I remember hearing the Tea Party back in its earliest days saying they were objecting to taxation without representation. They didn't vote for the Obama, so they felt he had no right to tax them--they could only be taxed by someone who represented them. I didn't win this election, so it doesn't count.
The Tea Party is still around. They didn't fade into irrelevance.
These are the same people who didn't give a crap about the deficit for the 8 years under Bush (or the earlier 12 under Reagan and his father). They didn't mind putting a multiple trillion dollar war on the national credit card, but god forbid a single mother gets $200 dollars in food stamps a month.
The Tea Party is still around because the "Tea Party" never existed in the first place. The entire point was to make you believe they were some grassroots uprising, when in fact it was all a re-branding of the Republican base that has existed since Goldwater lost to Johnson. The Tea Party was an effort to erase the Bush administration from the minds of the American people and pretend history started on January 20, 2009.
The simple fact is that the political right in America DOES NOT accept elections that don't go their way. They (by and large) did not and do not view Bill Clinton and Barack Obama as legitimate Presidents. Which is ironic, because it is in fact the political left who were victims of what was essentially a coup d'etat after the 2000 election.
Well, that is clearly a very biased take. Aside from the fact that you've portrayed a view held by an extreme minority as held "by and large" (simply untrue), I've seen plenty of people on the left say they will move to other nations if so and so is elected, and people seem to forget how many people held posters at protests featuring swastikas painted on George W Bush's head... or the ease with how vile allegations that he staged the 9/11 attacks were made.
To say that these views represent the majority people on "the left' or "the right" is incredibly narrow sighted, and really just not true. My opinion is that anyone who speaks of "the left" or "the right" as monolithic entities are just conditioning themselves to dismiss people who disagree with them without even hearing their point of views. When you *choose* to view political opponents as inherently irrational you don't really need to listen to them, and therefore don't have to deal with the learning process that is having your ideas actually challenged for once. It is a very MSNBC/Fox News outlook and I find it close-minded.
These are the same people who didn't give a crap about the deficit for the 8 years under Bush (or the earlier 12 under Reagan and his father).
That is also untrue, much the same way that people who disavowed torture and war under Bush yet still voted for Obama 2012 after he proved to support much of the same policies somehow changed their positions or that their original stances were somehow fraudulent. The truth is that you have to compromise, even when your own party is in charge. That is different than saying you have to like it.
Bernie Sanders supporters largely voted for Obama, and are mostly concerned with "wealth inequality" after 8 years of his presidency where most admit that it has gotten worse. Does this mean they did not think Obama cared about those issues and that they were fraudulent when voting in 2008 and 2012? Of course not... but its awfully easy to slander them as so.
When the option is corporate pragmatists (Democrats, most of whom I have no love for, including Obama in many respects) and a party that is clearly being led by complete nutcases (Republicans), there is really only one way to go. I have no love for Hillary Clinton, I like Bernie alot but don't see how he gets the nomination in this country. But have a look at the other side. They aren't even dealing in objective reality, on nearly any issue.
I see the false comparisons between far-right loons and 9/11 truthers all the time. But you know what the difference is?? Tea Party "patriots" who think Obama is a Kenyan usurper who wasn't even born in the country are treated as down-home, salt of the earth citizens from flyover country by our press and media. 9/11 conspiracy theorists (of whom I've never met one) are rightly treated as kooks. But let's not pretend that one is less crazy than the other, or that the conservatives who constantly just make up controversies out of whole cloth aren't given a constant free pass by the media in this country. If any Democratic candidate lied and sounded as crazy as Ben Carson or Donald Trump they'd be crucified and buried within days.
But have a look at the other side. They aren't even dealing in objective reality, on nearly any issue.
That is just not true. If you think that the only way someone can come to a different conclusion than you, or have different values than you, is if they were completely devoid of reason then I think you have a certain lack of humility.
Tea Party "patriots" who think Obama is a Kenyan usurper who wasn't even born in the country are treated as down-home, salt of the earth citizens from flyover country by our press and media. 9/11 conspiracy theorists (of whom I've never met one) are rightly treated as kooks.
I have no idea what media you consume, but that is also not true. Birthers are (rightly) derided in pretty much every sphere. Not a single mainstream source ever took them seriously.
Are 23% of Democrats "rightly treated as kooks"? No, and they likely didn't even mean it in their heart of hearts. But it is really easy and really convenient for political opponents to disparage them as such.
If any Democratic candidate lied and sounded as crazy as Ben Carson or Donald Trump they'd be crucified and buried within days.
