No, grenade launchers, tanks, warplanes, and battleships should not be legal. How far will you take it? What about nuclear weapons? That’s what I mean by the right wing being insane. So dogmatic about the Second Amendment that they are willing for thousands of people to be killed. NRA puppets. And the US did hire mercenaries back in revolutionary times, but this is not revolutionary times. We have matured as a country, and there’s a lot of things we don’t do now in the present day that they used to get away with 200 years ago. Right wing romanticism of 200 years ago is selective in nature and by design, its intent is to manipulate by using patriotism and nationalism, which Germany is very familiar with.
And you utterly failed to understand either the historical, or current, purpose of weapons, history of the laws, and the 2nd Amendment. As usual, every hoplophobe jumps straight to nukes. As it happens, there is a widely understood idea of nukes, like biological and most chemical weapons, as indiscriminate and thus not 'arms' but strategic devices unlike any other weapon. It accepts that NBC devices, being dangerous to even just store, much less use, are subject to restraint in ways that discriminate, individual weapons are not.
Why are you so afraid of a private citizen with a battleship? What do you think that private citizen is going to do with it that terrifies you to the point you want men with guns to arrest or kill anyone that tries to obtain one?
Germany has a fear of the word 'Nationalism' that is all out of proportion to the actual danger. The Nazi nationalism was no different than English or French nationalism - Hitler was just into left-wing eugenics more than more sane rulers in most other nations. Remember, Britain and the US were both extremely nationalist during WWII, but somehow they didn't kill 6 million Jews. Focusing on 'Nationalism' over 'genocidal ideology' misses the entire lesson of WWII.
I feel that I am wasting my time on someone that may not be informed, but I’ll give you a chance.
Based on your last few posts, I have no doubt I am more informed that you on most of these issues, and what you say here is just reinforcing that opinion.
Here is one example of Republicans assaulting women’s healthcare- access to a birth control pill:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/30/politics/scotus-obamacare-contraception/
In case you were unable to understand, in no case did anyone attempt to BLOCK access to birth control. It just said that you cannot require someone else to PAY for your birth control. Any woman can buy her own birth control, at $1/day, in any town in any state in the country. Being denied free stuff is not oppression.
How about the morning-after pill:
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/08/10/669771/todd-akin-ban-morning-after-pill/
You quote a left-wing rag's condemnation of the opinion of one individual, Todd Akin, who holds no political office, as an example of ALL Republicans? Can I point out stupid ideas by unemployed Democratic loudmouths, too? Such as the absurd views of Robert F. Kennedy Jr, who claims vaccines cause autism.
Merely one link describing the gap between male and female earnings:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_the_United_States
And again, you either don't understand in the slightest, or you are being deliberately deceptive. For equal jobs, with equal experience, there is equal pay. But most women have less experience, work fewer hours, and concentrate in lower paying jobs to begin with. Only if you try to absurdly claim that a woman working at McDonalds should have the same wage as a 30 year expert heart surgeon do you begin to show a 'wage gap'.
There was a bill designed to ban salary secrecy and discrimination against women, but Republicans blocked it:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/09/15/3567740/republicans-paycheck-fairness-act/
The Equal Pay Act was passed in 1963 - that's more than 50 years before. This bill attempted to remove the requirement that plaintiffs actually be required to prove that there was sex discrimination in order to win their case. It removes most of the defenses that an employer can use to explain wage differences (the 'Reasons other than sex' defenses), such as experience or ability to do a job. Even basic ability to negotiate a salary became de facto evidence of sex discrimination if even ONE male was able to negotiate for a higher salary than a similar female employee.
I’m not saying every Southerner is an idiot, but there’s a lot of reasons why their education system and their collective education is sub average. Let’s look at the statistics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_educational_attainment
It is no coincidence that the Bible Belt is a bright yellow on that first map. And for the high school graduation rate, let’s look at the comparison map of red states (Republicans and Southerners mostly):
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president
The bottom 15 states for high school graduation, 12 of them are Republican, Southern states. So rather than me saying that Southerners are stupid (which I’m not saying), I will say that they have a higher rate of being ignorant and uneducated. As per the facts.
Yup, the poorest counties in the country have the lowest graduation rates. Funny how that works, isn't it? The Northeast, which includes many of the wealthiest states in the country, spend three to five times as much money per student as poor Mississippi, but it's because the students in Mississippi are stupid that their results are worse. Got it.
No, the South has a slightly lower graduation rate, and most of the college-bound leave the state for the coasts after graduation. That shifts percentages, too. But it hardly means that southerners are 'stupid'.
I also question your use of the word racism, because Southerners are not a race. I do think that religious people are not as smart, that’s true. I don’t particularly like how the South is easily manipulated by religion into making poor decisions and forcing them on the rest of us. We have to live with their crazy. And that’s more than a little irritating. I do demand that people participate in reality and leave childish things behind. Murderous sky fairy stories are not real, and I’m tired of religious fanatics ruining the world for the rest of us.
Atheism is no less an improvable belief about the existence of the supernatural than Christianity. The only rational viewpoints are agnosticism (don't know) or apathy (don't care). If you express any other opinion, such as your bigotry against those that follow "childish" "murderous sky fairy stories", you are equally irrational.
