Can we please relax about 'socialism?'

[AFTiger 282]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

If you find yourself unable to engage with the article, move along.  Others are doing just fine.

Of course the others are. I addressed the article but you kept deleting. 

Why are you a moderator if this is the way you behave?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

The above is the snarky comment from the article, below is what MSNBC unwittingly mentioned about heavily restricted gun ownership in Venezuela.  I know Venezuela is a kleptocracy and this could never happen in the US, but the erosion of individual rights is the catalyst to a state owned government.  JMO.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/msnbc-gives-quick-minute-and-a-half-lesson-on-the-need-for-our-second-amendment

But again, you are swinging to an extreme here.  He didn't say "no gun ownership" or anything close to it.  It's a shot at our priorities - at people who don't give a s*** about the other important things that he talks about that make for a good society but will fight to the death to prevent even the smallest of gun regulations.  It's hyperbole to make a point.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Just now, AFTiger said:

Of course the others are. I addressed the article but you kept deleting. 

Why are you a moderator if this is the way you behave?

Moderators moderate.  You didn't address the article, which is why I kept deleting.  Go away.  You're wasting my time.

[homersapien 11,388]

2 hours ago, maxwere said:

How do you propose we discern the difference between public investment and wasteful spending (special interest)?

You answer your own question with "special interest".

But generally speaking, sometimes we can't.  Mistakes are sometimes made for the right motivations but bad policy.  There is always the possibility of unforeseen consequences. (Such as "high rise" public housing.) The government is staffed by people and controlled by people, both of whom are capable of making mistakes.  We cannot avoid that fact.

But there are areas - such as education, basic research and infrastructure - that are clearly good investments, even if the devil is in the details.  Tax cuts for the wealthy and relying on the private sector for executing what should be the government's responsibility is a recipe for corruption and failure.

And to answer your question directly, one of the mistakes of our current government is failure to mobilize scientific and technical expertise by staffing key positions with political appointees rather than experts in the field. 

This is just one of the things noted in "The Price of Civilization" (Sachs) regarding changing our government for the better.

Sorry for the back and forth answer, but it's a very broad question you ask.

 

[homersapien 11,388]

23 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

If you find yourself unable, or more accurately unwilling, to engage with the article, move along.  Others are doing just fine.

Well, AF was doing an excellent job of confirming the point of the article.

[homersapien 11,388]

26 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The above is the snarky comment from the article, below is what MSNBC unwittingly mentioned about heavily restricted gun ownership in Venezuela.  I know Venezuela is a kleptocracy and this could never happen in the US, but the erosion of individual rights is the catalyst to a state owned government.  JMO.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/msnbc-gives-quick-minute-and-a-half-lesson-on-the-need-for-our-second-amendment

 

Validating the "snarky" comment. 

Irony.

[I_M4_AU 7,857]

9 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

But again, you are swinging to an extreme here.  He didn't say "no gun ownership" or anything close to it.  It's a shot at our priorities - at people who don't give a s*** about the other important things that he talks about that make for a good society but will fight to the death to prevent even the smallest of gun regulations.  It's hyperbole to make a point.

His whole opinion piece is filled with hyperbole.  How can anyone take an opinion seriously that calls AOC clever and has moral vitality?  If he is arguing that health care has the same priority or higher priority than the 2A, I still disagree as gun rights are spelled out as a basic right in the Constitution.  Is health of the nation, and more accurately stated the cost of health care, something that should be provided by our government?  Is it a “right” to have health care?  It wouldn’t even be an issue if the costs were not so extreme.

We all try to muddle through life the best we can and s*** happens.  Is the government responsible for decision I make that are detrimental to my health?  Is it responsible if I’m predisposed to have a heart condition?  I’m conflicted on this one.  The insurance companies have actuarial tables that are accurate and that’s why the cost of your supplemental insurance to Medicare can be relatively cheap or not even affordable.  Does your age have a bearing on what treatment is available to an individual?  Is the health care going to be under government control with out private insurance?  Look at the VA for your answer to how that would run.  It’s not as simple as yeah, give me free stuff.

I will say that childhood cancer/diseases/birth defects should be in a category that should not bankrupt a family and should be provided by the government.  

[I_M4_AU 7,857]

36 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Validating the "snarky" comment. 

Irony.

The snarky comment was in reference to Titan’s response to my post earlier. Maybe a little too nuanced. 

[homersapien 11,388]

7 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The snarky comment was in reference to Titan’s response to my post earlier. Maybe a little too nuanced. 

Here's your quote I responded to:

"The above is the snarky comment from the article, below is what MSNBC unwittingly mentioned about heavily restricted gun ownership in Venezuela."

No nuance there.  Perhaps you are confused.

[homersapien 11,388]

14 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

His whole opinion piece is filled with hyperbole.  How can anyone take an opinion seriously that calls AOC clever and has moral vitality?  If he is arguing that health care has the same priority or higher priority than the 2A, I still disagree as gun rights are spelled out as a basic right in the Constitution.  Is health of the nation, and more accurately stated the cost of health care, something that should be provided by our government?  Is it a “right” to have health care?  It wouldn’t even be an issue if the costs were not so extreme.

