll". That just confirms to me that I'm dead on-target. Oops, I hope that phrase didn't scare the mods! :)
Strat
You're welcome.
Try to be more adept next time before conceding.
Ah, the Obama/Progressive standard strategy!
Get your ass handed to you, so declare victory and withdraw.
At least you're consistent.
Strat
So you're ok with limiting the 2nd, but not with the 1st? Ah, right. Double standards.
No no no, you don't understand!
It's a "living" standard...you know, like that "living Constitution" whose meaning can be reinterpreted to suit whoever is in power.
I swear...these people get funnier and funnier every single time I read/hear their twisted logic.
Strat :)
How covenient of you to point to a recent 5-4 SCOTUS ruling that went your way.
Why aren't mentioning the 1997 decision that went 5-4 against or the 1939 decision, also against, that voted 8-0?
It's ludicrous that the top court, after 200 years hasn't given a completely clear definition of well-regulated militia.
If the military is such a staunch defender of individual freedom then a bunch of open-carrying yahoos isn't going to save society.
The military at least meets the definition of a well-regulated militia.
Arizona's easy acces to guns didn't help Gabby Giffords or the others who were killed or wounded by Jared Loughner. There were more than a few armed among the bystanders but the only one, Joe Zamudio, with the prescence of mind to actually take out his weapon nearly shot the wrong man - an UNARMED civilian who'd wrested away the shooter's weapon.
So...
You've got nothing except hand-waving, bloviation, and fear-mongering.
Well, thanks for playing anyways.
Strat
In my opinion ( and others), the 2nd amendment is wildly and widely misunderstood.
I'm including in parentheses the part that gets dropped by most supporters when they point to its constitutionality
(A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,) the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
That 1st part is as important as the much-touted 2nd part.
Except that the SCOTUS recently ruled exactly the other way. OOPS!
Let's say Obama woke up tomorrow fully possessed by Hitler, Stalin and Attila, how will your pistol or shotgun help in the short term?
They have helicopters, tanks, control of the ulitities, etc. Hacker skills would go a lot further fighting against the gov't than trying to pit your Magnum against a 50-cal.
No, *WE* have helicopters, tanks, etc etc.
And who says I *don't* have a Ma Deuce (M2 .50 cal heavy machine gun)? It's not illegal, just expensive.
I might even be the owner of this: http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h103/stratman_el84/Junk/633518421146213483-Seriously---Get-off-my-lawn---Motivational-Army-Poster-1.jpg
Who do you think makes up a large percentage of conservative gun owners and 2nd Amendment proponents? Military people.
To quote from one of my previous posts:
You speak of the military like they are some kind of brainless machine that just automatically does whatever politicians want, the politician just says "kill all those civilians" and the military will just do it without question.
I've got news for you. I've lived almost my entire life in and around the military, as did my father. If such orders came down, a significant portion, if not the majority, of the military would be pointing their weapons back at the politicians and removing them from power, not killing the citizens.
Don't count on the US Military to do your dirty domestic civilian suppression/pacification work. You may not like which way they point the loud end.
Strat
Churchill's quip about democracy comes to mind.
Funny, Thatcher's quip about socialism comes to my mind.
"Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money."
How come you aren't running for president based on your self-evident platform that will lead to guaranteed freedom, wealth and permanent happiness? Oh, right, your ideas are even worse.
As to running for President, no thanks. I like my relative anonymity, freedom, and I also try to avoid cesspools. Slashdot excepted, of course. :)
However, I and many others have always felt that Presidents should be selected from a pool of people who don't want the job, so if that ever came to pass, maybe you'd see a President BlueStrat. I couldn't be much worse than the options we have currently for 2012. You'd just have to hire additional Secret Service agents to prevent my escape.
Strat
Yes, the U.S. under Teddy Roosevelt [wikipedia.org] sure looked feudal. Seriously, dude, do you have any idea what the words you use actually mean?
Yes it did, and yes I do.
The Progressives in the 1880s were the first generation of Americans to denounce openly our founding documents.