1. Neither of those candidates have much chance of winning the nomination 2. Carson's lies have been called out by every media source, including Fox News Sunday which dug into him pretty strongly 3. In the last debate, Clinton took the 9/11 defense to its absurd limits by using it as justification for taking Wall Street donations. I'm sure she'd match any opposition candidate in a lying race 4. Bernie Sanders said in that same debate that Climate Change was a direct cause of terrorism, yet he's hardly been crucified or buried.
I think you are viewing the political discourse in this country through very, very tinted lenses. You're likely not old enough to remember the mid-2000s when I was still in highschool or just starting college, but if you are you should be able to see that the craziest accusations always come from the side that does not currently control the "figurehead" of power. Also, they are hardly ever called out by people on their own "side", which is very unfortunate.
If I've learned anything in my time discussing community issues its that no side has a monopoly on irrationality, and that most positions have at least some reasonable foundation for belief.
I remember hearing the Tea Party back in its earliest days saying they were objecting to taxation without representation. They didn't vote for the Obama, so they felt he had no right to tax them--they could only be taxed by someone who represented them. I didn't win this election, so it doesn't count.
The Tea Party is still around. They didn't fade into irrelevance.
In a sense they are right. Democracy is a contract: the losers agree to accept the outcome, and in return the winner tries to represent ALL the electorate (or at least as much of it as feasibly possible).
Politicians seem to have forgotten that contract, at least in the UK, and rule by divine right instead, where a party that won with less than 1/3 of the vote only taxes the people who DIDN'T vote for them.
I remember hearing the Tea Party back in its earliest days saying they were objecting to taxation without representation. They didn't vote for the Obama, so they felt he had no right to tax them--they could only be taxed by someone who represented them. I didn't win this election, so it doesn't count.
The Tea Party is still around. They didn't fade into irrelevance.
In a sense they are right. Democracy is a contract: the losers agree to accept the outcome, and in return the winner tries to represent ALL the electorate (or at least as much of it as feasibly possible).
Politicians seem to have forgotten that contract, at least in the UK, and rule by divine right instead, where a party that won with less than 1/3 of the vote only taxes the people who DIDN'T vote for them.
Well, this is why I say one of the problems with politics is that, unlike most of life, it is a zero sum game. One side has to lose.
This is why we try to limit our governments power, and I believe that, with exceptions for certain community necessities like police forces, schooling for children, roads, courts, some healthcare and, most importantly, national defense, most decisions are better left for individuals to decide.
A simple (though a bit reductionist) illustration of that concept:
Better to have a parliamentary system, I think, where power can be spread across multiple parties and a broader variety of agendas may have influence.
The ice cream thing unfortunately is a necessity. We don't need to have everybody eat the same food, but we do need a universal legal system. Let people choose their own laws, and they'll ignore the ones they don't like. Let people choose their own taxes, and they'll pay nothing. The burglar opts out of property law; the tycoon opts out of funding education. Half of government is coercion, and that's not always a bad thing.
The free market is better suited for things that don't impact other people. For everything else, we have democracy.
Better to have a parliamentary system, I think, where power can be spread across multiple parties and a broader variety of agendas may have influence.
The ice cream thing unfortunately is a necessity. We don't need to have everybody eat the same food, but we do need a universal legal system. Let people choose their own laws, and they'll ignore the ones they don't like. Let people choose their own taxes, and they'll pay nothing. The burglar opts out of property law; the tycoon opts out of funding education. Half of government is coercion, and that's not always a bad thing.
The free market is better suited for things that don't impact other people. For everything else, we have democracy.
I clearly said that courts were one thing that was necessary, so I really don't know what this post is disagreeing with.
I do disagree with the lat sentence. Food production impacts other people. Housing construction impacts other people. Medical research impacts other people. Market economies have handled those three essentials better than any other system in history.
Why is that unfortunate? I don't think its unfortunate or a necessity for that matter. The production of food, medicine and housing is a necessity, and having markets handle those needs has been anything but unfortunate.
Better to have a parliamentary system, I think, where power can be spread across multiple parties and a broader variety of agendas may have influence.
The ice cream thing unfortunately is a necessity. We don't need to have everybody eat the same food, but we do need a universal legal system. Let people choose their own laws, and they'll ignore the ones they don't like. Let people choose their own taxes, and they'll pay nothing. The burglar opts out of property law; the tycoon opts out of funding education. Half of government is coercion, and that's not always a bad thing.
The free market is better suited for things that don't impact other people. For everything else, we have democracy.
I clearly said that courts were one thing that was necessary, so I really don't know what this post is disagreeing with.
I do disagree with the lat sentence. Food production impacts other people. Housing construction impacts other people. Medical research impacts other people. Market economies have handled those three essentials better than any other system in history.
