|
On November 18 2010 05:43 Kipsate wrote:
Don't forget that there are places in America which are too far away for police to reach, a person living in the middle of nowhere will therefore feel safer if he has a gun.
On the other hand the gunlaw in America is solidified by the dreaded lobbying power of the NRA
It is because of article 2 in their constitution.
On Topic:
When watching Us Politics I have a feeling that every 2-4 years the US Voters/pundits/politicians forget what happened in the past... and then expect instant fixes.
nr.1 example: debt of the US and the movement to stop this debtlevel.
Only when u forget everything that happened 2 years ago u could explain why Obama/democrats are blamed for the dept. especially that bush started the main confilct point of bank/wallstreet bailout (a fucking necessary step imo)
|
On November 19 2010 01:29 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 01:24 Velr wrote:
The word Liberal does not mean the same to europeans as it does to americans. Actually it's pretty much the opposite. I see, so approaching 50% state spenditure of GDP constitutes ultra-liberalism in europe? I apologize.
The point is that in the US the term "liberal" is used in a way that is not comprehensible to Europeans. In the US "liberal" seems to be an insult used against Democrats or, more specifically, people in favor of equal rights (e.g. religious freedom for all religions and gay marriage) or an insult towards people who do not share republican ethics (like those in favor of legalizing marihuana). Probabaly, democrats are more societally liberal because they emphasize individuals personality rights.
However, technically, the republicans are more economically liberal because they want to minimize gonvernment (at leat in those regions where they dislike government, i.e. business and guns - more state for homeland security and warts is fine, though).
|
On November 18 2010 20:32 Rflcrx wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 09:25 domovoi wrote:On November 18 2010 05:39 Rflcrx wrote:On November 18 2010 03:44 domovoi wrote: (Shooting a gun is pretty fun, btw!) Shooting an automatic grenadelauncher is pretty fun too.. And baseball bats are similarly both fun and dangerous. Sounds like you are challanging me to a fight were I bring an automatic grenadelauncher and you wield a baseball. Aight, lets do this.
All I gotta do is get in close range, then you're dead.
|
On November 19 2010 01:51 Electric.Jesus wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 01:29 Yurebis wrote:On November 19 2010 01:24 Velr wrote:
The word Liberal does not mean the same to europeans as it does to americans. Actually it's pretty much the opposite. I see, so approaching 50% state spenditure of GDP constitutes ultra-liberalism in europe? I apologize. The point is that in the US the term "liberal" is used in a way that is not comprehensible to Europeans. In the US "liberal" seems to be an insult used against Democrats or, more specifically, people in favor of equal rights (e.g. religious freedom for all religions and gay marriage) or an insult towards people who do not share republican ethics (like those in favor of legalizing marihuana). Probabaly, democrats are more societally liberal because they emphasize individuals personality rights. However, technically, the republicans are more economically liberal because they want to minimize gonvernment (at leat in those regions where they dislike government, i.e. business and guns - more state for homeland security and warts is fine, though).
Recently, it's sometimes (though not commonly) used by conservatives as an "insult." But liberals gladly accept it as a label, and have for decades. I mean, liberals think conservatives are moronic trash, and conservatives think liberals douchebag elitists, so either label is treated as an insult by the other side. So are the labels "Democrat" and "Republican," for similar reasons.
|
On November 19 2010 01:51 Electric.Jesus wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 01:29 Yurebis wrote:On November 19 2010 01:24 Velr wrote:
The word Liberal does not mean the same to europeans as it does to americans. Actually it's pretty much the opposite. I see, so approaching 50% state spenditure of GDP constitutes ultra-liberalism in europe? I apologize. The point is that in the US the term "liberal" is used in a way that is not comprehensible to Europeans. In the US "liberal" seems to be an insult used against Democrats or, more specifically, people in favor of equal rights (e.g. religious freedom for all religions and gay marriage) or an insult towards people who do not share republican ethics (like those in favor of legalizing marihuana). Probabaly, democrats are more societally liberal because they emphasize individuals personality rights. However, technically, the republicans are more economically liberal because they want to minimize gonvernment (at leat in those regions where they dislike government, i.e. business and guns - more state for homeland security and warts is fine, though).
