Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Barkey, please don't make me pull out the civil thump. We can remain courteous while disagreeing.
One issue with the gun control issue that I've come to realize through my time debating here is that it really is regional, unlike many other issues. In cities, guns are almost invariable involved in crime. In rural areas, they are not only part of the culture but have entirely valid uses for hunting and on-the-spot self defense.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"My biggest problem with Republicans is that they aren't fiscally responsible. Their economic policies don't mesh with how real world economies work. They can do Microeconomics and their stuff works on that level, but they fail terribly at Macroeconomics. I blame it on having far too many business men involved. Business men are terrible at running economies.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick@Triv: They do overlap on social issues. The main differences tend to show up with issues that are outside the mainstream, such as legalizing prostitution. I happen to share the same stance on that, but I'd wager most liberals probably don't.
There's a lot of points where I sympathize with libertarians - I mean, normal ones, not the conspiratorial types who're stocking up on guns and waiting for civilization to crumble. My problem with them is that they're not so much anti-authoritarian as they are anti-government, and this seems like a very shortsighted way of looking at things if your goal is to protect people's rights.
With all due respect, my earlier post was intended to be playful and tongue and cheek, but it came off as making fun of Barkey more than I intended.
Anyway, here's the deal on gun control: Deal with it on an issue by issue basis. I don't think we need people with automatic weapons running around. On the other hand, I certainly don't think that hunters should be prohibited from owning the tools of their trade. So, again, deal with it on a case by case basis.
edited 13th Nov '12 5:22:01 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
@Maxima: a perfectly functioning free market supposes a few things
1: All consumers are well-informed, have all necessary data to make the correct choice, and are not misled by ads or false data
2: Buyers are rational
3: Companies will not game the system via legislation favoring them.
edited 13th Nov '12 5:25:34 PM by Midgetsnowman
@Starship
Think about it: if a handful of individuals amassed the overwhelming majority of the power, and had no checks or balances on them other then their own view and self-imposed morality, we would call that a tyranny in government.
Regulation of commerce and economics is necessary to give everyone the chance to reach their full potential and create a fair market that doesn't piss on the poor and middle class, just like the constitution is necessary to regulate government and insure it can piss on the little guy.
edited 13th Nov '12 5:28:31 PM by LMage
Paul Ryan: Obama has no mandate on taxes
This is a more complex issue that has a number of approaches.
1.) There's the "here's why classical economics is wrong" approach, which midget elaborated on.
2.) There's the view of non-interventionism by government as it pertains to power dynamics, which is what I mentioned and
3.) There's the fact that, even if classical economics is right, then you have certain game theory-y prisoner's dilemma-y scenarios where everyone individually might think it'd be a good thing for everyone to not do something, but since it's individually in each individual's private interest to do that thing, everyone does it anyone. This is why you need environmental regulations for instance.
There's also the fact that governments provide certain services MUCH better than private industry.
Re: Keynes: For the most part, no. Keynes isn't really heavy into the labor economics side of things, and neither is Krugman. Not that he'd disagree, so much that he'd' say "well yeah that's pretty obvious, let's talk about the REAL issues-"
edited 13th Nov '12 5:29:58 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
Jindal: End 'dumbed-down conservatism'
Jindal ain't f*cking around!
So that's what that thing was.
edited 13th Nov '12 5:33:55 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016![]()
![]()
![]()
To elaborate further on that, things like healthcare, prisons, military, and police/fire departments are better off being in the hands of the government than private enterprise, simply because making a profit is at odds with the core reason behind having those services.
edited 13th Nov '12 5:33:42 PM by DrunkGirlfriend
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -DrunkscriblerianMost of these people trying to change the party were all on board with the stupidity prior to the electoral defeat.
On the flip side, they may legitimately have decided to change because the electorate told them to, so it's not like that invalidates the message of "STOP BEING STUPID."
However, I do think the "Crowning moment of awesome!" element should be withheld here. These are people realizing they need to change course to win, not brave David's standing up to the Goliath that is GOP stupidity.
edited 13th Nov '12 5:34:37 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
It's Pragmatic Villainy more than anything else.
However, we still have McConnell and Cantor holding office, and they're two of the furthest-right Republicans we have. They won't stop, and they might get into a power struggle with Baehner.
How far-right are they? Ronald Reagan didn't want to cut Social Security
.
edited 13th Nov '12 5:42:22 PM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.

I think he meant Democrats for the first position.
Also personally, I don't mind people holding guns as long as they're intelligent and responsible with them. (Though I am going to say I think the Militia bits of the Second Amendment makes gun ownership a right kind of hazy, but courts, w/e.)
I'm honestly more concerned about preventing more Auroras/Virginia Techs/Columbines that arguing the 2nd Amendment, and I wish groups like the NRA would try and help prevent more of them, rather than scare monger about Obama taking away guns magically through his Socialist Kenyan Muslim wizard powers.