Why is that unfortunate? I don't think its unfortunate or a necessity for that matter. The production of food, medicine and housing is a necessity, and having markets handle those needs has been anything but unfortunate.
Except for those who can't afford the housing, the food, or the medicine the market creates. And the market doesn't care--it caters to those who buy, extorts those who need, and leave everyone else out in the cold. For example, putting the market solely in charge of medicine is exactly what causes this to happen.
@booinyoureyes: I was disagreeing with the implication of the graphic you posted--which poked fun at politics for a lack of choice relative to the market--not your post itself. That's why I didn't tag you in my post; I wasn't directing the comment at you.
Better to have a parliamentary system, I think, where power can be spread across multiple parties and a broader variety of agendas may have influence.
The ice cream thing unfortunately is a necessity. We don't need to have everybody eat the same food, but we do need a universal legal system. Let people choose their own laws, and they'll ignore the ones they don't like. Let people choose their own taxes, and they'll pay nothing. The burglar opts out of property law; the tycoon opts out of funding education. Half of government is coercion, and that's not always a bad thing.
The free market is better suited for things that don't impact other people. For everything else, we have democracy.
I clearly said that courts were one thing that was necessary, so I really don't know what this post is disagreeing with.
I do disagree with the lat sentence. Food production impacts other people. Housing construction impacts other people. Medical research impacts other people. Market economies have handled those three essentials better than any other system in history.
Why is that unfortunate? I don't think its unfortunate or a necessity for that matter. The production of food, medicine and housing is a necessity, and having markets handle those needs has been anything but unfortunate.
It's unfortunate because 49% didn't get what they want in this example. Things like food, medicine and housing are not generally split 49/51. When 99% of people to regulate drug production or farms or whatever (choose chocolate) *then* it's no longer unfortunate.
In the UK the free market means that houses are mostly only built for affluent people (there's too little profit in building 'affordable' homes), green belt land is being sold off to property developers (there's more profit in bricks than food) and the National Health Service is being sold off piecemeal (why give something away for free when you can sell the market itself to someone else?).
Better to have a parliamentary system, I think, where power can be spread across multiple parties and a broader variety of agendas may have influence.
The ice cream thing unfortunately is a necessity. We don't need to have everybody eat the same food, but we do need a universal legal system. Let people choose their own laws, and they'll ignore the ones they don't like. Let people choose their own taxes, and they'll pay nothing. The burglar opts out of property law; the tycoon opts out of funding education. Half of government is coercion, and that's not always a bad thing.
The free market is better suited for things that don't impact other people. For everything else, we have democracy.
I clearly said that courts were one thing that was necessary, so I really don't know what this post is disagreeing with.
I do disagree with the lat sentence. Food production impacts other people. Housing construction impacts other people. Medical research impacts other people. Market economies have handled those three essentials better than any other system in history.
Why is that unfortunate? I don't think its unfortunate or a necessity for that matter. The production of food, medicine and housing is a necessity, and having markets handle those needs has been anything but unfortunate.
Except for those who can't afford the housing, the food, or the medicine the market creates. And the market doesn't care--it caters to those who buy, extorts those who need, and leave everyone else out in the cold. For example, putting the market solely in charge of medicine is exactly what causes this to happen.
The logic here is just wrong, since you first blame markets for a problem that had literally nothing to do with markets.
In fact, it is quite the opposite of a free market, since Shkreli was granted a monopoly from the government.
Even worse... he wasn't even the person who produced the drug in the first place! Yet he gets to ban competitors from producing a medication that he had no part in creating.
The problem you are describing is quite literally only an issue because there is no free market in medicine. Even Bernie Sanders, who is about as unfriendly to free trade and free markets as you can possibly find this side of Japan, wrote this
I wish you would reread my original post before responding to it, as I clearly noted the healthcare exception. Your point is essentially a "won't someone think about the children" rhetorical tactic, but there is some truth to the fact that market forces on price clearly don't work as well when consumers can be gouged not because of unique situations, but at any time they need the product.
There is a need for government providence here, as there is for foodstamps, but George W Bush was too expansive when implementing the Medicare Part D entitlement.
Better to have a parliamentary system, I think, where power can be spread across multiple parties and a broader variety of agendas may have influence.
The ice cream thing unfortunately is a necessity. We don't need to have everybody eat the same food, but we do need a universal legal system. Let people choose their own laws, and they'll ignore the ones they don't like. Let people choose their own taxes, and they'll pay nothing. The burglar opts out of property law; the tycoon opts out of funding education. Half of government is coercion, and that's not always a bad thing.
The free market is better suited for things that don't impact other people. For everything else, we have democracy.