Also, the United States has very, very few 'fanatics' of any sort. You use the word, but you seem to not understand what it means. Someone suggesting that their religious beliefs are the reason they support or oppose a given law is not a fanatic. Someone who, like the terrorists in San Bernardino, uses their religion as a reason to kill anyone that opposes them - THAT is a fanatic.
In regards to Laquan McDonald, it’s about how race issues do exist in this country and need to be dealt with. The South still has the Confederate flag-and many in the South were actually fighting to keep the Confederate flag waving-so it’s a tough sell to tell me that the South doesn’t have a severe ignorance issue and institutional racism when they were flying the Confederate flag at the South Carolina Statehouse just this past year:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/31/confederate-flag-south-ca_n_595256.html
If you bother to read the article, you’ll notice both Democratic candidates are open to moving it, and all four Republican candidates “doubt there’s support.” The Confederate flag is a symbol of slavery and racism as well as a complete traitor to United States of America. That’s what makes Republican nationalism such a joke, is at the same time they could be doing one of these racist activities.
Tell me, since the Civil War was over 150 years ago, why are you afraid of the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia? Do you think that the swastika should also be banned? And the hammer and sickle, and the Red Star? All of those symbols are responsible for more death and evil than the Confederacy was.
Why do you demand that the government send people with guns to kill or imprison anyone that shows a symbol you don't like?
Never mind that the flag means a lot more than just "slavery and racism". If the residents of the state want to keep the flag, so what. It's hardly any different than any other childish display of rebellion, such as liking Darth Vader.
Europeans don’t have the background that we do on how the South and the North currently exist in the United States, but let’s look at the map:
http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/
You’ll notice that red and blue swap at 1964, which is when African-Americans were given their civil rights. The fact of the matter is, institutional racism exists. After the Civil War, the economic and political costs to the south have not been fully healed. We still see ignorance and racism revered by Southerners and implemented as Confederate license plates! News flash, the war has been over now for 150 years, and there’s nothing worth celebrating about a bunch of traitorous slavers who built tremendous wealth off the backs of kidnapped individuals from Africa. There’s nothing romantic about it, there’s nothing nostalgic about it, and it’s offensive that that still runs rampant throughout the South. Especially the Bible Belt.
Institutional racism does exist - it's just called "Affirmative Action" these days. There it is enshrined in law that the color of a person's skin can grant them special privileges denied to people of a different skin color. It just so happens that you approve of that variety of racism. According to the General Social Survey, even blacks acknowledge that blacks are more racist than whites, by a more than two-to-one margin.
And there is plenty worth celebrating for many people in the South. Most Southerners did not own slaves, and even 150 years ago, the South was much poorer than the North. Many of the sovereign states fielded armies populated by nothing more than peasants that wanted to protect their homes. The wealthy slave owners, like Democrat Jefferson Davis, that precipitated the war were unpopular even in the South. They were good enough politicians to get support for succession, though, which is what kicked off the Civil War.
But even amongst the Southern plantation owners, there was no "tremendous wealth", and there were no whites "kidnapping" blacks from Africa. Arab traders bought black slaves from other blacks, sold them to the English, that then sold them to Americans.
And have you ever actually visited the South or the Bible Belt? Atlanta, say, or New Orleans, or Kansas City? Your wild accusations of racism and treason tell me you haven't.
Would you like to discuss how Republicans contributed to institutional racism? It’s a long discussion, and I’m happy to get into it. Here’s a good place to start:
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/the-war-on-drugs-how-president-nixon-tied-addiction-to-crime/254319/
It’s a great article, but what it doesn’t mention is that Stephen Hess was also a Republican advisor.
Cocaine was banned in 1922, after a two decade campaign, and marijuana in 1925/1937 - primarily because of fears of how it riled up blacks and made them violent. Nixon, like most "Hard on Crime" politicians, chose the easy route of 'punish the crime' over 'treat the cause'. But that wasn't anything new, as there was over 50 years of that behavior already in place in the US for treating drug users like criminals.
If you want to get to blaming Presidents for bad policy decisions based on racism, try LBJ: "I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." he said, talking about his Great Society. And sure enough, he bought the black vote, and has utterly destroyed black culture. Blacks actually have less wealth, are less educated, and have less upward mobility today than they did under the Democrats in the Jim Crow South.
I noticed that you mentioned socialist as a negative, but I doubt you even know what it is. We have many socialist policies now! Unfortunately, the right wing has branded socialism in such a way that we can’t talk about things that we might like about it, things we might learn, and things we are already doing. Instead, it’s immediately branded un-American. It’s part of the intellectual bankruptcy of the right wing. I should also add that Republicans love socialism when it benefits their corporate puppet masters.
Again, I probably know more about what socialism is than you do. Socialism, in general, is the economic philosophy that the benefits of commerce should belong to those who work, rather than those that own the means of production. There are lots of sub varieties, from Levelers to Communism, under the large heading of Socialism. But they all retain one feature: Namely that those who work hard and profit by themselves have the benefits of their labor taken from them and given to those that do not work hard or profit.
