No one expects rolling back the gifts Bush gave the big earners... make that big income receivers, earn is subjective... will make everything nice nice. It's to give the rest of us the confidence the government will make sure everyone pays their fair share, everyone shares the pain.

The "gifts Bush gave the big earners", are the same gifts he gave to every working man and woman in the country.

The entire problem is that these fiscal cliff negotiations completely ignore or at least are ineffective at dealing with the BIG FAT ELEPHANT problem, right in our living room!

We are spending WAY to much, particularly at the Federal level. You can take all the rich people and confiscate everything they have - it still won't keep our spending under control, and balance our budget.

Well, you'll see. Because we are running out of money, and no amount of "fairness" or other hot air logic, is going to change that.

Socialism only works until the money runs out. Ours has just about run out.

< Happy New Year! >

Too bad we're saddled with a socialist in the White House, but maybe we'll finally learn from his next term in office.

Socialism is fine if:

* you want to live simply

* you highly value a more equal society, and are willing to sacrifice to have it.

Because it's worked very well for the Amish and other groups that have used it. You don't have to be religious to make it work - but you DO have to be willing to make big sacrifices in your lifestyle.

Ask somebody today if they'd be willing to give up their iPhone for the sake of a "fairer" society, and see how far you get. ;)

When you see the sacrifices necessary for a socialist society, you'll quickly decide to run - not walk - back to a capitalist system.

Well, looks like we've avoided - or will avoid - the fiscal cliff. That's a poison that the politicians all wanted to avoid, regardless of their party.

Unfortunately, we'll see that with Obama pushing for the socialist ideals of "fairness", our cuts in spending will be zero.

Oh, there will be cuts in FUTURE spending projections, but not cuts in ACTUAL dollars, TODAY.

Which is just political - speak for no spending cuts, just a slower slide into insolvency.

But we will learn from this, just like other generations have learned when they tried it.

Might as well enjoy the ride - bumpy though it will be.:cool:

I note today in the news, that India has started paying out money to their poor. They must want more poor people, just don't have enough, and are willing to pay to get some. :D

*shakes head*

Obama a socialist. Just redefine the whole language whilst you're about it eh?

:lol:

You're such a card, Adak! Ooooh, everyone's gonna have to give up their toys in order to turn the entire country into some perverse Animal Farm a la George Orwell. You actually think that's what this is all about? Never mind, don't answer that one. It must be hard enough maintaining the delusion that life is just one long Ayn Rand novel, never mind having to field comments from smart ass literary critics.

I actually find your post refreshingly honest. At least you're not spouting that crap about "job creators" and "small business." You're scairt Obama and all those other illegal immigrants and everyone else living in the ghetto are going to be out there sunning themselves on your lawn and swimming in your private back yard pool if people making $250,000 plus have to pay the same amount in taxes as they did 20 years ago.

After all, what American will ever forget what life was like during the communist reign of Bill Clinton? Not me. I was making a good living selling electronics items for Sears on 100% commision. It was hell not being able to sell i-pads since they still hadn't been invented, but I made up for it by selling computers and stereo systems and big screen TV's to people who actually had jobs. I even sold stuff to black people and Mexicans, greedy little capitalist that I was.

Yeah, I can see why you're so worried. :right:








sent by hallucination

Please define socialism. I need to make sure that we are talking about the same thing to continue this thread. Please cite your reference or references for the meaning of the word socialism.

When the politician wants to take away your livelihood, to give it to those who did not earn it, to be "fair" - he's moved from capitalism to socialism.

A hand up is one thing. A broad based hand out to millions who can manage just fine without it, is quite another.

Now give me $100 dollars. I didn't earn it, but I want it, and it would be ever so "fair". :rolleyes:

What is the attempted massacre that you won't hear hardly anything about in the news?

Gunman was unhappy with his girlfriend, so he followed her, when she went downtown, and shot her.

Then, not satisfied, he went into the movie complex, with the intention of shooting a bunch of people, and began firing.

Then something amazing happened. The VERY reason people like guns was realized.

An armed security guard (off duty cop), heard the shots, and came on the run. When the gunman kept waving around his gun (he got off a number of rounds, but only wounded a couple people).

