“Yeat!” Ok, I’m listening. Tell me anything.

I ask you, can you explain why cons want mad men like him to have unfettered access to firearms?

It’s now being reported he was previously detained by police for threatening to murder his entire family and had 60 knives, swords, and daggers removed from his possession, but not his ability to purchase guns.

Cons are uncompromising about opposing red flag laws, which would have prevented this mad man from getting the weapons to commit mass murder…and about closing loopholes that let anyone buy firearms without background checks or registration…allowing those legally barred from ownership to gain possession of any weapons they like.

Can you explain why these remedies to secretly arming nut jobs are off the table for cons? Not being a panacea for all gun crimes is a red herring dodge, not an answer.

Private background checks is full of privacy, communication, and liability issues, true, but that could be solved in various ways.
In gun store private sales, that's how California does it.
Does it stop all criminal sales? Clearly not. Does it minimize them and hold illegal sellers who ignore the law accountable for what others do with the guns they illegally sold, making illegally selling a criminal your gun insane? Yes.
If it was the law nation wide, would it severely curtail the illicit gun trade, and have a positive impact on gun crime rates? Absolutely, zero question.
Would it stop it altogether? Duh, no, no law is a panacea, the death penalty doesn't stop all murders, but it definitely stops most. That is not how law works. No law has EVER stopped the crimes they regulate altogether except those that legalize the crime out of existence....like legal marijuana eradicated illegal pot smokers completely.

Um... a panacea does actually cure a condition (actually, all conditions). Are you thinking of placebo? Opiate? Paxil? Panodil? Pandaxodil?

I'd offer you the common courtesy of letting you have your beliefs which I do not share, but you're an arrogant and rude ass, so I'll conclude that if religion is the panacea for the ignorant, you're their poster child... ; )

Indeed...and I fully support mandatory body AND car cameras, both inside and out, and I want it to be criminal for officers to block and impossible to erase the cameras.
I just meant it is not a panacea, or catch all that will stop ALL bad behavior. That was not meant to imply that I think they're useless.

Once again, the neocon answer is dismissiveness and insult, with no logic, reason, or facts.
You certainly don't have me pegged, sir. I'm not a dumb kid of today, nor did I spend much time in public schooling. 1290, 3.5, 138 and graduated...sorry to disappoint or confuse.
Your comprehension of my position is appallingly incorrect, and knee jerkingly insulting to boot.
I have both been taught, and learned from experience, that capitalism is not the best answer to every problem, nor is liberalism (not that they are opposites or related). Neither is evil or good, those are things only people can be. Neither is a panacea.
Educators want nothing of the sort...you are describing baby sitters.
Wow, amazing that you aren't chanting "We're #1" like most neocons mindlessly do. I'll give you props for that little victory. I agree, our position is sad, more so when you consider the cost we pay for that result, and the costs we will pay because of it.
I do think you are (redacted) wrong that any TEACHERS want this kind of mind numbing chanting or dumbing down of their students...I do agree there aren't enough teachers teaching, and too many babysitters in their place. I also think this is due, in large part, to the lack of respect and compensation available to a public school teacher....you've already shown the former quite clearly, and your political affiliates have seen to the latter.
You seem to have convinced yourself that, since I don't go along with your narrow train of thought, that I'm all for, and 100% behind the current education system, I never even hinted at that straw man arguement. What I did say is that capitalist business always does the least work possible to get the most pay out, and that's not what we want for our tax dollars, especially not our education system. As was said before, this particular flaw is an issue caused by for-profit privatization with not enough regulation, which if it must be politicized is a right wing baby.

Yeah, but number-crunchers and bean-counters who work for automobile manufacturers make similar decisions when deciding whether or not to order a recall on dangerous vehicles-At the end of the day, Big Pharma companies decide which facts and figures get the most spin, eh?

Whose to say that nature is not the ultimate winner over human efforts to forestall the inevitable? It's gonna take more than eliminating all disease to get us knuckle-dragging monkeys off-planet. It may very well take humanity as we know it driven to the brink with a number of engineered attempts to preserve life.

Not as simple as everyone playing syringe-roulette kir_mokum, science is not some ultimate panacea-That said, I survived the crap-shoot and will probably never get dip, typhus, or cholera. Whew!

I did however, ingest a Preludin at the age of 18 months thanks to an irresponsible parental unit, early imprints are a MOTHERFUCKER!

I'm not sure why anyone is surprised...

The US has a long storied history of destroying freedom. The prohibition, the Cold War years, post 911 etc. The fact that a lot of people still buy in to the comfortable lie that they live in the "land of the free" is because admitting they are meat puppets for a corrupt government is too bitter a pill too swallow + the US national sense of superiority to places like China because they do things better than those totalitarians...

This will not change. There is no analogous period in history to compare to. The participants of the French revolution or the American war of independance didn't have facebook or twitter to sit around whining on and feeling like they were making a difference. They got off their asses and rose up because the only alternative was to be ploughed under.