Even the name "Progressive" reveals their beliefs, as they call themselves "Progressive" because they believe in progressing, or moving beyond, the principles of our founders and the limitations on government power enshrined in the Constitution.
Woodrow Wilson, for example, once warned that "if you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface" - i.e. that part of the Declaration which talks about securing individual natural rights as the only legitimate purpose of government.
Theodore Roosevelt, when using the federal government to take over private businesses during the 1902 coal strike, is reported to have remarked, "To hell with the Constitution when people want coal!" This remark may be apocryphal, but it is a fair representation of how TR viewed these matters.
Teddy Roosevelt was the first President to start turning the Constitution into "just a Goddamned piece of paper".
Under capitalism, the state creates and enforces "property rights" for the aristocrats, using the threat of death/imprisonment to keep the serfs in line.
Pure twaddle.
"Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist." - John Adams
"Now what liberty can there be where property is taken without consent?" - Samuel Adams
"The rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for which the protection of Government was instituted." - James Madison
Point of fact, the Greek economic crisis was largely a creation of banks; trying to fault progressivism is a serious disconnect from reality.
More pure fantasy.
The Greek economic crisis is the direct result of unsustainable Progressive entitlement/benefit/pension spending and unrealistic Progressive economic, financial, and social policies.
As to your slam against capitalism, capitalism sucks. It's horrible. But it's STILL the best system yet invented to empower the common man.
> Capitalism is the only system ever created where wealth is a renewable resource for everyone as long as they are willing to work and/or come up with an idea, skill, invention, or service that has value to someone else.
> Capitalism has raised more people from poverty and raised more people to higher standards of living than any other system ever created.
> Capitalism has allowed more people to live in more freedom than any other system ever invented.
> Capitalism has allowed the US to provide more humanitarian assistance to those in need around the world than any other system or country in history.
For these reasons and many, many more, Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Progressivism, and the so-called "New World Order" are doomed to failure and to taking their rightful places on the garbage heap of history with the other failed ideologies and social systems which are based upon hate, greed, fear, and lust for power.
Strat
So THAT's the root cause of the Greek and Spanish economic problems. Thank you so very much for enlightening me!
Yup, that's what happens when you try to run a nation and society based on Progressive Collectivist/Statist principles.
Collapse.
Chaos.
Death.
Evidentally feudalism IS the Way of the Future!
When Progressives run things, Crony-Capitalism insures plenty of State-sponsored, and enforced by threat of death/imprisonment, feudalism.
Strat
You haven't heard of the 1st amendment?
Hint: It precedes the 2nd amendment you're so zealous about.
OK, fine. Then let's agree that you leave the 2nd Amendment alone, and we'll leave the 1st Amendment alone.
See, that's exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about. You don't mind at all trying to take away people's rights under the 2nd Amendment, but you scream bloody murder when it's a right YOU care about.
Once you go down the road of removing/crippling/restricting rights, don't act all surprised when they get to a right YOU care about.
They came for the gun owners, but I wasn't a gun owner, so I did not speak out. Then they came for my freedom of speech, but there was no way for me or anyone else to defend my free speech.
Just an FYI: Why do you think the founders put those two things as first and second in the list of rights? According to them, it's because without the 2nd Amendment, you can't defend the 1st Amendment, and will quickly lose it.
Strat
You speak of the military like they are some kind of brainless machine that just automatically does whatever politicians want, the politician just says "kill all those civilians" and the military will just do it without question.
I've got news for you. I've lived almost my entire life in and around the military, as did my father. If such orders came down, a significant portion, if not the majority, of the military would be pointing their weapons back at the politicians and removing them from power, not killing the citizens.
Strat
Ah, yes, "self-regulation"
If it can work for oil&gas companies, chemical companies, forestry industry, etc, it can work for guys who get off by firing their guns at anything that moves.
America has a long history of putting public safety above private profits.
They tried your ideas in the USSR.
It was a totalitarian hellhole.
It collapsed.
They tried a "kinder, gentler" version of your ideas in Europe.