I clearly said that courts were one thing that was necessary, so I really don't know what this post is disagreeing with.
I do disagree with the lat sentence. Food production impacts other people. Housing construction impacts other people. Medical research impacts other people. Market economies have handled those three essentials better than any other system in history.
Why is that unfortunate? I don't think its unfortunate or a necessity for that matter. The production of food, medicine and housing is a necessity, and having markets handle those needs has been anything but unfortunate.
It's unfortunate because 49% didn't get what they want in this example. Things like food, medicine and housing are not generally split 49/51. When 99% of people to regulate drug production or farms or whatever (choose chocolate) *then* it's no longer unfortunate.
I don't mean to be rude, but I honestly have absolutely no clue what you meant by this. From what I understand, you think everyone should produce their own chocolate or that everyone has a right to free chocolate?
If your point is that markets can't handle food production, then you are quite wrong. The United States makes so much food that producers literally give more away for free to third world nations than the recipient countries themselves are capable of producing.
In the UK the free market means that houses are mostly only built for affluent people (there's too little profit in building 'affordable' homes), green belt land is being sold off to property developers (there's more profit in bricks than food) and the National Health Service is being sold off piecemeal (why give something away for free when you can sell the market itself to someone else?).
That's because it is far more affordable for the poor to rent, not buy. That is where the property developers you yourself mention come in. In fact, encouraging people to buy homes they couldn't afford had some very, very, very, very, very bad results in 2006-07 when the housing bubble burst.
Also, development of agricultural land is a sign of human progress. You shouldn't expect less veggies, trust me there is plenty to go around. Thanks to the markets, free trade and the dreaded globalization you can now buy food at low prices from all over Europe and even from the US and elsewhere, and now put previously agricultural land to more efficient uses (usually parks or the much needed housing you mentioned.
In the 1900s about 40% of all workers in America were farmers. Today it is under 3%. Are we worse of or better off?
I haven't read the entire discussion but I would just like to say corporation is the only financial model that actually works in multi million dollar development like medicine or medical devices.
The logic here is just wrong, since you first blame markets for a problem that had literally nothing to do with markets.
In fact, it is quite the opposite of a free market, since Shkreli was granted a monopoly from the government.
Even worse... he wasn't even the person who produced the drug in the first place! Yet he gets to ban competitors from producing a medication that he had no part in creating.
The problem you are describing is quite literally only an issue because there is no free market in medicine. Even Bernie Sanders, who is about as unfriendly to free trade and free markets as you can possibly find this side of Japan, wrote this
The government didn't "grant" him anything. The patent for the drug expired. He bought it up. As the owner of the new drug, he gets to set his own price. Other drug companies could make it too, but they have to go through FDA's procedures to do so, as they don't own the patent. And thus we have your monopoly. Not exactly what I would call "granting." An extremely unfortunate loophole in a system that needs to be fixed, yes. A monopoly handed over on a silver platter, no.
Shkreli found a loophole in the system and exploited it. He didn't have to, but like any money-grubbing asshat, he saw an opportunity and he took it. Human greed well at work.
I'm not saying the free market system hasn't done some good--I work retail, for gods' sakes. I'm just saying it's not without its share of corruption, either. You need to find a balance between the private and government, and it's my opinion that each of those areas do better in some sectors than others.
(I'll be honest and say I have no idea what the Bernie Sanders quote has anything to do with this discussion. I'm tired and it's 1:40 at night. I know I use that excuse a lot, but it's true. Goodnight all.)
I wish you would reread my original post before responding to it, as I clearly noted the healthcare exception. Your point is essentially a "won't someone think about the children" rhetorical tactic, but there is some truth to the fact that market forces on price clearly don't work as well when consumers can be gouged not because of unique situations, but at any time they need the product.
You know what they say: Post a silly reductionist meme, get a silly reductionist meme response. I was mostly making a joke, but insofar as I had a point, it was that the market only provides choice and freedom to some people. Those without wealth can find their choices severely limited.
When the topic is social safety nets, "won't someone think of the children" is more than just a rhetorical tactic.
They're saying there may have been three shooters. So (if that's true), a full-up terrorist attack, not just a lone looney. The Inland Regional Center is a non-profit run by the state, so WTF?
They're saying there may have been three shooters. So (if that's true), a full-up terrorist attack, not just a lone looney. The Inland Regional Center is a non-profit run by the state, so WTF?
Yeah, until we find out more information on the shooters, it's hard to say what prompted it or who was behind it. But the biggest suspect right now is terrorism.
(Not that the PP shooting wasn't its own form of terrorism by itself, lone loony or not. But anyone can see that this latest attack was bigger, maybe even planned.)