Online slacktivism is an acceptable panacea for the discontented masses, they have an outlet to complain while easily identifying themselves as 'persons of interest'.

You're ignoring the entire record of human history... No gov. means a void that people will try to fill. How many warlords are there in Somalia?

From chaos and disorder, the wielder of the biggest club will eventually float to the top. Whether that club is literal (feudal/tribal) or a democratic faction, or a totalitarian regime/police state is immaterial.

But hey, the internet is the panacea for the furious crowd. Now people can soapbox day and night as they order in pizza and consume litres of sugar filled beverages before ordering something else pointless on the internet. Slacktivism at it's finest.

Apathy is the new outrage and it's all the rage.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'quite interesting, stephen fry, jimmy carr, jack whitehall, panacea' to 'quite interesting, stephen fry, jimmy carr, jack whitehall, panacea, mummys hugs' - edited by calvados

Right, so..

1.) I never said Ron Paul is some panacea for the world's troubles.

2.) I even admitted that Paul is more or less a racist homophobic religious cuke.

3.) I don't think Paul or any single person should have that much power to begin with.

The fact that we're still stuck with a two-party system in which we vote for one president "in charge of everything"..

..as opposed to 50 governors and local communities making their own decisions for their own goddamn selves is mind-numbing.

Point is:
The immediate effects and sincere discussions that would take place in the wake of such a radical candidate becoming president are the best thing that could happen for the American political process at this conjunction in our history.

For fuck's sake, YOUR AVATAR & GALAXY STAR ARE A GUY FAWKES MASK! You should support a grassroots underdog upheaval like the one Paul represents more than anyone on this site.

Ron Paul represents the chance to reclaim our Foreign Policy from Warmongers; our Economics from Speculators; our Health, Safety, Labor, and Ideas from Robber Barons.

But then again, he did stereotype blacks as fleet-footed so.. I guess you make a good counter-point.
>> ^NetRunner:

Hah. No. Of course not.

I'd liked to remain as status quo-y and entrenched in my beliefs as the Conservative Republicans I like to gripe about.

But it's okay cause I wear & cheer lead for the blue team while I do so.


>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
You got any solutions, bro?
Or just more fallacious arguments?

1. Scientific Revolution. You seriously didn't know about this you need to pick up a history book. Baghdad was one of the most scientifically exciting places in the world.

"WAS." A lot has happened since the 7th century. The islamic savage of today would be at home in the past...same honor killings, same tribal warfare.

2. Building one Mosque doesn't mean we're going under Sharia Law. Wanting everyone to follow Sharia Law is the goal of every religion, just their different brands. You don't like a Mosque there, that's your right...you don't have a say in where people build things though...in fact I think people are suffering from a case of overimportance. Nobody asked for your permission, nobody asked if you cared about the city allowing a Mosque to be built in New York. So shut up.

The smirking atheist benefits every day from living in a civil society based on religious values. S/he has nothing to compare it against, for there are no functional atheist societies.

Christianity evolved, islam has not. When muslims take over an area, they demand sharia law. Creeping sharia.

It takes a liberal to oppose Christians while supporting islamofascists ready to cut off his head with a scimitar.

Wait, you say "most" muslims aren't violent? A non-violent Muslim is disobeying his holy book and is to be killed by "faithful" muslims.


============================================================================
QM you missed the boat on that one.

There are SO many bigger questions here about tolerance, education, the value of religion, etc.....

The "New Atheism" cannot be taken seriously when it ignores all the positive contributions of religion. If the Atheist cannot see any notable difference between modern Christianity and islam then one hopes this is willful ignorance and not already hardened prejudice.

Additionally, the mantra of "EDUCATION!" as a panacea and substitute for religion rings false, for knowledge is utilized by hero and villain alike. The asshole traitor MUSLIM who shot up Fort Hood was a well-educated doctor.

Without a common tongue how is a nation supposed to communicate? Without common borders, language and culture there is no nation.

You claim the mosque will cause problems. Congratulations, you've taken the first step to understanding the destructiveness of a primitive barbaric excuse of a 'religion' encroaching on an advanced society.

thereligionofpeace.com <---go here to get a glimpse of what islam brings.

"the right interpretation of Christian doctrine" What is the right interpretation? That is the problem. Everybody gets to interpret scripture how they want to. Human interpretation not divine providence.

Why do you think "science, logic, and respect" would be encourage by Christian doctrine? Please back up what you say with scripture, preferably from the Gospels. Christians believe that a Christian marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman. Why? Scripture doesn't support that. Some Christians believe that Jesus would accept homosexuality. Why? Jesus said that he came to fulfill the Law, not abolish it. (Matt. 5:17-20). Jesus was a Jew and didn't say that people get to abandon the Law and its 613 commandments that were given to the Jews hundreds of years before him. A lot of people believe in what they believe in because it is policy. Policy handed down to them by people they trusted, not because they came to some logical rational conclusion by use of the scientific method. And people can't see how it changes or know why it changes.

