Conservatives insist the rest of us live by their rules

Post Reply New Topic

So do you think that everyone should be free to do literally whatever they want? Should there be no laws at all? After all, you yourself said that "without our freedoms, there is no need to worry about long-term well-being of society." Seems to me like society needs rules and laws, which limit our freedoms. So why not admit that freedom isn't always a good thing?


Why do you think there's nothing wrong with being against welfare entirely? You do realize that private charities can't afford to help everyone who needs help, don't you? So why not admit that it's harmful to be against welfare, rather than implicitly supporting such a harmful viewpoint?

And just because you don't align with Ayn Rand doesn't mean that your philosophies and opinions can't be harmful at all.


In other words, "Screw all of the Aspies on welfare. My freedoms are more important than the money you need to survive."

Are you really trying to claim that it's wrong (and somehow dishonest) for anyone to even claim that you're lying? That makes zero sense at all. Seems to me like you just don't want to have to admit that you were lying.

And how am I the childish one here? You're basically stomping your feet and pouting right now just because I proved you wrong.

libertarianism is responsible freedom.

conservative is against freedom
liberals are against responsibility

Liberals say you are free to do whatever you want and tax payers will pay the tab for all those babies.

Conservatives are even more stupid for wanting people to get married and go to school.

Libertarians would say, do whatever you want but make sure you can afford those children with your own money.

So, I found another source for interesting data, red state vs. blue state welfare roles i mean.

In South Carolina, 1 in 6 residents receive SNAP benefits.

In Massachusetts? 1 in 7. This is actually the national average.

Mississippi, Tennessee, 1 in 5.

North Dakota, which receives a bit more than $5 in federal spending for every $1 in federal taxes? Only 1 in 14 residents receive SNAP benefits.

When you get down to it, the right doesn't believe anyone is deserving of public assistance.

Hi, I'm a liberal.

I think people make poor decisions sometimes, but their children shouldn't be punished for it.

Also, I'm pretty sure people make poor decisions whether or not the government approves, and it doesn't make much sense to try to legislate morality or even not-being-dumbity.

As for responsibility in general, here in the ultra-red state of Utah, we figured out that the best, cheapest way to solve the problem of chronic homelessness is to just give the homeless person a place to live. Not offer them a bed in a shelter, just hand them the keys to an apartment that they don't have to pay for and can live in forever. Yes, this is cheaper than ignoring them and then spending money on them in the form of law enforcement and emergency care. Substantially cheaper, by as much as $10,000 per year per homeless person. And we have the receipts and ledgers to prove it.

You see, when someone is chronically homeless, it doesn't take the state very long to know exactly who they are and how much they cost. And it is possible to record over time the hours spent by LEOs and other safety officers. The ambulance rides. The emergency room care. You can in fact add this up, and you can compare it to the cost of building some humble but totally decent starter condos and just giving them to the people who need them.

Sometimes, concepts of what might be fair, or what someone might deserve, get in the way of what will work best for everyone. And conservatives need to get over it.

I think our education system is a travesty. We need to spend a lot more on it, and a lot less of that should be out of pocket for the students.

My father taught at a university for 40 years and bored students dragging their feet through their general ed requirements were the bane of his existence. 70 to 100 students every semester halfassing as hard as they could, cutting into time and energy he could be using to teach the people who actually WANT to be taught. He loudly and frequently questioned whether it makes any sense for 90% of the people in universities to be trying to get that education.

We need to return to post-WWII era public contribution to state colleges and universities (more like 80% paid by the state than 20%) BUT we need to create sensible, credible vocational 2-year tracks. Or 18 month tracks.

And even if you are studying a hard science, why the heck did my brother have to carry a foreign language credit to work toward a degree in botany?

We have the finest universities in the world - foreign students come here in droves. For hard sciences. But we have a totally bonkers way of running them, and it doesn't make any sense to be graduating people with useless degrees and a hundred grand or more in debt.