SHE (a latina), shot him 4 times. He lived. (Can't have everything I guess).

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-...th-one-bullet/

You put a gun in the hands of a good person, who knows how to use it, and RIGHT THERE, you have the best thing to stop a nut who wants to kill everyone in sight.

But that doesn't fit the anti-gun agenda of the liberals. They much prefer us to be sheeple, not people, who know and have the tools, to stand up and defend ourselves.

In Texas, they gave the shooter a heroes medal.

In California, she'd probably be arrested and tried for a handful of felonies.

Perfect message, Infinite Monkey. Monkeys love to throw their shit around, and lordy how they stink! Even experienced game hunters retch at the smell.

Your gunman was a law abiding citizen up until the moment he wasn't. If he didn't have access to that gun, this wouldn't have happened. If you put even more guns into even more hands, then this sort of thing is going to happen even more often. You have good in you. You also have evil in you. Sometimes you give in to the evil. If you happen to have a gun when you give in to the evil, then the damage is worse. If your gun is a semi automatic that holds 30 rounds, then the damage is much worse.

You have to draw the line somewhere. The line is currently drawn in the wrong place. It needs to move in the direction of fewer rounds, and a slower firing rate.

You're talking about the republican party, right? I'd have to agree with you.

They're the ones who are happy taxing Warren Buffet's secretary ( who types and files and, you know, works for a living) at a higher rate than Warren himself. Taking away her livelihood so that Buffet can have an easy go *does* sound like socialism.

I think liberals should all be issued assault weapons so they can hunt down members of the tea party. :rolleyes:

You still have not define socialism. While you are free to do so, giving your opinion is not a definition. So I ask you to please define the word socialism.

Sent from an undisclosed location.

Here's a go at defining socialism. It's presented as a spectrum of increasing government responsibility.

Anarchy: no shared government or rules, everyone seeks their own advantage and guards against the depredations of others. Private ownership exists so far as people can keep control of things. Tribal coalitions usually form. Human potential is not developed.

Libertarian Capitalism: private ownership of the means of production, government involvement limited to defense of the nation, and prevention of crimes against person and property. This may include regulations preventing eg very unsafe work practices, dumping toxic waste, etc. It may include critical infrastructure. Specifically, the welfare of individual people in terms of housing, education and health care are not the responsibility of the government.

Socialism: private ownership of the means of production, government involvement includes defense, prevention of crimes against person or property and also includes provision for "the public good", which may include, depending on the strength of the socialism:
(a) infrastructure like roads, sewerage, water, storm drainage etc;
(b) human services like universal education, universal health care, unemployment/poverty relief
(c) economic management such as Keynesian interventions and bailouts
(d) government ownership of utilities like rail, power, etc
(e) etc etc...

Communism: Government control of the means of production and government responsibility for almost all aspects of people's welfare.


Which things are/should be government responsibilities is the core of the debate.
It is often argued that the social provisions that benefit the poor directly (especially education) indirectly benefit the wealthy (eg by creating a well-prepared workforce, thus enabling the economic activity that the wealthy get wealthy from). Likewise, were it not for social security, huge numbers of people would be so desperately poor as to constitute a dangerous menace to the advanced society we have. These are just examples.
Where the line should be drawn is a matter of ongoing debate.

The philosopher John Rawls offers the following general answer. What is "fair" is what rational beings would agree to from the "original position" which is behind the "veil of ignorance". To be in the original position, imagine that you know all the significant facts about your society (say, 1% wealthy plutocrats, 20% upper middle class, 40% working middle class, 20% working poor, 19% very poor) but that you do not know which group you are in. Since you don't know which group you're in, it would be irrational to agree to a law that grossly favors one group over the other.

It is often argued that it is rational to "hedge your bets" in favour of more socialism rather than less. Firstly, you're very unlikely to be one of the very rich, and secondly even if you are very rich, and are paying heavy taxes to support your fellow citizens' health and education, well shucks, you're still very rich. And what well educated employees you can get!

The counter argument is that over burdening the rich will reduce economic growth, cost jobs, cut wages and thus harm the welfare of the working and middle classes. So it is rational to allow wealthy individuals and businesses more freedom to do business, because in the long run the increasing prosperity will benefit everyone more than immediate social support.