It's collapsing as we speak.
They're trying your ideas in Venezuela.
It's become a totalitarian hellhole.
Do you see a pattern emerging here?
If you're worried about irresponsible firearm use, then teach safe firearm practices in grade school.
Strat
Are you kidding? Just because the Utah State Legislature says that carrying an assault rifle around a mall doesn't count as threatening doesn't mean it's not threatening.
This is a matter of personal individual perceptions, largely based on political viewpoint. Just because you are irrationally afraid, because of your politics, of an inanimate tool doesn't mean everyone is or should be. It does not justify a ban on anything "scary" to a minority subset of the population because of political viewpoint.
As a matter of fact, Liberal/Progressives scare the shit out of me, far more than law abiding citizens carrying firearms. The ideology behind Liberalism/Progressivism (Marxist/Maoist socialist/communist/fascist style totalitarianism) has killed 100's of millions.
Additionally, there isn't even a survival/protection/Constitutional justification as there are for firearms in the case of Liberalism/Progressivism. Let's pass a law to ban Liberal/Progressives and their teachings!
Strat
Spurious logic at its best. Are you going to rail against fiendish fluoridators of our precious drinking water next?
OK, so you've got...nothing.
Thanks for playing.
Strat
Stop breathing until you're paying someone for it... let me know how that works out for you...
We are already.
We breathe out that nasty pollutant carbon dioxide that we are paying the EPA to regulate, and paying more for the things that those EPA regulations regulate as a consequence.
I told people ~40 years ago that we'd end up paying the government to breathe if government size, scope, and power weren't limited.
Sadly, I was right.
Strat
You seem to be the guy calling for hatred.
Nonsense.
You don't hate a rabid dog when you put it down.
But, you still put it down.
Strat
I'm just trying to point out how completely and totally fucking irrationally stupid it would be for Iran to nuke ANYTHING, which nobody seems to consider whenever they rattle the saber at Iran. If you're going to hate an entire nation, the least you could do is not make shit up and pretend that their leaders said things they didn't say, or will do things that are tantamount to national suicide.
You make the mistake of assuming that the leaders in Iran are working from the same set of logic and reason you or I do. This is patently false. They operate from radical religious beliefs. They're the type of nutjobs that strap explosives to themselves to commit suicide in order to kill a school full of children.
Ahma-Nutjob believes that it's his "mission from God", to quote the Blues Brothers, to start The Apocalypse in order for the 12th Imam to return to the Earth. He's not the only one in the Iranian government that believes this. Many Shiites do. They don't expect to survive. They believe an apocalypse and their deaths will help bring about the return of the 12th Imam and guarantee them a place in heaven.
It's like expecting logical behavior from cultists. Ain't happening.
You don't need to stop hating Iran.
And, just a point here, I don't "hate" Iran or Iranians. I've lived and worked with Iranian people. I found them to be among some of the most pleasant, friendly, educated, courteous, generous, and hospitable people on the planet. The people in general aren't the problem. It's the radical religious nutjobs running the place that think that slaughter on an apocalyptic scale is their ticket to Paradise.
...blatant propaganda that requires an entire nation's leadership to be committed to suicide.
You mean, as opposed to blatant propaganda that tries to convince people that Iran's leadership isn't committed to it's religious goals that include suicide, despite all the statements they've made stating exactly that?
Denying facts and reality does not change them.
Strat
So, in summary: capitalism isn't the problem, the problem is in letting the capitalists get involved in government.
You're right that capitalism isn't the problem.
Capitalism is the only system ever created where wealth is a renewable resource for anyone and everyone as long as they are willing to work and/or come up with an idea, skill, or invention thatâ(TM)s useful and/or has some value to someone else.
Capitalism has raised more people from poverty and provided a higher standard of living for more people than any other system ever created.
Capitalism has allowed more people to live in more individual freedom than any other system ever invented.
Capitalism has allowed the US to provide more humanitarian assistance to those in need around the world than any other system or country in history.
