you are simple ignorant. Until the 13th and 14th amendment, courts ruled over and over that the 2nd was only a restriction on the federal government
it is called the incorporation doctrine - try to learn something today
Time To Dump The Second Amendment?
- Thread starter PoliTalker
- Start date
you are simple ignorant. Until the 13th and 14th amendment, courts ruled over and over that the 2nd was only a restriction on the federal government
it is called the incorporation doctrine - try to learn something today
Good to see you can count.
Do you think 4% families who dropped into Lower Income are pleased that 7% moved into the upper class? Not exactly "a rising tide lifts all boats", is it? More like 4% are sacrificed for 7%.
When 63% increase their income and 36% decline it corrects the misleading implication of a "declining middle class." Nobody sacrificed the 4% as they are just as capable of increasing their income as the 7% who did so.
American Man
Verified User
But until then, guns are the reality we have to deal with. There are security protocols that can limit surprise. Having live CCTV around the premise is a start. Having steel doors that can't be unlocked except by passcode is another option. An entrance that can only be entered through via student electronic badge is another. Regular comprehensive shooter practice drills is another.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Tranlation: Fuck the 4%. They're all assholes and losers anyway.
Disagreed. The philosophy should be "a rising tide lifts all boats", not "let'em sink after they toss us their money"
All scenarios of the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer ends in the masses overthrowing the assholes on the top. We might be seeing it in Russia soon when Russians realize how much Putin and his Oligarchs have stolen from the Russian people.
Remember what happened to Louis XIV? Mussolini? Gaddafi? Do you believe the Russians will be more civilized about it? LOL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Muammar_Gaddafi#Capture_and_killing
You are making unfounded assumptions. The 4% did not necessarily have declining income. They might have increased their income but less than others dropping them in the relative ranking.
In April 2022 wages had increased 11.67% over April 2021.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/wage-growth
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
4% loss is 4% loss. Again, a rising tide not "Fuck you, I've got mine". You seem to be favoring a zero-sum game about wealth instead of win-win scenarios.
That 4% is a failure of our national leadership.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
You've got to remember that the gunners essentially want to ignore those pesky 4 words or put such a fantastic twist on them that the enitre Amendment is interpreted as if it were originally written in Sanskrit.
I've got no problem with the 2nd Amendment, being that the National Guard can and has been put under federal control and you do have active, registered individual state militias throughout the 50 states. The legal and political wrangling will go on .... what will give us better an more effective laws is if we can eliminate lobbyist in our Congress. That was the one thing I agreed with Ross Perot about when he said that his first priority if elected was to "get rid of all those lobbyists in $500 shoes running around the Capitol".
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
It's a right not a restriction.
the federal government protects that right nationwide.
maybe you won't always be dumb.
its not a hallucinated constitutional right, like abortion is.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
it's the downard wage pressure of globalization stupidity.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Dutch,
I think of you as right of center but not right wing. When I hear the term wing I think of extreme right or extreme left. Similarly, I am left of center, but not left wing. If you are right wing, then you are the only one at JPP that I am able to conduct a respectful conversation with. As far as I am concerned all the right wingers here have mouthed off at me and been subsequently placed on Ignore.
Fixing the problem is the whole reason for whatever measures we apply. I am wide open to suggestions for what those measures might be, but the bottom line is results. If ineffective measures are enacted they will have to be abandoned and try something else until we get the results.
Yes, government needs to enact more control over people's lives, because too many people are acting too irresponsibly. That is government's role. We can't wish this problem away.
I think of you as right of center but not right wing. When I hear the term wing I think of extreme right or extreme left. Similarly, I am left of center, but not left wing. If you are right wing, then you are the only one at JPP that I am able to conduct a respectful conversation with. As far as I am concerned all the right wingers here have mouthed off at me and been subsequently placed on Ignore.
Fixing the problem is the whole reason for whatever measures we apply. I am wide open to suggestions for what those measures might be, but the bottom line is results. If ineffective measures are enacted they will have to be abandoned and try something else until we get the results.
Yes, government needs to enact more control over people's lives, because too many people are acting too irresponsibly. That is government's role. We can't wish this problem away.
Last edited:
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
lol.
dumb globalist denies the obvious desctruction of the middle class.
watching these two dumb globalists jack each other off is hilarious.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
Good to see you can count.
Do you think 4% families who dropped into Lower Income are pleased that 7% moved into the upper class? Not exactly "a rising tide lifts all boats", is it? More like 4% are sacrificed for 7%.
globalization is all about sacrificing everything for large multinational corporations.
you should change your stance on the stupidities of globalist zealotry if you really give a shit.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Dutch,
Excellent idea. I would favor that.
