Hickenlooper blows it in CA, gets booed

[JoeB131]

This is why we don't have any respect for you stupid Moon Bats. You always go into your denial mode when Liberal polices fail.

You assholes knew it was the Democrat CRA that cause the economy bust in 2008 and you shitheads controlled Congress but being the partisan assholes you are you came up with some stupid idea to blame Bush.

Um. Yeah, Bush was president. And even though a lot of economists were warning that the banks were undercapitalized and misrepresenting the values of their NON-CRA mortgages, he and his treasury department and FEC and FDIC and FSLIC did nothing to step in and stop the practices.

Congress doesn't manage the agencies... that's the executive.

 

[Polishprince]

But the Democratic Party isn't moving Left, or so I'm told.

What was he thinking? Doesn't he know what has happened to his party?

Hickenlooper Booed When He Tells California Democrats Socialism 'Is Not The Answer' | HuffPost
.

In 2012 at the Democrat National Convention, the delegates booed Almighty God.

Of course Almighty God is an ultra conservative. Gov. Hickenlooper is a leftist who had a few second of mental clarity. The fact they were booing him does show a move to the left.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Goofball!
.

So you are seriously going to argue that Republicans want anarchy, and that they are ruining the economy because they don't expand welfare and increase regulations?

No, I wasn't planning on it. That's just hyperbole on your part poorly disguised as a serious question.
.

At least don't act like low regulations are a bad thing. It is also interesting that you think Republicans mock the lower economic class. I don't know about everyone else, but it is my view that you give everyone a chance to succeed. I don't see that as mocking. Also, we already have medicare, medicaid, and disability. I'm not sure how lower economic classes are being mistreated.

Yes, under-regulations can be a very bad thing, as we clearly saw in the years leading up the Meltdown in 2008. I'll be more than happy to provide some examples upon request; I'll just take them from the seminar I do on the topic.

And yes, mocking would include calling people "freeloaders", which we see on this site and in conservative media with great regularity.
.

2008 was caused by allowing unchecked greed to be confused with a solid economy

No.
2008 was caused by runaway corruption. And, as I am sure you are aware of, of the three "God-head" of the housing crises, 2 were Democrats.
1) Larry Summers "King of the Derivatives" - it was Larry Summers who pressured the Fed/Clinton White House to remove the derivative markets from SEC over watch and wholesale deregulation of these markets. This was the very vehicle investment banks used to break mortgage securities into 1,000's of pieces to be traded. (Larry Summers himself made $millions in the very markets he deregulated.)
2) Robert Rubin He was instrumental in the smoke and mirror tactics used by the Clinton White House in their constant denial of the looming crises. It is absolutely impossible that he did not know the markets were in a dramatic bubble...but continued to make $millions of these markets and conveniently sheltered his investments before the collapse occurred.

Larry Summers, IMO, is the most corrupt official in modern history. I can't think of anyone who was more corrupt than him. And OBAMA SOUGHT TO MAKE HIM SECY TREASURY.

 

[JoeB131]

So you are seriously going to argue that Republicans want anarchy, and that they are ruining the economy because they don't expand welfare and increase regulations?

No, I wasn't planning on it. That's just hyperbole on your part poorly disguised as a serious question.
.

At least don't act like low regulations are a bad thing. It is also interesting that you think Republicans mock the lower economic class. I don't know about everyone else, but it is my view that you give everyone a chance to succeed. I don't see that as mocking. Also, we already have medicare, medicaid, and disability. I'm not sure how lower economic classes are being mistreated.

Yes, under-regulations can be a very bad thing, as we clearly saw in the years leading up the Meltdown in 2008. I'll be more than happy to provide some examples upon request; I'll just take them from the seminar I do on the topic.

And yes, mocking would include calling people "freeloaders", which we see on this site and in conservative media with great regularity.
.

2008 was caused by allowing unchecked greed to be confused with a solid economy

No.
2008 was caused by runaway corruption. And, as I am sure you are aware of, of the three "God-head" of the housing crises, 2 were Democrats.
1) Larry Summers "King of the Derivatives" - it was Larry Summers who pressured the Fed/Clinton White House to remove the derivative markets from SEC over watch and wholesale deregulation of these markets. This was the very vehicle investment banks used to break mortgage securities into 1,000's of pieces to be traded. (Larry Summers himself made $millions in the very markets he deregulated.)
2) Robert Rubin He was instrumental in the smoke and mirror tactics used by the Clinton White House in their constant denial of the looming crises. It is absolutely impossible that he did not know the markets were in a dramatic bubble...but continued to make $millions of these markets and conveniently sheltered his investments before the collapse occurred.

Larry Summers, IMO, is the most corrupt official in modern history. I can't think of anyone who was more corrupt than him. And OBAMA SOUGHT TO MAKE HIM SECY TREASURY.

Neither of those guys were in charge when the market crashed.

"Blaming the last guy" works for only about a year or two. Then you own it.

Bush owned it.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

No, dummy, it means that I've actually gotten out of the basement and done stuff, unlike you who lives in someone's basement wanking off to Hentai.

An adhom attack, so original and innovative. I know, call me a gaywad next, it'll make your argument so much stronger.

I'm sure the government keeps all sorts of secrets from me... and I'm kind of fine with that. If I don't need to know, I make sure no one tells me. But when you Sandy Hook nuts try to claim that the government staged and elaborate hoax for... um reasons, and the NRA was in on it, that's just.. silly.

Making Dale Smith seem sane isn't an accomplishment.