Study the Bible. You will see that it supports polygamy and slavery. Jesus never says to abandon these traditions. When Jesus says "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", he is quoting Leviticus.
Jesus promises to kill those who oppose him (Parable: Ten Minas - Luke 19:11-27). Jesus promises that God will torture people if they are unforgiving ( Parable: Unforgiving Servant - Matthew 18:21-35). Jesus is the Prince of Peace? “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:32-36). Jesus’ message is for everyone? No. (Matthew 10:5-8). When Jesus is talking during the story of the Marriage at the Resurrection, he doesn’t say that the Jewish tradition is wrong that a woman should be forced to marry a man’s brother if he dies and she hasn’t given him a male heir (Matt. 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27; Luke 20:27-40)

Jesus may have been radical for his time, but he is not the panacea that modern Christians make him out to be.


In reply to this comment by thepinky:
I agree that science, logic, and respect for others are essential to good society, but the right interpretation of Christian doctrine should encourage these things, not reject them.

"Religion" is not synonymous with "Protestant Christian," and your personal bad experiences with religion do not prove that all religion is harmful. It's funny how you just sort of skipped over the second part of my sentence, "However, religion isn't harmful in and of itself, but the watering-down and misuse of doctrine is, yes, extraordinarily evil and damaging to both straight and gay people."

When I refer to the "watering down" of doctrines, I'm verifying what you said. It seems like most Christians today have no concept of the fact that faith does not have to be removed from logic, tolerance, and an open mind. "Faith," for some people, is a word to throw out when someone asks you a hard question. I do believe in faith. You and I both know that there are things that human beings don't and/or can't understand. Whereas you write faith off as belief in the supernatural, I believe that faith is belief in things that follow all of the laws of the cosmos, but that are beyond our power, knowledge, or understanding. Faith is not necessary for the purpose of dismissing science and logic. It is necessary so that we can have choice. People are always arguing with me about choice, saying that a god who threatens damnation is not truly offering choice. Well, that's a discussion for another day.

When religious people think that morality is black and white, when they are hateful, intolerant, or bigoted, they obviously don't understand Jesus Christ AT ALL. So when I say that religion is not inherently harmful, your 37 years of experience, I'm sorry to say, do not exhaust all of the possibilities religion has to offer.

More examples...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209034/The-babies-born-hospital-corridors-Bed-shortage-forces-4-000-mothers-birth-lifts-offices-hospital-toil
ets.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208970/Man-collapses-ruptured-appendix--weeks-NHS-doctors-took-out.html

The point Farhad is that every system on the planet - public or private - is facing tremendous challenges of various kinds. Your side of the debate keeps trying to paint a glowing picture of public health care that does not really exist. Public health care systems are NOT panaceas of happiness, contentment, and perfect medical care with low costs. Quite the contrary. They are cumbersome, slow, expensive, routinely deny or delay basic care, and frequently are UNABLE to provide advanced treatments for less common conditions.

The real debate here is what kind of country is America? America was founded as a country where its citizens were specifically protected from government by the Constitution. The Bill of Rights does not 'give' rights to citizens. It tells government what it CANNOT do. It acknowledges that these rights are God-given to all people, and attempts to ensure that government cannot infringe on them. Ever.

Establishing a public health care system (or any public social system in general) goes against that basic, core of what America is. Making health care a public 'right' gives the government the power to step in and take away your freedom at any time under the rubric of maintaining its 'program'. Even the mere act of taking your tax money to fund the program is a an involuntary removal of finanicial freedom. That isn't what America should be.

I keep hearing comments like, "Every other country is doing this..." So what? Just because a bunch of other nations have foolishly decided to cede freedom and power to thier governments is no good reason to do it here. I also quite often hear equally foolish arguments along the lines of, "What do you have against taking care of the poor?" The American way to care for the poor is to do it at the state, municipal, or personal level through voluntary donations and volunteerism. I do it all the time and it's great. You don't need a 'government system' to take care of the poor. That is a false choice and I reject it utterly.

Even in the very kindest interpretation, swapping to a public system is not going to 'improve' health care or reduce costs. The CBO said so. IT WILL NOT SAVE MONEY. If it isn't going to save money, and isn't going to provide better service then why should we cede huge powers to the government to do this? It would be nothing more than trading one bad system for another system that is equally bad, or potentially worse. The cost for making this change is the sacrifice of personal liberty and freedom. America has always succeeded as a nation of rugged individualists. That's the proper answer here. Constantly whining that "everyone ELSE does it this way" and "wah wah wah why don't you care about the poor?" are nothing but illogical red herrings.

The real question you should be asking yourself should be, "Why should be waste our time creating a worse system just because other countries do it?" Or perhaps, "Why am I opposed to volunteering my time and money at the local level for the poor?"