|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 05 2014 09:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2014 09:07 oneofthem wrote:
this corporate personhood thing with respect to political campaign contribution is just a huge troll. don't believe anyone is stupid enough to actually believe in the arguments for it. and they are more or less just committing a logical move on par with russell paradox. it can be proven to be a fatal confusion Likewise, corporations can't make political donations in one respect. You don't go to the brownstone at 1200 Main St. and ask the bricks how much they donated, or question the articles of incorporation how many candidates those papers supported. People make donations, individually or alongside others. If you think only stupid people can agree with Citizens United vs. FEC, go read through the majority opinion again. All I'm seeing is a careless approach to the rights of the individual enshrined in the constitution.
well duh corporations are a kind of activity of a group of people. these people can have rights and these rights extend to the corporation, but the corporation itself has no political rights beyond the interests of the people involved. just like a set of all sets is not able to be represented alongside its members
recognizing corporate personhood is okay, when it comes to a set level of representation. (as in, you can refer to it as a single entity just as you could do so to all the atoms constituting a table and call it table, and that identity persists through time and change to its membership atoms. corporate personhood is needed for doing business etc and that's an ok construction when it's useful) but it does not then mean that you have something extra from its constitutive members. the corporate investors and whatnot can contribute to campaigns on their own personal time.
|
relevant:
Revealed: Rahm Emanuel cuts public pensions, diverts money to benefit campaign donors
This same story, portraying public employees as the primary cause of budget crises, is being told across the country. Yet, in many cases, we’re only being told half the tale. We aren’t told that the pension shortfalls in many US states and cities were created because those same states and cities did not make their required pension contributions over many years. And perhaps even more shockingly, we aren’t being told that, while states and cities pretend they have no money to deal with public sector pensions, many are paying giant taxpayer subsidies to corporations — often far larger than the pension shortfalls.
...
As usual, one answer can be found by following the money. When you do that, you discover that despite Emanuel’s declaration that “government can no longer be an insider’s game, serving primarily the lobbyists and well-connected,” the TIF scheme is often exactly that – an insider’s game. And, as Pando’s investigation into the TIF program proves for the first time, the corporate beneficiaries of that insider’s game just so happen to be Emanuel’s major campaign donors.
...
So again, why is Emanuel aggressively trying to preserve his slush fund, even if it means inflicting unnecessary budget pain on retirees and rank-and-file taxpayers? Because preserving his slush fund defends the people he really represents – the financiers who sponsor his political career. pando
|
On April 05 2014 05:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2014 03:09 Danglars wrote:On April 05 2014 01:33 Falling wrote:*sigh After arguing in this thread over Voter ID issues and how our system is great with the three tiers of identification with the most basic being one registered voter is allowed to vouch for one person without id. But now C-23 is going to do away with that. Wrote an email to my MP specifically on vouching and got back a super generic response on the bill and mentioned nothing about vouching- probably should've sent a physical letter. And now I hear your Court is opening up campaign spending even more. Oh democracy  I'm so glad the ruling removed barriers to the democratic process, I only wish it went further. The biggest aid in elections shouldn't be incumbency with all its name recognition and free press not subject to financing laws. Individuals and groups of individuals should not be hindered from participating in the election process through political speech by such a reason as reducing the amount of money in politics. I concur with Thomas's supporting opinion that the parts of the law remaining intact represent a "rule without a rationale." The cap on individual contributions to congressional candidates and the president should be struck down on the same grounds. You realize the decision only removed real barriers for about 6-700 people? As opposed to Voter ID laws that created real barriers for millions? You can't be serious...? I mean I guess you're against voter ID laws then? ( I know you support laws that result in millions potentially not being able to vote, to solve a problem that has never had any documented significant impact on any election in the last 100 years, but get your panties in a bunch when a law prevents 700 people from donating even more money...) But since people think those 700 people don't currently have enough influence in politics(or at least that the law shouldn't stop it regardless of whether it is helpful to democracy or not), people like Danglers are arguing we need to do more to remove contribution barriers for that handful of people. Since there is little we can do to stop people from being super-donors as it is with all the pacs and such. I think the reasonable compromise is to let people donate as much as they want, but no more secret (and potentially foreign) funding. You want to donate $100,000,000 to a party? Go for it, but your name will be published as doing so. You want to donate $20,000,000 to a senator from each states campaign, Go for it! just expect everyone to know you did it. I'd actually prefer we do it that way. Because current laws aren't doing anything to reduce funding or pac coordination (#McConnelling). So if we aren't going to restrict how much money the 700 or so people we are talking about donate we should at least make them put their names on their donations right Danglars?