So, you understand that a conspiracy isn't controversial, because that's exactly what that is. An organization planning something in secret. So, you ACKNOWLEDGE that calling something a conspiracy is not an argument and does not discredit the notion.

Calling people nuts and completely ignoring the argument surrounding the claim only looks like an admission that you don't have an argument against the notion, since if you did, you wouldn't have to keep misrepresenting the argument.

Uh, yeah, the gun lobby writes legislation to make it easy for people to get guns, when most of us think it should be HARD to get a gun. The thing is, the government isn't monopolizing guns. They are justmaking half-assed efforts to keep them out of the hands of crazies like most of the NRA membership.

Except gun legislation makes it harder to get guns, otherwise the legislation wouldn't exist. I even showed you the legislation that they helped write, and you're totally ignoring that. As with the last time you brought this up, you're totally misrepresenting the argument, you're constructing a strawman. One of the pieces of legislation they supported was the Red Flag Law introduced by Marco Rubio, which is meant to make it easier to take guns away from people.

They are monopolizing guns, because as previously demonstrated directly to you, numerous times, gun laws do not work, except on people who are making an active effort to follow those laws. ESPECIALLY since people can literally print guns, and especially since they're easier to make than drugs, which ALSO commonplace despite being illegal.

Horseshit. Government regulation protects consumers. The problem is, the banks spend a lot of money watering down legislation as much as they can. Banking SHOULD be boring. After the 1929 Depression, we wrote a bunch of very sensible laws to keep the banks from doing what they did. Yes, the banks were insured, but they were also regulated.

Kind of like any other sensible insurance plan. You don't take unnecessary risks.

The problem was that from 1980 onwards, the GOP has worked very hard to undo those regulations, and 1990 and 2008 were the results.

Government regulations naturally make it more difficult to conduct business, and make production and distribution more expensive. This has an adverse effect on smaller businesses, due to being less established and having less money available. This causes the cost of products to increase, which hurts consumers, making fewer products available to lower income families. This is only worsened by the fact that regulations include red tape which prevents competitors from entering the markets.

No law is sensible, because if an action was sensible, people would naturally take that action, as it would be in their self-interest. "Sensible law" is an oxymoronic term with no explanatory power.

In days with fewer regulations, insurance didn't exist, because products were cheap enough that it wasn't in demand. Government regulation literally created demand for that industry, due to cost of living becoming more expensive.

The GOP does not try to remove Regulations, that claim is outright false. Regulations increase regardless of which party is in control, because they're both exactly the same outside of how they present themselves.

 

[JoeB131]

An adhom attack, so original and innovative. I know, call me a gaywad next, it'll make your argument so much stronger.

Naw, man, your AVI is a dead giveaway to your deviations.

So, you understand that a conspiracy isn't controversial, because that's exactly what that is. An organization planning something in secret. So, you ACKNOWLEDGE that calling something a conspiracy is not an argument and does not discredit the notion.

Calling people nuts and completely ignoring the argument surrounding the claim only looks like an admission that you don't have an argument against the notion, since if you did, you wouldn't have to keep misrepresenting the argument.

Naw, Hentai Row, there's a big difference between realizing the government has to keep secrets to protect the people who do the hard work of safeguarding the rest of us, and thinking that there's a vast conspiracy to fake a mass shooting for...um... reasons. (I've yet to hear a Sandy Hoaxer tell me me why the government went through all this trouble.)

For instance, I really don't need to know the mechanical workings of the F-35. That's a secret. I'm good with that.

But if you are going to claim that hard working first responders who had the worst day of their life in Sandy Hook were all "Faking it", you'd better give me a damned good reason why they did it. Otherwise, I'll just put you in with the flat earthers and other nuts. Actually, you are a little worse than that, because the Flat Earthers, for all their stupidity, aren't malicious.

Except gun legislation makes it harder to get guns, otherwise the legislation wouldn't exist. I even showed you the legislation that they helped write, and you're totally ignoring that. As with the last time you brought this up, you're totally misrepresenting the argument, you're constructing a strawman. One of the pieces of legislation they supported was the Red Flag Law introduced by Marco Rubio, which is meant to make it easier to take guns away from people.

Holy shit, seriously? SOME PEOPLE NEED THEIR GUNS TAKEN AWAY!!!! I'm sorry you don't get this. The problem is, it's too easy for these people to get guns to start with, which is why we have 34,000 gun deaths every year.

They are monopolizing guns, because as previously demonstrated directly to you, numerous times, gun laws do not work,

Gun Laws work just fine in Japan, Germany, Italy, the UK, Canada, etc. ONLY the United States has the high-octane crazy of "We are going to let you own a gun because the Founding Fathers said something about militias"

Government regulations naturally make it more difficult to conduct business, and make production and distribution more expensive. This has an adverse effect on smaller businesses, due to being less established and having less money available. This causes the cost of products to increase, which hurts consumers, making fewer products available to lower income families. This is only worsened by the fact that regulations include red tape which prevents competitors from entering the markets.

Again, government regulations make sure that some fly-by-night operator isn't selling me defective products or incompetent services. These are GOOD things. I kind of like the fact that I can go to the store today, and the meat won't give me botulism or salmonella because, hey, the USDA and FDA put on regulations and inspections.

In days with fewer regulations, insurance didn't exist, because products were cheap enough that it wasn't in demand. Government regulation literally created demand for that industry, due to cost of living becoming more expensive.

Okay, let's look at that. Before we had an FDA, it was very common for "snake oil salesmen" to sell people cocaine laced home remedies that boy, made people feel better, but had absolutely no medical value.