I'm just so freaking tired of shootings. It's gotten to the point where I'm more afraid of being killed in a drive-by on my way home, than I am of being kidnapped or sexually assaulted. I know that the odds of that happening are extremely low, especially given my neighborhood and my hometown, but the fear is still there. And what kind of state has our country reached, when everyday people are scared of being shot on their own streets?
That's just my personal feelings though, more like rambling than a political statement. I hope they catch the guys who did this, and we get some answers soon. My younger brother attends a learning center similar to this one that was targeted, so...this situation in particular really hits hard.
The number of people who die in the United States every year due to automobile accidents is triple the number of people who die due to gun-related incidents; I can link the CDC numbers for you, if you like (not right now--I have to pull the link from a different forum where I posted the same numbers). That being said, we never hear anyone calling for restrictions on cars (other than the restrictions which already exist) even though they are three times as deadly. Of course, cars aren't designed for killing people--those are accidents. Contrary to what many people may think, guns are not necessarily designed for killing people, either; they are merely tools which, if used in that manner, make killing people easier. Knives and baseball bats fall into this category, as well--if misused they can kill with relative ease.
Regardless of the motive for this shooting here is what will happen: 1) people who already dislike guns are going to renew their calls for more restrictive gun laws even though ___a) restrictive gun laws do not prevent gun violence (I offer Chicago as evidence of this) ___b) the laws which are already on the books typically prevent people who shouldn't have guns from being able to obtain them 2) people who like guns and use them properly will push back against the calls for more gun control legislation with arguments ranging from sensible Constitutional interpretation to wild-eyed paranoia 3) the end result will be a continuation of the status quo
I know that is what will happen because we still have the status quo we had ten years ago.
On a somewhat related topic, "gun free zones" do one thing and one thing only: they give people who are determined to kill someone plenty of easy targets all concentrated in one area.
Now...this particular incident...it doesn't fit the usual pattern of "random crazy person who went off the deep end for some reason". They had pipe bombs, which are devices one does not cobble together on a moment's notice. The fact that they had them means that they had already carefully made them and were looking for a reason to use them. The amount of weapons they apparently had also means they were hoarding them, also not something a typical gun enthusiast does.
Finally, as far as "no parallel anywhere else in the world" is concerned....there are places in the world right now where people are bombing each other, using chemical weapons on each other, and/or routinely kidnapping female schoolchildren to sell to the highest bidder. Comparing situations is very subjective and can vary depending upon which data points you are selecting.
The number of people who die in the United States every year due to automobile accidents is triple the number of people who die due to gun-related incidents; I can link the CDC numbers for you, if you like (not right now--I have to pull the link from a different forum where I posted the same numbers). That being said, we never hear anyone calling for restrictions on cars (other than the restrictions which already exist) even though they are three times as deadly. Of course, cars aren't designed for killing people--those are accidents. Contrary to what many people may think, guns are not necessarily designed for killing people, either; they are merely tools which, if used in that manner, make killing people easier. Knives and baseball bats fall into this category, as well--if misused they can kill with relative ease.
Regardless of the motive for this shooting here is what will happen: 1) people who already dislike guns are going to renew their calls for more restrictive gun laws even though ___a) restrictive gun laws do not prevent gun violence (I offer Chicago as evidence of this) ___b) the laws which are already on the books typically prevent people who shouldn't have guns from being able to obtain them 2) people who like guns and use them properly will push back against the calls for more gun control legislation with arguments ranging from sensible Constitutional interpretation to wild-eyed paranoia 3) the end result will be a continuation of the status quo
I know that is what will happen because we still have the status quo we had ten years ago.
On a somewhat related topic, "gun free zones" do one thing and one thing only: they give people who are determined to kill someone plenty of easy targets all concentrated in one area.
Now...this particular incident...it doesn't fit the usual pattern of "random crazy person who went off the deep end for some reason". They had pipe bombs, which are devices one does not cobble together on a moment's notice. The fact that they had them means that they had already carefully made them and were looking for a reason to use them. The amount of weapons they apparently had also means they were hoarding them, also not something a typical gun enthusiast does.
Finally, as far as "no parallel anywhere else in the world" is concerned....there are places in the world right now where people are bombing each other, using chemical weapons on each other, and/or routinely kidnapping female schoolchildren to sell to the highest bidder. Comparing situations is very subjective and can vary depending upon which data points you are selecting.
