|
|
On September 11 2012 03:31 Doublemint wrote:There is not really demand for concealed carry. Most people I know, if they have got guns, they need a licence for it and have it stored at a safe location in their house. And they would disagree that it makes them feel safter to carry them in public. Being a gunslinger is something for cowboy movies and won't prevent crime nor save lives. And you read that there was good reason to arrest those people in the examples provided by you. Having hateful and abhorrent opinions without basis is not being tolerated. So yes, in some way there is a limit to free speech. Though it neither has got anything to do with "socialism" nor does it hinder democracy. 2 of them fall into the category described in my post - the one denying the holocaust in Germany and Gottfried Küssel is a well known Neo-Nazi in Austria.
Regardless of whether or not a European "feels any safer" carrying a gun than they would not is irrelevant, if they don't want to, that's their personal choice, but they shouldn't stop other law-abiding citizens from doing so. Evidence shows that concealed carry has reduced crime in every state that it has been implemented in; even the anti-gun organizations like the Brady Campaign refuse to claim that it "increases crime." Also, how does being prepared for a potentially life-threatening situation somehow equate to "being a wild wild west gunslinger?" Out where I live, everyone and their dog owns and carries a gun, yet we have no crime and the people aren't "wild wild west gun slingers." Though really, the entire notion that the "wild wild west" was some sort of violent criminal haven is a stretch in it's own right.
Just because someone is far-right (or in the Baltic states far-left) doesn't mean that they should be arrested for their views. Perhaps it's just a cultural thing, but in America we value freedom of speech no matter how disdainful or vile said speech is; hence why we continue to allow the Westboro Baptist Church to exist.
|
On September 11 2012 03:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 03:28 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 03:23 frogrubdown wrote:On September 11 2012 02:54 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 02:42 KwarK wrote:On September 11 2012 02:27 NonCorporeal wrote:
Wow KwarK, what a rant, wow. With all due respect, I think that using the recent election of right-wing (EU defition) parties across Europe as an example of how Europe is moving towards American capitalism is ridiculous. There have been "conservative" (EU definition) elected in Europe before, and they haven't done anything meaningful to end the welfare state; and likewise, neither have the parties that have recently been elected in UK, Germany, Italy, and other EU countries. By that same definition, one could argue that they are also moving towards socialism again, with the Socialist Party forming a government in France and winning the presidential election a few months ago, with part of their platform claling for over 70% income tax.
These so-called "right-wing" parties in Europe are so far-left by normal standards, that they haven't done anything to end the welfare state, they haven't done anything to promote gun rights, they haven't done anything to stop multiculturalism, and they haven't done anything to re-instate freedom of speech and other freedoms that Europeans have lost under socialism. The people of Europe may very well want to move towards American-style capitalism and freedom, but they apparently have no outlet to make that happen, since the people they repeatedly elect into office are nowhere near radical enough to return capitalism to the people of Europe; possibly because politicians and bureaucrats often benefit from having a socialist welfare state and a big government.
Also, America is rapidly moving towards Europe, despite the fact that European leaders and politicians have been trying to warn America not to go down their path for at least a decade now. We've seen America moving further and further towards a big government welfare state and a nanny state that will strip people of their freedom and of their 'pursuit of happiness' (right to keep the fruits of their labor). There are factions in this country, mostly Democrats who want nothing more than to create a socialist welfare state, to nationalize healthcare, to nationalize various industries (we already nationalized the auto industry, and recently Obama said that he wants to nationalize "all other industries" as well), we've seen the lefties pushing towards more draconian gun control laws, we've seen the lefties trying to ban "fatty foods," we've seen the lefties pushing their multicultural agenda, and we've seen the lefties pushing a European-style "North American Union," and we've seen the lefties repeatedly side with Palestine instead of Israel.
Edit: Sorry, double posted on mistake.
It just baffles me how can anyone honestly say with a straight face that the American left isn't trying to turn America into Europe 2.0? "far-left by normal standards" Are you serious? By the standards of pretty much every single liberal democracy in the world America is far, far right. The fact that you're like "we're normal, it's all the other countries who are all abnormal" just shows the depths of ignorance enjoyed by those who still believe in American exceptionalism. You also in no way refuted the fact that Europe used to be socialist and that any claim that they're heading towards socialism based upon the legacy of socialist policies is factually untrue. Okay, imagine you saw a guy swimming in the sea, then loudly say "I don't want to swim anymore", then get out of the water, then say "I'm now no longer going to swim" and then walk away from the beach with wet hair. Would you conclude from this that because water is wet and he is wet he is clearly going for a swim or would you instead look at the direction he was walking in and conclude that he's perhaps just gone for a swim. I know it's a fairly silly example but I just cannot understand how to make the idiocy of what you're saying any clearer to you. I have outlined the history of socialism in the UK to you and explained that we have in fact already been socialist and that all of our major parties have rejected socialism openly and that the new consensus is far, far to the right of the previous consensus in the 50s and 60s. I don't know how to make this any clearer to you. The things that you are saying are not the things that are true. This is not an opinion or something that you can argue. These are things that you can look up. I know you heard on whatever right wing fear media you subscribe to that the rest of the world is falling to the forces of socialism but it's factually incorrect. Not true. Wrong. Read a book for once. Do some independent research. Open your damn eyes. Where is the evidence that Europe is moving away from socialism towards the free-market? Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but your entire argument seems to be based on "we're not as socialist as we used to be, so clearly we love capitalism now." If you're going to claim that someone's argument is factually untrue, then you should at least provide legitimate reasons as to you feel that way. Edit: Sorry, I seem to have double posted. You seem confused. You made a claim about things changing, getting more socialist and less capitalist. For it to be the case that "we're not as socialist as we used to be" just is for it to be the case that we're "moving away from socialism and toward a free market" (unless of course they were going even further left, which they aren't). Whether or not anyone "loves capitalism now" has nothing to do with it. A change is a change. You claimed, based on nothing, that the change was in one direction. Kwark pointed out that it's been in the other. Be glad you've learned something today. Ah, I see what you're saying, but one could just as easily look to the recent success of far-left organizations like RESPECT in the UK, Die Linke in Germany, and the Left Front (or even the Socialist Party) in France as evidence that they are moving further away from capitalism and further towards socialism. Which success of Respect? Conservatives defeated Labour in the general election and your conclusion from this is that it's slipping left because of one of the least relevant political parties ever to exist.