Before we had a FSLIC and FDIC and Federal Reserve, you had banks that routinely ripped people off. My very favorite story was the Kirkland Bank Scam, run by Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church, which filled strongboxes full of sand, and spread a layer of gold coins on top to convince stupid people to deposit their money while they were issued worthless gold certificates.

The GOP does not try to remove Regulations, that claim is outright false. Regulations increase regardless of which party is in control, because they're both exactly the same outside of how they present themselves.

Oh, I agree, entirely. Regulations increase when the GOP is charge because they are taking care of their corporate masters. That doesn't mean we don't need regulations.

 

[Mac1958]

So you are seriously going to argue that Republicans want anarchy, and that they are ruining the economy because they don't expand welfare and increase regulations?

No, I wasn't planning on it. That's just hyperbole on your part poorly disguised as a serious question.
.

At least don't act like low regulations are a bad thing. It is also interesting that you think Republicans mock the lower economic class. I don't know about everyone else, but it is my view that you give everyone a chance to succeed. I don't see that as mocking. Also, we already have medicare, medicaid, and disability. I'm not sure how lower economic classes are being mistreated.

Yes, under-regulations can be a very bad thing, as we clearly saw in the years leading up the Meltdown in 2008. I'll be more than happy to provide some examples upon request; I'll just take them from the seminar I do on the topic.

And yes, mocking would include calling people "freeloaders", which we see on this site and in conservative media with great regularity.
.

2008 was caused by allowing unchecked greed to be confused with a solid economy

No.
2008 was caused by runaway corruption. And, as I am sure you are aware of, of the three "God-head" of the housing crises, 2 were Democrats.
1) Larry Summers "King of the Derivatives" - it was Larry Summers who pressured the Fed/Clinton White House to remove the derivative markets from SEC over watch and wholesale deregulation of these markets. This was the very vehicle investment banks used to break mortgage securities into 1,000's of pieces to be traded. (Larry Summers himself made $millions in the very markets he deregulated.)
2) Robert Rubin He was instrumental in the smoke and mirror tactics used by the Clinton White House in their constant denial of the looming crises. It is absolutely impossible that he did not know the markets were in a dramatic bubble...but continued to make $millions of these markets and conveniently sheltered his investments before the collapse occurred.

Larry Summers, IMO, is the most corrupt official in modern history. I can't think of anyone who was more corrupt than him. And OBAMA SOUGHT TO MAKE HIM SECY TREASURY.

Summers and Rubin convinced Clinton to go along with, and sign, the repeal of Glass Steagall.

More deregulation for deregulation's sake.

That was a bad ******* move, and a key precursor to the Meltdown.
.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Naw, man, your AVI is a dead giveaway to your deviations.

I guess having good artwork for my Avatar makes me a deviant. Best warn everyone else on the forum, champ.

The fact that you do this in place of an argument only shows you're not arguing in good faith.

Naw, Hentai Row, there's a big difference between realizing the government has to keep secrets to protect the people who do the hard work of safeguarding the rest of us, and thinking that there's a vast conspiracy to fake a mass shooting for...um... reasons. (I've yet to hear a Sandy Hoaxer tell me me why the government went through all this trouble.)

For instance, I really don't need to know the mechanical workings of the F-35. That's a secret. I'm good with that.

But if you are going to claim that hard working first responders who had the worst day of their life in Sandy Hook were all "Faking it", you'd better give me a damned good reason why they did it. Otherwise, I'll just put you in with the flat earthers and other nuts. Actually, you are a little worse than that, because the Flat Earthers, for all their stupidity, aren't malicious.

You, once again, misrepresented the arguing. This kind of hints that you're fully aware you're wrong and don't care. I guess you really get off on being a dishonest snake.

Since you're avoiding mentioning it, I'll go ahead and state it for the audience; Much like what was planned for Operation Northwoods, the Government tends to stage false flags in order to progress its agenda. This was already proven with he ChurchChrist shooting, due to the numerous major inconsistencies in the narrative, and the passage of Gun Monopolization legislation immediately after. This was also shown when the video footage of the Boarderline Shooting didn't match the mainstream media's agreed-upon narrative. In other words, in order to get people to believe that there's a demand for gun monopolization laws, the Government had been staging false flag operations. You only claim that you haven't heard a reason in order to strawman those you disagree with.

Other people WOULD need to know the inner workings of the F-35, not knowing doesn't help anyone, and knowing could result in innovation. For example, the GPS when released to the public, became what we know it as today, for helping people find their destinations.

All that's required for anyone to lie is enough money, and the Government tends to steal and print enough of it, while also tricking people into believing it has value. Saying they're "Hard-working" and had "the worst day of their lives" is just an appeal to emotion, and has no argumentative power behind it whatsoever.

You'll have to prove I'm malicious. Go on, I'd love to hear how I, someone who believes in voluntary association, is malicious to an individual who believes in the initiation of force against innocent people.

Holy shit, seriously? SOME PEOPLE NEED THEIR GUNS TAKEN AWAY!!!! I'm sorry you don't get this. The problem is, it's too easy for these people to get guns to start with, which is why we have 34,000 gun deaths every year.

Once again, since this seems to fly over your head every time, Gun Monopolization only results in "law"-abiding citizens having a harder time getting firearms through legal channels, it in no way stops anyone who doesn't care about the law. You can see this with drugs, you just choose to ignore it because you're a dishonest snake and it goes against the narrative you're pushing.