As to the "capitalists involved in government", I assume you mean corruption and influence-buying. This is why a central government must be kept small and relatively weak, with only those powers and just enough funding to perform only the basic, essential functions of a central government. Anything more, and it guarantees corruption.
The more people, power, and money in a government, the more that human failings become the defining features of that government as a whole.
This is precisely what has happened to the US. The Federal government has grown into a behemoth with incredible power and controlling incredible amounts of wealth. It's become a natural target for corruption. It's simply human nature at work. It turns the "capitalism" that has done so much good for so many people into "crony-capitalism" like we have now that is destructive and evil.
This staffer is simply reflecting the attitudes and viewpoints of the average member of a too-large & powerful, and thus too-corrupt, Federal government that has forgotten that the people are the masters and government the servant.
The larger government becomes, the more tyranny & corruption there will be. It has always been so. It will always be so. At least, as long as humans remain human.
Strat
It is simplistic and just plain wrong to label opponents of zionism as "anti-semitic"
Oh yeah?
So, how many times did Palestinian terrorists that crossed into Israel ask their Jewish victims if they were "anti-Zionist" before they killed them, and let them live if they answered "yes"? Do you think it makes any difference to them at all whether the Jews they slaughter are Zionists or not? Are the Jewish babies they deliberately murder in their cribs Zionists too?
Sorry. Semantic word games don't change the reality.
You want to know where I think Israel screwed up? They shouldn't have stopped after 6 days in 1967. They should have kept going until they planted the Israeli flag on top of every attacking Arab country's Capitol and annexed those countries completely, built a synagogue in place of a bulldozed-flat Mecca, and used the stones from Mecca to build Jewish sewage-treatment holding/aeration tanks for new Jewish settlements in Egypt.
Strat
he/she is parenting.
If that's what passes for "parenting" in your view, do us ALL a favor.
Don't ever breed.
Part of his/her parenting choice is to attempt to provide some added automated filtering to what comes up on the computer.
Bullcrap. You failed at reading comprehension in school, didn't you?
From TFS: ...secure enough they can't just bypass it using a Google search?"
If he's worried about the kids doing a Google search for bad things, then he's sure not sitting there supervising them or he'd see them try it and stop them himself. It's not intended to be "in addition to" it's more like "instead of".
Why don't you not waste his/her time with your wanker response and either just not respond or provide some options?
"Wanker response"? Sod off, Coward! I'm not going to keep quiet when his whole perception that software can keep his kids safe online is total bunk. There *are no* options to give. Even frickin' China can't construct a filter that good (nor has any other nation been able to do it)!
I'm not "wasting his time", I'm actually saving him a ton of time and frustration, not to mention giving the best advice to actually protect his kids, as opposed to trying to hunt down a "magic safe-internet rock" that won't do any more good than that "magic anti-tiger rock" you bought, no matter how few tigers have killed you.
Software won't keep the kids safe any more than the TSA makes anyone safe. As a matter of fact, that's a pretty good analogy. It's like trusting the TSA to keep your kids safe online. Nothing but security theater.
There is no replacement for parental supervision when it comes to limiting what kids see (and who out there sees and talks to *them*!) on the 'net. Software is not capable of doing that, at least not yet.
It's too bad if that's inconvenient to someone's lifestyle. They should have taken that into consideration before they dropped trou to breed.
Strat
This willful ignorance is breathtaking.
Yes, I agree.
The willful ignorance *you* display IS breathtaking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU9CauJP4Pg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7ByJb7QQ9U
Stop being an apologist for hatred.
Strat
One thing you seem to forget, though...Jerusalem is their holy land too.
Bullshit.
Mecca is their holy land.
They only make claims to Jerusalem to justify occupying a Jewish/Christian holy site.
The Muslim kids play soccer at the Dome site.
They don't face Jerusalem when they pray, they face Mecca.
Try learning some history.
Concerning Muslims and the Dome of the Rock/Temple Mount:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU9CauJP4Pg
Regarding the Arab/Israel/Palestinian conflict:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7ByJb7QQ9U
Stop being an apologist for hatred.
Strat