I added an edit after you started to reply. Trump was a liberal before also. He donated to and supported the Clintons.

Wow, the whole situation of the Supreme Court giving the OK means he didn't violate the constitution. Not sure why you're not getting this which is why I said you were proving my points.

How am I the only one doing what you said and why point me out directly? On top of that, this has nothing to do with the topic. The site rules state any issue you have should be DM'd to a moderator, not on the thread itself. I have only responded to others that respond to me. I am only having a discussion. If somebody doesn't like it, they can move on or ignore me.

Back to the topic at hand....

It's funny how the San Francisco board of supervisors even thinks that it's their job to make non-binding resolutions as this. It is not their job to designate terrorist organizations. Their main purpose is to make San Francisco better, which they obviously are not.

 

I take it you don't live in Hong Kong and are not this guy:


If not, I can see where you're coming from with the tariffs and other stuff.

 

I see, that makes sense.

 

You mean Crony Capitalism right not capitalism itself. Individuals making corrupt choices.
Capitalism is a system the values private ownership.


Basically your mindset is Humans are inherently evil. The freedom of private ownership will eventually be abused by a few humans that will give into temptation of evil and abuse that freedom to extract value beyond its worth. So it's not Capitalism itself but humans that are the problem. If Humans weren't shitty to each other then Complete Private Ownership is something you would consider. So instead you will control humans, limit their ownership of their own belongings and tell them what they can and can't do.



So my question to you is what is value beyond it's worth? Who gets to decide? You? The People? It's an arbitrary line that will be set and will constantly shift. And whats the best most efficient way to decide worth? If someone creates a phone and creates only a few phones a year to create artificial scarcity to raise prices isn't that their freedom to do so. It's their product they created so they can do whatever they want. And if you don't like what they are doing why don't you exercise your freedom to not buy what they sell?



Resources are finite and the Market Competition puts those finite resources into the most efficient hands, inefficient hands will just waste those limited resources. Compare food prices now to 100 years ago. Not only food is more abundant its way cheaper then before. Instead of having to walk to many different individual specialty stores just to get your groceries, you can now drive to one super market to get everything you need. Instead of making many individual trips back and forth taking a train or bus, you just now put everything in your car only 1 maybe 2 trips for the week. Instead of going to the store everyday to keep your food fresh you can now buy a lot more and store it in your fridge for the week. Food has gotten so cheap and abundant that we now have an obesity epidemic.



Tv's, would you rather have a TV from today or from 40 years ago? You can claim that corporations have gotten so corrupt that TV's are more expensive now. It wouldn't be a true claim because you are not comparing apples and apples. You are getting more for your money today then 40 years ago. 4k resolution, ultra sharp picture, high refresh rates, wide color gamuts, higher peak brightness, hdr. And prices always come down. DVD players were $1000 when they first came out. Now you can get a blueray for under $100. Better tech for cheaper. How did this happen? And why weren't they able to charge more then what its worth? And what would be its worth? Would you complain that blueray's even at around $100 are too expensive and it should be cheaper? And wouldn't you look like a spoiled whinny brat to poor countries that can't even afford a blueray with you complaining about this?

 

Money spending is what moved the economy especially the one spend in domestic, they only become problems once too much of the spending is spend outside the country. In military spending the army wage, weapons spending and veteran payment is actually not a problems since the money is used to run your economy especially considering you actually use your own weapon not import it from somewhere else and it is used also as a great advertisement for your product. BTW the idea that China is the most peaceful since the establishment of the USA seems funny since i'm from asia and i could tell south china sea, Taiwan, HK, and some island that being dispute by china, russia, and japan is just a time bomb that keep being delayed by the fact that american still being considered as a threat by China. Especially considering the ever increase military budget by China.

 

So in other words, you, allegedly, think the NRA is a terrorist organization to the "nanny state"? Forget about personal responsibility and the freedom to choose how to live your life as long as it doesn't directly cause harm to others, we have the government to tell us how to live our lives and keep us safe. I get you. That's just common sense.

I do agree there should be sensible gun laws such as don't kill others unless it's to protect your life, don't randomly shoot up in the air, and don't let toddlers play with loaded guns.

Sure, these make sense and should not be allowed, and the NRA isn't advocating for these things along with wanting people to kill others for expressing their views, juggle guns in the street, or hitting people over the head with rifles
----------------

People are so focused on the misinterpretations others tell them, that they don't go and look into things themselves and then come up with their own conclusions based on untruths. This is why the concept of the NRA being a domestic terrorist org was even brought up by the SFBOD.

 

Yeah, I saw that, but I was referencing the part where you were talking about how the NRA was supporting our rights of personal responsibility, thus making them against the "Nanny state" where the government stops us from running around to protect us from falling and scraping our knees. You could say their fight for our freedom of personal responsibility makes them terrorist to the "Nanny State".

Meh, that's what I do.... still doesn't make my view invalid.

You think everyone in the military are mindless drones? They have minds of their own to fight against tyranny, so the people will have access to all the guns, drones, nukes, etc too.

The Revolutionists were under the same kind of odds even back then. They were overwhelmed by the British by gunpower, manpower, etc, but they were able to make a deal with the French and still beat the Brits back and gained their independence. I'm sure Russia and China would fight for us against the government if it ever came to it if we made a good enough deal with them.

I did mention that laws should be made to stop people from hurting others which covers your "yelling 'bomb'" statement.

I agree with you on most, just keep in mind "personal freedoms" and how important they are. We don't need the government to hold our hands around ever turn.

 

So many excuses, so little time

Skickat från min LG-D855 via Tapatalk

 

The same "most powerful and sophisticated military" that's been fighting dudes in pajamas and flip-flops with rusty AKs for 20 years? Sounds like "hero" worship to me. Fun fact: every war after WW2 is unconstitutional in accordance with Article 1 of the Consitution. Who says it has to come to boots on the ground anyway? Cyber warfare is a thing; counter propaganda, etc. There's also backroom deals that could be made with China and Russia, maybe even big business in exchange for relaxed regulations or trade deals with the new government or something. Besides, it's not like Washington D.C. is some impenetrable walled fortress or anything. A small army could destroy the entire chain of presidential succession in one swoop. I'm surprised a group like Isis or similar hasn't tried it yet honestly. Kind of scary if you really think about it.

There were also already automatic machine guns when the Constitution was drafted. Most notable being the Puckle gun. To think they couldn't have imagined firearm technology advancing is a little silly.

As for the tired "fire in a crowded theater" argument: if anyone is dumb enough to fall for that, then that's on them. Bottom line: the Constitution is a legal document, and what it says is exactly what it means. It was not meant to be open to interpretation. If people want to change the meaning, then go through the proper procedure to have it amended. Want the first amendment to exclude "hate speech" and threats? You have to vote to repeal it and then ratify a new one. Same for the second or any other part of the document.

As for the NRA, they are suing the city because of the "terrorist" designation. As much as I dislike them for not doing anything to protect the second amendment, I hope they win amd bankrupt the city.

 

I mean, it was a good discussion till y'all started throwing insults :x

Both sides have their pro's and con's, Liberals might lie, but so do Conservatives. Right might be corrupt, but so is the left side. It's important to take note when someone of high social standard(for lack of better word), like the president, makes a mistake. But also when they do something good. Doesn't matter on what, or what side you are on. The problem with being on either side, is that for the most part, none of you(in general) take note when your side does something bad, only when they do something good

I'm mostly concerned what SF wants to do with branding the NRA as a DTO, Get rid of them so the only way to get guns are through illegal means? seems not that well thought out. But maybe they have a plan, and I just missed it. If they really do want to ban guns, That's really stupid, because the only people who won't get a gun, are the people not going to commit mass shootings.(Slight hyperbole, but for the most part I think it's true)

well that's my opinion and thoughts on the matter.