No, though, nobody needs their guns taken away. Nobody should decide what anyone is allowed to purchase with the fruits of their labor, and nobody should decide what they do with their property, least of all the Government. Everyone has the right to their own property as an extension of their self-ownership, and nobody is entitled to anyone else's property.

I also want to point out that you totally ignored the point and went straight for screeching about how the Government should steal people's property, rather than addressing that the Red Flag law is supported by an organization which claims to be for gun rights. I'll take that as you conceding the point.

Gun Laws work just fine in Japan, Germany, Italy, the UK, Canada, etc. ONLY the United States has the high-octane crazy of "We are going to let you own a gun because the Founding Fathers said something about militias"

Gun Laws do not work in any of the above, because once again, there is literally no way to prevent people from constructing their own guns or buying them off the black market, this is why they're referred to as "untraceable ghost guns". Not only did you claim they work in those places without demonstrating this claim, you neglected to explain how they supposedly work. Another case of you completely fabricating claims.

Again, government regulations make sure that some fly-by-night operator isn't selling me defective products or incompetent services. These are GOOD things. I kind of like the fact that I can go to the store today, and the meat won't give me botulism or salmonella because, hey, the USDA and FDA put on regulations and inspections.

If a business were selling defective products, nobody would by from them and their business would go under. There's no demand for salmonella or botulism-ridden food, therefor any services which sell such food would go under, resulting in a loss on their investment. There's an entire industry for testing products, to ensure quality, and there's competition in that industry, unlike the FDA, which makes its money regardless of performance. I'd be amazed that this is a foreign concept to you, but you've proved to lack basic understanding of the market and the forces therein. All the FDA does is couple itself with patents and copyright in order to gatekeep products and services, increasing prices.

Okay, let's look at that. Before we had an FDA, it was very common for "snake oil salesmen" to sell people cocaine laced home remedies that boy, made people feel better, but had absolutely no medical value.

Before we had a FSLIC and FDIC and Federal Reserve, you had banks that routinely ripped people off. My very favorite story was the Kirkland Bank Scam, run by Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church, which filled strongboxes full of sand, and spread a layer of gold coins on top to convince stupid people to deposit their money while they were issued worthless gold certificates.

You did literally nothing to back up that claim, you merely claimed it and moved on. You didn't specify a time period, nor a reason, you merely claimed it and hoped everyone would accept it.

When was this rampant fake service and product-providing? Could it have been before word spread through the internet that products were bad? Could it have been when the Government was literally outlawing competition during the "Gilded Age"? If either one of those is what you're referring to, I just refuted both arguments, as one way it's the Government's doing, again, and the other we've already innovated that problem out of existence, outside of Government interference undermining the will of consumers.

With the existence of all three of those, we already STILL have scams, and a lot of them are perpetrated by the Government, such as Social Security, which is a literal ponzi scheme. The existence of the American Dollar, which is actually worthless, and after its creation, gold and silver were confiscated by the Federal Government. Oh, and also every single social program that the Government is a part of. The difference is that it's the fault of the person getting scammed if they fall for it voluntarily, while in the case of the Government, they're coerced into it. The only difference now is that we have scams the Government approves of instead.

Oh, I agree, entirely. Regulations increase when the GOP is charge because they are taking care of their corporate masters. That doesn't mean we don't need regulations.

Except both parties are exactly the same, and both work for the Government, in the interests of the Government. The only difference is that the Republicans pretend they're for less Government, while the Democrats don't even pretend. It's another case of pretending your preferred party is totally innocent, while projecting all of its flaws onto the other.

 

[JoeB131]

I guess having good artwork for my Avatar makes me a deviant. Best warn everyone else on the forum, champ.

The fact that you do this in place of an argument only shows you're not arguing in good faith.

Naw, man, tells me what I need to know. You weigh 400 lbs and wank off to Hentai.

Since you're avoiding mentioning it, I'll go ahead and state it for the audience; Much like what was planned for Operation Northwoods, the Government tends to stage false flags in order to progress its agenda.

Okay, I really don't need to rehash your ******* crazy. Operation Northwoods wasn't what you crazies claim it was. It was also 60 years ago...

Other people WOULD need to know the inner workings of the F-35, not knowing doesn't help anyone, and knowing could result in innovation. For example, the GPS when released to the public, became what we know it as today, for helping people find their destinations.

I'd be more worried about people being able to shoot it down. It's a need to know situation, and you don't need to know.

Once again, since this seems to fly over your head every time, Gun Monopolization only results in "law"-abiding citizens having a harder time getting firearms through legal channels, it in no way stops anyone who doesn't care about the law.

One more time, dummy. IT SHOULD BE HARD TO GET A GUN. It should be VERY VERY HARD. Before the Army gave me a gun, they did a massive background check, they gave my psychological and aptitude tests, and then they made sure I had a lot of training.

Most gun violence is not criminals, its suicides, domestic violence and accidents. If we could just concentrate on the few thousand criminal gun homicides, made a lot less because it's now harder for those guys to get guns, the police could do more prevention and less damage control. What a concept.

un Laws do not work in any of the above, because once again, there is literally no way to prevent people from constructing their own guns or buying them off the black market, this is why they're referred to as "untraceable ghost guns". Not only did you claim they work in those places without demonstrating this claim, you neglected to explain how they supposedly work. Another case of you completely fabricating claims.

Japan had 3 gun homicides in 2017.
The United States had close to 15,000.

Gun Deaths Increased in 2017, Gun Violence Archive Data Show

Gun control works just fine.