Most of the country is a "gun-free zone" only in the fact that most normal people don't feel the need or comfortable being armed every moment of their lives. There seems to be this illusion that if only teachers, nurses or social workers had guns the moment a shooter on a rampage busted onto the scene, they would all become John Wayne, when in fact (and simulations have shown this) they're likely to not even get the gun out and at the ready before they are shot dead. You need training to handle these type of situations, and even WITH training you are probably going to be so scared you won't think straight. Not everyone has an inner-Wyatt Earp just waiting to be let loose, I'd venture to say almost no one does.
The analogy to cars (or anything else) does not work, because guns, since the beginning of time, have had one purpose (besides sport shooting). And that is to kill things. That is what they are made for and their intended purpose. Many people don't know this, but on the day of the Sandy Hook shooting, a similar situation happened in Japan or China (I can't remember which). A man went into a school and STABBED 20 children. But not one of them died. And all the children at Sandy Hook died. The inarguable fact is that is far EASIER to kill someone with a gun than with another type of weapon. They are more deadly, and more likely to accomplish their goal. Even from a psychological stand-point, it is far easier to pull out a gun and shoot someone at range than to get up in their face and stab them or beat them to death with a blunt object. Guns kill more people quicker and easier. And that is what they are designed to do. It's their only function.
@Mathsorcerer: The natural counterpoint is that guns are harmful to a degree that far outweighs their usefulness as tools. Getting places fast is important to us, so we're mostly willing to tolerate the danger of cars. It's not obvious to me that guns have any particularly important purpose other than killing people, unless you live in some serious wilderness. If people start going on daily killing sprees with baseball bats, I'll feel the same way about baseball bats.
I know that opinions differ on whether restrictive gun laws prevent gun violence, but to me, Chicago is an unconvincing example. Obtaining a gun outside of city limits (possibly in IN or WI) and bringing it back in is completely trivial. It's unsurprising that such localized laws can't stop gun violence in a city with so many risk factors, and I don't think that says much about the potential success or failure of federal gun laws.
And isn't it evident that current laws are not consistently preventing people who shouldn't have guns from obtaining them? I guess "typically" is open to interpretation, but I'm still surprised you'd say that.
@Mathsorcerer: The natural counterpoint is that guns are harmful to a degree that far outweighs their usefulness as tools. Getting places fast is important to us, so we're mostly willing to tolerate the danger of cars. It's not obvious to me that guns have any particularly important purpose other than killing people, unless you live in some serious wilderness. If people start going on daily killing sprees with baseball bats, I'll feel the same way about baseball bats.
I know that opinions differ on whether restrictive gun laws prevent gun violence, but to me, Chicago is an unconvincing example. Obtaining a gun outside of city limits (possibly in IN or WI) and bringing it back in is completely trivial. It's unsurprising that such localized laws can't stop gun violence in a city with so many risk factors, and I don't think that says much about the potential success or failure of federal gun laws.
And isn't it evident that current laws are not consistently preventing people who shouldn't have guns from obtaining them? I guess "typically" is open to interpretation, but I'm still surprised you'd say that.
Exactly....local guns laws have no hope of working when there are open borders between states in close proximity that have almost none. Then you have Hawaii, a situation in which it is self-evidently clear why it's impossible to smuggle guns in from a state with no restrictions. You aren't likely to see any mass shooting stories coming out of that state anytime soon.
Finally, as far as "no parallel anywhere else in the world" is concerned....there are places in the world right now where people are bombing each other, using chemical weapons on each other, and/or routinely kidnapping female schoolchildren to sell to the highest bidder. Comparing situations is very subjective and can vary depending upon which data points you are selecting.
Because the kidnapped schoolchildren and bombings in other countries SOMEHOW makes the horrific killings witnessed today seem not as bad!
Except, oh wait, they don't. No one situation is somehow worse off than the other--they're all bad, and they all require their own solutions. Unless we're talking about another mass shooting in another country, pulling in other countries' problems has no bearing on this current discussion.
Comments
The Tea Party is still around because the "Tea Party" never existed in the first place. The entire point was to make you believe they were some grassroots uprising, when in fact it was all a re-branding of the Republican base that has existed since Goldwater lost to Johnson. The Tea Party was an effort to erase the Bush administration from the minds of the American people and pretend history started on January 20, 2009.
To say that these views represent the majority people on "the left' or "the right" is incredibly narrow sighted, and really just not true. My opinion is that anyone who speaks of "the left" or "the right" as monolithic entities are just conditioning themselves to dismiss people who disagree with them without even hearing their point of views. When you *choose* to view political opponents as inherently irrational you don't really need to listen to them, and therefore don't have to deal with the learning process that is having your ideas actually challenged for once. It is a very MSNBC/Fox News outlook and I find it close-minded.
