Omerta+ 1,206 Posted May 28, 2018 Our country is and always has been socialist to a degree though. I think without discussing things with labels I'm sure that we could strike the right balance between a socialist nanny state and psychotic 100% Laissez Faire/free market barbarism. I don't want Marxism. I think competition and the ability to be rich does drive society to a degree but when 1 percent of the people take too big a slice of pie it creates a lot of problems for everyone and I don't think you would disagree with that. To a point you are correct. I think the whole idea of blindly wrenching the rich mans tit until he is just barely above the rest of us in income is a terrible idea. And that goes right along with the, he these guys are rich, I am not, thus they are the problem mentality sometimes it is correct, but more often than not it is self-righteous hand wringing by people who dont want to believe they are in charge of where they are at. the problem I have is who dictates when it is too big? Do we let the government decide, and if so, how do they do it? Would it be a percentage of their company, or of the GDP of the country? So lets look at Amazon and Walmart, both are shit head companies and should be broken into millions of pieces, however, lets change the scenario here. Lets say Bezos decide to stop being a douche bag for a moment, and pay his people a living wage. Lets say he unionizes and his employees have a total package of 60 dollars an hour and 30 on the check. So now he has taken care of his people to a very reasonable degree, and he would still be super fucking rich. Should he be obligate to help Wal-Mart employees on a Marxist system ? I just dont see a good way of doing it except unionizing everyone. Marxism does not really have a great stance upon unions though either, so I mean what do we do? And by the way before we hijack the thread, I would like to move it to the Trump thread, or maybe a whole new thread as Trump is not in control of everything and not responsible for every bad thing ever. Either way this thread is not the place imo. I would love to talk about it though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BwareDWare94 723 Posted May 30, 2018 (edited) If there's a best solution to this problem it's going to involve acknowledging realities on both sides of the political spectrum. The right will have to acknowledge that ease of access to firearms is a problem and that we can present legislation that doesn't affect 2A rights. The left will have to acknowledge that young men in particular benefit greatly from a 2 parent household with a male role model in place and that their attempts to tear apart traditional family values are abhorrent. Edited May 30, 2018 by BwareDWare94 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seanbrock 1,684 Posted May 30, 2018 (edited) You know what's fucked up? 98% of people in this country agree with all of that regardless of party. How many conservatives believe that we shouldn't bar some people from having guns or have some sort of vetting process to make sure crazy people don't get them? Very few. How many people on either side are there that haven't been affected by the social issues we've discussed not even just the 21st century family structure. Edited May 30, 2018 by seanbrock Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos 2,847 Posted May 31, 2018 (edited) I entirely disagree with that 98% of the people in the country figure. What does this even mean, Bware? The left will have to acknowledge that young men in particular benefit greatly from a 2 parent household with a male role model in place and that their attempts to tear apart traditional family values are abhorrent. Edited May 31, 2018 by Thanatos Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seanbrock 1,684 Posted May 31, 2018 You know that was hyperbole but it was a statement not really based in fact to be fair to you. It was more just a personal experience, anecdotal type deal. As for the second part of what BWare said, I didn't entirely agree with his point but I do share that sentiment. I think we all sense something is wrong socially to breed this type of violence and he's just trying to make sense of it through his world view just like the rest of us. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BwareDWare94 723 Posted May 31, 2018 (edited) I entirely disagree with that 98% of the people in the country figure. What does this even mean, Bware? It means that the vast majority of mass shooters had no present father figure. Obviously part of that issue is unfit men. Part of it is also the devolution of our society and the way it views traditional family values. Quite frankly, the world would be a much better place if young people fucked people they actually like. Then there'd be more two parent households. Edited May 31, 2018 by BwareDWare94 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seanbrock 1,684 Posted May 31, 2018 (edited) This is just such a massively complex set of issues. I agree with what you're saying but I don't think it's that simple as to say young people should fuck people they actually like. These shooters parents didn't meet on tinder. This is where I understand people on the gun control side of things. What we would have to do to try and find the causes of this and then once that process is through, trying to come up with some sort of workable solution to make it through the beauracracy of our government and the quarterly earnings reports obsessed peeps it could be a very long time before we could even get close to solving those problems. They're unmistakably the cause but it's just intellectually the easy way out to sit there and act like more atringent gun regulations are going to do much more than marginally effect death tolls. It does seem like that might be all we can do right now and that's a hard fact to come to terms with. A guy drove a Home Depot rental truck through a crowd in NYC. Could it reduce casualties...I guess potentially unless someone decides to make a home made bomb like McVeigh. Granted, that's more difficult to do than just getting your hands on a gun. I think whatever the case is, thinking about this along party lines is getting us absolutely nowhere. Edited May 31, 2018 by seanbrock Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BwareDWare94 723 Posted May 31, 2018 How do you all feel about the proposition of not naming or showing pictures of school shooters? So long as they are either dead or in custody, I think their names and faces should never been seen on a TV screen. Fuck em. Let them die or rot in prison anonymous. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seanbrock 1,684 Posted May 31, 2018 Oh yeah, I like that a lot actually. I was shocked to be reading about some forward thinking legislation on this issue come out of Texas, from a Republican governor and I also like how they made it clear that it was a starting point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites