maemo.org - Talk - safety and politics

maemo.org - Talk (https://talk.maemo.org/index.php)

- Off Topic (https://talk.maemo.org/forumdisplay.php?f=19)

- - safety and politics (https://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=24816)

Re: safety and politics

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qole

The president-elect of the United States of America wouldn't be where he is today if it weren't for one of the most revolutionary recent changes in the USA, which was entirely accomplished without weapons. It all started with a woman who refused to get off of a bus, and it has led to the election of a black president. Interesting how history works.

I don't mean to sound confrontational in this reply, but I'm concerned by what you wrote, above.

I don't know that I'd agree any of this was accomplished without weapons, as you state. This was a particularly tumultuous time in American history, and there were plenty of weapons (physical and idealogical) and violence on both sides. Perhaps your american history lessons are lacking in that regard. :) It wasn't just an oppressive government and/or a bunch of armed zealots versus a bunch of peace-loving folks that wanted to sit on the front of the bus that were involved. There were lynchings, fire-bombings, snipers, and violent extremists acting out on both sides of the issue.

Re: safety and politics

Quote:

Originally Posted by briand (Post 242464)

There were lynchings, fire-bombings, snipers, and violent extremists acting out on both sides of the issue.

Yeah, but they weren't the ones who got things changed.

Re: safety and politics

I would say that if you wanted to trace it back to it's roots it started with Abraham Lincoln and the civil war.. which was fought with weapons. Without the civil war, Parks wouldn't have been even riding on the bus in the first place.

And without the constant fighting in the streets and the zealots on both sides.. nobody would have cared enough to have actually enacted change.

Malcolm X, for example.. was a proponent for doing "whatever is necessary" to earn freedom, justice and equality.. photos circulated of him holding an M1 Carbine in response to threats against his life.

On the other hand, characters like Martin Luther King, Jr. were proponents of "Civil Disobedience"; meaning absolutely to never resort to violence.

There was all kinds of people on all kinds of sides during that time in America.. to try and just sum it up by saying that weapons were not used at all to implement that change is showing a slight mis-interpretation of a rather awful time..

Re: safety and politics

Quote:

Originally Posted by qole (Post 242443)

Someone (a European colleague of mine) pointed out to me recently that American politics have a second axis, not just left-right; they also have the "republican" axis, which sometimes aligns with "right-wing" or "conservative," but often it doesn't; the Republican belief in small government and minimal regulations has some right-wing implications, but "republicanism" has many more implications, especially in the area of gun ownership and "libertarianism," that in other countries would be considered fairly left-wing. This has helped me understand the American mindset a lot more.

Im a little confused about this. I'm wondering if this axis is not the Libertarian party that you are referring to. When reading up on the parties ... the libertarian party likes to say that the left, wanting more personal freedoms (ala abortion) while having less economic freedoms... and right being the reversed.. more economic freedoms with less personal freedoms.. While the libertarian party theoretically believes in more Personal and economic freedoms.

Essentially the extreme left being Socialist, extreme right being fascist, and extreme libertarianism being Anarchists.

It's represented in the Nolan Chart .. but I've never heard of a "republican" axis?

Re: safety and politics

fatalsaint: thank you for that link. In that article, it mentions an older, similar chart by Stuart Christie and Albert Meltzer:

Quote:

...with "capitalist individualism" in the equivalent of the Libertarian corner...

That's exactly the axis I'm speaking of. "Capitalist Individualism" is the very American "Republican" mindset I was speaking of.

Re: safety and politics

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texrat (Post 242402)

But what this comes down to is probability and practicality, as I said before. I don't believe the people claiming guns can all be taken away are thinking this through.

There are just too many guns in the hands of American citizens for that to happen. And while I'm cognizant of frog boiling and slippery slopes, I am also aware of tipping points-- and one would come into play here.

I wasn't referring to guns anymore. I think this gun thingy plays a very small part in ones safety.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texrat (Post 242402)

The US government would be seen worldwide as just as evil as the regimes we have attacked for doing what we would be doing.

Isn't that the case already? Guantanamo, wiretapping everybody, unsanctioned war of aggression...