What made America great was location, times, events and people. And a lot of luck. We could all easily be speaking German if not for some lucky breaks. Capitalism and freedom have had just as much to do with making America as government and our Constitution. And the French. America would not even be here if not for the French. Our standard of living is the result of both capitalism and government programs which lifted millions out of poverty. And definitely government regulation and laws.
Capitalism is a marvelous engine of ingenuity and wealth, but it requires regulation. If left to run wide open it would blow up like any engine without a regulator. Government is that regulator. Our self-government requires citizen oversight and involvement. That is precisely what is lacking. We simply do not have enough Americans getting well informed nor involved enough. That allows the super-rich and greedy opportunists to seize outsized control over government. I see apathy as our biggest problem.
As a well-informed liberal, I look at all the wrongs of our nation and I think: "If only people really knew what was going on they would rise up and put a stop to it." But they don't. They are too busy just living their lives. And worse, there is way more disinfomation out there than facts. A lot of people think they are getting informed by listening to Tucker Carlson and the like, or social media, or rumors from peers, but they are wrong. They have been sucked up into the right wing propaganda machine and become hopelessly confused, motivated more by anger and hatred than actual knowledge.
Good liberals are not getting involved enough. It is so demanding to earn a living and manage a life in this complex world that people do not have time to get well informed. It's all so overwhelming. Many tend to simply shut it all out. They carve out their own life and let the rest be, content to get what they can for themselves and hope the nation will take care of itself.
The nation will not take care of itself. The rich and greedy will seize every bit of control they can, and they will eagerly co-opt the votes of any gullible emotional minds they can sway with hatred and lies.
The greedy and selfish keep pushing and pushing and believing their own lies as national security becomes more and more precarious. They ignore the Constitution (think McConnell refusing to convene a hearing for Garland because the Constitution didn't precisely require it, even though it said that was what was outlined to happen) and keep telling themselves what they are doing is right as they serve the rich and powerful. That kind of thing is tearing our nation apart.
And the uninformed just don't care. It's sad to watch our great nation go down the tubes.
We are so dysfunctional we have this obviously outdated 2nd amendment, and we can't even think of updating it to reflect the times as intended by the framers.
Excellent idea. I would favor that.
What made America great was location, times, events and people. And a lot of luck. We could all easily be speaking German if not for some lucky breaks. Capitalism and freedom have had just as much to do with making America as government and our Constitution. And the French. America would not even be here if not for the French. Our standard of living is the result of both capitalism and government programs which lifted millions out of poverty. And definitely government regulation and laws.
Capitalism is a marvelous engine of ingenuity and wealth, but it requires regulation. If left to run wide open it would blow up like any engine without a regulator. Government is that regulator. Our self-government requires citizen oversight and involvement. That is precisely what is lacking. We simply do not have enough Americans getting well informed nor involved enough. That allows the super-rich and greedy opportunists to seize outsized control over government. I see apathy as our biggest problem.
As a well-informed liberal, I look at all the wrongs of our nation and I think: "If only people really knew what was going on they would rise up and put a stop to it." But they don't. They are too busy just living their lives. And worse, there is way more disinfomation out there than facts. A lot of people think they are getting informed by listening to Tucker Carlson and the like, or social media, or rumors from peers, but they are wrong. They have been sucked up into the right wing propaganda machine and become hopelessly confused, motivated more by anger and hatred than actual knowledge.
Good liberals are not getting involved enough. It is so demanding to earn a living and manage a life in this complex world that people do not have time to get well informed. It's all so overwhelming. Many tend to simply shut it all out. They carve out their own life and let the rest be, content to get what they can for themselves and hope the nation will take care of itself.
The nation will not take care of itself. The rich and greedy will seize every bit of control they can, and they will eagerly co-opt the votes of any gullible emotional minds they can sway with hatred and lies.
The greedy and selfish keep pushing and pushing and believing their own lies as national security becomes more and more precarious. They ignore the Constitution (think McConnell refusing to convene a hearing for Garland because the Constitution didn't precisely require it, even though it said that was what was outlined to happen) and keep telling themselves what they are doing is right as they serve the rich and powerful. That kind of thing is tearing our nation apart.
And the uninformed just don't care. It's sad to watch our great nation go down the tubes.