Respect recently won a by-election, and they have been somewhat on the rise for a while now with the defection of disillusioned Labour voters. Additionally, far-left (communist) TUSC (Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition) made some gains at the local government level.
|
On September 11 2012 03:38 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 03:31 Doublemint wrote:There is not really demand for concealed carry. Most people I know, if they have got guns, they need a licence for it and have it stored at a safe location in their house. And they would disagree that it makes them feel safter to carry them in public. Being a gunslinger is something for cowboy movies and won't prevent crime nor save lives. And you read that there was good reason to arrest those people in the examples provided by you. Having hateful and abhorrent opinions without basis is not being tolerated. So yes, in some way there is a limit to free speech. Though it neither has got anything to do with "socialism" nor does it hinder democracy. 2 of them fall into the category described in my post - the one denying the holocaust in Germany and Gottfried Küssel is a well known Neo-Nazi in Austria. Regardless of whether or not a European "feels any safer" carrying a gun than they would not is irrelevant, if they don't want to, that's their personal choice, but they shouldn't stop other law-abiding citizens from doing so. Evidence shows that concealed carry has reduced crime in every state that it has been implemented in; even the anti-gun organizations like the Brady Campaign refuse to claim that it "increases crime." Also, how does being prepared for a potentially life-threatening situation somehow equate to "being a wild wild west gunslinger?" Out where I live, everyone and their dog owns and carries a gun, yet we have no crime and the people aren't "wild wild west gun slingers." Though really, the entire notion that the "wild wild west" was some sort of violent criminal haven is a stretch in it's own right. Just because someone is far-right (or in the Baltic states far-left) doesn't mean that they should be arrested for their views. Perhaps it's just a cultural thing, but in America we value freedom of speech no matter how disdainful or vile said speech is; hence why we continue to allow the Westboro Baptist Church to exist.
Well, I think paralleluniverse posted gun statistics, maybe took a look at them.
Just because it is the most normal thing where you come from does not mean it is the way things are dealt with over here.
You talked about "reinstating" freedom of speech, after a few posts written and read don't you think that is a bit of a stretch? You make it sound like NK is the EU's best buddy in this regard.
And I am sure families of fallen soldiers are thankful every day those Westboro Church people are free to do as they please.
|
On September 11 2012 03:47 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 03:38 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 03:31 Doublemint wrote:There is not really demand for concealed carry. Most people I know, if they have got guns, they need a licence for it and have it stored at a safe location in their house. And they would disagree that it makes them feel safter to carry them in public. Being a gunslinger is something for cowboy movies and won't prevent crime nor save lives. And you read that there was good reason to arrest those people in the examples provided by you. Having hateful and abhorrent opinions without basis is not being tolerated. So yes, in some way there is a limit to free speech. Though it neither has got anything to do with "socialism" nor does it hinder democracy. 2 of them fall into the category described in my post - the one denying the holocaust in Germany and Gottfried Küssel is a well known Neo-Nazi in Austria. Regardless of whether or not a European "feels any safer" carrying a gun than they would not is irrelevant, if they don't want to, that's their personal choice, but they shouldn't stop other law-abiding citizens from doing so. Evidence shows that concealed carry has reduced crime in every state that it has been implemented in; even the anti-gun organizations like the Brady Campaign refuse to claim that it "increases crime." Also, how does being prepared for a potentially life-threatening situation somehow equate to "being a wild wild west gunslinger?" Out where I live, everyone and their dog owns and carries a gun, yet we have no crime and the people aren't "wild wild west gun slingers." Though really, the entire notion that the "wild wild west" was some sort of violent criminal haven is a stretch in it's own right. Just because someone is far-right (or in the Baltic states far-left) doesn't mean that they should be arrested for their views. Perhaps it's just a cultural thing, but in America we value freedom of speech no matter how disdainful or vile said speech is; hence why we continue to allow the Westboro Baptist Church to exist. Well, I think paralleluniverse posted gun statistics, maybe took a look at them. Just because it is the most normal thing where you come from does not mean it is the way things are dealt with over here. You talked about "reinstating" freedom of speech, after a few posts written and read don't you think that is a bit of a stretch? You make it sound like NK is the EU's best buddy in this regard. And I am sure families of fallen soldiers are thankful every day those Westboro Church people are free to do as they please.
Can you please link to paralleluniverse's post?
What's not normal in Europe? Self-defense?
There are ways to minimize the WBC's impact without violating their freedom of speech. It's ridiculous to make "offending someone" illegal, being "offended" is entirely subjective.
|
On September 11 2012 01:31 NonCorporeal wrote:
While Europe moves towards socialism; Japan, Singapore, China/Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and other countries have been moving towards capitalism. Hell, all of those countries except the PRC are being ruled by neo-liberal governments.