the vote ID laws aren't going to stop people from voting. We've had them for years in the Netherlands and i've never heard anybody who won't vote because he has no ID. Even the far left parties don't think it's a bad idea here.
|
On April 05 2014 20:04 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2014 05:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 05 2014 03:09 Danglars wrote:On April 05 2014 01:33 Falling wrote:*sigh After arguing in this thread over Voter ID issues and how our system is great with the three tiers of identification with the most basic being one registered voter is allowed to vouch for one person without id. But now C-23 is going to do away with that. Wrote an email to my MP specifically on vouching and got back a super generic response on the bill and mentioned nothing about vouching- probably should've sent a physical letter. And now I hear your Court is opening up campaign spending even more. Oh democracy I'm so glad the ruling removed barriers to the democratic process, I only wish it went further. The biggest aid in elections shouldn't be incumbency with all its name recognition and free press not subject to financing laws. Individuals and groups of individuals should not be hindered from participating in the election process through political speech by such a reason as reducing the amount of money in politics. I concur with Thomas's supporting opinion that the parts of the law remaining intact represent a "rule without a rationale." The cap on individual contributions to congressional candidates and the president should be struck down on the same grounds. You realize the decision only removed real barriers for about 6-700 people? As opposed to Voter ID laws that created real barriers for millions? You can't be serious...? I mean I guess you're against voter ID laws then? ( I know you support laws that result in millions potentially not being able to vote, to solve a problem that has never had any documented significant impact on any election in the last 100 years, but get your panties in a bunch when a law prevents 700 people from donating even more money...) But since people think those 700 people don't currently have enough influence in politics(or at least that the law shouldn't stop it regardless of whether it is helpful to democracy or not), people like Danglers are arguing we need to do more to remove contribution barriers for that handful of people. Since there is little we can do to stop people from being super-donors as it is with all the pacs and such. I think the reasonable compromise is to let people donate as much as they want, but no more secret (and potentially foreign) funding. You want to donate $100,000,000 to a party? Go for it, but your name will be published as doing so. You want to donate $20,000,000 to a senator from each states campaign, Go for it! just expect everyone to know you did it. I'd actually prefer we do it that way. Because current laws aren't doing anything to reduce funding or pac coordination (#McConnelling). So if we aren't going to restrict how much money the 700 or so people we are talking about donate we should at least make them put their names on their donations right Danglars? the vote ID laws aren't going to stop people from voting. We've had them for years in the Netherlands and i've never heard anybody who won't vote because he has no ID. Even the far left parties don't think it's a bad idea here.
The difference is that the ID's are mandatory in general over here. When the Republicans tried to introduce Voter ID laws they did so on very short notice before the elections. The Courts actually struck it down because of that.
Plus I believe IDs are more expensive in the US aswell.