When was this rampant fake service and product-providing? Could it have been before word spread through the internet that products were bad? Could it have been when the Government was literally outlawing competition during the "Gilded Age"? If either one of those is what you're referring to, I just refuted both arguments, as one way it's the Government's doing, again, and the other we've already innovated that problem out of existence, outside of Government interference undermining the will of consumers.

yeah, here's the problem with that. I could make Dr. Mike's Snake Oil look like the best product in the world. All I have to do is create a lot of fake internet profiles and then write a lot of really wonderful reviews about how it changed my life. By the time the internet caught up with me, all I would have to do is start a new Product called "Dr. Joe's Wonder Cure" that's really the same ******* snake oil in a new label. What keeps me from doing that is the FDA would put a stop to it if what I was selling was truly dangerous.

I have this dream... that we take all the libertarian assholes. Put a Trumpian Fence around one of the square states. They only get out if they sign a paper to pay a much higher tax rate and stop bitching about the government. Otherwise, they pretty much stay in the square, and whatever abuse they inflict on each other is totally not my problem.

If Libertarianism is such a wonderful idea, why has it NEVER, EVER been tried. I mean, even the bad ideas like Communism and Fascism get a workout.

 

[JoeB131]

With the existence of all three of those, we already STILL have scams, and a lot of them are perpetrated by the Government, such as Social Security, which is a literal ponzi scheme. The existence of the American Dollar, which is actually worthless, and after its creation, gold and silver were confiscated by the Federal Government. Oh, and also every single social program that the Government is a part of. The difference is that it's the fault of the person getting scammed if they fall for it voluntarily, while in the case of the Government, they're coerced into it. The only difference now is that we have scams the Government approves of instead.

Actually, dummy, the ONLY problem with social security and medicare is that it worked too well.

Back in 1933 when Social Security started, the average life expectancy in the US was 62 years. The fact that your grandma didn't starve after retirement meant by 1965, the average life expectancy increased to 70. Thanks to Medicare given her access to health care the average life expectancy is now close to 80. So, yeah, SS is having money problems, partially because people are living longer, partially because the Republicans looted the social security trust fund to pay for wars and tax cuts for rich people. (As opposed to the Sainted FDR, who paid for a war by taxing the shit out of rich people, which is the proper way to do it.)

Again, the problem with libertarian children... they love Civilization, they just don't like doing any of the heavy lifting.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Naw, man, tells me what I need to know. You weigh 400 lbs and wank off to Hentai.

'Your mother is so fat, when she sits around the house, she REALLY sits around the house.'

Okay, I really don't need to rehash your ******* crazy. Operation Northwoods wasn't what you crazies claim it was. It was also 60 years ago...

The operation being proposed 60 years ago really doesn't mean anything, the fact that it was proposed at all, and the person who said no ended up dead, tells us all we need to know about the official narrative. There's also the inconsistencies you failed to address every time I bring up ChurchChrist and Boarderline. Calling someone crazy doesn't refute their argument, it's just an adhom attack, which is all you seem to have.

I'd be more worried about people being able to shoot it down. It's a need to know situation, and you don't need to know.

Except letting the schematics into the private sector would only result in better designs. Much like with open source programs. The recent situation with Brave showed that if a program is closed-source, it always has something to hide, because open source programs have bugs fixed usually in a week at most. Designs for physical things are the same way; If more people have access to it, those who are strong in the field and have a passion for it will improve it.

One more time, dummy. IT SHOULD BE HARD TO GET A GUN. It should be VERY VERY HARD. Before the Army gave me a gun, they did a massive background check, they gave my psychological and aptitude tests, and then they made sure I had a lot of training.

Except no, the point you keep ignoring is that it only makes it hard for those that follow the law. People can literally print guns, and they were already easy to build before that. You consistently ignore this because, even if gun control was ever effective, and it wasn't, it shows that people with no skills in gun construction can just find the schematics online, which takes 30 seconds, and print them. Your Government is not omnipotent, they can only track those who aren't trying to avoid it. All gun monopolization does is create more victims.

Most gun violence is not criminals, its suicides, domestic violence and accidents. If we could just concentrate on the few thousand criminal gun homicides, made a lot less because it's now harder for those guys to get guns, the police could do more prevention and less damage control. What a concept.

I already proved that it's not hard for criminals to get guns, only "law"-abiding citizens.

Actually, the Road Pirates don't typically do prevention, they have a response time of roughly 15 minutes, and usually just handle the paper work after. that's probably why construction work is more dangerous than being a Road Pirate.

Japan had 3 gun homicides in 2017.
The United States had close to 15,000.

Gun Deaths Increased in 2017, Gun Violence Archive Data Show

Gun control works just fine.

Gun deaths means literally nothing, it's crime rates that matter. The term "Gun Death" or "Gun Violence" was purely constructed to carry a narrative, not to actually measure an activity. For example, as you just mentioned actually, in America, it includes suicides and accidents. Similarly, "School Shooting" also includes people killing themselves in the parking lot of a school, even though there are no victims. Specifying "Gun Deaths" excludes all other forms of crime, despite the fact that the goal of unholy crusade is supposedly to create less overall victims, supposedly not to disarm innocent people.

For example, in Europe, while crime rates were already trending downward, their gun buyback caused it to drastically increase, before resuming its trend. In other words, it caused more crime before 'normalizing'. This means, at best, it did nothing, but probably caused more sexual assault since that never recovered from the spike.

yeah, here's the problem with that. I could make Dr. Mike's Snake Oil look like the best product in the world. All I have to do is create a lot of fake internet profiles and then write a lot of really wonderful reviews about how it changed my life. By the time the internet caught up with me, all I would have to do is start a new Product called "Dr. Joe's Wonder Cure" that's really the same ******* snake oil in a new label. What keeps me from doing that is the FDA would put a stop to it if what I was selling was truly dangerous.