Reality check -- Japan and Hong Kong have always be capitalistic.
China may be trying to be more capitalistic, but I can assure you, if you ever travelled there your would realize it's a complete clusterfuck of poor people that have no property rights, no prospects and no money to buy the American crap they make.
A "Capitalist" China is still far, FAR more socialist that a 'Socialist' European country. To laud China as a model country for heading in the right direction while chastising Europe after a global economic crisis is simply laughable.
And why do American's keep insisting on comparing themselves to Europe? You economy, values and culture probably have more in common with Canada or Australia.
|
United States42691 Posts
On September 11 2012 03:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 03:23 frogrubdown wrote:On September 11 2012 02:54 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 02:42 KwarK wrote:On September 11 2012 02:27 NonCorporeal wrote:
Wow KwarK, what a rant, wow. With all due respect, I think that using the recent election of right-wing (EU defition) parties across Europe as an example of how Europe is moving towards American capitalism is ridiculous. There have been "conservative" (EU definition) elected in Europe before, and they haven't done anything meaningful to end the welfare state; and likewise, neither have the parties that have recently been elected in UK, Germany, Italy, and other EU countries. By that same definition, one could argue that they are also moving towards socialism again, with the Socialist Party forming a government in France and winning the presidential election a few months ago, with part of their platform claling for over 70% income tax.
These so-called "right-wing" parties in Europe are so far-left by normal standards, that they haven't done anything to end the welfare state, they haven't done anything to promote gun rights, they haven't done anything to stop multiculturalism, and they haven't done anything to re-instate freedom of speech and other freedoms that Europeans have lost under socialism. The people of Europe may very well want to move towards American-style capitalism and freedom, but they apparently have no outlet to make that happen, since the people they repeatedly elect into office are nowhere near radical enough to return capitalism to the people of Europe; possibly because politicians and bureaucrats often benefit from having a socialist welfare state and a big government.
Also, America is rapidly moving towards Europe, despite the fact that European leaders and politicians have been trying to warn America not to go down their path for at least a decade now. We've seen America moving further and further towards a big government welfare state and a nanny state that will strip people of their freedom and of their 'pursuit of happiness' (right to keep the fruits of their labor). There are factions in this country, mostly Democrats who want nothing more than to create a socialist welfare state, to nationalize healthcare, to nationalize various industries (we already nationalized the auto industry, and recently Obama said that he wants to nationalize "all other industries" as well), we've seen the lefties pushing towards more draconian gun control laws, we've seen the lefties trying to ban "fatty foods," we've seen the lefties pushing their multicultural agenda, and we've seen the lefties pushing a European-style "North American Union," and we've seen the lefties repeatedly side with Palestine instead of Israel.
Edit: Sorry, double posted on mistake.
It just baffles me how can anyone honestly say with a straight face that the American left isn't trying to turn America into Europe 2.0? "far-left by normal standards" Are you serious? By the standards of pretty much every single liberal democracy in the world America is far, far right. The fact that you're like "we're normal, it's all the other countries who are all abnormal" just shows the depths of ignorance enjoyed by those who still believe in American exceptionalism. You also in no way refuted the fact that Europe used to be socialist and that any claim that they're heading towards socialism based upon the legacy of socialist policies is factually untrue. Okay, imagine you saw a guy swimming in the sea, then loudly say "I don't want to swim anymore", then get out of the water, then say "I'm now no longer going to swim" and then walk away from the beach with wet hair. Would you conclude from this that because water is wet and he is wet he is clearly going for a swim or would you instead look at the direction he was walking in and conclude that he's perhaps just gone for a swim. I know it's a fairly silly example but I just cannot understand how to make the idiocy of what you're saying any clearer to you. I have outlined the history of socialism in the UK to you and explained that we have in fact already been socialist and that all of our major parties have rejected socialism openly and that the new consensus is far, far to the right of the previous consensus in the 50s and 60s. I don't know how to make this any clearer to you. The things that you are saying are not the things that are true. This is not an opinion or something that you can argue. These are things that you can look up. I know you heard on whatever right wing fear media you subscribe to that the rest of the world is falling to the forces of socialism but it's factually incorrect. Not true. Wrong. Read a book for once. Do some independent research. Open your damn eyes. Where is the evidence that Europe is moving away from socialism towards the free-market? Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but your entire argument seems to be based on "we're not as socialist as we used to be, so clearly we love capitalism now." If you're going to claim that someone's argument is factually untrue, then you should at least provide legitimate reasons as to you feel that way. Edit: Sorry, I seem to have double posted. You seem confused. You made a claim about things changing, getting more socialist and less capitalist. For it to be the case that "we're not as socialist as we used to be" just is for it to be the case that we're "moving away from socialism and toward a free market" (unless of course they were going even further left, which they aren't). Whether or not anyone "loves capitalism now" has nothing to do with it. A change is a change. You claimed, based on nothing, that the change was in one direction. Kwark pointed out that it's been in the other. Be glad you've learned something today. Ah, here's the thread at its worst: not seeing the forest for the trees. Noncorporeal is exactly right in that democrats are pushing the US to be more like Europe in terms of government policy. I don't even think that this is fairly debatable. He's also right in pointing out that Europe is having a lot of difficulty managing its more socialist/liberal policies. That's the "forest." With regards to whether Europe is becoming more socialist or more capitalist, that's a rather difficult question to answer. You have to consider time frames and you also have to consider each country on an individual basis. I don't think anyone can argue that France is on a decidedly socialist trend (and quite frankly, I can't wait for this little experiment to blow up spectacularly in their faces). Regardless, this issue would be the "trees." Bottom line: stick to the larger point rather than giving Noncorporeal a shitty time about the more irrelevant stuff. What you're doing is inane. EDIT: And to be clear, this applies to the half-dozen other posters who have jumped on Noncorporeal.