|
On April 05 2014 20:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2014 20:04 RvB wrote:On April 05 2014 05:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 05 2014 03:09 Danglars wrote:On April 05 2014 01:33 Falling wrote:*sigh After arguing in this thread over Voter ID issues and how our system is great with the three tiers of identification with the most basic being one registered voter is allowed to vouch for one person without id. But now C-23 is going to do away with that. Wrote an email to my MP specifically on vouching and got back a super generic response on the bill and mentioned nothing about vouching- probably should've sent a physical letter. And now I hear your Court is opening up campaign spending even more. Oh democracy I'm so glad the ruling removed barriers to the democratic process, I only wish it went further. The biggest aid in elections shouldn't be incumbency with all its name recognition and free press not subject to financing laws. Individuals and groups of individuals should not be hindered from participating in the election process through political speech by such a reason as reducing the amount of money in politics. I concur with Thomas's supporting opinion that the parts of the law remaining intact represent a "rule without a rationale." The cap on individual contributions to congressional candidates and the president should be struck down on the same grounds. You realize the decision only removed real barriers for about 6-700 people? As opposed to Voter ID laws that created real barriers for millions? You can't be serious...? I mean I guess you're against voter ID laws then? ( I know you support laws that result in millions potentially not being able to vote, to solve a problem that has never had any documented significant impact on any election in the last 100 years, but get your panties in a bunch when a law prevents 700 people from donating even more money...) But since people think those 700 people don't currently have enough influence in politics(or at least that the law shouldn't stop it regardless of whether it is helpful to democracy or not), people like Danglers are arguing we need to do more to remove contribution barriers for that handful of people. Since there is little we can do to stop people from being super-donors as it is with all the pacs and such. I think the reasonable compromise is to let people donate as much as they want, but no more secret (and potentially foreign) funding. You want to donate $100,000,000 to a party? Go for it, but your name will be published as doing so. You want to donate $20,000,000 to a senator from each states campaign, Go for it! just expect everyone to know you did it. I'd actually prefer we do it that way. Because current laws aren't doing anything to reduce funding or pac coordination (#McConnelling). So if we aren't going to restrict how much money the 700 or so people we are talking about donate we should at least make them put their names on their donations right Danglars? the vote ID laws aren't going to stop people from voting. We've had them for years in the Netherlands and i've never heard anybody who won't vote because he has no ID. Even the far left parties don't think it's a bad idea here. The difference is that the ID's are mandatory in general over here. When the Republicans tried to introduce Voter ID laws they did so on very short notice before the elections. The Courts actually struck it down because of that. Plus I believe IDs are more expensive in the US aswell.
Yes and there are people in the south without birth certificates or the ability to drive with the closest place to obtain an ID being dozens of miles away. Several reasons they were a bad idea particularly implemented like they were.
Also it wasn't just ID laws it was also attempts to reduce voting. They tried to reduce early voting, same day registaration, voting hours, voting locations, and more.
It was blatantly clear to everyone but republican zealots that it was a direct attempt to suppress democracy and democratic leaning voters.
This guy had to step down after letting the cat out of the bag...
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-23-2013/suppressing-the-vote
after the interview caught backlash he decided to double down.
"The comments that were made, that I said, I stand behind them. I believe them," "To tell you the truth, there were a lot of things I said that they could've made sound worse than what they put up."
|
I think its hilarious that the same people (MSNBC, CNN) who are against voter ID laws because they infringe on the right to vote of minorities are totally in favor of gun registration and background checks. Registration and background checks would infringe on minorities rights to keep and bear arms. It's so funny that they cannot see the double-think in their positions.
They're all about making it easier to vote, but want guns to be as hard as possible to get. Never mind that the vote is way more dangerous than any gun.
|
On April 06 2014 00:54 Millitron wrote:
I think its hilarious that the same people (MSNBC, CNN) who are against voter ID laws because they infringe on the right to vote of minorities are totally in favor of gun registration and background checks. Registration and background checks would infringe on minorities rights to keep and bear arms. It's so funny that they cannot see the double-think in their positions.
They're all about making it easier to vote, but want guns to be as hard as possible to get. Never mind that the vote is way more dangerous than any gun.
/facepalm
If you dont see the difference between the two I can only shake my head and lose yet another bit of faith in mankind.
|
On April 06 2014 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2014 00:54 Millitron wrote:
I think its hilarious that the same people (MSNBC, CNN) who are against voter ID laws because they infringe on the right to vote of minorities are totally in favor of gun registration and background checks. Registration and background checks would infringe on minorities rights to keep and bear arms. It's so funny that they cannot see the double-think in their positions.
They're all about making it easier to vote, but want guns to be as hard as possible to get. Never mind that the vote is way more dangerous than any gun. /facepalm If you dont see the difference between the two I can only shake my head and lose yet another bit of faith in mankind.
Both are protected by the Constitution. Both are rights. The talking heads make it out to be all about rights being infringed when it comes to voter ID laws, but can't wrap their heads around the idea that the right to bear arms is a thing.
|
A federal judge said Friday that he will strike down Ohio's voter-approved ban on gay marriage, a move that stops short of forcing Ohio to perform same-sex weddings but will make the state recognize gay couples legally wed elsewhere.