So, no citations for your claim regarding rampant fake services and products, noted.

That's already attempted online with piracy sites, which actually only carry viruses. Other people keep archives of which sites are virus sites and where they go afterwards. You also totally ignored the fact that, once again, there has never been a demand for the FDA because there's already a competition-filled industry that tests and reviews products, and it's demanded by businesses themselves. If people want to verify a product's authenticity, all they have to do is find these reviews. In fact, Steam, which sells numerous games by indy developers, already solved the problem you claimed exists by letting people view the actual comments on the games, their ratings in terms of positive and negative, etc. Actually bothering to view the comments shows you which ones are fake in the incredibly rare instance they have fake reviews. Not only this, Steam even made it harder to scam people, by allowing them to return the game if they don't like it.

Basically, businesses solve this problem themselves, because people not liking other similar products, because they were fake, makes them more skeptical of their genuine products, so they go to great lengths to prove what they're selling works, because their ultimate goal is profit, NOT to hurt people, despite what you seem to like to believe.

I have this dream... that we take all the libertarian assholes. Put a Trumpian Fence around one of the square states. They only get out if they sign a paper to pay a much higher tax rate and stop bitching about the government. Otherwise, they pretty much stay in the square, and whatever abuse they inflict on each other is totally not my problem.

So, you have a dream of herding everyone who disagrees with you into camps and blocking them off from resources, and only letting them out if they're adversely affected by your extortion.

That's just a typical statist, they all dream like that. Otherwise, they wouldn't attempt to use Government power to force their whims on others.

If Libertarianism is such a wonderful idea, why has it NEVER, EVER been tried. I mean, even the bad ideas like Communism and Fascism get a workout.

Neutral Moresnet, The Republic of Cospaia, Early Pennsylvania, Medieval Ireland. Just for a few examples, since you never bothered to educate yourself on the subject.

Also, "Why hasn't it been tried" is circular logic, anyway.

Actually, dummy, the ONLY problem with social security and medicare is that it worked too well.

Back in 1933 when Social Security started, the average life expectancy in the US was 62 years. The fact that your grandma didn't starve after retirement meant by 1965, the average life expectancy increased to 70. Thanks to Medicare given her access to health care the average life expectancy is now close to 80. So, yeah, SS is having money problems, partially because people are living longer, partially because the Republicans looted the social security trust fund to pay for wars and tax cuts for rich people. (As opposed to the Sainted FDR, who paid for a war by taxing the shit out of rich people, which is the proper way to do it.)

Actually, that's called innovation. Life expectancy has always trended upwards, due to innovation resulting in better quality of life, safer equipment, more advanced self defense tools, etc. There's literally nothing to indicate that the Government stealing your money for a ponzi scheme results in better life expectancy, it just didn't cause it to trend back downwards. Life expectancy increases by about 2-5 years every ten years.
https://www.seniorliving.org/history/1900-2000-changes-life-expectancy-united-states/

 

[Carl in Michigan]

I have this dream... that we take all the libertarian assholes. Put a Trumpian Fence around one of the square states. They only get out if they sign a paper to pay a much higher tax rate and stop bitching about the government. Otherwise, they pretty much stay in the square, and whatever abuse they inflict on each other is totally not my problem

I have pretty much the same dream, but I'd REALLY like to stop you tards from leaving the shitholes you've created, and stop you from moving to our low tax states. You destroy everywhere you gain political power.

 

[JoeB131]

he operation being proposed 60 years ago really doesn't mean anything, the fact that it was proposed at all, and the person who said no ended up dead, tells us all we need to know about the official narrative. There's also the inconsistencies you failed to address every time I bring up ChurchChrist and Boarderline. Calling someone crazy doesn't refute their argument, it's just an adhom attack, which is all you seem to have.

Well, the problem with that bit of crazy is that they would have talked the next guy into going along with it.... Since we didn't invade Cuba in 1964 after some false flag attacks, that tells me that the plan was never taken that seriously.. Maybe they just did it knowing the crazies would still be talking about it. . Kind of like Roswell.

So, you have a dream of herding everyone who disagrees with you into camps and blocking them off from resources, and only letting them out if they're adversely affected by your extortion.

That's just a typical statist, they all dream like that. Otherwise, they wouldn't attempt to use Government power to force their whims on others.

Wow- yeah, where do resources come from? They come from government creating the stability to produce them.

THis isn't complicated.

So, no citations for your claim regarding rampant fake services and products, noted.

Um, yeah, next you'll be asking me to prove World War II happened. I don't need citations for established history.

Also, do some ******* research. The reason why the FDA was established was because they were selling Cocaine as kid's medicine.

You know what, I'm on ******* vacation, I don't have the patience to deal with this today.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

You know what, I'm on ******* vacation, I don't have the patience to deal with this today

And yet you are

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, that's called innovation. Life expectancy has always trended upwards, due to innovation resulting in better quality of life, safer equipment, more advanced self defense tools, etc. There's literally nothing to indicate that the Government stealing your money for a ponzi scheme results in better life expectancy, it just didn't cause it to trend back downwards. Life expectancy increases by about 2-5 years every ten years.

Wow, you repeated my point and tried to spin it as an original idea.

Um, yeah, not eating dog food and being able to see a doctor really does contribute to people living longer. I know this is a difficult concept for a Liber-retard to grasp, as you guys think civilization happens through magic fairy dust.

