Hahaha, you're siting internet comments as your evidence? That's rich.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Of course we're a socialist country too and our socialist programs are incredibly popular.
And for the record, most socialist don't hate rich people, that's a conservative myth. Furthermore, graduated taxation is not penalizing the rich because they're rich, a wealthy person can afford 30% of their salary taxed while a poor person would be ruined. Likewise, a poor person would likely be ruined by a $300 ticket while a wealthy person wouldn't even notice the penalty. Therefore it only makes sense to penalize the affluent offender more so the penalty is equal.
"Which effectively makes it a "whose lawyers are better game, protecting the rich and powerful."
And that differs from the US how?
"They love authority and control, it's in their culture."
Hahaha. Okay, I'll just believe this because you say so.
I suppose their parliamentary democracy was thrust upon them from outside sources as well then?
"As for militias vs regular modern armies... The Taliban defeated NATO."
The Taliban "defeated" NATO? So the Taliban now rule Afghanistan? I must have missed something in the news...
If you're referring to our lack of a clear victory in Afghanistan, that had more to do with commitment on our part which is why citing a foreign occupation is a bad example. Syria is a prime example. Libya is another good example, those people were getting butchered by artillery and air power before our air strikes began.
If civilian militias can't defeat third tear armies fighting for their survival how will they fair againts first tear? I mean, think about it. How would that play out? Would it be like the 80's movie Red Dawn where a bunch of Americans with rifles savage the Soviet Army?
Marginal issues that have no effect on most people's lives and certainly don't invalidate my "roughly on par" statement.
Don't get me wrong their libel laws suck. Plus we're probably coming close to similar laws in regards to encryption here in the US as well. Just give it some time
Of course the British now enjoy rights roughly on par with our own and without the need for wide spread gun ownership.
On top of that, good luck to anybody trying to rise up with a bunch of rifles againts a military like ours. The Syrian people are fighting a third rate military and are slowly loosing. What hope would there be available ts the US military?
Face it, unless they're armed with AA guns and anti tank weaponry, militias as a means of countering government control are a pre 20th century relic.
Or we could figure out a better way to distribute resources. Capitalism works great when there's plenty of work to do. Not so well when there isnt.
Is there a spot for an mp3 player?
It's more like us invading Iraq fostered the Islamic State. Sadam's army would have crushed the IS had they tried invading Iraq with him in power rather than running away as today's Iraqi army did. Not only that but we lost a great counter weight to Iran by taking Sadam out and set off wide spread inter-ethnic / inter-faith violence in the region which has only helped the IS advance.
All Obama did was end our misguided and arrogant attempt at nation building
Yes because Islam is a horrible, monstrous religion. Or is it religion in general that's bad? Or maybe your just a bigot?
Oh look, it got modded up to 5 while you got modded to 0 and labeled troll. Accurate grading on all fronts!
Yes, you're right to address the rampant award show oriented rascism present in this country. For too long this problem has been glossed over by the liberal media! White people need to stand up to this horrible oppression!
Yes, Hitler and Stalin got their start at Christmas tree events for children.
Sorry for the late reply but...
A) your linked to article does not mention a single disease that can be prevented with inoculation and is thus irrelevant.
B) I'm jumping on the partisan band wagon? How is that? All I did was point out that illegal immigration was irrelevant in the context of the forced inoculation debate. I didn't even voice an oppinion on the overall subject.
You're making things up again.