Judge Timothy Black announced his intentions in federal court in Cincinnati after final arguments in a lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of the marriage ban.
"I intend to issue a declaration that Ohio's recognition bans, that have been relied upon to deny legal recognition to same-sex couples validly entered in other states where legal, violates the rights secured by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution," Black said. "[They're] denied their fundamental right to marry a person of their choosing and the right to remain married."
Ohio is one of 28 states where gay marriage bans are being challenged.
The civil rights attorneys who filed the February lawsuit challenging the ban did not ask Black to order the state to perform gay marriages, and he did not say he would do so.
The Cincinnati-based legal team asked Black to declare that Ohio's gay marriage ban is "facially unconstitutional, invalid and unenforceable" and indicated that after such a ruling, the window would be open for additional litigation seeking to force the state to allow gay couples to marry in Ohio.
The judge previously ruled that Ohio had to recognize the validity of out-of-state same-sex marriages when considering death certificates.
Source
|
On April 06 2014 01:14 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2014 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2014 00:54 Millitron wrote:
I think its hilarious that the same people (MSNBC, CNN) who are against voter ID laws because they infringe on the right to vote of minorities are totally in favor of gun registration and background checks. Registration and background checks would infringe on minorities rights to keep and bear arms. It's so funny that they cannot see the double-think in their positions.
They're all about making it easier to vote, but want guns to be as hard as possible to get. Never mind that the vote is way more dangerous than any gun. /facepalm If you dont see the difference between the two I can only shake my head and lose yet another bit of faith in mankind. Both are protected by the Constitution. Both are rights. The talking heads make it out to be all about rights being infringed when it comes to voter ID laws, but can't wrap their heads around the idea that the right to bear arms is a thing.
The one thing is used to participate democratically in a peaceful way, the other thing is used to shoot stuff. And a vote is way more dangeorus than a gun? Who coined that? Gaddafi?
|
On April 06 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2014 01:14 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2014 00:54 Millitron wrote:
I think its hilarious that the same people (MSNBC, CNN) who are against voter ID laws because they infringe on the right to vote of minorities are totally in favor of gun registration and background checks. Registration and background checks would infringe on minorities rights to keep and bear arms. It's so funny that they cannot see the double-think in their positions.
They're all about making it easier to vote, but want guns to be as hard as possible to get. Never mind that the vote is way more dangerous than any gun. /facepalm If you dont see the difference between the two I can only shake my head and lose yet another bit of faith in mankind. Both are protected by the Constitution. Both are rights. The talking heads make it out to be all about rights being infringed when it comes to voter ID laws, but can't wrap their heads around the idea that the right to bear arms is a thing. The one thing is used to participate democratically in a peaceful way, the other thing is used to shoot stuff. And a vote is way more dangeorus than a gun? Who coined that? Gaddafi?
People voted for the representatives that got us in Vietnam. People voted for representatives that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. People voted for representatives who allowed the whole housing bubble thing.
You're from Germany, you should know people elected the Nazis.
Elections and voting are a BIG deal. Way bigger than any shooting.
|
On April 06 2014 01:24 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote:On April 06 2014 01:14 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2014 00:54 Millitron wrote:
I think its hilarious that the same people (MSNBC, CNN) who are against voter ID laws because they infringe on the right to vote of minorities are totally in favor of gun registration and background checks. Registration and background checks would infringe on minorities rights to keep and bear arms. It's so funny that they cannot see the double-think in their positions.
They're all about making it easier to vote, but want guns to be as hard as possible to get. Never mind that the vote is way more dangerous than any gun. /facepalm If you dont see the difference between the two I can only shake my head and lose yet another bit of faith in mankind. Both are protected by the Constitution. Both are rights. The talking heads make it out to be all about rights being infringed when it comes to voter ID laws, but can't wrap their heads around the idea that the right to bear arms is a thing. The one thing is used to participate democratically in a peaceful way, the other thing is used to shoot stuff. And a vote is way more dangeorus than a gun? Who coined that? Gaddafi? People voted for the representatives that got us in Vietnam. People voted for representatives that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. People voted for representatives who allowed the whole housing bubble thing. You're from Germany, you should know people elected the Nazis. Elections and voting are a BIG deal. Way bigger than any shooting.
