Gun Control: Say What you Mean.

[Brian37]

But guess who helped them cook their books? Goldman Sachs.

WHAT A SHOCKER! Breaking News "Not really"

Well if Goldman Sachs was so desperate too cook anything, they could have started a cooking show on the Food Network , or their local cable access TV channel.

[Surtr]

WHAT A SHOCKER! Breaking News "Not really"

Actually, he's right. Goldman Sachs was one of the architects of Greece's financial collapse, and they concealed Greece's inevitable failure. To be fair, Greece would have probably collapsed regardless of Goldman Sachs.

[The Grand Nudger]

No America you do not need healthcare, your first priority is Books, For fucks sake are you people incapable of learning anything!

What would we do with them?

[Ryantology]

Make guns which use them as ammo!

[Cyberman]

You could always build a little fort with them or something.

[TaraJo]

I'm not even going to try to persuade you to be pro gun, but only to ask that you say what you mean rather than sugar coat your proposals in euphemisms and metaphors.

Many people do not put it specifically, what they actually want in regards to gun control. This is extremely common for those that support "Gun Control" which really means, threatening gun owners with being put in a cage if they don't hand them over to the government.

That's quite a presumption. I want reasonable restrictions placed on guns while still allowing most people to own guns. Why do you assume I "want to throw people in a cage if they don't hand (their guns) over to the government"? What if I am actually saying what I mean?

[Esquilax]

That's quite a presumption. I want reasonable restrictions placed on guns while still allowing most people to own guns. Why do you assume I "want to throw people in a cage if they don't hand (their guns) over to the government"? What if I am actually saying what I mean?

I think you're being too defensive, even there: what the guy is actually saying is "you want to imprison people for disobeying the law?!" Well... yes, yes I do. I'd like to enact restrictions on gun ownership, and punish the people who break those laws, possibly with prison time. Yes, I would like that.

What does the OP think the alternative is? Or is it just that he personally disagrees with the laws gun control activists would like to see, and therefore ANY punishment for breaking them would be crazy and over the top?

You break the law, you get punished, that's part of humanity's social contract. It sounds like the OP has more of a problem with the prison system, than gun control.

[A Theist]

...the reason America hasn't been invaded since 1812 is because we kept ourselves economically and militarily strong....what you liberals are demanding, that America reduces its military strength as a gesture of peace and to set an example for the rest of the world to see and follow, is naive and dangerous...

The irony is our military spending and war of aggression in Iraq is precisely what is destroying us as a world power. Our military spending is simply unsustainable. We are not only #1 in military spending but we spend more than double the combined spending of the next four nations combined.

And the GOP wants senior citizens and the poor to pay for balancing the budget so we may continue running in the Arms Race against a rival superpower that doesn't exist anymore.

If we fall as a power, it won't be from invasion but because we collapsed on the Arms Race track from having continued to compulsively run around and around the track, long after the race was over, until finally dropping from dehydration.

"...must... keep... running... "
"America! You can stop running now! You won!"
"...got... to keep... ahead..."
"Really, America, no one else is on the track!"
"...*pant*... almost there..."

You on the left hate that America is a superpower....sure, we could do well to cut the waste from all Federal spending, including entitlements and the military...but to gut our military like you leftists would want just to please your ridiculous narrowminded and naive world view is dangerous...especially with the growing threat of China's military buildup, who's definitely running on the track....

"...It asserts aggressive claims in the South China Sea and rejects U.S. insistence on freedom of navigation in established international waters. Though Taiwan elected a pro-China president, it aims more than 1,000 missiles against the island and refuses to renounce the use of force. It tacitly excuses North Korea’s sinking of a South Korean ship...China has enabled North Korea and Iran to move ahead with their nuclear weapons and missile programs by deflecting, diluting and delaying U.N. and other multilateral sanctions........It is not surprising that Beijing shields proliferating states from sanctions, since China itself has widely proliferated weapons of mass destruction and missile technology - usually to states that then spread the technology and materials to others, e.g., Pakistan, North Korea and Iran. China has become a proliferator of proliferators. It also has refused to join 94 other nations participating in the Proliferation Security Initiative to stop the dangerous trade......China has used its massive foreign reserves to build offensive military capabilities, which it defends as necessary and normal for “a major industrial country.” At the same time, it seeks and receives World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) subsidies and U.N. dues reductions as a poor, developing country......As for its military buildup, Beijing has long ignored U.S. pleas for transparency on Chinese motives and purposes. Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Mike Mullen now says he has “moved from being curious about what they’re doing, to being concerned about what they’re doing.”.....

....why is the left so afraid to condemn China for growing it's military power and it's funneling of money and arms to state terrorists and dictators like Iran & North Korea? Why is the left giving China a pass on it's human rights violations?.....
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010.../?page=all

[Dee Dee Ramone]

why is the left so afraid to condemn China for growing it's military power and it's funneling of money and arms to state terrorists and dictators like Iran & North Korea? Why is the left giving China a pass on it's human rights violations?.....
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010.../?page=all

A shortlist of dictators supported by the USA:

* King Abdullah Bin Abdul-Aziz, Saudi Arabia
* Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan
* Idriss Deby, Chad
* Teodoro Obiang Nguema, Equatorial Guinea
* Gurbanguly Berdymuhammedov (Turkmenistan)
* Paul Biya, Cameroon
* Hosni Said Moebarak, Egypt
* Joseph Museveni, Uganda
*etc... etc. etc..
Also dozens of right-wing dictatorships during the cold war, including horrible regimes.