I don't think it's in any way irrelevant. I've seen the exact same routine done by a dozen other right wingers. Their media of choice will feed them a giant lie such as Europe moving steadily towards socialism and then give them a dozen individual articles about little events such as one insignificant politician making a statement or a guy being arrested and tell them these confirm the lie. And because Europe is very far away and it agrees with their world view they miss the stuff that is unbelievably obvious to someone who actually lives here. You have the case of the Labour party refounding itself to break away from socialism and then still being defeated by the Conservative party and yet he's obsessing over some outlying by-election because that's what he's been shown. Trying to make that argument to someone who actually lives in the UK would immediately fail because it's very obviously not true, the lie can only survive within the isolated pockets of circle jerking ignorance.
The narrative that Europe is moving left and dragging the US with them is one that I've seen before along with strings of unrelated incidents which collectively amount to absolutely nothing. It's only due to the supreme arrogance of someone looking for their opinion to be validated or unquestioningly accepting what they hear that these big lies are allowed to survive. It needs to be challenged in order for the people who spout that nonsense to develop critical thinking skills.
Quite frankly, as someone who generally tries to make the rational case for the right on these forums people like him who blindly recite such rubbish ought to embarrass you. Both sides have their share of idiots but the things they're saying don't get less stupid just because they're on your side.
|
Was at page 477 but I copied the link here.
http://crookedtimber.org/2012/07/20/america-is-a-violent-country/
Self defense is, believe it or not, authorized.
Promoting hate speech or baseless rants about someone's race,believe,gender... whatever is something that does not enjoy protection granted by freedom of speech in most EU countries.
America has no problem allowing it. Fine.
|
On September 11 2012 03:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 03:23 frogrubdown wrote:On September 11 2012 02:54 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 02:42 KwarK wrote:On September 11 2012 02:27 NonCorporeal wrote:
Wow KwarK, what a rant, wow. With all due respect, I think that using the recent election of right-wing (EU defition) parties across Europe as an example of how Europe is moving towards American capitalism is ridiculous. There have been "conservative" (EU definition) elected in Europe before, and they haven't done anything meaningful to end the welfare state; and likewise, neither have the parties that have recently been elected in UK, Germany, Italy, and other EU countries. By that same definition, one could argue that they are also moving towards socialism again, with the Socialist Party forming a government in France and winning the presidential election a few months ago, with part of their platform claling for over 70% income tax.
These so-called "right-wing" parties in Europe are so far-left by normal standards, that they haven't done anything to end the welfare state, they haven't done anything to promote gun rights, they haven't done anything to stop multiculturalism, and they haven't done anything to re-instate freedom of speech and other freedoms that Europeans have lost under socialism. The people of Europe may very well want to move towards American-style capitalism and freedom, but they apparently have no outlet to make that happen, since the people they repeatedly elect into office are nowhere near radical enough to return capitalism to the people of Europe; possibly because politicians and bureaucrats often benefit from having a socialist welfare state and a big government.
Also, America is rapidly moving towards Europe, despite the fact that European leaders and politicians have been trying to warn America not to go down their path for at least a decade now. We've seen America moving further and further towards a big government welfare state and a nanny state that will strip people of their freedom and of their 'pursuit of happiness' (right to keep the fruits of their labor). There are factions in this country, mostly Democrats who want nothing more than to create a socialist welfare state, to nationalize healthcare, to nationalize various industries (we already nationalized the auto industry, and recently Obama said that he wants to nationalize "all other industries" as well), we've seen the lefties pushing towards more draconian gun control laws, we've seen the lefties trying to ban "fatty foods," we've seen the lefties pushing their multicultural agenda, and we've seen the lefties pushing a European-style "North American Union," and we've seen the lefties repeatedly side with Palestine instead of Israel.
Edit: Sorry, double posted on mistake.