We are so dysfunctional we have this obviously outdated 2nd amendment, and we can't even think of updating it to reflect the times as intended by the framers.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
NOpe.
the founding principles of freedom and the constitution have made america great.
bringing back the draft is totalitarian and heinous, by the way.
but im sure dutch uncle will keep blowing you.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
no. it was always unconstitutional.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
nope. it needs to stay like it is now. because this works.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
Why the Global 1% and the Asian Middle Class Have Gained the Most from Globalization
https://hbr.org/2016/05/why-the-glo...ed-the-most-from-globalization?referral=00060
It is by now well-known that the period from the mid-1980s to today has been the period of the greatest reshuffle of personal incomes since the Industrial Revolution. It’s also the first time that global inequality has declined in the past two hundred years. The “winners” were the middle and upper classes of the relatively poor Asian countries and the global top 1%. The (relative) “losers” were the people in the lower and middle parts of rich countries’ income distributions, according to detailed household surveys data from more than 100 countries between 1988 and 2008, put together and analyzed by Christoph Lakner and myself, as well as my book Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization, which includes updated information to 2011.
The chart above, the Global Incidence Curve, shows the world’s population along the horizontal axis, ranked from the poorest to the richest percentile; real income gains between 1988 and 2008 (adjusted for countries’ price levels) are shown on the vertical axis.
The expansion of incomes around the median of the global income distribution was so overwhelming that it ensured global inequality’s decline — despite the real income growth of the top 1% and rising national inequalities in many countries. Real incomes more than doubled between 1988 and 2011 (though the extension to 2011 is not shown in this chart), a shift that involved large swaths of people (almost a third of the world population, most of them from Asia). And although our data for the past are quite tentative and in some cases not much better than guesses, it is still the first time since 1820 that global inequality is deemed to have gone down, from approximately 69 Gini points to around 64. (On the Gini scale, 100 would be complete inequality while 0 would be complete equality).
The chart can be (and was) recast in many other ways, from using market exchange rates instead of exchange rates adjusted for purchasing power parity, to calculating it over the percentiles fixed at the positions they had at the initial period (1988), but whatever adjustment one does, the essential features –the supine S shape—with the peak around the global median and the trough around the 80th -90th global percentile, remain. It is precisely the growth in the middle, fueled by the resurgent Asia, and the quasi-stagnation of incomes around the 80-90th percentile of the global income distribution where Western middle classes are, that have attracted most attention. They lead to an obvious question: does the growth of the Asian (or more generally global) middle class occur on the back of income stagnation of the Western middle classes? Or at least, are the two somehow related? The follow-up question: how long can it last?
In this context it is important to make two points. First, while we cannot ever fully convincingly establish causality between the two developments (because we are dealing with multifaceted processes that are way too complicated for that), the coincidence of the two developments will lead, and has led, many people to make that conclusion. But coincidence in time is not enough.
Second, there is also a plausible narrative that the roles played by imports from Asia, as well as by offshoring and foreign outsourcing, link the two developments. One may then wonder if the policies that are credited for creating the new “middle class” in China, Vietnam, Thailand, and increasingly in India might not at the same time be “impoverishing” the middle classes in the rich world. If this is the case, we ought to get used to the apparently paradoxical situation that decreasing global inequality will coexist (or may be responsible) for rising national inequalities in the rich countries.
If we then visualize the world over the next 30-50 years, in which other, even poorer countries, become the “new Chinas,” the stagnation of middle-class incomes in the rich countries may continue. Sure, there would be unavoidable, difficult twists and turns in that scenario. For example, in a couple of decades China could join the rich world fully, and its then-higher wages would no longer be a “threat” to rich countries’ workers. The deindustrialization of the West and the North might have by then progressed so far that the numbers of workers affected by the new competition from the poor parts of Asia and Africa may be much fewer and thus politically less salient.
But the essential tradeoff may still remain: are increasing national inequalities the “price” we (the world) pay for decreasing global inequality and poverty? Is one “good” thing linked to another “bad” thing? This is a particularly pertinent question because peoples’ income comparators (the proverbial Joneses) are mostly people from their own country, rather than any random person in the world. Thus, the positive developments reflected in lower global inequality may not be something—however happy we may be that they are taking place—that matters much, politically speaking.
In a recent, unpublished paper, John E. Roemer, a political scientist at Yale University, and I propose a simple model that attempts to take into account the fact that people care about both their absolute income level as well as their relative positions in national income distributions — not global ones. The results are revealing. When we assume that people care only about their incomes, as one does in usual calculations of global inequality or as one does in a cosmopolitan view of the world (where citizenship is ignored), global inequality indeed decreases as we have described above. But when we introduce some concern with national inequality, the decline becomes less significant. When the concern is equally shared between one’s absolute income and one’s relative national position, the decline in global inequality becomes an increase.
