bmdrocks21

Also, would this be market value at the time the gun buyback is started? Because this would inevitably raise the price of an AR-15.

Would this plan also involve a ban on selling more AR-15's? It seems like it would have to.

Virt is really busy. Wouldn't firing a mod just make requests stack up more? Are you looking to fill that spot? ;)

I agree that it is a bit more sketchy dealing with Middle Eastern groups than those in stable regions of the world. I am a bit concerned about this being used to radicalize Kurds against us now. I don't think they deserve what they are getting. Had we needed to fight to keep them safe, I would say 'hell no', but I believe there are much better reasons to leave other areas of the Middle East than this specific one. Of all places we could leave, this would should have been the last. 

Also, I'm a bit concerned about what Turkey will do in the region if they conquer it. They are seeming a wee bit imperialistic.

I am a bit ambivalent on this one. I want all troops out of Afghanistan, Iraq, and probably every part of Syria without the (cheese) Kurds. They helped us fight ISIS, and they are currently guarding tons of those prisoners. I feel a bit crappy leaving a terrorist-fighting force at the hands of a group that essentially wants to commit genocide against the Kurds. I just don't want this to be a message to any future groups that are thinking about helping the US: that we will use them to help with our goals, and then immediately leave them to die. 

I would prefer that we move our troops out of northern Syria once we can perhaps get some UN troops to take over instead. We don't have some huge obligation to them, but our presence(not even battling) was keeping them safe.

He is kind of the opposite of Ben Shapiro for me. I hate Ben's interventionist foreign policy, but his economics are on point.

Yeah, of all news anchors, Tucker really seems to be the closest to what conservatism ought to be.

As for Kyle, his foreign policy ideas are generally right. I also think that lobbying is a problem. In terms of his economic and social policies, he is almost always wrong.

Tucker Carlson is my boy!

For left wing, Kyle Kulinski is occasionally correct, depending on the issue. 

Those laws vary on the state. Florida, for instance, has very loose self-defense laws. I'm not sure what they Alabama laws are. However, if someone is assaulting you, you don't necessarily know their intent. They could intend to kill you, and I don't think the victim should have to wait and see.

Did they mention the extent of the assault in the Alabama case?

Don't get me wrong, I'm very much anti-abortion. I'm just saying people are being selfish and irresponsible. Semantics game, really. Sacrificing implies they are doing it for some sort of deity.

Don't think it is quite sacrifice. It is killing someone to avoid responsibilities and dealing with the consequences of your actions. There a couple exceptions to that reasoning, but the vast majority of them fall under that category.

So we should now fault people for attempting to defend themselves? They didn't ask to get attacked. Had the aggressor not been so foolish, nothing bad would have happened in the first place. They caused a chain of events that led to a death because they wished to assault another. Maybe both are responsible. Maybe just the attacker, but certainly not just the victim of the assault.

Well it is your fault for getting killed. The only question is the intention. Either you were incredibly reckless or you did commit suicide. 

Are you talking about the Alabama case? If so, a more accurate example would be this: you attack someone, and while they defend themselves, the gun discharges. The bullet hits a completely innocent bystander. 

Right there you declared the intent: to increase social standing. If you saw they had a gun and you wanted to die, then assaulted them, it would be. 

Is this another Billbatard alt that I see?

What do black people and tornadoes have in common?

It only takes one to ruin a good neighborhood.

https://www.debateart.com/debates/1235/firing-squad-is-the-best-form-of-capital-punishment  My personal favorite that had no forfeits.

Yeah, but according to the economic freedom index, Scandanavian countries have much freer markets.

1/3 workers work for the government. That means that 2/3 are employed by the private sector. What is your point? They are closer to socialism than us in some regards and more capitalistic in others.

I know that at least Sweden has privatized pension plans and school vouchers.

I see, so you don't believe that a large industry-wide union would form very often. I will say that right to work laws would definitely make it much less common and more difficult to create. I just believe that all work-related issues could be solved by bargaining with your employer. I can't think of any good reason for an industry-wide union to be an option. Allowing unions to gain that level of power could be quite dangerous if it were to form.

Yes, the conflict of interest that inherently lies in lobbying and political donations is rather concerning.

