The Democrat Thread

[Balta1701]

Deal with what? One line of my post? And then, instead of agreeing that maybe manufacturer requirements don't work you turn into a raving maniac for UK idiocy. You said cars are made safer because if they weren't hordes of people would die, but elsewhere they don't have those laws and everything is fine. The UK also has speed cameras, want to copy that one? A nice $75 fine for going 5 over? Car insurance is also ludicrous over there, more than a car payment. And you can't honestly be advocating a VAT tax, you're warped and brainwashed but you aren't stupid enough to think that's a good idea.

 

The USA is also made up of 50 states, many of which are much larger than Great Britain. So making cars insanely expensive to own is going to do some serious damage to the economy.

 

 

But, as usual, were supposed to put up with it because SAVING LIVES IS GUD CHANGE HAS COME 2 AMERICA

You're the one who cited the UK as a bastion of freedom and said how it doesn't have all these government regulations that would make life terrible to live.

 

Then you go and cite all sorts of government regulations that would make life terrible to live.

 

Pick one.

[southsider2k5]

The U.K. has a similar population density to Ohio or Illinois and substantially less than california or anything in New England. However, those states have 50% greater automobile ownership per capita than the UK.

 

Who pays for those roads?

[Balta1701]

Who pays for those roads?

Socialism.

[bmags]

The USA is also made up of 50 states, many of which are much larger than Great Britain. So making cars insanely expensive to own is going to do some serious damage to the economy.

 

I really don't understand this logic.

[DukeNukeEm]

You're the one who cited the UK as a bastion of freedom and said how it doesn't have all these government regulations that would make life terrible to live.

 

Then you go and cite all sorts of government regulations that would make life terrible to live.

 

Pick one.

I said that they, oddly, have fewer restrictions on car making. Oddly, like you wouldn't figure it'd be that way over there. The UK is more of a police state than the USA. If you can get around London in any capacity without being caught by CCTV I'll give you a million dollars. It kinda confirms the slippery slope, I mean those cameras are there "for your protection."

[DukeNukeEm]

I really don't understand this logic.

A big place that is almost entirely populated has near infinite possibilities for travel. How many cities with 100,000 or more people are there within a day drive from Chicago? Rockford, Gary (NW Indiana), Aurora, Naperville, Milwaukee, Madison, Springfield, Peoria, Bloomington-Normal, Champaign-Urbana, Joliet, Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, South Bend, Grand Rapids, Quad Cities. And from those places individually how many 100,000 pop cities are there within a days drive? Let's pick Indianapolis (and we wont even repeat cities from the first list): Evansville, Louisville, Lexington, Frankfort, Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus, Springfield OH, Toledo.

 

So let's say you've gotta make a two stop trip from Chicago, there are 144 possible routes ONLY COUNTING MAJOR CITIES. And that is one sub region, of one region, of one half of the USA. Yea, I doubt trains or bicycles can cover those kinds of travel needs.

[Jake]

A big place that is almost entirely populated has near infinite possibilities for travel. How many cities with 100,000 or more people are there within a day drive from Chicago? Rockford, Gary (NW Indiana), Aurora, Naperville, Milwaukee, Madison, Springfield, Peoria, Bloomington-Normal, Champaign-Urbana, Joliet, Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, South Bend, Grand Rapids, Quad Cities. And from those places individually how many 100,000 pop cities are there within a days drive? Let's pick Indianapolis (and we wont even repeat cities from the first list): Evansville, Louisville, Lexington, Frankfort, Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus, Springfield OH, Toledo.

 

So let's say you've gotta make a two stop trip from Chicago, there are 144 possible routes ONLY COUNTING MAJOR CITIES. And that is one sub region, of one region, of one half of the USA. Yea, I doubt trains or bicycles can cover those kinds of travel needs.

 

Of course, people driving everywhere they can think of to and from Chicago don't make up the majority of miles driven. It's just people going to work.