Which of these arguments is correct is left as an exercise for the class. :)

Nice, Zen. Thanks!

You have a valid point about large magazines - no one but the military/police has a need for more than a 10 bullet capacity.

I'm very much in favor of banning larger capacity magazines, for civilians - which is already the law in California, btw.

But evil people WILL find ways to kill us, without using a gun at all.

Witness 9/11 - there WAS NO GUN at all.

Think for a moment if a GOOD guy or gal had been on those planes, and carrying concealed?

Box cutters vs 9 mm?

I'll take those odds, any day.

"Armed People, not Sheeple" - don't think the wolves don't know the difference.

I was about to be all shocked and pleased that even YOU admit that a magazine size limit is necessary...
right up until you proposed that anyone but an air marshall should have a gun on a plane.

Attachment 42369

Attachment 42370

edit: what is the deal with attached gifs not animating?

http://emotionreply.com/11/29.gif

http://emotionreply.com/11/16.gif

Unlike liberals, I shy away from redefining words, to suit my POV atm.

Socialism has already been well defined:

All socialism definitions have this in common - your freedoms become less - sometimes MUCH less. The control by the state becomes more - sometimes MUCH more.

When you equate Warren Buffet with his secretary, you're equating Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein, to his receptionist.

I submit to you that their accomplishments and benefit to us, is not the same.

As for the tax law - liberals and politicians under the undue influence of lobbyists, wrote it. Conservative politicians have almost always been in the minority, simply because they don't pander to the groups with the $$$, (unions (AFL-CIO), large corporations (GE), large political blocks (Israel), who will ensure their re-election.

As Representative Charlie Wilson once said:

"I'm Israel's guy on the Hill. I'm elected because I get support from a bunch of Jews in Upstate New York."

Which would be JUST FINE, except Charlie was a Rep. from Texas, which had "2 Jews in my district."

So Charlie wasn't representing his district 99% of the time. $$$Money$$$ was the reason why.

And I believe we should stop that pollution from $$$ into our politics, with a great deal of political reform.

BTW, nothing against the Jews. Just don't like the way $$$ can control politicians. What they've done is the smart play given our corrupt system of politics, and every other special interest group is doing EXACTLY the same thing. The Jews didn't make our problem, at all. We did.

@Ibby, I don't suffer from your fear about guns in the hands of our citizens. All CCW's require a special permit, training, and screening.

You have to accept that you can't get guns out of the hands of criminals - and if you did, they'd just use the next available weapon.

So, given that truth, do you want to be afraid or be prepared? Sheeple, or People?

There is risk, either way.

fuck that "sheeple" bullshit, I don't want guns on airplanes, i don't want them in schools, i don't want them on public transport, I don't want them at sporting events, I don't want them in bars, I don't want them in civic institutions, unless they're being held by trained officials with complex systems of oversight and accountability.

And the notion that "all CCW's require a special permit training and screening" is flat out FALSE in many parts of the country, including here in Vermont where ABSOLUTELY anybody who can legally own a firearm, and passes the five-minute background check, with no waiting period, can conceal-carry.

If they didn't close at 7:00 (and I wasn't a pint of guinness and a shot of local Smuggler's Notch vodka (HIGHLY recommend it!) into the evening) i could drive myself to the local gun shop and walk out conceal-carrying it before Rachel Maddow comes on at 9:00. That might not be a huge problem here in Vermont, but it'd be a hell of a problem on a damn airplane.

it says a lot that all the groups most susceptible to violence - people of color, city-dwellers, queers, and women - are almost always the loudest voices calling for tighter gun control, and those least likely to encounter violence are the loudest at saying they need to defend themselves from it.

More guns, more places, might be the solution to your paranoid self-defense fantasies, but it is NOT the solution to the hundreds and hundreds of gun deaths in this country every month.

..

...

*snort*

holy false equivalency, batman!

We've focused on guns for illegal uses, but what about for their legal use?

Let's give the city folk a try at this one:

The gov't has employees to (usually) kill predators that keep killing/maiming livestock. [A species that is rare or protected will be trapped if possible.]

So here's the question:

How many coyotes did the gov't hunters kill last year?