 

Seriously? 

Damn man. 

And again, you reinforce what the article said about people like you regarding your guns.

(Another shooting - at UNC Charlotte - yesterday, btw)

[I_M4_AU 7,857]

23 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

The author dared make a snarky comment about our priorities using our love of guns and like you say, he went and proved my point that no one cares to think beyond extremes. Any criticism of the priority we place on gun rights means “SOCIALISM OMZG!”

 

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Here's your quote I responded to:

"The above is the snarky comment from the article, below is what MSNBC unwittingly mentioned about heavily restricted gun ownership in Venezuela."

No nuance there.  Perhaps you are confused.

No, not confused. The first quote is from Titan remarking on my original post using the word snarky.

[I_M4_AU 7,857]

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Seriously? 

Damn man. 

And again, you reinforce what the article said about people like you regarding your guns.

(Another shooting at UNC Charlotte yesterday, btw)

Interesting enough, Charlotte is right down the road from where I live and it was all over the news yesterday.  Apparently, the police didn’t arrest the gun, they arrested the man who shot the gun.  How odd is that?

[AFTiger 282]

Well there is moderating and then there is censoring.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

38 minutes ago, AFTiger said:

Well there is moderating and then there is censoring.

For the last time: Titan is not censoring you.  He has bluntly stated more than once that if AGW is an important topic to you, feel free to start your own thread and everyone can discuss there.  That's the furthest thing from censorship that you can get.  If fact, by starting a thread, you get the unique opportunity to frame the discussion.

Your interactions thus far in this thread have nothing to do with the topic at hand.  Read the rules of the forum dude.

[homersapien 11,388]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Interesting enough, Charlotte is right down the road from where I live and it was all over the news yesterday.  Apparently, the police didn’t arrest the gun, they arrested the man who shot the gun.  How odd is that?

What an absolutely mindless response.

Too bad for these terrorists that grenades aren't legal. 

But even then, they would have arrested the man and not the grenade. 

 

[homersapien 11,388]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

No, not confused. The first quote is from Titan remarking on my original post using the word snarky.

Yeah, you are confused.

[I_M4_AU 7,857]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

What an absolutely mindless response.

Too bad for these terrorists that grenades aren't legal. 

But even then, they would have arrested the man and not the grenade. 

 

See, satire does work.  Complaining about guns has no value, it’s the person pulling the trigger.  It’s the person driving drunk, not the car. Etc.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

23 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

For the last time: Titan is not censoring you.  He has bluntly stated more than once that if AGW is an important topic to you, feel free to start your own thread and everyone can discuss there.  That's the furthest thing from censorship that you can get.  If fact, by starting a thread, you get the unique opportunity to frame the discussion.

Your interactions thus far in this thread have nothing to do with the topic at hand.  Read the rules of the forum dude.

Feels much more dramatic to claim persecution. 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

1 hour ago, AFTiger said:

Well there is moderating and then there is censoring.

Yeah, you’re so censored, you’ve been invited two or three times to post your complete unabridged thoughts in another thread all its own.

Move on. 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

16 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

See, satire does work.  Complaining about guns has no value, it’s the person pulling the trigger.  It’s the person driving drunk, not the car. Etc.

Do you think the right to bear arms should extend to RPG’s and missile batteries the same way it does guns?

[AUDub 11,153]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Do you think the right to bear arms should extend to RPG’s and missile batteries the same way it does guns?

Shitpost incoming. 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,857]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Do you think the right to bear arms should extend to RPG’s and missile batteries the same way it does guns?

No, no I don’t. An individual can’t own a automatic weapon without sever scrutiny, I imagine an RPG or missile batteries would be a step or two above those weapons.  I wouldn’t mind owning a fully functional A4, I just could afford to operate and maintain it.  Then again, I doubt it is “legal” to own a fully functional A4 as it too. is fully automatic.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

30 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

No, no I don’t. An individual can’t own a automatic weapon without sever scrutiny, I imagine an RPG or missile batteries would be a step or two above those weapons.  I wouldn’t mind owning a fully functional A4, I just could afford to operate and maintain it.  Then again, I doubt it is “legal” to own a fully functional A4 as it too. is fully automatic.

Ok.  So we at least agree that some kind of restrictions are reasonable.  The 2A doesn't give everyone unfettered access to all arms.

I think you should view Hart's comments through that same prism.  He's not arguing "gun ownership = bad."  He's arguing in that section that he feels our gun laws are too lax and we are paying the price for it.  That doesn't mean we "blame the gun," it's just a recognition that modern guns  need some regulation and that perhaps (at least in his opinion) we aren't striking the correct balance right now.

[maxwere 82]

@homersapien I’d disagree with you that education, infrastructure... are special cases where the public sector is qualified to make investments.  Those have empirically proven to be horrible examples.

[ShocksMyBrain 9,367]

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Feels much more dramatic to claim persecution. 

He’s got PT syndrome.