I have pretty much the same dream, but I'd REALLY like to stop you tards from leaving the shitholes you've created, and stop you from moving to our low tax states. You destroy everywhere you gain political power.

Buddy, your "low tax states" are being subsidized by the feds. People in CA, NY, and IL only see 70 cents on the dollar returned to their states in Federal spending, while states like AL, MS and MT get more back than they send. They also have more people on welfare.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Actually, that's called innovation. Life expectancy has always trended upwards, due to innovation resulting in better quality of life, safer equipment, more advanced self defense tools, etc. There's literally nothing to indicate that the Government stealing your money for a ponzi scheme results in better life expectancy, it just didn't cause it to trend back downwards. Life expectancy increases by about 2-5 years every ten years.

Wow, you repeated my point and tried to spin it as an original idea.

Um, yeah, not eating dog food and being able to see a doctor really does contribute to people living longer. I know this is a difficult concept for a Liber-retard to grasp, as you guys think civilization happens through magic fairy dust.

I have pretty much the same dream, but I'd REALLY like to stop you tards from leaving the shitholes you've created, and stop you from moving to our low tax states. You destroy everywhere you gain political power.

Buddy, your "low tax states" are being subsidized by the feds. People in CA, NY, and IL only see 70 cents on the dollar returned to their states in Federal spending, while states like AL, MS and MT get more back than they send. They also have more people on welfare.

View attachment 264982

I thought you were on vacation.

Accept the beating you took like a man and enjoy your vacation

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Well, the problem with that bit of crazy is that they would have talked the next guy into going along with it.... Since we didn't invade Cuba in 1964 after some false flag attacks, that tells me that the plan was never taken that seriously.. Maybe they just did it knowing the crazies would still be talking about it. . Kind of like Roswell.

The chance had likely passed, not going along with the plan doesn't prove that similar plans hadn't taken place, especially given the ChurchChrist and Boarderline inconsistencies, it's pretty clear false flags still take place, only reinforced by information being taken down by the Government.

Wow- yeah, where do resources come from? They come from government creating the stability to produce them.

THis isn't complicated.

Government can't create resources, it only takes them. They're literally incapable of creating or properly allocating anything. Resources are natural to the earth, and if kept in one small area, would run out. Not for lack of Government, but from your ability to relocate and search elsewhere being impaired.

In other words; What happens to Panda Bears? They eat all of the bamboo in one spot, then starve to death and die. The only difference here is that the Panda Bear chooses not to leave, while herding people into camps prevents them from leaving.

Um, yeah, next you'll be asking me to prove World War II happened. I don't need citations for established history.

Established history has examples. It's not from "Everyone knows", it's from being able to cite specific events and results that support it happening.

For example, if I were to say "Everyone knows that the Government has admitted that Police don't have an obligation to protect you", it wouldn't mean anything. Meanwhile, I could say "The Government has no obligation to serve you, this is supported by these four cases in which this was concluded". Or to go along with your World War 2 example, I could say that there are historical records of Japan needing to be rebuilt, the bomb being dropped, Pearl Harbor being bombed, etc.

In short, you should have specific instances of this fraud taking place, or examples. Instead, you said "Everyone knows", which is fallacious.

Also, do some ******* research. The reason why the FDA was established was because they were selling Cocaine as kid's medicine.
View attachment 264893

You know what, I'm on ******* vacation, I don't have the patience to deal with this today.

That's not the reason the FDA was created, and if this was considered a problem, people would stop buying it. Once again, there's an entire industry for proving the authenticity of products, AND we have the internet now, where it's even easier to verify this. I actually refuted this claim in the post before last, where I specified that if it took place in a time there was no internet, the issue has already been innovated out of existence. Even if there was EVER a need for the FDA, and there isn't because they're the reason medicine is so expensive, the problem was solved through the internet. You know, if we ignore the Product Testing Industry.

Wow, you repeated my point and tried to spin it as an original idea.

How do people who can't read manage to get onto forums?

Anyway, what I said was that YES, people have been living longer, however this trend was happening before Social Security, if you bother to check my citations. People have always been living 2 years longer every ten years, roughly. The point in mentioning technological innovation was to explain why this is, and how it has nothing to do with Social Security. What happened was that Social Security was implemented and the trend merely continued, it did not start the trend. This just went over your head entirely because I explained the trend rather than claiming the trend isn't happening.

In other words, the trend was already happening, therefor showing Social Security is not the cause.

Um, yeah, not eating dog food and being able to see a doctor really does contribute to people living longer. I know this is a difficult concept for a Liber-retard to grasp, as you guys think civilization happens through magic fairy dust.

People are fully capable of saving money for themselves to prevent both, and actually the second problem is caused by the Government's interference in the medical industry making it more expensive. I'm also pretty sure greater medical knowledge, better medical equipment, better household appliances, better and safer transportation, all contributed to people living longer, not Government, since once again, they only cause people to have less money and get less for that money, due to the Economic Calculation Problem preventing people from getting equivalent exchange for their money.

I'd call you a retard back, but I don't want to be rude to retards, and it's not an argumentative component.

 

[JoeB131]

I thought you were on vacation.

Accept the beating you took like a man and enjoy your vacation

what beating? Listening to Libertarian Retards tell me how much better they'd be without government when if you dropped them in the woods, they'd starve in a week.

Established history has examples. I

Um, yeah, I gave you one... They used to give Cocaine to kids as toothache medicine. That's what happpens when you don't have standards.