Quote:

Originally Posted by geneven (Post 242406)

Now we're talking about the motivation of the war in Iraq?

That is only an example.

Quote:

Originally Posted by geneven (Post 242406)

As is the case with many ideologues (see this thread we are in), the Bush administration was living in a dream world. I think they actually believed: [...]

Sorry, I can't believe that. A single person might be as blind to the facts, but with all the intelligence and warnings I don't believe anybody claiming afterwards that they didn't know better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatalsaint (Post 242476)

I would say that if you wanted to trace it back to it's roots it started with Abraham Lincoln and the civil war.. which was fought with weapons.

If you REALLY want to trace it all the way back, it all started with Adam and Eve. So it all comes down to apples. ;-)

Sorry, couldn't resist to lighten this up a bit.

Re: safety and politics

Quote:

Originally Posted by itschy (Post 242489)

If you REALLY want to trace it all the way back, it all started with Adam and Eve. So it all comes down to apples. ;-)

And those pesky Women and their inability to follow rules, damnit :D ;)

(JOKE people.. please don't harass me as sexist now.)

Re: safety and politics

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karel Jansens (Post 242423)

You said safety checks for car buyers were a bad analogy, because even if a car can kill, it's intended use isn't that.

That is not what I said.

Re: safety and politics

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatalsaint (Post 242476)

And in the end, how many citizens had to turn in their guns?

How many permanent laws against gun ownership were passed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatalsaint (Post 242445)

Lets try this... a gun can be used for sporting puposes and is merely a tool people use for certain puposes.

A car is also used in sports and is a tool used for certain puposes.

A drunk driver on a crowded freeway can cause as many deaths, if not more, than any assault rifle. And in fact.. in 2005, according to these sites:
http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/f...tatistics.html
http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm

I could have SWORN I added a qualifier to my statement... and even put it in bold... :rolleyes:

And no, guns and cars are not the same. Not in a pragmatic context.

Re: safety and politics

Quote:

Originally Posted by baksiidaa (Post 240160)

I don't know why the right-wingers get blamed for all the problems. Who's been in control of the current less-effective Congress? Which Senator/President-Elect has a huge number of "present" votes? To say that the Republicans are the only ones backed by special interests is a huge mistake, and to say that the Democrat's policy will fix all the problems you bring up is partisan talk and not good reasoning.
The Democrats complain about high gas prices and want to exempt the oil companies from tax breaks other corporations receive. If the oil companies have to pay more taxes, do you really think they'll lower their gas prices? Is this policy driven by a desire to lower gas prices or kowtow to the environmental special interest? You complain that insurance takes up 10% of your family income. If the government takes over, where is all the money for health care going to come from? Do you really think the government can provide health care at lower costs? Look at tax rates in countries with socialist health care.

In the eyes of a European the Democrats are far right wing and the Republicans are extreme right wing.

Now, lets see what my European *** would tax in the USA. I would raise the tax on oil with more than 100% so that Americans 1) I get more income 2) Americans are forced to become more interested in alternative fuels. I'd do this also an airplanes, and put the money back in the environment. I would put more tax on unhealthy crap such as cigarettes and crap food (even if traditional crap) making them more expensive. People keep smoking anyway; but that is OK as they are paying for their own health problems which they will get later on. And I would make sure people would live healthier; I would fine unhealthy corporations, and I would encourage corporations to have employees working on their health during their breaks.

Look at the tax rates in countries with "socialist" health care. Well, they get a lot of + and - besides that. If you take Sweden as example, they have a high tax, but also a good education system and in cities everyone has 100 mbit for years. They also have a lower violence rate which is less messy and less cops required for that, allowing the police force to zoom in on something worthwhile such as fraud.

As for the general problem. It is a cultural problem (world-wide; not merely American, but the USA is an icon for it) with loans, credit cards as well as a system of greed which gained this power by Congress a long time ago due to the fractional reserve system because bankers forced the president of the United States of America in 1917 (Woodrow Wilson) to sign for the FRS. Now, banks create money out of nothing (or rather: loans + 900% of that out of thin air), having no gold to back it up, and not owning the money the people have written to their account (less than 9% of it they own).