The intuition behind this result is easy to grasp. In most countries, and especially in the big ones like China, India, the United States, and Russia, national inequalities have risen. So if people are more focused on national inequality, their concerns about what is happening at home will dominate the “objective” reduction of inequality across the globe.
This may be politically a more meaningful way to look at global inequality, and it leads to a somber conclusion. Even if globalization were to be associated with an absolute real income improvement for all, or almost all, and reduced global inequality, if it is also associated with rising national inequalities, the unhappiness stemming from the latter may dominate. Globalization may be “felt” to produce a more unequal world, even if it objectively does not. Then the very facts that are globally hopeful and reassuring may have domestic consequences that are the very opposite.
Last edited:
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Dutch,
I always try to consider the views of those I disagree with. I am willing to compromise. I am not getting that same willingness to work things out from the main thrust of the Republican party. The extremists can't even be talked to. They are full of hatred. And they run the party. The rest of the right prefers to choose right wing extremism over ANY liberal ideas.
Compromise takes the willingness of both sides; but we have one side that refuses to compromise or even talk about it. They call that a weakness. That is what is preventing any progress. It is the stubbornness of the right wing.
It's like it takes two to have a marriage, but it only takes one to break it up.
I always try to consider the views of those I disagree with. I am willing to compromise. I am not getting that same willingness to work things out from the main thrust of the Republican party. The extremists can't even be talked to. They are full of hatred. And they run the party. The rest of the right prefers to choose right wing extremism over ANY liberal ideas.
Compromise takes the willingness of both sides; but we have one side that refuses to compromise or even talk about it. They call that a weakness. That is what is preventing any progress. It is the stubbornness of the right wing.
It's like it takes two to have a marriage, but it only takes one to break it up.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
That's the bias from Fox News:
Record turnout in Georgia primary destroys left's lies about 'voter suppression'
Don't fall for that nonsense. These laws had one purpose. Suppressing the vote. A record turnout does not mean that more people would not have voted if the suppression laws were not in place.
It is there.
Georgia’s Voter Suppression Law
Access to voting is easy for rich whites, difficult for poor blacks. Plenty of voting machines in the rich white hoods, few in the black ones.
Drop boxes removed. Short voting lines in white districts, hours long ones in the black districts. The suppression is obvious. And no water while waiting. That would be illegal. Gimme a break. That law is not ensuring election integrity. It is designed to suppress black voting.
"During the Jim Crow era, laws that looked neutral on their face were specifically designed to target Black voters. Today, legislators across the country are considering bills that will have the same effect. Nowhere is this more obvious than in Georgia, where last week, Gov. Brian Kemp signed into law an omnibus bill that targets Black voters with uncanny accuracy.
...
Kemp signed his voter suppression bill in front of a painting of a plantation where more than 100 Black people had been enslaved. The symbol*ism, unnerving and ghastly, is almost too fitting. "
The reason for the record turnout in Georgia is the energy of people like Stacey Abrams and Ralph Warnock. May they both win this year, for the good of Georgia!
That's the bias from Fox News:
Record turnout in Georgia primary destroys left's lies about 'voter suppression'
Don't fall for that nonsense. These laws had one purpose. Suppressing the vote. A record turnout does not mean that more people would not have voted if the suppression laws were not in place.
It is there.
Georgia’s Voter Suppression Law
Access to voting is easy for rich whites, difficult for poor blacks. Plenty of voting machines in the rich white hoods, few in the black ones.
Drop boxes removed. Short voting lines in white districts, hours long ones in the black districts. The suppression is obvious. And no water while waiting. That would be illegal. Gimme a break. That law is not ensuring election integrity. It is designed to suppress black voting.
"During the Jim Crow era, laws that looked neutral on their face were specifically designed to target Black voters. Today, legislators across the country are considering bills that will have the same effect. Nowhere is this more obvious than in Georgia, where last week, Gov. Brian Kemp signed into law an omnibus bill that targets Black voters with uncanny accuracy.
...
Kemp signed his voter suppression bill in front of a painting of a plantation where more than 100 Black people had been enslaved. The symbol*ism, unnerving and ghastly, is almost too fitting. "
The reason for the record turnout in Georgia is the energy of people like Stacey Abrams and Ralph Warnock. May they both win this year, for the good of Georgia!
Last edited:
Stringfellow Hawk
Member
I am ok with bag them and tag them, you come in the house uninvited of think more of my stuff than your life, that is on you