That's not the reason the FDA was created, and if this was considered a problem, people would stop buying it. Once again, there's an entire industry for proving the authenticity of products, AND we have the internet now, where it's even easier to verify this.

Are you truly some kind of a retard. THe FDA was established EXACTLY for this reason. And, no, magic fairy market forces wouldn't have fixed the problem. The thing about these quack medicines is that they were so popular because they made people feel AWESOME!!!! They were actually bad for them, but they made people feel awesome.

Anyway, what I said was that YES, people have been living longer, however this trend was happening before Social Security, if you bother to check my citations.

I don't check citations from Crazy People. Not worth my ******* time. No, a population of people who live into their 80's is a new thing, brought to us by the fact that we support them now with SS and Medicare. This is a good thing, if you are a decent person.

People are fully capable of saving money for themselves to prevent both, and actually the second problem is caused by the Government's interference in the medical industry making it more expensive. I'm also pretty sure greater medical knowledge, better medical equipment, better household appliances, better and safer transportation, all contributed to people living longer, not Government, since once again, they only cause people to have less money and get less for that money, due to the Economic Calculation Problem preventing people from getting equivalent exchange for their money.

Here's the problem with THAT little bit of stupidity. The countries with stronger welfare states than ours have even longer life expectencies than we do. Meanwhile, the third world where they don't have these kinds of programs... people don't live as long.

Again, the problem with a Libertarian... they love civilization, they hate the heavy lifting.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Um, yeah, I gave you one... They used to give Cocaine to kids as toothache medicine. That's what happpens when you don't have standards.

You gave me one example, and didn't even say that it didn't solve toothaches. This wasn't a case of fraud.
Cocaine Tooth Powder – useful for toothache and spongy gums
Especially since the Government regulating it didn't even stop the use of such drugs as medicine, only caused people to need a prescription for it.

The only danger from it, apparently, was people being given too much, such as in the case of teachers using Coca Leaf Wine to quiet down kids. Otherwise, medical professionals pretty much used it in everything, and the Government seemed totally fine with that, since they didn't actually stop it, but continued its use. Not that their opinion on the subject is valuable to me, they're just thieves, murderers, and kidnappers, but I know how much you care about their opinions.

Are you truly some kind of a retard. THe FDA was established EXACTLY for this reason. And, no, magic fairy market forces wouldn't have fixed the problem. The thing about these quack medicines is that they were so popular because they made people feel AWESOME!!!! They were actually bad for them, but they made people feel awesome.

I could ask you the same thing, but it would be an insult to retards.

Since this apparently flies over your head, let me reiterate; Industries are a direct response to demand from the people, as a demand means profit incentive. What this means is that the product-testing industry is a response to consumer demand for people testing products for authenticity.

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

The Government, however, was proven not to respond to any demand, or the people at all. This shows that the FDA certainly was NOT created to protect the people. If it was, it wouldn't be gatekeeping the medicine industry, increasing prices, and creating monopolies, thus preventing low-income families from obtaining medicine for their sick. Your precious Government is the cause of what you're trying to blame the market for.

Also, referring to it as "Magic Fairy market forces" only shows you lack an argument to refute the results of market forces, this is just an attempt to discredit it, despite the fact that its effectiveness has proven time and again.

I don't check citations from Crazy People. Not worth my ******* time. No, a population of people who live into their 80's is a new thing, brought to us by the fact that we support them now with SS and Medicare. This is a good thing, if you are a decent person.

So much to unpack here.

First, calling me crazy doesn't discredit my argument, as if I was crazy, you'd be able to construct an argument against mine, rather than making an adhom attack.

If it wasn't worth your time, you wouldn't be responding to me at all. You didn't click my citations because they proved you wrong, not because it would waste your time, it was literally just a table showing the information being discussed, with the dates showing that the trend had been occurring long before the Government started its Ponzi Scheme.

I never denied that people weren't living longer, I proved the reason wasn't what you said it was, and showed/explained why. Your refusal to check the my citation is what made your response so nonsensical.

I already proved it was happening before the Government's Ponzi Scheme, restating that it's because of said Ponzi Scheme does not make it so.

Stating that a Ponzi Scheme is a good thing and that only decent people would support that specific brand of literal extortion is just an appeal to emotion. I don't support theft or extortion, therefor I do not support said Ponzi Scheme. You can consider me a bad person if you want, but ethical behavior does not include the initiation of force, objectively, so you'd be wrong.

Here's the problem with THAT little bit of stupidity. The countries with stronger welfare states than ours have even longer life expectencies than we do. Meanwhile, the third world where they don't have these kinds of programs... people don't live as long.

Again, the problem with a Libertarian... they love civilization, they hate the heavy lifting.

Oh, look, not a single citation to support this baseless claim.

I can, however, point at the rankings on the index of Economic Freedom and show that the places that show up near the top of the list and are also on the Index of Economic Freedom are more economically free than America:

I'd also like to point out that there are many other factors which affect life expectancy, such as whether or not the Government is regulating drugs, therefor creating a black market for them, like in Mexico. Also, whether or not a Government is disarming its populace through theft of their property, thus monopolizing guns, and making them easier targets for 'crime'.

One example is Chicago, they'd probably have higher life expectancy if the State Government didn't so heavily monopolize guns in that state, thus increasing crime.

I suppose what I'm trying to get at is, much like every other subject you touch, you're sticking blinders on and ranting about one factor, coming to the wrong conclusion on that factor, then eating letters and vomiting text into your posts.

 

[Mac1958]

They're trying to get Hickenlooper to run for a GOP Senate seat in Colorado.

He's wrecked his chances for the presidential nomination.