Bernie Sanders supporters largely voted for Obama, and are mostly concerned with "wealth inequality" after 8 years of his presidency where most admit that it has gotten worse. Does this mean they did not think Obama cared about those issues and that they were fraudulent when voting in 2008 and 2012? Of course not... but its awfully easy to slander them as so.
I see the false comparisons between far-right loons and 9/11 truthers all the time. But you know what the difference is?? Tea Party "patriots" who think Obama is a Kenyan usurper who wasn't even born in the country are treated as down-home, salt of the earth citizens from flyover country by our press and media. 9/11 conspiracy theorists (of whom I've never met one) are rightly treated as kooks. But let's not pretend that one is less crazy than the other, or that the conservatives who constantly just make up controversies out of whole cloth aren't given a constant free pass by the media in this country. If any Democratic candidate lied and sounded as crazy as Ben Carson or Donald Trump they'd be crucified and buried within days.
I have no idea what media you consume, but that is also not true. Birthers are (rightly) derided in pretty much every sphere. Not a single mainstream source ever took them seriously.
In 2006 a poll "showed" that 23% of Democrats thought it was "very likely" that Bush knew of the 9/11 attacks before they happened and allowed them to occur in order to spark war in the Middle East. 28 percent said it was "somewhat likely". http://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2011/04/more-than-half-of-democrats-believed-bush-knew-035224
Are 23% of Democrats "rightly treated as kooks"? No, and they likely didn't even mean it in their heart of hearts. But it is really easy and really convenient for political opponents to disparage them as such.
1. Neither of those candidates have much chance of winning the nomination
2. Carson's lies have been called out by every media source, including Fox News Sunday which dug into him pretty strongly
3. In the last debate, Clinton took the 9/11 defense to its absurd limits by using it as justification for taking Wall Street donations. I'm sure she'd match any opposition candidate in a lying race
4. Bernie Sanders said in that same debate that Climate Change was a direct cause of terrorism, yet he's hardly been crucified or buried.
I think you are viewing the political discourse in this country through very, very tinted lenses. You're likely not old enough to remember the mid-2000s when I was still in highschool or just starting college, but if you are you should be able to see that the craziest accusations always come from the side that does not currently control the "figurehead" of power. Also, they are hardly ever called out by people on their own "side", which is very unfortunate.
If I've learned anything in my time discussing community issues its that no side has a monopoly on irrationality, and that most positions have at least some reasonable foundation for belief.
Politicians seem to have forgotten that contract, at least in the UK, and rule by divine right instead, where a party that won with less than 1/3 of the vote only taxes the people who DIDN'T vote for them.
This is why we try to limit our governments power, and I believe that, with exceptions for certain community necessities like police forces, schooling for children, roads, courts, some healthcare and, most importantly, national defense, most decisions are better left for individuals to decide.
A simple (though a bit reductionist) illustration of that concept:
The ice cream thing unfortunately is a necessity. We don't need to have everybody eat the same food, but we do need a universal legal system. Let people choose their own laws, and they'll ignore the ones they don't like. Let people choose their own taxes, and they'll pay nothing. The burglar opts out of property law; the tycoon opts out of funding education. Half of government is coercion, and that's not always a bad thing.
The free market is better suited for things that don't impact other people. For everything else, we have democracy.
I do disagree with the lat sentence. Food production impacts other people. Housing construction impacts other people. Medical research impacts other people. Market economies have handled those three essentials better than any other system in history. Why is that unfortunate? I don't think its unfortunate or a necessity for that matter. The production of food, medicine and housing is a necessity, and having markets handle those needs has been anything but unfortunate.
In fact, it is quite the opposite of a free market, since Shkreli was granted a monopoly from the government.
Even worse... he wasn't even the person who produced the drug in the first place! Yet he gets to ban competitors from producing a medication that he had no part in creating.
The problem you are describing is quite literally only an issue because there is no free market in medicine. Even Bernie Sanders, who is about as unfriendly to free trade and free markets as you can possibly find this side of Japan, wrote this
There is a need for government providence here, as there is for foodstamps, but George W Bush was too expansive when implementing the Medicare Part D entitlement.
I don't mean to be rude, but I honestly have absolutely no clue what you meant by this. From what I understand, you think everyone should produce their own chocolate or that everyone has a right to free chocolate?
If your point is that markets can't handle food production, then you are quite wrong. The United States makes so much food that producers literally give more away for free to third world nations than the recipient countries themselves are capable of producing.
@joluv where were your anti-capitalist slogans when you gouged my Bard out of 6,000 gold for Joril's Dagger, hmmm???!!!???