I know right!
Lets go back to the good old days where this all didnt happen. Back to the White elite being allowed to vote. No more women since they obviously dont know wtf there doing.
And never mind the black man. Never should have let them out of there chains. Going to take years to whip them back into them.
|
Norway28923 Posts
On April 06 2014 01:24 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote:On April 06 2014 01:14 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2014 00:54 Millitron wrote:
I think its hilarious that the same people (MSNBC, CNN) who are against voter ID laws because they infringe on the right to vote of minorities are totally in favor of gun registration and background checks. Registration and background checks would infringe on minorities rights to keep and bear arms. It's so funny that they cannot see the double-think in their positions.
They're all about making it easier to vote, but want guns to be as hard as possible to get. Never mind that the vote is way more dangerous than any gun. /facepalm If you dont see the difference between the two I can only shake my head and lose yet another bit of faith in mankind. Both are protected by the Constitution. Both are rights. The talking heads make it out to be all about rights being infringed when it comes to voter ID laws, but can't wrap their heads around the idea that the right to bear arms is a thing. The one thing is used to participate democratically in a peaceful way, the other thing is used to shoot stuff. And a vote is way more dangeorus than a gun? Who coined that? Gaddafi? People voted for the representatives that got us in Vietnam. People voted for representatives that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. People voted for representatives who allowed the whole housing bubble thing. You're from Germany, you should know people elected the Nazis. Elections and voting are a BIG deal. Way bigger than any shooting.
Countries waged war far more frequently before elections became a thing. And with the exception of USA you can only find a handful of situations where a democratic regimes have ever invaded another country. Not that undemocratic ones invade other countries all that frequently either now, but "democratic" and "non-democratic" is actually on average one of the best ways to determine how "good" of a country is, and also how militaristic.
furthermore, while nazis were kinda elected, thinking that they were a product of a healthy democracy is ridiculous.
|
On April 05 2014 20:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2014 20:04 RvB wrote:On April 05 2014 05:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 05 2014 03:09 Danglars wrote:On April 05 2014 01:33 Falling wrote:*sigh After arguing in this thread over Voter ID issues and how our system is great with the three tiers of identification with the most basic being one registered voter is allowed to vouch for one person without id. But now C-23 is going to do away with that. Wrote an email to my MP specifically on vouching and got back a super generic response on the bill and mentioned nothing about vouching- probably should've sent a physical letter. And now I hear your Court is opening up campaign spending even more. Oh democracy I'm so glad the ruling removed barriers to the democratic process, I only wish it went further. The biggest aid in elections shouldn't be incumbency with all its name recognition and free press not subject to financing laws. Individuals and groups of individuals should not be hindered from participating in the election process through political speech by such a reason as reducing the amount of money in politics. I concur with Thomas's supporting opinion that the parts of the law remaining intact represent a "rule without a rationale." The cap on individual contributions to congressional candidates and the president should be struck down on the same grounds. You realize the decision only removed real barriers for about 6-700 people? As opposed to Voter ID laws that created real barriers for millions? You can't be serious...? I mean I guess you're against voter ID laws then? ( I know you support laws that result in millions potentially not being able to vote, to solve a problem that has never had any documented significant impact on any election in the last 100 years, but get your panties in a bunch when a law prevents 700 people from donating even more money...) But since people think those 700 people don't currently have enough influence in politics(or at least that the law shouldn't stop it regardless of whether it is helpful to democracy or not), people like Danglers are arguing we need to do more to remove contribution barriers for that handful of people. Since there is little we can do to stop people from being super-donors as it is with all the pacs and such. I think the reasonable compromise is to let people donate as much as they want, but no more secret (and potentially foreign) funding. You want to donate $100,000,000 to a party? Go for it, but your name will be published as doing so. You want to donate $20,000,000 to a senator from each states campaign, Go for it! just expect everyone to know you did it. I'd actually prefer we do it that way. Because current laws aren't doing anything to reduce funding or pac coordination (#McConnelling). So if we aren't going to restrict how much money the 700 or so people we are talking about donate we should at least make them put their names on their donations right Danglars? the vote ID laws aren't going to stop people from voting. We've had them for years in the Netherlands and i've never heard anybody who won't vote because he has no ID. Even the far left parties don't think it's a bad idea here. The difference is that the ID's are mandatory in general over here. When the Republicans tried to introduce Voter ID laws they did so on very short notice before the elections. The Courts actually struck it down because of that. Plus I believe IDs are more expensive in the US aswell.
