onawave wrote:wtf.
trying to make sense of some of these posts.
big sweeping change is the hardest thing to pull off in government. im not "arguing" on the how it should be done. im making a point on that these kinds of program's work in other countries, your CURRENT government is trying to make some progress in making the USA a better place to live. (imho)
Yes, that's your opinion. And you're entitled to it. But, my opinion on your opinion is - most likely, whereever it is you live is quite small (population-wise, economy-wise, everything-wise) relative to the US. So, most likely, you have no idea what you're talking about.
onawave wrote:i mean holy fuk. every time someone tries to change a law for the better over there, some idiot brings up the one of your amendments and pokes holes in it or hides behind it.
Let's stop for a moment. The law is thousands of pages long. The key wording here is "for the better". Earlier you said, I'm "not arguing how it should be done". I'd say, you kinda are. Do you honestly think that the thousands of pages could include some elements pretty much every single human could disagree with? In our country, this is known as pork. Why does one have to agree with a bill that includes loads of pork and other (largely unrelated) laws in order to pass the underlying initiative that they agree with?
Personally, I disagree with the basics behind the desire for this sort of law. I can understand that someone may disagree with me. However, supporting "this law" and how "this law" was "done" and saying it's "making things better" (at least thus far) is straight-up laughable.
onawave wrote:basic healthcare for everyone? again im not arguing on how its been implemented, im on the side of the fence that this shit fuking works. its not going to be perfect, but holy shit it has to be better than what u have now.
How do you know it's better than what we have now? Once again, you probably don't. It's a counterfactual. The US is the largest economy in the world. Trying to change healthcare could result in a better system, or could even make things worse. The truth is - we're all just expressing "opinions".
onawave wrote:im not even going to entertain the spying debate. read the topic.
You're not going to entertain the spying debate? Honestly, why? You're obviously from another country. So, you're OK with the US spying on everything your elected leaders do? Are you OK with them lying about it? Are you OK with them trying to silence and put the guy in a prison hole who made it public information? How about them spying on you? Is that cool? Every single thing you type, you say, etc. I'd say it's beyond f'd up. And if our favorite lead singer had any integrity to points he's made in the past (see Grievance), he'd agree.
In short, I suggest you read about it.
onawave wrote:getting back to ed. i %100 agree with the dude. imagine if tighter gun controls just even saved one kids life. WINNING
What happens if they didn't? But, for arguments sake, let's say they do help save a few children's lives. But, once again, for argument's sake, what if the government did start to extend spying.... and started to behave more totalitarian. What if we fell into a depression and the US government got out of control? What if we were hit by another terrorist attack and more of our freedoms were removed? Seriously, this is "possible". Is it likely? Depends on perspective. But, it's possible. Some, crazy as it is, don't trust government. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that point of view.
Also, some use guns for recreational activities. Ed uses giant axes. I'd say giant axes, used in a game where they are thrown, are pretty dangerous. Should they be outlawed? Where's the line drawn? And - why? And - are we honoring the 2nd amendment in doing so? These are all reasonable questions.
onawave wrote:now the counter argument is that people need these guns for self defence. if this is actually true, well america has lost the battle with itself already.
Huh?