IMHO for all their desire to be recognized as paragons of fiscal responsibility i think that what currently passes for libertarian is just greedy / stingy with no concept of what investments are required in order for a society to progress or even to self-sustain. They espouse discredited and nonsensical economic theories as though it is some kind of religion.

Game theory and empirical sociological research also suggest cooperative social systems excel over strictly selfish systems. In short, you as an individual will do better if you help make sure that your team does better.

Almost.

Corporations in your own district deserve a lot of public assistance. And corporations are people, right?

Well, that's according to the supreme court... No, wait, the Supreme Court is now in error in regard to gay marriage!

yeah knifes, swords, axes, bows, etc were also all made to kill. just like those we've found other uses for guns. I don't see people liining up at archery ranges to ban bows? we target shoot, sport shoot, olymic shoot, trap shoot, as for colecting tons of reason. if you were into history you'd want to collect them. people have all kinds of ww1 collections, ww2 collections. people get to see them and shoot a piece of history. then you can get into collecting all the different models, types of one gun. like say the 1911. you can have a 1911 mode, 1943 model, 1968 model, compact, commander , full size model, maybe you get one used at a certain battle or by a certain person. someone paid millions for the gun that probably killed hitler. lol hitlers gun cost like probably 100 dollar when made now worth millions. my ar was 800 now worth 1000 and that is just over the last 2 years. 1911 from ww2 is worth 3 times what a new made one cost. guns only go up in value never down.

compassion for peoples loss and surrendering our freedom are two different things. the anties have no compassion for their loss as they stand on the bodies of their loss and use it for their agenda seconds after the shooting. while pro gun people remain silent out of respect for the grieving families . we had 4 kids get run down by a guy in his truck, and all he got was a ticket. yet no one is trying to ban cars/trucks and they kill way way more people then guns. being sad for death is one thing. I don't usually get to be sad anymore as they stand ont he bodies and go on the attack pushing us to defend our rights time after time after time. its a horrible tactic to take advantage of peoples sadness and lie and deceive them. people aren't logical when emotional. its why they only push gun control during shootings and they have to move fast after a week people calm down, logic takes over and they see how stupid the proposed laws are. this is from the mouths of the anti gunners. they have it down to a science. a father of one of the kids went to dc to speak against gun control. I do feel sorry for their loss just as I do for the mother of the 4 kids. she was hit too but lived. I can't imagine the pain she is likely still in over walking with her kids one second then awaking to find out she lived but they died. :'(

yeah should I list you the many ways to kill yourself? I feel I don't have to as you've been suicideal I'm sure you thought of them all also. so how is removing 1 of 100 ways to do it going stop anyone. I have guns if I kill myself it'll probably be with a razor from my shaving kit. can't ban suicides.

https://www.infantswim.com/assets/docs/ ... cs2011.pdf
100 vrs thousands. ban swimming pools now. all life matters. but is simple theres 300 million guns and not 300 millin dead. you dont' ban something because its rarely used to kill people. yes the losses are sad. but really 30,000 of 320 million is .0093% is not even 1% of the population that is killed by guns.

from the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading ... -death.htm

seems we should be more worried about the other ones.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/leahbinder/ ... hospitals/

even more deaths.

I too have been suicidal and yet despite owning like 8 guns I haven't' killed myself. certain people shouldn't' own guns and they decide this for themselves. they well use to give their guns to family or friends til they were better. but now that illegal due to universal background checks, here now. seems you are one who knows they would kill themselves with a gun and chose not to own one good for you. though really since only 5% of people die from gun shots, guns are a horrible way to kill yourself. you live and are worse off then you were before shooting yourself. (was going list other more better ways but I don't want you to kill yourself.) really the idea of laying there in pain after shooting yourself as you bleed out waiting for the amberlance. sounds horrible. guns aren't the lazer guns that tv shows. had a cop tell me that one time he saw a guy shot in the head, no blood came gushing out like on tv. many shot in head live. one guy shot with a .357(big round) lived and now can't control one side of his body. others end up paralyzed if lucky, many more in comas. no thanks.