I have used "liberal" in the correct context all along.
|
On November 19 2010 03:52 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 01:51 Electric.Jesus wrote:On November 19 2010 01:29 Yurebis wrote:On November 19 2010 01:24 Velr wrote:
The word Liberal does not mean the same to europeans as it does to americans. Actually it's pretty much the opposite. I see, so approaching 50% state spenditure of GDP constitutes ultra-liberalism in europe? I apologize. The point is that in the US the term "liberal" is used in a way that is not comprehensible to Europeans. In the US "liberal" seems to be an insult used against Democrats or, more specifically, people in favor of equal rights (e.g. religious freedom for all religions and gay marriage) or an insult towards people who do not share republican ethics (like those in favor of legalizing marihuana). Probabaly, democrats are more societally liberal because they emphasize individuals personality rights. However, technically, the republicans are more economically liberal because they want to minimize gonvernment (at leat in those regions where they dislike government, i.e. business and guns - more state for homeland security and warts is fine, though). I have used "liberal" in the correct context all along.
Given my observation that most TL users are above-average with regards to both intelligence and education, that does not surprise me. I was rather referring to my percpetioon of the "average american".
|
On November 19 2010 01:21 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 19:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 16 2010 07:27 kzn wrote:On November 12 2010 09:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You must be fucking kidding me.
ANPE (national agency for employement) in France is besieged since years by hordes of people who would give their right hand to get any job they can basically do (yeah, some people just can't be a construction worker). As a musician I know countless people who are trying to find a job and struggle like hell. As I do by the way. Do you think the 30-40% youth unemployement in Europe is because young people don't want to work? lol.
It always strikes me this kind of obscene right wing arguments about how homeless people "don't want to work" or unemployed people are "lazy". Nobody wants to live in the street, nobody wants to live with the 500€ a month that you get in "socialist" France. Unemployement is almost a structural necessity in our countries, what on earth does it have to do with lazyness?
Gosh. This is because France is fucking retarded about labor. Oh, hey, we're going to mandate that nobody works more than 35 hours a week unless they get paid exorbitant overtime rates, unionize everything (which runs counter to literally all of accepted economic theory), and have a minimum wage of twelve dollars an hour! UNEMPLOYMENT HAS BEEN SOLVED. If labor markets were allowed to operate, instead of being subject to thousands of retarded regulations that are essentially bribes to certain sections of the electorate, almost all unemployment would be voluntary (basically, unless you're disabled, it would be voluntary). But when you artificially restrict your economy so that every single job has to produce more than $12/hour in value added, you're lopping off a huge segment of entry-level jobs that companies flat out cannot afford to hire for anymore. When you throw unions at everything, you make it impossible for companies to fire workers, to hire better workers, or really to do anything that will help them with regards to labor. If you want to work so badly, why in gods name are your people unwilling to accept less than $12/hour? Your entire argument is a contradiction You don't know about France. Our system works very well, and our economic situation is now way better than, for example, the British one which is inspired by the same ultraliberal bs than the US one. Funny that you call the US "ultraliberal"... Oh well. Not even going to argue 
In Europe we use liberal on the economic field as opposed to socialist. Liberal means for us non-intervention of the state in the economic area.
Tatcher/Reagan ideology is typically what we call ultraliberalism.
We can argue about the connexion with the liberal tradition, and maybe the american opposition liberal/conservative is more historcally accurate, but I'm quite sure we understand each other.
|
Oh I completely understand you. In a world where almost every man beats his wife and kids, I guess the man who only beats his wife could be called "ultraliberal". But I still find it funny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