Also, development of agricultural land is a sign of human progress. You shouldn't expect less veggies, trust me there is plenty to go around. Thanks to the markets, free trade and the dreaded globalization you can now buy food at low prices from all over Europe and even from the US and elsewhere, and now put previously agricultural land to more efficient uses (usually parks or the much needed housing you mentioned.
In the 1900s about 40% of all workers in America were farmers. Today it is under 3%. Are we worse of or better off?
Shkreli found a loophole in the system and exploited it. He didn't have to, but like any money-grubbing asshat, he saw an opportunity and he took it. Human greed well at work.
I'm not saying the free market system hasn't done some good--I work retail, for gods' sakes. I'm just saying it's not without its share of corruption, either. You need to find a balance between the private and government, and it's my opinion that each of those areas do better in some sectors than others.
(I'll be honest and say I have no idea what the Bernie Sanders quote has anything to do with this discussion. I'm tired and it's 1:40 at night. I know I use that excuse a lot, but it's true. Goodnight all.)
When the topic is social safety nets, "won't someone think of the children" is more than just a rhetorical tactic.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-up-to-20-shot-in-san-bernardino-active-shooter-sought-20151202-story.html
Not even a week after the Planned Parenthood attack. This time, a developmental disabilities service center.
(Not that the PP shooting wasn't its own form of terrorism by itself, lone loony or not. But anyone can see that this latest attack was bigger, maybe even planned.)
I'm just so freaking tired of shootings. It's gotten to the point where I'm more afraid of being killed in a drive-by on my way home, than I am of being kidnapped or sexually assaulted. I know that the odds of that happening are extremely low, especially given my neighborhood and my hometown, but the fear is still there. And what kind of state has our country reached, when everyday people are scared of being shot on their own streets?
That's just my personal feelings though, more like rambling than a political statement. I hope they catch the guys who did this, and we get some answers soon. My younger brother attends a learning center similar to this one that was targeted, so...this situation in particular really hits hard.
Regardless of the motive for this shooting here is what will happen:
1) people who already dislike guns are going to renew their calls for more restrictive gun laws even though
___a) restrictive gun laws do not prevent gun violence (I offer Chicago as evidence of this)
___b) the laws which are already on the books typically prevent people who shouldn't have guns from being able to obtain them
2) people who like guns and use them properly will push back against the calls for more gun control legislation with arguments ranging from sensible Constitutional interpretation to wild-eyed paranoia
3) the end result will be a continuation of the status quo
I know that is what will happen because we still have the status quo we had ten years ago.
On a somewhat related topic, "gun free zones" do one thing and one thing only: they give people who are determined to kill someone plenty of easy targets all concentrated in one area.
Now...this particular incident...it doesn't fit the usual pattern of "random crazy person who went off the deep end for some reason". They had pipe bombs, which are devices one does not cobble together on a moment's notice. The fact that they had them means that they had already carefully made them and were looking for a reason to use them. The amount of weapons they apparently had also means they were hoarding them, also not something a typical gun enthusiast does.
Finally, as far as "no parallel anywhere else in the world" is concerned....there are places in the world right now where people are bombing each other, using chemical weapons on each other, and/or routinely kidnapping female schoolchildren to sell to the highest bidder. Comparing situations is very subjective and can vary depending upon which data points you are selecting.
The analogy to cars (or anything else) does not work, because guns, since the beginning of time, have had one purpose (besides sport shooting). And that is to kill things. That is what they are made for and their intended purpose. Many people don't know this, but on the day of the Sandy Hook shooting, a similar situation happened in Japan or China (I can't remember which). A man went into a school and STABBED 20 children. But not one of them died. And all the children at Sandy Hook died. The inarguable fact is that is far EASIER to kill someone with a gun than with another type of weapon. They are more deadly, and more likely to accomplish their goal. Even from a psychological stand-point, it is far easier to pull out a gun and shoot someone at range than to get up in their face and stab them or beat them to death with a blunt object. Guns kill more people quicker and easier. And that is what they are designed to do. It's their only function.
I know that opinions differ on whether restrictive gun laws prevent gun violence, but to me, Chicago is an unconvincing example. Obtaining a gun outside of city limits (possibly in IN or WI) and bringing it back in is completely trivial. It's unsurprising that such localized laws can't stop gun violence in a city with so many risk factors, and I don't think that says much about the potential success or failure of federal gun laws.
And isn't it evident that current laws are not consistently preventing people who shouldn't have guns from obtaining them? I guess "typically" is open to interpretation, but I'm still surprised you'd say that.
Except, oh wait, they don't. No one situation is somehow worse off than the other--they're all bad, and they all require their own solutions. Unless we're talking about another mass shooting in another country, pulling in other countries' problems has no bearing on this current discussion.