|
|
|
|
#1
07-30-2012, 07:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Seriously, do you really believe that nonsense? universal healthcare will not lead to communism! Just goes to show the level of brain washing that the US has had to suffer due to a string of right wing governments. Most of Europe has universal state healthcare and are far from communist. The UK has had a national health service since 1948 and has never come even close to being a communist country. The Health service in the US is pitiful compared to the rest of the developed world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_...ther_countries A communist country has a 100% planned economy which means the state decides the level of demand rather then the free market. Introducing universal healthcare is not going to tear down the very fabric of the US market led economy, in fact it may help as a large proportion of bankrupsy in the US is due to not being able to meet healthcare costs. Communism usually comes hand in hand with a brutal totalitarian regime. I think the USA is in no danger of turning into that kind of state. |
|
#2
07-30-2012, 07:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
since everyone's health care is collectivized , that paves the way for govt to say...well since everyone pays for everyone else, the risky activities and habits that we have no longer affect the individual but now everyone in some way or another.... they will try and outlaw certain things... next you will see people trying it limit salt or red meat intake, all because some people MIGHT get sick and incur health care costs, that since collectivized health care they can now argue effects everyone.... but yea who cares about protecting the rights of the individual.... its called a slippery slope.... enjoy living in your new collective...or commune...same thing really.... it is clear that you are vastly misinformed...you can start your research on the FDA and how corrupt and a joke that organization is... i mean i guess the problem with health care is ONLY the fact that we didnt have govt intervention....you know it has nothing to do with the FDA being run by drug companies and big agricultural companies....you know it has nothing to do with the influx of GMO crops that we ALL consume now...it has nothing to do with doctors largely abandoning the practice of charity care....O NO the real problem is that the federal govt has not gotten involved, cuz after all they fix everything they touch right....i guess its not a big deal that the FDA sends armed officers to harass and infringe on the rights of natural food growers and sellers...i guess its normal that the FDA would go after raw dairy products, and impose harsh sentences upon those who go against the regulations that the bureaucrats in the fda deem necessary (you know not congress the only governing body that is supposed to be able to create laws) I guess its normal to go after cherry growers for simply linking to a peer reviewed study that shows cherries has certain benefits.... i guess its normal that supplement makers can not even post the truth about what the vitamins and minerals do for the body... i guess its normal for a govt in a supposedly free society to force medicate its people through putting fluoride in the water(look at the cases of dental fluorosis in young people, i guess that is normal too) i mean every time the federal govt gets involved in our lives it makes everything better right...just look at education and how much that has improved since the federal govt got involved...O WAIT the opposite is true.... its clear that most of you people have no idea how destructive the govt is ...it seems that the only thing you fools knows is what ever the mainstreammedia decides to tell you and nothing more...i guess you people cant be bothered to find the truth and would rather blindly put your faith in a bunch of people who want nothing more than to impose their will upon you and your family.... by the way Hitler Stallin Lennin Mao they would all agree gun control is good and gun control WORKS!!! just look at what those great men have done to their people.. Last edited by tk471138; 07-30-2012 at 07:57 PM. |
|
#3
07-30-2012, 06:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The reason gun control hype keeps popping up in civilized society is because the radicalized thinkers believe they can fix large segments of society. The media is nothing more or less than a business making money from advertisers. The media no longer gives a whit whether you have a gun or not. The media will talk about anything that keeps their advertisers spending money with them. Sadly, it is no longer about journalism or reporting ethics. The wrong people nowadays on the media, and they are the worst of the money grubbing lot imaginable. The best media is youtube or other internet sites. At least you can get to the truth eventually. If you watch the youtube with all the replays from mainstream media you just get fed the verbal lying goolash they want you to have. |
|
#4
07-31-2012, 08:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The fiction of "A Clockwork Orange" comes to life
__________________
Intel 980x | eVGA X58 FTW | Intel 180Gb 520 SSD x 2 | eVGA GTX 580 | Corsair Vengeance 1600 x 12Gb | Windows 7 Ultimate (SP1) 64 bit | Corsair 550D | Corsair HX 1000 PSU | Eaton 1500va UPS | Warthog HOTAS w/- Saitek rudders | Samsung PX2370 Monitor | Deathadder 3500 mouse | MS X6 Keyboard | TIR4 Stand alone Collector's Edition DCS Series Even duct tape can't fix stupid... but it can muffle the sound. |
|
#5