Here's a picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in support of the Iraq-war against Iran. Later in the war, Iraq used gas against civilian peoples.


People with ideas like you have, A Theist, are a threat to your country!!

[Something completely different]

Then don't claim you have your financial system under control. These continued troubles show that Germany is still unable to recover from it's fall. People call Germany a "fiscal saint", yet they went and violated the Stability and Growth Pact. More than once, and by much more than the other European countries did. Those violations were so insignificant that they should hardly be considered. You know what's happened in Germany recently? The top ten percent (the same with private health insurance) have had their wealth doubled. They are controlling more and more of your countries' assets every year. And the middle class in your country are getting poorer.

Of course I can claim that we have our financial system under control.
People pay taxes, the banks didnt go broke and people arent burning greek flags in the streets.
We havent reached the point of recesion jet, but if we will, we will reach it controled and with a plan to get out.
Unlike other nations, we dont have silly redneck halfwits and liberterian "I KNOWS HOW THE WORLD WORKS AND HOW TO BE IT`S FÜHRER" screamer who opose tax increase on rich people during a time of financial risk.
It is obvious that rich people get richer during crisis, because they keep their money closer to their chest, which is why taxes have to be increased on them. And it is obvious that the middle class is getting poorer because sincew 2008 every countries middle class is getting poorer, but ours not so fast.

Funny how when running out of arguments on healthcare you try to debate the overall financial situation.


Another note of interest: Your country pours millions and billions into bailouts and stimulus, yet that is the same thing that America did. Guess what happened? It just wasted money. In Germany's case, it massively reduced public assets. Poverty is increasing. And it has been since BEFORE the crisis. Pensions are decreasing.

Pov erty has been here since before the crisis because germany went through a financial crisis 20 years ago.
The bailouts are currently not working because the greeks are to incompetent to change their corrupted rotten state.
Spain and Portugal on the other hand are aware of what brought them into this situation and the money givin will pay off.

142 years!!!!!!!! without any negative sideeffects!!!!!!!!

*Sigh* You're not listening to me. Care for some sources?
http://www.aicgs.org/issue/issues-in-the...e-systems/
http://www.thelocal.de/society/20100510-27107.html
http://www.dw.de/german-health-care-refo...-2117345-1

4th highest health expenditure per capita in the OECD ($4,218 or 11.6% of per capita GDP).

Demographic changes: as Germany’s population ages, the increased elderly proportion of the population will drive up demand and cost for health care services, leaving little foreseeable prospect for easy cost limitation methods.

Here you go, the only relevant part of the first link. The baby boomers will cost alot.
And? Our state is aware of that challenge, and it`s a chllenge not only we face. What would the liberterian solution be?
Privatise the healthcare system and then letting the pentioneers rott????

You are ignoring the fact that we had this system for 142 years on purpose, because it is the strongest argument for the system.
It has withstood the test of time!!!!!
And the babyboomer are a recent challenge and not some weird unavoidable destined thing.

If you would have read your own link you would have seen that it also shows some facts about your beautifull, wonderfully working and excelent majestic, american, privatised healthcare system:

Equity
46 million Americans (about 15 percent) live without health insurance.

Low-income patients, even when insured, are acutely aware of the cost of health care, and are more likely to forgo health services due to cost.

Highest health expenditure per capita in the OECD ($7,290 or 17.4% of per capita GDP, 2009).

Poor performance on administrative costs, use of information technology, re-hospitalization, and duplicative medical testing.

Because hospitals are required to treat uninsured patients in life-threatening condition, they must charge insurers more to cover costs of uninsured patients.

The United States lacks a universal health system, resulting in significant access problems for the uninsured and under-insured.

Specialized and primary services are very quickly accessible for insured patients

Wow! Privatisation sounds so wonderfull!

Health is a human right not some fucking product!

And guess why I dont trust people who have dumped the world economy and other fraudelent behavior to create structures which assure the availability of this human right!

Health is not a product, like some breakfest cerial!!!

You might go to a store and ask yourself: Do I want chocolate flavor? strawberry flavor? blackberry flavor? banana flavor?

But no one goes to a hospital and asks: "do I want shit care? fuck all? mediocre care? or the best possible?

Health is not a product and has to stay out of the free market to be provided by those capable of creating the inferstructure required for the distribution of such a basic thing.

Now tell me one thing, when trying to critizise me and the german healthcare system, why post a link to a page where the first sentence is:

Germany has one of the best health care systems in the world

?

Your article only point out the mentioned problem, the baby boom generation. And it is clear that such a generational change will cause cost.
But what libertarians always love to ignore when talking about the baby boom generation is:

A baby boom generation would also wreck a privatised healthcare system, unless it cuts out it`s customers.

Ironic how well Norway is doing outside of the EU.

Not a good example.
Norway follows every single piece of EU legislation and has potential member status. It will probably join in within the next 10 years.
+ When talking about wellfare state - no state in Europe has such high taxes and such a well funded wellfare system than Norway.
+ Everyone knows that Norway has the richest oil reserves in Europe, and that they (unlike the stubid saudis) actualy invested their oil money in usefull inferstructure projects and their wellfare state.

If you want to give a example of a non EU state in Europe which isnt`t even affiliated the slightest bit with the EU - you would have to choose Switzerland.
And they are only doing well for washing mob money.