Bipartisan Senate group proposes ‘no fly, no buy’ gun measure

[Classic-Xer]

(11-13-2018, 07:20 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-12-2018, 08:18 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-05-2018, 05:12 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-05-2018, 02:53 AM)Galen Wrote: I am not opposed to free speech but the liberals and progressive currently are hostile to free speech.  The left these days label anything that someone says that they don't like as hate speech.

Rights have never guaranteed an ability to harm others.  What some libertarians call the right of free speech violates this principle.  They must want to harm others, which makes many reject their approach.  Government providing enforcement of rights is accepted.

(11-05-2018, 02:53 AM)Galen Wrote: It is not the job of the government to take from one group of people and give to another.  It wrong for an individual to do this and it is wrong for a group of people including a group called the government or the state.  Initiating force even to do something good is still wrong because it is a violation of the non-aggression principle.  This is why libertarians oppose the welfare state.  Just because the theft occurs at the hands of the state does not make theft any less wrong.

It is correct to acquire services through taxation given the bulk of the  people are willing to pay and everyone is represented.  Proverbially, taxes along with death are considered inevitable.  Many people are fine with this, which is why libertarians struggle.

We keep coming back to these same points, the eagerness to harm others, and the unwillingness to pay for the community.  These days, it is possible with computer networks to correct the latter, to pay taxes only for services sought and approved of.  If you would care to seek that, it could be done, but you don't seem eager to take that path.  

If you are just hostile and greedy, there is little more to be said.  You will remain in a tiny fringe minority.

There is a difference between funding roads, police forces, fire departments, the military and so forth and the funding of people primarily associated with the Democrats. Right now, the vast majority still views, still speaks and still acts as if government funding is associated with money that grows on trees or a debt that we won't have to answer and are so how or another immune to financially. In a decade or so, the American view of government funding is going to begin to drastically change whether we want it too, whether we'd like it too, whether we are able to comprehend and accept it or not.

I'm not worried about the Libertarians, the Libertarians are pretty much able to survive on their own. I'm not concerned about the Reds, the Reds are pretty resilient and more able to make do with whatever they have to work with and whatever's available to them and they're a very staunch group when it comes to protecting the things that they value the most and so forth. Right now, I don't see the Democratic party surviving the government crisis that's coming considering all the Democratic interests that will be at stake and understanding the obvious divide that exists between traditional Democratic voters and the liberal/blue voters.

What Republicans and Libertarians such as yourself always forget, although it is pointed out to you many times, is that funding people primarily associated with Democrats is 1) an insurance policy for everyone and 2) benefits the economy by giving money to people who spend it rather than giving breaks to people who don't (the trickle that doesn't trickle). Also, 3) spending on public education benefits everyone as well; a well-educated public is better informed and more prosperous and useful for businesses and creative of jobs and culture.

And again, in our era it is the Republicans who create the national debt, and Democrats who reduce it.

The insurance and economic spending  to people who spend it will be especially needed if the recession comes back in a big way, and it will be provided, as it was in 2009 for a little while.

No. The Republicans have increased it/ added to it by significantly lowering our taxes while the Democrats continued adding more social programs, adding more costs and increasing our amount of financial obligations to those who live abroad. You're fortunate, you might be dead by the time reality hits and  the Democratic voters find themselves having to make individual decisions based on the Democratic programs that they value the most as individuals.

Red America ain't going to have an illegal immigrant problem or refuge problem causing issues and adding more financial burdens to the issue of funding all the other programs primarily associated with the Democratic party or the funding of roads, police forces and so forth. OK. If you're interested in giving money to people to spend and that's pretty much what you see as being the basis for the bulk of the blue economy that you're associated with today. You should be able to keep it as the nation splits naturally as it's been doing for a while now. The Heartland Dem's gave you a breath of life but they turn out to be no better or no more capable or independent than the Democrats who were replaced by Republicans during the Obama years, you can expect those seats to go back to the Republicans in two years and you can expect to see Republicans who are more devoted to actually lowering the cost of healthcare for everyone who is actually PAYING FOR IT vs continuing providing it for those who are getting it for free. I don't get into playing fools games that liberals seem content with playing which is why I don't get into the Democratic party, don't get into to it's politics and don't even consider voting Democratic these days.

BTW, it's not that we forget, it's that we tend to ignore it because we understand the relationship between the blues and the systems that so many are now reliant upon these days. You see, we don't have and are not entitled to receive the so-called insurance that you often claim to be equally beneficial/ available for all of us.