07-31-2012, 09:45 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Interesting article in the Economist, fitting to the topic at hand
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ.../07/gun-rights A Stinger for Antonin Jul 30th 2012, 17:05 by M.S. YESTERDAY on "Fox News Sunday", Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court justice, suggested that Americans may have a constitutional right to own and carry shoulder-mounted anti-aircraft missiles. CHRIS WALLACE: What about…a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute? SCALIA: We’ll see. Obviously the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried—it’s to keep and “bear”, so it doesn’t apply to cannons—but I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided. WALLACE: How do you decide that if you’re a textualist? SCALIA: Very carefully. Most gun-rights advocates will probably downplay Mr Scalia's remarks, but I applaud them. In fact, I think the only thing amiss here is Mr Scalia's weirdly literalist approach to the word "bear"; the first amendment's reference to "freedom of speech and of the press", for example, is generally held to apply to non-verbal communications as well. Besides, even though you can't carry an M1 Abrams battle tank, that shouldn't necessarily preclude you from "keeping" one. More important, though, Mr Scalia seems to be one of the few people in the judiciary who may be favourably disposed towards letting Americans own the only kinds of weapons that actually make sense, under the dominant justification that advocates currently provide for the importance of gun rights: the right to defend yourself against the government. There are basically two ways of explaining why a right to own guns belongs in the Bill of Rights. The first is that it's part of the assumed natural right to self-defence against other citizens. The second, increasingly the main line of argument by gun-rights advocates, is that's it's necessary to prevent governments from arrogating tyrannical powers to themselves. Hence the ready response of a pro-gun-rights New York Times reader to an editorial calling for a compromise on gun control: The Second Amendment was not written to protect hunters and recreational shooters. It was written as a safeguard against a government that might become so centralized and so powerful that it would pose a threat to the freedom of the citizenry and the Republic. The same premise undergirds the gun-rights philosophy of the NRA ("America's First Freedom"), the Second Amendment Foundation ("the intent of [the second amendment] was to protect individuals from government powers"), and other gun-rights organisations. And indeed the Supreme Court relied on this interpretation of the second amendment's purpose in its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v Heller, which first established that the amendment guarantees an individual right to own guns. Many of the negotiating parties to the constitution, the court wrote, feared that the new federal government would act as Charles II had in 17th-century England, disarming rival militias so as to impose tyrannical rule. Hence the amendment's phrasing, "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." In his majority opinion, Mr Scalia glossed the amendment's prefatory clause thus: There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story §1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia. (The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton).) Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny. We can see something of a problem begin to develop here. Reasons one and two above are obviously anachronistic: militias composed of private gun owners are no longer useful in repelling invasions or suppressing insurrections; they are more likely to be the insurrectors. And obviously, militias no longer render the US Army unnecessary. What about the third one? Is a country whose "able-bodied men" are "trained in arms and organized" (and, one assumes, have access to guns) "better able to resist tyranny?" Of course not. The idea that, in the modern world, a country full of people with private handguns, shotguns and AR-15s in their households is more likely to remain a liberal democracy than a country whose citizens lack such weapons is frankly ridiculous. Worldwide, there is no correlation whatsoever at the country level between private handgun ownership and liberal democracy. There are no cases of democratic countries in which nascent authoritarian governments were successfully resisted due to widespread gun ownership. When authoritarian governments come to power in democracies (which is rare), they do so at the ballot box or with heavy popular support; where juntas overthrow democratic governments, as in Greece, Brazil, Chile or Iran, popular gun ownership is irrelevant. Once authoritarian governments take power, if they decide they don't want citizens to own guns, they take them away, easily crushing any isolated attempts at resistance. When, on the other hand, authoritarian governments are overthrown in military uprisings (as opposed to peaceful revolutions, which are more common), the arms that defeat them come from defecting soldiers or outside aid. Widespread gun ownership among the common folk may conceivably have been an important obstacle to centralised government control in 17th-century Britain, just emerging from feudalism; but since the universalisation of the modern nation-state in the 19th century, the degree of force that governments can bring to bear has overwhelmed any conceivable popular defence of localised rights