(If you know the answer, give the liberals time to guess first. They are slow with factual, real life matters like this, so be patient.)

Yes, those plastic stocks really add a TREMENDOUS ferocity to the rifle, don't they? People just fall down dead when they see plastic, don't ya know? :rolleyes:

Same bullet
Same barrel
Same firing mechanism
Same ejector mechanism
Same breech
Sights can be the same, or different, depending on the type of game it's intended for.

The longer stock on the long rifle, allows a better "float" system to be used, if ultra accuracy is desired.

The carbine (shorter stocked rifle), has a banana clip on it. I haven't seen a high capacity clip for the longer rifle, but they may be out there.

The longer barreled rifle will give the bullet more speed than the shorter barreled versions, increasing it's range and energy.

How many coyotes must a fool gun down
Before you call him a fool ?
How many ears must one man have
Before he can hear coyote song?
How many deaths till he knows
That too many coyotes have died?
The answer my friend is blowing in the western wind
The answer is blowing in the Colorado wind.



Idiot! :mad2:










Sent via howls from a thousand outraged coyotes, armed with Bushmasters

So that bullet will go miles and kill someone. Nobody needs such assault weapons for defense, protection, or hunting.

Problem created by high power rifles was even discussed years ago. An Allentown pregnant woman shot by a lawyer using an illegal high powered rifle. Because the lawyer needed to appease his penis - not his brain. The lawyer was convicted of multiple crimes. And still refused to apologize to the pregnant woman who was only standing in her driveway. He was typical of the ignorant who who even need grenades and howitzers.

Why did the lawyer shoot her? He was firing a rifle with a high velocity bullet - that went almost a mile. But he needed big guns for the same reason other wackos need big guns. A bullet that goes far beyond the shooters vision. A bullet intended only to kill other humans. We need those longer guns because we all need weapons (and hollow point bullets) to hunt big game: other humans.

What do patriots - moderates - need? A perfect example that does not inspire 'big dic' thoughts in extremists. When guns were sold for protection and hunting, that was more than sufficient. Nobody needed hollow point bullets that only the naive, dumb, and dangerous have advocated (even here). Yes, only a liar would advocate hollow point bullets for hunting and target practice.

Today, only extremists really need weapons to hunt other people. A bullet must never go farther than what the shooter can see. Therefore a shorter barrel is what any educated person would need. Only the dumbest among us need guns that shoot farther. Who are so extreme as to even shoot a pregnant lady in her driveway. And even refuse to apologize AFTER being convicted. Only liars would insist that is necessary for personal defense or deer hunting.

Congratulations, you have cut-and-pasted from Wikipedia. If you go on and read the entire entry, you will see that not all things called socialism require social ownership of the means of production.

Do "my" freedoms become less? Well the freedoms of the ultra-rich to screw everyone else for their private benefit do indeed become less. That is why I like it.

but .. as you wish. Let's use "socialism" to mean systems where the means of production are under collective ownership/control, as you say.

It immediately follows that there is no way Obama can be called a socialist. A tax-and-spend welfare supporter, maybe, but he has shown no sign of seizing the means of production.

Secondly, we now need a new word to describe the spectrum of what I had previously called socialism. Then we can sensibly debate which things ought to be the concern of government and which not. I invite you to suggest a new term.

Way to try to hide the key point in weasel words. Even you have agreed that no law abiding gun user needs a 20 or 30 round magazine. Why did you bother?

"Why Does Anybody Need a 30-Round Magazine? "
Googled it out of curiosity ... and found this

so basically the answer is "because black people and poor people are scary"?

lol ... is that what it said? I didn't even read it.

well there's a section titled "Gang Bangers and the Knockout Game"
with the gem of a line
as if that makes it any better at all?

Maybe I should read that. Hang on...

The examples they cite are (1) military case in the Philippines (2) a police officer and (3) the knockout game of which they provide an example which doesn't fit the description they offer.
Then there is (4) the "scenario" the train for of four or five criminals attacking you.