[DukeNukeEm]

Of course, people driving everywhere they can think of to and from Chicago don't make up the majority of miles driven. It's just people going to work.

 

It sounds like you have a bit of a problem with cars? Don't like the civilized world where we have nice things like cars that allow to make those kinda of trip? Rather live ina country where that isn't even an option? Great! Africa will take you I'm sure. You'll live a nice progressive lifestyle until you're burned alive for being a witch.

[Jake]

It sounds like you have a bit of a problem with cars? Don't like the civilized world where we have nice things like cars that allow to make those kinda of trip? Rather live ina country where that isn't even an option? Great! Africa will take you I'm sure. You'll live a nice progressive lifestyle until you're burned alive for being a witch.

 

Not really - I think access to cars is really important, which is why I hesitate to endorse too many hurdles to full licensing. Cars are one of the 20th century's greatest innovations in terms of the way it democratized travel and access. If I can just get a car...my possibilities for employment, residence, and knowledge are much expanded.

 

My response to your post is meant to say that while the many ways to get to many places is mind boggling and in most cases will require travel by car, those myriad possibilities are not what make us drive more miles than our international peers. It is because, even when population density is equal, we choose travel by car instead of public transport for everyday, largely short-distance, activities.

 

Where I'm living now, Memphis, is a great example. There are 1 million people here. There is public transport available, though I'd imagine the average city of 1 million people in Europe has more accessible and functional options. Nobody uses that public transport, though. It isn't the cost, not really the convenience, it is just force of habit and culture. In this town, there is a racial aspect to why people don't use public transport. The people on the buses are black. The people in the cars are white.

 

If we could increase the use of public transport, we'd increase the safety on the roads and reduce the environmental impact. Likewise, we'd probably improve race relations while the increased use of public transport would spur more development of the public transit system.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Jake

[DukeNukeEm]

Why do you care if people want to drive? If they want to pay for fuel and registration because they don't like the bus that has nothing to do with you. Oh, and hating public transportation because it sucks isn't racist.

[Soxbadger]

You know there will always be human suffering. Something bad is always going to happen to someone and there's little reason to it. You've been sufficiently brainwashed by academia and the government to think this mechanism of human existence is preventable or at least mitigatable. So as long as there's suffering (and there always will be) there will be you, the loyal servant to the state who agrees that "Yes! Feeding the government massive sums of money will fix it!" And the problems will go unfixed, and we'll lose more of our freedoms, and they'll ask for more money because the first batch wasn't quite enough, and they'll get that money and eventually youll be mired in an existence of wage slavery--because you're much more useful to the state as a compliant serf than a free individual. And all the people that could stand up to it? Well you took their guns away.

 

You could say this reality is all but upon us right now.

 

The part that you dont seem to want to concede is that unless you are a true sociopath you have to agree that government is ultimately better than no government. Thomas Hobbes understood this in Leviathan (Life was cruel, brutish and short), and so we evolved. We looked at society as humans and said: "This is not good enough", so we changed. And I guess there is a certain irony that our country was founded on the idea that if we came together, we could do better.

 

Human existence is mitigatable. Whether you like or not, it is.

 

Ill fight the govt harder than you could ever imagine. But lets be honest, do you really want this free society? And Im talking extremely free, utilitarian laws where the only thing you cant do is infringe on another persons rights. You can have all the guns, I can have all the drugs, we arent hurting anyone. No immigration, anyone can come to the US. No laws on gay marriage, no laws on marriage period.

 

Because otherwise your words are hollow and you are just fighting for your own vision of "freedom" not actually wanting people to be free. And thats my problem with gun rights. Some of the people who support it are so hypocritical that it makes me want to take away their guns out of spite.

 

I actually used to be progun and I know that in a truly free society people should be able to own guns. Im just being a philosopher king and saying that maybe its safer if no one has them. Maybe thats just stupid rose colored glasses, but a lot of times I think that maybe we dont dream enough. Human existence is so short and we have come so far. Id like to think that there are other people out there who want to make the world better.