Well, for number three, let me provide a hypothetical. I believe that if an entire industry is a connected union, it gives them too much power. Let us say that steel manufacturing workers go on strike. Essentially, they are not just putting pressure on their employer and his bottom line, they are putting pressure on the American public. We aren't getting any steel, which means we cannot make cars or other products, and that threatens others with unemployment and high prices of steel products. I don't think that is fair. This issue is between the company and the employer.  

I have historically been rather lukewarm on the union issue as well. But if I could relate it to deregulation, minimum wage laws, etc it becomes rather important in my opinion. 

Generally I hold the same opinion in that unions' time of relevance was mainly in the past. But I find they are likely the most efficient way to get good wages without federal coercion.

You're saying that there couldn't be industry-wide unions if we had right to work laws?

I am just learning more about the "issue" of money in politics. If I were to ban unions from donating to political campaigns, I would obviously have to ban it for corporations. I would be hypocritical af if I didn't do that. It would also give corporations way too much leverage. 

I'm trying to find a good balance of power between unions and corporations so that the companies stay efficient but the people can have decent working conditions and at the minimum cost of living adjustments. As it stands now, some unions have a huge power advantage, as we can see from the GM strike. That is why I am against industry-wide unions like the United Auto Workers.

I have recently read Barry Goldwater's The Conscience of a Conservative, and he made a lot of good points about unions and how they should be reformed. I want them to work so that they can be a substitute for federal regulations and wage laws.

If you are against labor monopolies, I am surprised you are against number 3. As I explained to history buff, it creates an essential monopoly on labor. They can go on strike and hold entire industries hostage. Kind of what we are seeing with GM now. Also, I think that this is very similar to corporate collusion with price fixing. Instead it is labor unions colluding on wage fixing. 

I can understand why you would be against number 2. I'm a bit conflicted on it myself, but I generally believe in reducing concentrations of power (especially in the federal government, but in other other places as well). Freedom of expression is protected by the constitution, but sometimes different exceptions are placed on businesses vs individuals. For example commercial speech.

Thanks for responding. I'm no expert myself, just looking for some community feedback.

Yes free loaders can be an issue. However, forced unionizing as a term of employment is also a problem. You have a freedom of association. That also means you cannot be forced to join a group. It will have an effect on the power of a union. Also, this is partially related to the next point, they can support activities than you don't support. When you donate money to them, they do things other than just negotiate contracts with that money and you can be morally opposed to those. Overall, it seems better economically for businesses in states without the right to work laws. There is higher productivity, employment, etc. 

I agree, corporations shouldn't be able to donate to political campaigns, either. I think that unions should overall be treated like a business(related to my point 3 as in they shouldn't have large "market shares" over labor in an industry).

I'm glad we can agree on this final one. I do see some potential problems for small companies, and perhaps there should be some protections there for them. I'm not sure what they would be or if they should be applied to large unions as well, though. 

Another point is that I don't think government unions are a particularly good idea. Conflicts of interest and differences in balances of power make it a bit sketchy.

As they currently stand, I am anti-union. I don't believe they should be abolished because everyone has a right of association, but they severely need reformed. I am reading a book that briefly went over the problems with them, and I want your opinion on what it said.

1. Every state needs right to work laws. These laws essentially state that if a company has a union, not everyone has to join. That is, when union representatives negotiate contracts, you aren't forced to join and pay dues to the union just because you may benefit from it. Losing your job for not wanting to join a union is coercion and unduly gives unions extra funding and power from people who may not support them.

2. Unions should not be involved in politics. Union members are forced to pay dues, and billions of dollars of these are spent on political efforts. Some unions also help people get out to the polls, or say they support a certain candidate. As far as I know, union members don't get a vote as to who gets this money, so people may be supporting a candidate that they don't like just because they joined the union. The concentration of power in these few top union leaders to manipulate politics should not be allowed. 

3. Unions should be company-wide, not industry wide. Companies often operate in different states from one another and there are different costs of living, corporate cultures, and lifestyles. This will cause inefficiencies, as not all companies can afford the same things. Additionally, this again gives too much power to unions. Unions are not a government, meaning they should not be able to force an entire industry to either comply with union demands or go bankrupt. In the same way it is illegal for corporations to collude and price fix, it should also be illegal for a large union to wage fix for multiple companies.