It just baffles me how can anyone honestly say with a straight face that the American left isn't trying to turn America into Europe 2.0? "far-left by normal standards" Are you serious? By the standards of pretty much every single liberal democracy in the world America is far, far right. The fact that you're like "we're normal, it's all the other countries who are all abnormal" just shows the depths of ignorance enjoyed by those who still believe in American exceptionalism. You also in no way refuted the fact that Europe used to be socialist and that any claim that they're heading towards socialism based upon the legacy of socialist policies is factually untrue. Okay, imagine you saw a guy swimming in the sea, then loudly say "I don't want to swim anymore", then get out of the water, then say "I'm now no longer going to swim" and then walk away from the beach with wet hair. Would you conclude from this that because water is wet and he is wet he is clearly going for a swim or would you instead look at the direction he was walking in and conclude that he's perhaps just gone for a swim. I know it's a fairly silly example but I just cannot understand how to make the idiocy of what you're saying any clearer to you. I have outlined the history of socialism in the UK to you and explained that we have in fact already been socialist and that all of our major parties have rejected socialism openly and that the new consensus is far, far to the right of the previous consensus in the 50s and 60s. I don't know how to make this any clearer to you. The things that you are saying are not the things that are true. This is not an opinion or something that you can argue. These are things that you can look up. I know you heard on whatever right wing fear media you subscribe to that the rest of the world is falling to the forces of socialism but it's factually incorrect. Not true. Wrong. Read a book for once. Do some independent research. Open your damn eyes. Where is the evidence that Europe is moving away from socialism towards the free-market? Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but your entire argument seems to be based on "we're not as socialist as we used to be, so clearly we love capitalism now." If you're going to claim that someone's argument is factually untrue, then you should at least provide legitimate reasons as to you feel that way. Edit: Sorry, I seem to have double posted. You seem confused. You made a claim about things changing, getting more socialist and less capitalist. For it to be the case that "we're not as socialist as we used to be" just is for it to be the case that we're "moving away from socialism and toward a free market" (unless of course they were going even further left, which they aren't). Whether or not anyone "loves capitalism now" has nothing to do with it. A change is a change. You claimed, based on nothing, that the change was in one direction. Kwark pointed out that it's been in the other. Be glad you've learned something today. Ah, here's the thread at its worst: not seeing the forest for the trees. Noncorporeal is exactly right in that democrats are pushing the US to be more like Europe in terms of government policy. I don't even think that this is fairly debatable. He's also right in pointing out that Europe is having a lot of difficulty managing its more socialist/liberal policies. That's the "forest." With regards to whether Europe is becoming more socialist or more capitalist, that's a rather difficult question to answer. You have to consider time frames and you also have to consider each country on an individual basis. I don't think anyone can argue that France is on a decidedly socialist trend (and quite frankly, I can't wait for this little experiment to blow up spectacularly in their faces). Regardless, this issue would be the "trees." Bottom line: stick to the larger point rather than giving Noncorporeal a shitty time about the more irrelevant stuff. What you're doing is inane. EDIT: And to be clear, this applies to the half-dozen other posters who have jumped on Noncorporeal.
He made a claim that was clearly wrong (confusing absolute levels of socialism with temporally-relative levels of socialism) and I pointed that out. That was the only point I made; there wasn't any claim to it being the most important point he made in a post filled with things I disagree with.
|
On September 11 2012 04:01 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 01:31 NonCorporeal wrote:
While Europe moves towards socialism; Japan, Singapore, China/Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and other countries have been moving towards capitalism. Hell, all of those countries except the PRC are being ruled by neo-liberal governments.
Reality check -- Japan and Hong Kong have always be capitalistic. China may be trying to be more capitalistic, but I can assure you, if you ever travelled there your would realize it's a complete clusterfuck of poor people that have no property rights, no prospects and no money to buy the American crap they make. A "Capitalist" China is still far, FAR more socialist that a 'Socialist' European country. To laud China as a model country for heading in the right direction while chastising Europe after a global economic crisis is simply laughable. And why do American's keep insisting on comparing themselves to Europe? You economy, values and culture probably have more in common with Canada or Australia.
I said China/Taiwan (Republic of China). Though you can argue that China is (slowly) moving towards capitalism, or atleast they were for a little while there.
When I said that Japan and Hong Kong were capitalist, I was countering the other guy's argument that they are both "socialist countries" like he claimed they were.
|
On September 11 2012 04:12 Doublemint wrote:Was at page 477 but I copied the link here. http://crookedtimber.org/2012/07/20/america-is-a-violent-country/Self defense is, believe it or not, authorized. Promoting hate speech or baseless rants about someone's race,believe,gender... whatever is something that does not enjoy protection granted by freedom of speech in most EU countries. America has no problem allowing it. Fine.
Thanks for the source, but that has nothing to do with guns, at least not from what I could tell. It was just comparing U.S. crime statistics with that of the European Union. Which again, falls apart when you look at the fact that Europe had lower crime rates before they had gun control and that every time gun control laws became more strict in Europe, crime would rise up; the same thing we see here in America whenever the left tries to implement gun control.
Wasn't a British farmer just arrested for shooting a burglar in self-defense?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9516552/Farm-worker-and-wife-arrested-after-burglars-shot.html
Why shouldn't it though? And who defines what "hate speech" is? The government? What's to stop the government from changing their definition of "hate speech" to include anyone who disagrees with left-wing (or right-wing) policies?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
probably one of the most hilarious legacies of communism is actually the promotion of this all encompassing idea of capitalism. marx probably rolling in his grave.
|
KwarK, why do you go out of your way to deny the fact that Europe is socialist? It's not just some "EVIL AMERICAN CONSPIRACY THEORY" it's simply a a matter of fact, Europeans even openly consider themselves to be socialists. Whether or not the EU is moving closer to or further away from socialism is a reasonable debate, but to deny that Europe is the bastion of left-wing politics in the Western world is factually incorrect.
|
On September 11 2012 04:33 oneofthem wrote:
probably one of the most hilarious legacies of communism is actually the promotion of this all encompassing idea of capitalism. marx probably rolling in his grave.
Actually, Marx would be tickled pink that capitalism is reaching for ideological domination. 'Twas part of the plan all along, for capitalism to become so all-encompassing as to spur the worldwide worker revolt.
|
I have a question for all the liberals in the thread. What do you have to say about Obama's continuing to pursue the "war on drugs"? I am very interested in this issue and it seems to me that liberals should be pretty disappointed and discouraged about what Obama has done in this area.
My personal opinion is that drugs should generally be legal because I don't think it's the government's business what I put in my body. As a libertarian I don't want the government telling me what to do any more than is absolutely necessary to keep people safe. I further think that it's absolute crazy to ban a relatively harmless drug like Marijuana, particularly when we allow drugs like alcohol and tobacco which cause much much greater harm to individuals and to society.
