saxitoxin wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:Small countries like Switzerland took less than a decade to turn full-Socialist
I hate to break it to anyone - especially someone at the vanguard of the national intelligentsia as yourself - but Switzerland is not "full-Socialist" [sic] or even a "social democracy." On the Esping-Andersen decommodification index it is classified as a 'Liberal' economy, just like the U.S., which is not surprising given Switzerland's privately run for-profit health insurance system, lower spending on public education and banking-sector owned government.
http://www.espanet2012.info/__data/asse ... ream_2.pdfDon't confuse the (relative) absence of endemic public sector corruption in Switzerland (versus the U.S.) and more efficient bureaucracies with the presence of a social democracy. In other words ...
Juan_Bottom wrote:Small countries like Switzerland took less than a decade to turn full-Socialist
Before you decide to seize control of the ship, you may want to take a navigation class or two.
Or maybe get one of the molecular biologists or astrophysicists you bowl with to tag in for you in this thread ...
I literally know nothing about Switzerland's government, and I very much so doubt TGD knows much more than I do. But I knew he would understand my point when I used Switzerland as an example. I chose that country only to feed you. Your character is kinda overwhelmingly predictable. Maybe I'll follow your formula and replace you sometime like Jack the Pumpkin King.
thegreekdog wrote:I don't hate the government. Or, more accurately, I don't hate everything about government. I think the federal government is largely self-serving, and that, in and of itself, is fine to an extent. My concern (or hatred if you want) is that people don't think the government is self-serving. In other words, there are large swathes of people who either think that no one in the government is self-serving or that only the Republicans are self-serving or that only the Democrats are self-serving. Ultimately, my political message, at least to you and the Phatscottys of the world, is to get you to acknowledge that members of government are self-serving, no matter their political affiliations. I've never made a disparaging remark about President Obama in the "I hate you" vein. I'm simply trying to inform people as to the self-serving nature of things that the presdient does. You seem to be under the delusion that I'm doing this because I hate the president, which makes sense given your blind loyalty to him. Clearly you don't like criticism of Democrats, including the president, if it's being made by people who aren't also Democrats.
You've said over and over again that both parties are the same, and now you want to argue that they are self-serving instead, but they are not. And to prove it all you've used ludicrous examples, my message to you would be to answer for that before you tell me that I'm the one who's wrong here. Obviously I know a little something-something about what I'm talking about here. The parties are not the same, and neither are they run by corporations. I maintain that the members and staff of each party believe in what they are doing and they earnestly believe that they know what is best for the country.
Of course I believe that you hate government when you continue to attack it for being run by two political parties who are destroying us all for their own personal gain without being able to support your position. You given me many examples, and I've explained why they're wrong, but you just go on like it never happened.
thegreekdog wrote:In terms of gun control, gun control supporters should be criticizing Congress and the president in equal measures to criticizing the NRA. They aren't doing that, making the argument (like you are) that essentially boils down to "At least they are doing something." The problem with this is twofold. First, it presupposes that whatever they are doing is "doing something" and I don't think it is. So, they are proposing to enact a law or are signing executive orders that will cost something and will not be effective. So there's that. Second, gun control supporters who don't realize that politicians are generally self-serving will chalk this battle up to the Democrats doing something and Republicans resisting it, and their future electoral decisions will be influenced by that.
Why should we be equally critical of Congress and the NRA? You're presupposing a lot here. Just because you believe that we should enforce the laws that are already on the books does not mean that everyone else should find that solution practical. You commented on the Jon Stewart video where he explained that it is now law that the Executive cannot track the sale of guns, without a new law or executive order. Therefor Obama cannot enforce the laws that are already on the books. And while I'm not convinced that this new round of legislation will stop gun violence, I'm also a goddamn adult and I understand the overwhelming amount of pressure that's on the legislative and executive branch right now. Bending like a reed in the wind does not make anyone a sell-out, it makes them smart. Have you not seen how big of a shit-fit people have had on this forum because of a basic gun control discussion? And why should it not follow that a new executive order to track the distribution of guns wouldn't help? Or a national campaign to educate the public about guns? At no point did I ever say "at least they are doing something." They aren't going the full distance that I want to go, no, but it is a legitimate compromise and a step closer to where I'd like to be.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=184380thegreekdog wrote:The sad part about this whole thing, which we come back to, is that there really is no stark choice. Maybe you and others think this is a good thing, but I really don't. I think there needs to be multiple political parties and coalitions need to be struck, as it is in most other representative governments in the world.
There is nothing stopping you, or Saxi, or anyone from forming a new party or alliance. The Tea Party came out of practically nowhere, oozing out of backwoods and swamp hollows to become a major movement for radicals.
stahrgazer wrote:Those analysts also indicate that a loophole in the existing laws, if closed, would possibly have prevented Aurora, and could be done without curtailing the freedoms and rights of law abiding citizens. Neither the law abiding citizens, nor the guns themselves, did any of the nastiness that is resulting in the crazed kneejerks that are proposed.
stahrgazer wrote:The idea of hiring resource officers for each school sounds nice, but I don't want to pay for it. I'd prefer citizen volunteer militia to take care of that, including teachers, administrators, and folks in the neighborhood (like a citizens watch - only, trained and armed as they choose.)
"Law abiding citizens" should have militias to patrol and protect them.... kk thanx...