Same thing though, I've never heard a single person or party argue that mandatory ID's are bad for the poor and they're not more expensive. I'm not argueing about Republican intend, whether they wanted less Democrats to vote or not I'm just saying ID laws don't really hit the poor except maybe the ones who have to travel miles. But still you can travel miles every once in 5 years by public transport or whatever.
http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/passports/information/card.html
|
On April 05 2014 19:25 nunez wrote:relevant: Show nested quote +Revealed: Rahm Emanuel cuts public pensions, diverts money to benefit campaign donors
This same story, portraying public employees as the primary cause of budget crises, is being told across the country. Yet, in many cases, we’re only being told half the tale. We aren’t told that the pension shortfalls in many US states and cities were created because those same states and cities did not make their required pension contributions over many years. And perhaps even more shockingly, we aren’t being told that, while states and cities pretend they have no money to deal with public sector pensions, many are paying giant taxpayer subsidies to corporations — often far larger than the pension shortfalls.
...
As usual, one answer can be found by following the money. When you do that, you discover that despite Emanuel’s declaration that “government can no longer be an insider’s game, serving primarily the lobbyists and well-connected,” the TIF scheme is often exactly that – an insider’s game. And, as Pando’s investigation into the TIF program proves for the first time, the corporate beneficiaries of that insider’s game just so happen to be Emanuel’s major campaign donors.
...
So again, why is Emanuel aggressively trying to preserve his slush fund, even if it means inflicting unnecessary budget pain on retirees and rank-and-file taxpayers? Because preserving his slush fund defends the people he really represents – the financiers who sponsor his political career. pando
Relating TIF to pensions doesn't make much sense. The whole idea behind TIF is that new development today will bring in more tax revenue in the future and so the subsidy / public expenditure can more than pay for itself over time. Getting rid of the program or diverting the money into pensions would only help if the city was doing a poor job managing TIF.
I'll also add that pension woes are more than just about current shortfalls. The issue also relates to future liabilities and asset growth expectations as well as just how expensive post-retirement benefits will be as a share of the overall budget in the future.
|
On April 06 2014 01:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2014 01:24 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote:On April 06 2014 01:14 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2014 00:54 Millitron wrote:
I think its hilarious that the same people (MSNBC, CNN) who are against voter ID laws because they infringe on the right to vote of minorities are totally in favor of gun registration and background checks. Registration and background checks would infringe on minorities rights to keep and bear arms. It's so funny that they cannot see the double-think in their positions.
They're all about making it easier to vote, but want guns to be as hard as possible to get. Never mind that the vote is way more dangerous than any gun. /facepalm If you dont see the difference between the two I can only shake my head and lose yet another bit of faith in mankind. Both are protected by the Constitution. Both are rights. The talking heads make it out to be all about rights being infringed when it comes to voter ID laws, but can't wrap their heads around the idea that the right to bear arms is a thing. The one thing is used to participate democratically in a peaceful way, the other thing is used to shoot stuff. And a vote is way more dangeorus than a gun? Who coined that? Gaddafi? People voted for the representatives that got us in Vietnam. People voted for representatives that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. People voted for representatives who allowed the whole housing bubble thing. You're from Germany, you should know people elected the Nazis. Elections and voting are a BIG deal. Way bigger than any shooting. Countries waged war far more frequently before elections became a thing. And with the exception of USA you can only find a handful of situations where a democratic regimes have ever invaded another country. Not that undemocratic ones invade other countries all that frequently either now, but "democratic" and "non-democratic" is actually on average one of the best ways to determine how "good" of a country is, and also how militaristic. furthermore, while nazis were kinda elected, thinking that they were a product of a healthy democracy is ridiculous.