who is there to punish? most shoot themselves when confronted. no what we do is put their name all over the world, so everyone know who they are and the next guy thinks "man I have to kill more then he did so I can also be famous." we need a news blackout, never say their names. funny how we don't say the names of the victims but we blast the killers name all over. this is why theirs more shootings. its a competition for people like that. their chance to be famous and go down in the history books. its sicking, but the press doesn't care about the victims its just money to them, prime time tv, gotta get them views.


well thats sad but oh well. Im a pro gun democrat. though I guess I'm more independent. I don't agree with the Libertarian party as they tend to be anti welfare, anti poor, taxes are stealing people. think tea party. though I guess I'm more Libertarian in the real sense that I think people should be allowed to do what they love as long as it doesn't harm others. fyi me and my guns along with 100 million other people have never hurt anyone either. well ok, some bad guys were shot by cops and victims defending themselves. but as I was taught in security class and told by cops, you don't chose the level of action you use, the attacker chooses it you merely respond to defend yourself and others. ie if they come at you with a weapon they've chosen to be shot. if they didn't want to be shot they wouldn't' attack you.

really all the politics and rights and freedom restrictions upset me. be it guns rights, gay rights, abortion rights, nsa spying on all of us, freedom or speech(free speech zones really ) , weed and other drugs, etc.

if you choose not to like me because I own a gun how are you any different than people who dislike someone because they are gay or believe in abortion. The USA is a nation of differences, bringing so many different kinds of people together as one nation. being accepting of all the different people should be a goal and it shouldn't stop at just different races.

I am sorry though as you seemed nice. I am tired though of being disliked or hated by everyone because I don't conform 100% to one party and its ideas. price of being unquie is not having anyone who likes you I guess.

I can speak of Oz. They didn't ban gunz, rather removed "assault weapons" from general use. England did similar, but also with handguns.

3 of 4 studies in Oz show that murders with firearms haven't actually decreased since then (the course has been steady); method substitution hasn't even kicked in yet. Homicide rate is of course the same (which should be expected, as people will still murder no matter what weapon they have access to).

We haven't had as many spree killings with firearms since the national reforms, though. I doubt they had anything to do with it, as there's still a ton of legally and illegally owned firearms here, but that's me speculating.

It's pretty much been a waste of time for the crime rate (not to mention punishing the innocent for no valid reason).

Did either nation use U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein's definition of "assault weapon"? You know, black instead of some other color, handles attached to it, and some ... (duh-duh-DUH) ... plastic parts?!? Any edu-mah-cated individual knows that those features spell DANGER.

Nah, they went full ret*d here in Oz. Any semi long arm, and also pump shotguns (pump rifles be fine. So, logic went out of the window; don't tell them that, though).

They keep on trying to get semi handguns here, but since lots of po po shoot outside of their job, they beat 'em away (not to mention far more people are murdered with hands compared to handguns here).

I'm impressed. I've read studies showing how it would be cheaper in Los Angeles (and elsewhere by extension) to simply house the homeless. I've been an advocate for that since. I didn't realize Utah had actually done that. In this case, ultra red Utah led the way. You bring our liberal/progressive agenda into wonderful focus...

If it does work, we will have to wait for those guns to age out before we see the true effect. Guns have become embedded in the population...

Personally, I think method substitution will come into effect when the majority of unregistered firearms are put on the list (beyond our lifetimes, though), and the murder rate will be just the same. That strong emotional event combined with the right neurotype, and you have a murder no matter what.

Knives have always been our #1 weapon used for murder, even when we had quite liberal firearm laws (there's never been a time when there's been a 1 to 1 ratio of knife to firearm).

Mass shootings will probably drop, but method substitution might come into play there too. But, I've read little studies on mass murder to say anything there with any semblance of certainty (mainly because there's little in the way of studies).

I live in the UK and feel quite free. I don't walk around town in fear. We do have some restrictive laws and I understand they are for the general good. Here even the police aren't over keen on being armed, except for airports, places such as Downing Street and exceptional occasions. Terrorism has caused us some loss of freedom. Problems do occur but they are rare. But why should people want guns? Is personal freedom so very important?