and privileges by companies of yeoman musketeers. To stack up against police, the National Guard or the US Army, private gun enthusiasts would, at a minimum, have to be packing an arsenal that would be illegal in any state in the union, even Arizona. Indeed, lower in his opinion, Mr Scalia recognises this problem. It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right. Because...why? Mr Scalia's claim here is that modern technological developments have rendered the second amendment meaningless with regard to its original intent, but that we have to continue enforcing it unchanged, regardless. Perhaps at some level the implicit cognitive dissonance here disturbs him, and this is why he is now considering whether citizens do have a right to keep and bear arms that might actually give the US military pause, such as surface-to-air missiles that could take out American helicopters and fighter-bombers—plus maybe land mines, shoulder-launched anti-tank missiles, or perhaps just IEDs, which had considerable success in crippling light mechanised infantry in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Surely that could deter some federal tyranny! This entire paradigm is absurd. Laws and regulations in America are determined by the actions of the legislature, the executive and the courts, with the consent of the voters; the level of gun ownership has nothing to do with anything. When congressmen debate liberty-related measures such as the health-insurance mandate or net neutrality, they don't worry about getting shot; they worry about getting re-elected. Once laws and regulations are in place, the government does not hesitate to enforce them because it is worried about resistance by gun-owning citizens. Widespread gun ownership by private citizens will no more deter the US government from enforcing the Endangered Species Act against property owners than widespread gun ownership by drug dealers has deterred the government from enforcing the Controlled Substances Act. Nor should it. If anything, widespread gun ownership forces the government to become more repressive and more invasive in its efforts to fight crime and prevent insurrection. This is the kind of vicious dialectic one sees in countries like Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq and Burma, where dispersed gun ownership among rival ethnic groups leads to a see-saw with brutal dictatorial regimes, who see repression as the only means to keep the state from disintegrating. Nonetheless, I applaud Mr Scalia for doing his part to make this aspect of the gun-rights debate clearer. If the purpose of the second amendment is to enable citizens to resist the government, then the entire regime of current gun restrictions needs to be overturned: citizens need to be able to buy fully automatic assault rifles, rocket launchers, military-grade explosives, remote detonators, armoured vehicles with mounted artillery, surface-to-air missiles, light bombers, armed drones, everything. If some citizens want to keep and bear arms in order to take on the power of the federal government, that's what it's going to take. And should those citizens decide to fully exercise such rights, then their second-amendment freedom will become the freedom to be attacked and crushed by the police and the US military, on behalf of those of us who support the integrity of the American government we have elected and the enforcement of its laws.
__________________
Cheers |
|
#6
07-31-2012, 09:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
@ Bewolf I am imagining the guy who keeps a rocket launcher under his bed in case he gets attacked by an assault tank
 Btw. I am always astonished that it was the conservatives who took away many libertys from the people after 9/11. Doesn't fit with the idea of liberty and protection against the government... |
|
#7
07-31-2012, 10:10 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
911 initially made me angry beyond imagination. I fully supported the Afghanistan war. All undone. After those Bush years only one term fits to the describe the US. Fear. And it undoes all the achievements by the people of the United States over centuries. It is frightening how fast you can ruin such a reputation for generations to come. And when I watch Romney and what he said during his recent trip to Israel....Oy vey. Politics in the US are becoming ever more radical.
__________________
Cheers |
|
#8
07-31-2012, 10:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#9
07-31-2012, 03:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"It's a stinking world because there's no law and order anymore! It's a stinking world because it lets the young get on to the old, like you done. Oh, it's no world for an old man any longer. What sort of a world is it at all? Men on the moon, and men spinning around the earth, and there's not no attention paid to earthly law and order no more." - the tramp, A Clockwork Orange
__________________
Intel 980x | eVGA X58 FTW | Intel 180Gb 520 SSD x 2 | eVGA GTX 580 | Corsair Vengeance 1600 x 12Gb | Windows 7 Ultimate (SP1) 64 bit | Corsair 550D | Corsair HX 1000 PSU | Eaton 1500va UPS | Warthog HOTAS w/- Saitek rudders | Samsung PX2370 Monitor | Deathadder 3500 mouse | MS X6 Keyboard | TIR4 Stand alone Collector's Edition DCS Series Even duct tape can't fix stupid... but it can muffle the sound. Last edited by Wolf_Rider; 07-31-2012 at 03:08 PM. |
|
#10
07-31-2012, 06:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry brown and Gran Tourino... Epic. If only they were real...
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