And you think we have a healthy democracy?
Where the media feeds everyone mostly just the liberal side of things?
Where there are no checks or oversight on campaign financing?
Where approval of Congress is 13%?
Where the NSA spies on citizens constantly, and is defended by our elected officials?
Where practically every week you hear about police shooting harmless people?
|
On April 06 2014 03:29 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2014 01:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 01:24 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote:On April 06 2014 01:14 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2014 00:54 Millitron wrote:
I think its hilarious that the same people (MSNBC, CNN) who are against voter ID laws because they infringe on the right to vote of minorities are totally in favor of gun registration and background checks. Registration and background checks would infringe on minorities rights to keep and bear arms. It's so funny that they cannot see the double-think in their positions.
They're all about making it easier to vote, but want guns to be as hard as possible to get. Never mind that the vote is way more dangerous than any gun. /facepalm If you dont see the difference between the two I can only shake my head and lose yet another bit of faith in mankind. Both are protected by the Constitution. Both are rights. The talking heads make it out to be all about rights being infringed when it comes to voter ID laws, but can't wrap their heads around the idea that the right to bear arms is a thing. The one thing is used to participate democratically in a peaceful way, the other thing is used to shoot stuff. And a vote is way more dangeorus than a gun? Who coined that? Gaddafi? People voted for the representatives that got us in Vietnam. People voted for representatives that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. People voted for representatives who allowed the whole housing bubble thing. You're from Germany, you should know people elected the Nazis. Elections and voting are a BIG deal. Way bigger than any shooting. Countries waged war far more frequently before elections became a thing. And with the exception of USA you can only find a handful of situations where a democratic regimes have ever invaded another country. Not that undemocratic ones invade other countries all that frequently either now, but "democratic" and "non-democratic" is actually on average one of the best ways to determine how "good" of a country is, and also how militaristic. furthermore, while nazis were kinda elected, thinking that they were a product of a healthy democracy is ridiculous. And you think we have a healthy democracy? Where the media feeds everyone mostly just the liberal side of things? Where there are no checks or oversight on campaign financing? Where approval of Congress is 13%? Where the NSA spies on citizens constantly, and is defended by our elected officials? Where practically every week you hear about police shooting harmless people?
Do you think giving everyone a gun will fix those problems?
Do you think removing votes from racial minority's will fix those problems?
|
On April 06 2014 03:39 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2014 03:29 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 01:24 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote:On April 06 2014 01:14 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2014 00:54 Millitron wrote:
I think its hilarious that the same people (MSNBC, CNN) who are against voter ID laws because they infringe on the right to vote of minorities are totally in favor of gun registration and background checks. Registration and background checks would infringe on minorities rights to keep and bear arms. It's so funny that they cannot see the double-think in their positions.
They're all about making it easier to vote, but want guns to be as hard as possible to get. Never mind that the vote is way more dangerous than any gun. /facepalm If you dont see the difference between the two I can only shake my head and lose yet another bit of faith in mankind. Both are protected by the Constitution. Both are rights. The talking heads make it out to be all about rights being infringed when it comes to voter ID laws, but can't wrap their heads around the idea that the right to bear arms is a thing. The one thing is used to participate democratically in a peaceful way, the other thing is used to shoot stuff. And a vote is way more dangeorus than a gun? Who coined that? Gaddafi? People voted for the representatives that got us in Vietnam. People voted for representatives that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. People voted for representatives who allowed the whole housing bubble thing. You're from Germany, you should know people elected the Nazis. Elections and voting are a BIG deal. Way bigger than any shooting. Countries waged war far more frequently before elections became a thing. And with the exception of USA you can only find a handful of situations where a democratic regimes have ever invaded another country. Not that undemocratic ones invade other countries all that frequently either now, but "democratic" and "non-democratic" is actually on average one of the best ways to determine how "good" of a country is, and also how militaristic. furthermore, while nazis were kinda elected, thinking that they were a product of a healthy democracy is ridiculous. And you think we have a healthy democracy? Where the media feeds everyone mostly just the liberal side of things? Where there are no checks or oversight on campaign financing? Where approval of Congress is 13%? Where the NSA spies on citizens constantly, and is defended by our elected officials? Where practically every week you hear about police shooting harmless people? Do you think giving everyone a gun will fix those problems? Do you think removing votes from racial minority's will fix those problems?