If all of these regulations were placed on unions, I might see myself supporting them. If you know of any additional regulations or have any criticisms, let me know.

:D

Ok, so how is having a majority bad? Judges, essentially are either liberal or conservative- you either define the constitution based on what it was meant to be or what you think it should be. So, there by definition has to be an ideological majority. Now, Chief Justice Roberts is a bit of a swing vote nowadays, so it really isn't an issue. 

You had no idea about precedent. You foolishly claimed that the Republicans in 2016 were the first group to ever violate this "gentlemens' handshake"  and that McConnell violated precedent. You got proven wrong. I'd propose that you admit you were ignorant of the facts instead of digging a deeper hole for yourself.

And that is exactly what McConnell did, wasn't it?

It is not appointing a new justice near the end of a presidential term, isn't it?

I'm sorry that having justices with brains triggers you.

His entire post was about how this doesn't break precedent.

I think you are confusing us. Your argument thus far is Orange man and McConnell bad for breaking precedent and stacking. Having a 5-4 majority is far from stacking lmao. I have offered the job security point, which is the entire point of life terms.

Dang. Nice research, my good sir! Proved my point for me.

The fact you said that this one thing violated the "gentlemen's handshake" but that nothing else EVER before did kinda makes it the worst thing. You said "The issue is that the Republicans in this instance did not want to abide by the gentleman's handshake that has lasted for the entirety of America's history up till 2016 in filling up vacant SCOTUS seats and resorted to cheating instead."

Cheating? Lol. They are running a country, not playing a game of wiffle ball.

The nomination was tossed down because of both parties "due to the blockade on confirmations imposed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Democratic objections to expediting Russell's nomination without confirming longer-pending Democrats"

This also states that the nominee, Ronald G Russell was a Republican, so this wasn't made on party lines.

Finally, this passed the House in May of 2016. Why should we allow a president with about half a year remaining make a decision like that?

One solution is to keep things the way the Founding Fathers intended it ^_^

Meh, I'd say that FDR's little attempted court stacking fiasco violated it far before 2016, but whatever. 

Being on the Supreme Court pays well and it is one of the most prestigious positions anyone can hold. To think that rotating courts is a good idea is incredibly naive. You think they won't pander to their boss to keep that job? Their duty is to interpret the constitution, not play along in some damn popularity contest to keep their job.

Let's not try to pretend that Democrats never stacked the courts before with their own ideologues. 

Here is exactly what Sanders said: "We’ve got a terrible 5-4 majority conservative court right now. But I do believe constitutionally we have the power to rotate judges to other courts and that brings in new blood into the Supreme Court and a majority I hope that will understand that a woman has a right to control her own body and that corporations cannot run the United States of America."

It is all about control and putting people in power that you agree with. 

Ahh.... now we get to the crux of your problem with the current system. The fact that there is a conservative majority. I bet you had no criticisms of this system before. 

Bernie proposed rotating courts.

How would voting within a certain amount of days help? The Senate has filibusters.

It is highly unlikely that there will be 5 appointments in one term. What would be more vulnerable to stacking would be a president having the ability to rotate the court at their liking to reach verdicts that push their agenda. The current method shields judges from outside influence. They will make the correct decision, rather than the popular one.

There are justices from multiple presidents' terms and they were appointed by people of both political parties. I don't see how that is a problem.

The liberal method of lying about being a gang rapist didn't work. Now you all want to just stack it every presidency defeating the whole purpose of life terms(not making decisions for job security).

Doesn't Bernie support rotating the Supreme Court, essentially allowing it to be stacked?

"Congress shall have the sole right to impeach orange man bad"

-Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution

The tax man is quite frightening.

Damn. If you were a liberal, this would have worked like a charm.

Lmao!

But what about my jowls?

I will lock up all the dang hippies and commies! Muahahahaha.

Do I win? ^_^

Ted Cruz aka The Zodiac Killer

Indiana lol. I don't follow sports much. I picked favorite teams as a kid, and they just stuck.

I liked Stephen Davis for the Panthers back in the day.

Well I like the Panthers for some reason. Oof

:P

Lol. Can't tell if you're an angry Pittsburgh fan or just hate the Steelers like I do.