So, although I was disappointed when Obama was elected, I did feel some optimism that he would at least bring some of his patented "hope and change" to American drug policy. In fact, he has turned out to be just another drug warrior, just as bad if not worse than Bush. Here is an article that pretty well captures my feelings about the issue:
http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/12/bummer
Here is a short article along with a video that includes some clips from Obama and some clips from Ron Paul. Paul explains (persuasively imho) why it makes no sense to outlaw marijuana.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/08/30/president-obama-avoids-medical-marijuana-war-on-drugs-questions-in-reddit-ama/
I am interested to know if anyone thinks Obama's record on this issue is at all defensible. To me it looks like one of the clearest possible cases of a policy that is fundamentally unjust and also profoundly stupid. I try to look at every issue from both sides -- I really do! -- and I don't feel like I fully understand an issue until I can fairly explain both sides of it. But on this issue I've never understood the other side at all.
|
On September 11 2012 04:40 ziggurat wrote:I have a question for all the liberals in the thread. What do you have to say about Obama's continuing to pursue the "war on drugs"? I am very interested in this issue and it seems to me that liberals should be pretty disappointed and discouraged about what Obama has done in this area. My personal opinion is that drugs should generally be legal because I don't think it's the government's business what I put in my body. As a libertarian I don't want the government telling me what to do any more than is absolutely necessary to keep people safe. I further think that it's absolute crazy to ban a relatively harmless drug like Marijuana, particularly when we allow drugs like alcohol and tobacco which cause much much greater harm to individuals and to society. So, although I was disappointed when Obama was elected, I did feel some optimism that he would at least bring some of his patented "hope and change" to American drug policy. In fact, he has turned out to be just another drug warrior, just as bad if not worse than Bush. Here is an article that pretty well captures my feelings about the issue: http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/12/bummerHere is a short article along with a video that includes some clips from Obama and some clips from Ron Paul. Paul explains (persuasively imho) why it makes no sense to outlaw marijuana. http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/08/30/president-obama-avoids-medical-marijuana-war-on-drugs-questions-in-reddit-ama/I am interested to know if anyone thinks Obama's record on this issue is at all defensible. To me it looks like one of the clearest possible cases of a policy that is fundamentally unjust and also profoundly stupid. I try to look at every issue from both sides -- I really do! -- and I don't feel like I fully understand an issue until I can fairly explain both sides of it. But on this issue I've never understood the other side at all.
But if we have universal healthcare, we don't really want to have to pay the prohibitively expensive medical bills for an addict who has fucked up their body, do we?
Look, I think some drugs are alright though I refuse to touch even a cigarette. Marijuana has been shown to cause brain damage if used before ~18 when the brain is still developing, so I'd be fine with it as long as it had an age limit or something. Also, that shit stinks. I'm not versed in drug culture, so I can't say much more than that.
|
On September 11 2012 04:40 ziggurat wrote:I have a question for all the liberals in the thread. What do you have to say about Obama's continuing to pursue the "war on drugs"? I am very interested in this issue and it seems to me that liberals should be pretty disappointed and discouraged about what Obama has done in this area. My personal opinion is that drugs should generally be legal because I don't think it's the government's business what I put in my body. As a libertarian I don't want the government telling me what to do any more than is absolutely necessary to keep people safe. I further think that it's absolute crazy to ban a relatively harmless drug like Marijuana, particularly when we allow drugs like alcohol and tobacco which cause much much greater harm to individuals and to society. So, although I was disappointed when Obama was elected, I did feel some optimism that he would at least bring some of his patented "hope and change" to American drug policy. In fact, he has turned out to be just another drug warrior, just as bad if not worse than Bush. Here is an article that pretty well captures my feelings about the issue: http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/12/bummerHere is a short article along with a video that includes some clips from Obama and some clips from Ron Paul. Paul explains (persuasively imho) why it makes no sense to outlaw marijuana. http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/08/30/president-obama-avoids-medical-marijuana-war-on-drugs-questions-in-reddit-ama/I am interested to know if anyone thinks Obama's record on this issue is at all defensible. To me it looks like one of the clearest possible cases of a policy that is fundamentally unjust and also profoundly stupid. I try to look at every issue from both sides -- I really do! -- and I don't feel like I fully understand an issue until I can fairly explain both sides of it. But on this issue I've never understood the other side at all.
I think the most important consideration in regards to drug policy is that it is simply not politically solvent enough an issue. While drug policy is literally the only aspect of Ron Paul's platform I agree with, I am not one to weigh the War on Drugs heavier than other social liberties, the economy, immigration, or foreign relations. Furthermore, an issue as divisive as the War on Drugs is far better tackled during a 2nd term, and the Republican machine of sensationalism is proof of that. Imagine what sorts of incredibly exaggerated campaign ads and attacks we would be seeing if Obama made a marked change in national drug enforcement policy? The neo-cons would have a field day with it, and unfortunately, many, many people are still unaware of how deleterious the War on Drugs and the concordant inflexible societal conception of looser drug laws truly are. It is a lose-lose for Obama on that front, so I don't hold it against him.
|
United States42691 Posts
On September 11 2012 04:35 NonCorporeal wrote:
KwarK, why do you go out of your way to deny the fact that Europe is socialist? It's not just some "EVIL AMERICAN CONSPIRACY THEORY" it's simply a a matter of fact. Whether or not the EU is moving closer to or further away from socialism is a reasonable debate, but to deny that Europe is the bastion of left-wing politics in the Western world is factually incorrect.
At no point up until this post have I stated that Europe isn't socialist, that's a strange construct you've created for some reason. But seeing as we're going there.
Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production. It isn't whatever policy Fox News wants you to hate, it isn't the devil, it isn't Russia, it is a word with a specific meaning. Just as capitalism means private ownership of business, socialism means public. All economies in the western world today are mixed economies of some sort with varying degrees of public and private control, none are truly capitalist nor socialist, they are what are termed mixed economies.
The fact that this appears to be news to you is truly baffling. You seem to think you're engaging in a debate when all you bring is ignorance and all I seem to be doing is educating you. You're not paying me enough for this.
The economies of the European countries are mixed. Some of them have more public ownership than others, some more private ownership than others. The overall trend for the last few decades has been strongly towards private ownership but even if 99.9% of the economy was in private hands it'd still be a mixed economy.
And no, whether it's moving closer or further away is not a reasonable debate, it's not even a not reasonable debate, it's not a debate at all. You admitted to me in a PM that you were wrong and that the historic trend was strongly towards privatisation of the markets. I know you're trying to act reasonable here and try and give a little bit of ground here and now you're going to wonder why I'm all up in your face and still going "no, you're just plain wrong" but it's a matter of actual factual record. It's something you can look up. The proportion of the economy controlled by the state is going down and has been for decades, it's that simple.
Socialism doesn't mean bastion of left-wing politics. I have no idea what argument you think you're making when you claim that Europe is left wing and therefore it is socialist but I can assure you that these words do not mean what you think they mean and you are not making the point you think you're making, or indeed any point. You are talking nonsense.
|
On September 11 2012 04:43 ticklishmusic wrote:
But if we have universal healthcare, we don't really want to have to pay the prohibitively expensive medical bills for an addict who has fucked up their body, do we?
Well, "we" want to pay for people who smoke and get lung cancer. "We" want to pay for poeple who ride motorcycles without helmets. "We" want to pay for people who eat horrible diets and become grossly obese.
And of course "we" also want to pay for treatment for every innocent bystander who gets shot in a gang war over drug turf.
So I don't see how paying for drug users' self-induced illnesses is any different.
|
On September 11 2012 03:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 03:23 frogrubdown wrote:On September 11 2012 02:54 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 02:42 KwarK wrote:On September 11 2012 02:27 NonCorporeal wrote:
Wow KwarK, what a rant, wow. With all due respect, I think that using the recent election of right-wing (EU defition) parties across Europe as an example of how Europe is moving towards American capitalism is ridiculous. There have been "conservative" (EU definition) elected in Europe before, and they haven't done anything meaningful to end the welfare state; and likewise, neither have the parties that have recently been elected in UK, Germany, Italy, and other EU countries. By that same definition, one could argue that they are also moving towards socialism again, with the Socialist Party forming a government in France and winning the presidential election a few months ago, with part of their platform claling for over 70% income tax.
These so-called "right-wing" parties in Europe are so far-left by normal standards, that they haven't done anything to end the welfare state, they haven't done anything to promote gun rights, they haven't done anything to stop multiculturalism, and they haven't done anything to re-instate freedom of speech and other freedoms that Europeans have lost under socialism. The people of Europe may very well want to move towards American-style capitalism and freedom, but they apparently have no outlet to make that happen, since the people they repeatedly elect into office are nowhere near radical enough to return capitalism to the people of Europe; possibly because politicians and bureaucrats often benefit from having a socialist welfare state and a big government.
Also, America is rapidly moving towards Europe, despite the fact that European leaders and politicians have been trying to warn America not to go down their path for at least a decade now. We've seen America moving further and further towards a big government welfare state and a nanny state that will strip people of their freedom and of their 'pursuit of happiness' (right to keep the fruits of their labor). There are factions in this country, mostly Democrats who want nothing more than to create a socialist welfare state, to nationalize healthcare, to nationalize various industries (we already nationalized the auto industry, and recently Obama said that he wants to nationalize "all other industries" as well), we've seen the lefties pushing towards more draconian gun control laws, we've seen the lefties trying to ban "fatty foods," we've seen the lefties pushing their multicultural agenda, and we've seen the lefties pushing a European-style "North American Union," and we've seen the lefties repeatedly side with Palestine instead of Israel.
Edit: Sorry, double posted on mistake.