No. And I don't want to remove votes from minorities, but voting should be taken seriously. Voter I.D.'s should be required, but should be free. Election day should be a national holiday so people don't have to choose between work and voting. There could also be a law requiring more vigorous fact-checking for the media. We can't really stop them from being one-sided, that's an artifact of the free market, but we could at least prevent them from blatantly making shit up anymore.
I'm in favor of guns being easily accessible for a bunch of reasons, which a quick perusal of the "Should people be allowed to own and carry firearms" thread can find. I'm not going to go into too much detail here, its off-topic and would take forever. Mostly they boil down to rights. Both property rights, and the right to self-defense.
Basically, I believe if one of these two rights should require I.D. or other paperwork, they both should, or the laws are hypocritical.
|
Canada11607 Posts
We have a guns super-thread already. Please do not turn this one into a second.
|
On April 06 2014 03:58 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2014 03:39 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2014 03:29 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 06 2014 01:24 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:18 Nyxisto wrote:On April 06 2014 01:14 Millitron wrote:On April 06 2014 01:11 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2014 00:54 Millitron wrote:
I think its hilarious that the same people (MSNBC, CNN) who are against voter ID laws because they infringe on the right to vote of minorities are totally in favor of gun registration and background checks. Registration and background checks would infringe on minorities rights to keep and bear arms. It's so funny that they cannot see the double-think in their positions.
They're all about making it easier to vote, but want guns to be as hard as possible to get. Never mind that the vote is way more dangerous than any gun. /facepalm If you dont see the difference between the two I can only shake my head and lose yet another bit of faith in mankind. Both are protected by the Constitution. Both are rights. The talking heads make it out to be all about rights being infringed when it comes to voter ID laws, but can't wrap their heads around the idea that the right to bear arms is a thing. The one thing is used to participate democratically in a peaceful way, the other thing is used to shoot stuff. And a vote is way more dangeorus than a gun? Who coined that? Gaddafi? People voted for the representatives that got us in Vietnam. People voted for representatives that got us in Iraq and Afghanistan. People voted for representatives who allowed the whole housing bubble thing. You're from Germany, you should know people elected the Nazis. Elections and voting are a BIG deal. Way bigger than any shooting. Countries waged war far more frequently before elections became a thing. And with the exception of USA you can only find a handful of situations where a democratic regimes have ever invaded another country. Not that undemocratic ones invade other countries all that frequently either now, but "democratic" and "non-democratic" is actually on average one of the best ways to determine how "good" of a country is, and also how militaristic. furthermore, while nazis were kinda elected, thinking that they were a product of a healthy democracy is ridiculous. And you think we have a healthy democracy? Where the media feeds everyone mostly just the liberal side of things? Where there are no checks or oversight on campaign financing? Where approval of Congress is 13%? Where the NSA spies on citizens constantly, and is defended by our elected officials? Where practically every week you hear about police shooting harmless people? Do you think giving everyone a gun will fix those problems? Do you think removing votes from racial minority's will fix those problems? No. And I don't want to remove votes from minorities, but voting should be taken seriously. Voter I.D.'s should be required, but should be free. Election day should be a national holiday so people don't have to choose between work and voting. There could also be a law requiring more vigorous fact-checking for the media. We can't really stop them from being one-sided, that's an artifact of the free market, but we could at least prevent them from blatantly making shit up anymore. I'm in favor of guns being easily accessible for a bunch of reasons, which a quick perusal of the "Should people be allowed to own and carry firearms" thread can find. I'm not going to go into too much detail here, its off-topic and would take forever. Mostly they boil down to rights. Both property rights, and the right to self-defense. Basically, I believe if one of these two rights should require I.D. or other paperwork, they both should, or the laws are hypocritical.
The irony is that he doesn't realize he is actually arguing for increased gun control laws roflmao.
Anyway I don't think it's a coincidence danglars tucked tail and ran from the discussion on funding and his support of 'removing barriers' to the democratic process. It, like many arguments here, is just to disingenuous to maintain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