1 and 2 are irrelevant, no one is talking about limiting military or police weapons. 3 and 4 don't support their argument, because as we all know, criminals are the first to get and carry guns. You know the slogan, if guns are illegal ... etc. So a 15 round tek-9 isn't going to do much against four gangbangers who also have tek-9s.

also, like, the number of people not involved in the drug trade or gang life, who are intentionally attacked or killed by gang members, is unbelievably small. Like, single digits a year. Almost all armed robberies/muggings are entirely unrelated to gangs, because gangs have much better shit to do than draw heat for going after "civilians".

Meanwhile, hundreds die to accidental discharges, "freak" accidents (that aren't really "freak" because they happen pretty often), domestic violence, and the pandemic nature of gun violence in general in this country. The whole article is entirely illogical, nonsensical, and disingenuous.

According to the FBI, the violent crime rate has dropped to half of what it was in 1992.

The murder rate? Same thing - it dropped nearly fifty percent as well to only 4.7 per 100,000.

It's still higher than any other "first-world" nation, and terrifyingly high. Just cause it's not as bad as it has been doesn't mean we shouldn't be fucking ashamed.

I'm not terrified.
I even travel below the Mason Dixon line on a regular basis.

just because you aren't terrified doesn't invalidate the narratives of the hundreds of thousands of people in this country who do have to worry about leaving their houses, walking through their neighborhoods, living their day-to-day lives in cities with higher mortality rates than some warzones. Just because your narrative and your privilege tells one story doesn't mean those with different stories are invalid.

It doesn't make their fears rational either.

are you seriously arguing that violent crime doesn't claim thousands and thousands of lives every year in highly localized areas, and that therefore people in those areas have nothing to fear from the violence, especially gun violence, in their neighborhoods?
even the ones have lost friends and family members, sometimes more than one, to violence in their neighborhoods?

Nope.

I've been known to hang out below the poverty line, myself. ;)

OMG Sam, how did you avoid becoming a statistic. :eek:

Hah! It wasn't easy. I'm still hanging out here at the bottom of the fiscal cliff out in Island in the Sky Nat'l Park. It's a sunny morning, but cold!

Hahahaha I <3 Bruce!

Perhaps dear Ibster, we could address the issue in those VERY SPECIFIC "highly localized" areas and leave the VAST MAJORITY or the rest of the fucking country alone.
Just a thought.

show me a way to reduce gun crime without affecting people in areas with gun crime that isn't, for example, the sort of handgun bans already in place in many cities that NRA types also scream and holler about.

Better schools and economic opportunities? :D

I could be wrong but the vast majority of guns used in these types of areas are illegal, therefore banning guns will probably not work without changing the gun culture in that region. From the data, I'm not convinced that handgun bans in D.C. or Chicago really had an effect.

Personally, I think regulating access to legal guns and harsh penalties on illegal guns is the only policy that may reduce gun violence without extremely harsh gun control (which may not work anyways...). However, in the end it is going to be gun culture (economic opportunity, etc.) not gun policy that is going to reduce gun violence in the US.

Local gun restrictions don't work. Guns are small and easily smuggled across local borders where there are no border controls. Border controls only exist on the national level, and that is the only level where gun restrictions have a chance of working.

Considering the US is the largest exporter of legal and illegal guns, I don't think national gun control will work either. Seriously, where do you think most of the guns in Brazil and Africa come from?

Oh c'mon PH45, we stopped all those illegal drugs "just like that" by changing the laws. :right:
Heck, when was the last time you saw any coke or weed on campus? :eyebrow:

SOCIALIST!!!!! OMG!

Well, you have to trade something for all those drugs. ;)

Seriously, want to reduce shootings? How about legalising all drugs?

They can have my guns. $24,000. Cash. I'll even throw in the ammo.
Then a couple hundred million people won't be paranoid anymore.

I ain't see nuttin'. :joint:

No no no. You see, it was Romney that suggested that economic opportunities will reduce sex trafficking, therefore promoting economic opportunity it isn't socialist until Obama says it.

Probably the largest portion of the cheap imported guns are made in Brazil.

Could be. I do know that a lot (not sure proportionally) of the "assault rifles" are shipped from US to Paraguay and then pass through an unregulated border with Brazil.

Yes but US made "assault rifles" are only used by good guys, the bad guys use AK's made in China and the former Soviet Bloc countries.

Well that's what I heard. Could have been wrong or maybe there was some misinterpretation.