Socialism in practice is the oppression of those who are capable, ambitious, or dedicated, by taking from them and giving to others. You are trying to suggest that all cooperative behavior is socialism, when it clearly isn't. Individuals choosing to cooperate, such as when forming corporations, or joining together in a church, or when performing charitable good works, is not socialism.
And the United States of America is founded on the philosophy of individual excellence and freedom. Anyone is free to work hard, and benefit from the fruits of their labor. So when someone like Bernie Sanders comes along and says "We want to take from you what you earned, and give it to people we think deserve it more", you're damned right it is Un-American.
Socialism almost wiped out the Pilgrims. Even in small groups, socialist societies fail, because humans are not biologically capable of treating all other humans equally, and because humans are not all perfectly good. One of the core philosophies of the Left for the past several centuries has been that the government is capable of moulding human nature - and that if they just pass the right laws, this time socialism will work! Even though it never has before
The so-called 'socialist' nations in Europe are actually more friendly to capitalism than the US in most circumstances. They've had to become so, because when they tried to be socialist, they ran out of money. When Margaret Thatcher destroyed the English Socialists and broke the unions, she set the British economy on growth unprecedented since WWII. It's no wonder they hated her so much - she proved them wrong to the core.
And seriously, 'corporate puppet masters'? Are you trying to have a discussion here, or just spouting third-tier platitudes? The rich corporations support both parties equally - why do you think Obama is called "President Goldman-Sachs"? But no corporation is "puppet-master" of anyone, much less an entire party of 100,000,000 people.
In regards to the shootings in San Bernardino, we are still getting more facts on the topic. But I do know that someone like Adam Lanza should not have a gun in his house.
EPA has had many successes, including regulating lead. Do you know the history of lead in this country? You wanted an example, there is one. I can give EPA examples all day. They help keep us safe.
Again, lead regulations started well before the EPA got around to noticing there was a problem. The states acted faster, and more decisively, than the EPA. The only significant step the EPA accomplished in regards to lead was the banning of lead inclusions in gasoline - in
1995.
Obergefell legalized gay marriage. Are you against gay marriage? Are you a bigot? Lots of Republicans are. That’s what I’m talking about when I criticize Republicans. Institutional bigotry across the whole party. ”Traditional marriage” (no gays allowed) was part of their 2012 presidential election platform!
Ah, yes, because understanding that religious ceremonies have religious requirements, and demanding that those requirements be met to partake in the religious ceremony is somehow bigotry.
Since you weren't reading, let me state again - Expanding the benefits of marriage to all couples was the right result. The legal reasoning was complete bullshit. Even organizations, like the ACLU, that wrote briefs in favor of that ruling were against the crazy basis that the ruling used. Those few justices magically created a "But LOVE!" exemption to the 9th and 10th Amendments out of whole cloth, all because they wanted to do the 'right thing'. Except of polyamory, somehow "LOVE!" doesn't allow that, of course - only those 'stupid' religious people would want that.
Again, the only rational decision the Supreme Court could have made in
Obergefell would have been for the Court to demand that the State remove itself from regulating religious ceremonies entirely. The Leftists didn't do that, because that wouldn't have forced the opposition to bow to the will of the activists, even though it would have solved the problem in a legal defensible manner.
You might have missed the topic, but in regards to Japan it was about the collective. They are very good at taking care of the collective and not so good when it comes to individuals that can’t conform. That’s what you’re describing, you are not correctly understanding the term collective. Japan healthcare is extremely good, nationalized, and they offer ”socialist services.” As do we. We can learn from them in many respects.
Japanese health care, good? You're kidding, right? For anything more serious than a Band-Aid or aspirin, it sucks. Private clinics get most of the serious business, and all of the wealthiest Japanese come to the US for their medical care, if they can afford it.
And my point was that the Japanese focus on the collective makes it really hard for anyone different or unusual to live there. Have something shameful happen to you? Better not let anyone know, or your life will be ruined. And God forbid that you be born to a member of a lower caste - your life will permanently suck, then, because Japanese still has a caste system that oppresses the untouchables in ways no other advanced nation would accept.
Finally, I see nothing worth revering about having a violent society.
Oh, there isn't. Of course, the US isn't actually a 'violent' society. That's the Middle East, or Africa, or Eastern Europe, or Central Asia. But I guess you mean "in comparison to other 1st world, high-income, monocultural nations".
If all the non-Americans went away, or if the inner-city residents stopped robbing and killing each other all the time, we wouldn't have a violent society. Notice how all the European peoples are reacting, now that they are beginning to receive a fraction of the immigrants that the US receives every year? Multiculturalism breeds violence. The US is the most multicultural nation on Earth, and that contributes strongly to the levels of violence we see. If you truly want the benefits of diversity, you have to accept the drawbacks, too.
But I'd much rather have the level of violence we have than be the tightly controlled and suppressed anti-individualistic societies that Japan or China have. I'd VERY much prefer to be able to defend myself from a criminal, then to have to hope, like Lee Rigby, that someone will come along and save me from having my head slowly sawed off in front of a crowd.