It just baffles me how can anyone honestly say with a straight face that the American left isn't trying to turn America into Europe 2.0? "far-left by normal standards" Are you serious? By the standards of pretty much every single liberal democracy in the world America is far, far right. The fact that you're like "we're normal, it's all the other countries who are all abnormal" just shows the depths of ignorance enjoyed by those who still believe in American exceptionalism. You also in no way refuted the fact that Europe used to be socialist and that any claim that they're heading towards socialism based upon the legacy of socialist policies is factually untrue. Okay, imagine you saw a guy swimming in the sea, then loudly say "I don't want to swim anymore", then get out of the water, then say "I'm now no longer going to swim" and then walk away from the beach with wet hair. Would you conclude from this that because water is wet and he is wet he is clearly going for a swim or would you instead look at the direction he was walking in and conclude that he's perhaps just gone for a swim. I know it's a fairly silly example but I just cannot understand how to make the idiocy of what you're saying any clearer to you. I have outlined the history of socialism in the UK to you and explained that we have in fact already been socialist and that all of our major parties have rejected socialism openly and that the new consensus is far, far to the right of the previous consensus in the 50s and 60s. I don't know how to make this any clearer to you. The things that you are saying are not the things that are true. This is not an opinion or something that you can argue. These are things that you can look up. I know you heard on whatever right wing fear media you subscribe to that the rest of the world is falling to the forces of socialism but it's factually incorrect. Not true. Wrong. Read a book for once. Do some independent research. Open your damn eyes. Where is the evidence that Europe is moving away from socialism towards the free-market? Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but your entire argument seems to be based on "we're not as socialist as we used to be, so clearly we love capitalism now." If you're going to claim that someone's argument is factually untrue, then you should at least provide legitimate reasons as to you feel that way. Edit: Sorry, I seem to have double posted. You seem confused. You made a claim about things changing, getting more socialist and less capitalist. For it to be the case that "we're not as socialist as we used to be" just is for it to be the case that we're "moving away from socialism and toward a free market" (unless of course they were going even further left, which they aren't). Whether or not anyone "loves capitalism now" has nothing to do with it. A change is a change. You claimed, based on nothing, that the change was in one direction. Kwark pointed out that it's been in the other. Be glad you've learned something today. Ah, here's the thread at its worst: not seeing the forest for the trees. Noncorporeal is exactly right in that democrats are pushing the US to be more like Europe in terms of government policy. I don't even think that this is fairly debatable. He's also right in pointing out that Europe is having a lot of difficulty managing its more socialist/liberal policies. That's the "forest." With regards to whether Europe is becoming more socialist or more capitalist, that's a rather difficult question to answer. You have to consider time frames and you also have to consider each country on an individual basis. I don't think anyone can argue that France is on a decidedly socialist trend (and quite frankly, I can't wait for this little experiment to blow up spectacularly in their faces). Regardless, this issue would be the "trees." Bottom line: stick to the larger point rather than giving Noncorporeal a shitty time about the more irrelevant stuff. What you're doing is inane. EDIT: And to be clear, this applies to the half-dozen other posters who have jumped on Noncorporeal.
To be very clear as well, Noncorporeal is about as wrong as he could possibly be and the ignorance reflected in his posts so far (as well as his staggering ability to ignore counterpoints or demands for sources) is pissing people off quite badly.
Now to be even more precise, by the ludicrous standard of "gun-control" or "right to bear arms" (both things which are culturally VERY different in Europe) we do not have ANY division among our parties, so everyone including the most radically right parties must be socialists!
Do you realise how silly that sounds? Not a single party in Austria is advocating looser gun control. There is no demand for it.
Considering your previously well defined Republican bias, I'll ignore your statement about Obamas intentions, wether he truly wants that or not, is not something I'm willing to judge, but implying that Europe is moving towards socialism shows hilarious ignorance at best if it isn't a cheap troll.
Regarding Freedom of speech, we (as in Austria and Germany) have by consensus restricted ourselves in regards to Nazis and Neo-Nazis, that might be an infringement of this article, but considering what happened half a century ago, I can happily live with that restriction. As a point of note, when your personal Freedom of speech infringes on hate-crimes and racism (as was the case with Herr Küssler) you should be facing trial in any democracy.
|
On September 11 2012 04:48 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 04:40 ziggurat wrote:I have a question for all the liberals in the thread. What do you have to say about Obama's continuing to pursue the "war on drugs"? I am very interested in this issue and it seems to me that liberals should be pretty disappointed and discouraged about what Obama has done in this area. My personal opinion is that drugs should generally be legal because I don't think it's the government's business what I put in my body. As a libertarian I don't want the government telling me what to do any more than is absolutely necessary to keep people safe. I further think that it's absolute crazy to ban a relatively harmless drug like Marijuana, particularly when we allow drugs like alcohol and tobacco which cause much much greater harm to individuals and to society. So, although I was disappointed when Obama was elected, I did feel some optimism that he would at least bring some of his patented "hope and change" to American drug policy. In fact, he has turned out to be just another drug warrior, just as bad if not worse than Bush. Here is an article that pretty well captures my feelings about the issue: http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/12/bummerHere is a short article along with a video that includes some clips from Obama and some clips from Ron Paul. Paul explains (persuasively imho) why it makes no sense to outlaw marijuana. http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/08/30/president-obama-avoids-medical-marijuana-war-on-drugs-questions-in-reddit-ama/I am interested to know if anyone thinks Obama's record on this issue is at all defensible. To me it looks like one of the clearest possible cases of a policy that is fundamentally unjust and also profoundly stupid. I try to look at every issue from both sides -- I really do! -- and I don't feel like I fully understand an issue until I can fairly explain both sides of it. But on this issue I've never understood the other side at all. I think the most important consideration in regards to drug policy is that it is simply not politically solvent enough an issue. While drug policy is literally the only aspect of Ron Paul's platform I agree with, I am not one to weigh the War on Drugs heavier than other social liberties, the economy, immigration, or foreign relations. Furthermore, an issue as divisive as the War on Drugs is far better tackled during a 2nd term, and the Republican machine of sensationalism is proof of that. Imagine what sorts of incredibly exaggerated campaign ads and attacks we would be seeing if Obama made a marked change in national drug enforcement policy? The neo-cons would have a field day with it, and unfortunately, many, many people are still unaware of how deleterious the War on Drugs and the concordant inflexible societal conception of looser drug laws truly are. It is a lose-lose for Obama on that front, so I don't hold it against him.
I think it's pretty well known that the US has very high rates of incarceration relative to other western countries, and that a significant number of the people who are incarcerated are black, non-violent drug offenders. If I were trying to construct an argument that America is a racist country this would be point #1. And yet when faced with huge numbers of black people who are unjustly incarcerated (at least I would argue it's unjust) Obama decides that he wants to spend his political capital somewhere else?
I understand what you're saying but it's not much of a defence!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