 

Maybe there arent.

[Jake]

In Duke's defense, we just talked about what you're accusing him of not too long ago re:police. He said that police are an example of the necessary functions of government.

 

When I'm arguing with people, I like to establish where we are on common ground. Duke and I agree that there should be government. The devil is in the details.

[Soxbadger]

In Duke's defense, we just talked about what you're accusing him of not too long ago re:police. He said that police are an example of the necessary functions of government.

 

When I'm arguing with people, I like to establish where we are on common ground. Duke and I agree that there should be government. The devil is in the details.

 

Im quite aware. Which is why I found it interesting that he then went to such great lengths to argue that bad things are always going to happen and therefore we shouldnt look to govt to try and help.

 

Its like arguing that murder is always going to happen and thus why have police...

 

See what I did there. Just because you cant prevent every bad thing from happening, doesnt mean you give up on trying to stop any bad thing from happening.

Edited September 20, 2013 by Soxbadger

[bmags]

It sounds like you have a bit of a problem with cars? Don't like the civilized world where we have nice things like cars that allow to make those kinda of trip? Rather live ina country where that isn't even an option? Great! Africa will take you I'm sure. You'll live a nice progressive lifestyle until you're burned alive for being a witch.

 

Africa has cars.

[bmags]

Just a little more info, Africa is a giant continent with many different countries, and a lot of those countries have been doing very well!

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-rel...l-wealth-wisely

 

In fact, the US indifference to Africa has been a detriment as many euro and asian companies have taken advantage of their growing economies. They indeed have cars, and houses, and are real people! It's amazing!

[CrimsonWeltall]

Just a little more info, Africa is a giant continent with many different countries, and a lot of those countries have been doing very well!

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-rel...l-wealth-wisely

 

In fact, the US indifference to Africa has been a detriment as many euro and asian companies have taken advantage of their growing economies. They indeed have cars, and houses, and are real people! It's amazing!

 

Mmmm, I just watched a documentary called "Zulu" that was made last year, so I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

[DukeNukeEm]

Wow go Africa! Too bad the combined GDP of the entire continent is less than Spain. Failed state Spain, the same Spain that has only like 50 million people to Africa's billion. I'm not impressed that they're allowing the Europeans (so much for not falling for for that one again) and.Chinese loot their natural resources.

 

I don't think its worth the trouble, really. The world "tried" Africa, even though its a lot less P/C than it was in 2000 its still The Hopeless Continent.

Edited September 20, 2013 by DukeNukeEm

[bmags]

Obviously, the time to give up on a region is when a large number of their countries economies are growing steadily during a global slowdown..

[DukeNukeEm]

As happy as they should be for ascending past the bronze age in the 21st century, I'm not too impressed with that growth.

[Soxbadger]

I bet there was a DukeNukem back in 16th century telling people why they should not invest in the "colonies". I mean they were so far behind the rest of the world, no way they would ever catch them.

 

Oh wait...

 

Simple economics, eventually Africa will become the cheapest source of labor etc. It may be the last to experience rapid industrialization, but when it does, it likely will have the benefit of having the best new technologies which should allow it to quickly bridge the gap.

 

Same thing happened in the US. When industry came to the US, they had to build new factories. Those factories were newer and better than their European counterparts, thus the US experienced a rapid transformation.

 

Unless your insinuating that for some unknown reason Africa wont develop. Which is kind of odd considering that Egypt developed before Europe...

[Jenksismyhero]

I bet there was a DukeNukem back in 16th century telling people why they should not invest in the "colonies". I mean they were so far behind the rest of the world, no way they would ever catch them.

 

Oh wait...

 

Simple economics, eventually Africa will become the cheapest source of labor etc. It may be the last to experience rapid industrialization, but when it does, it likely will have the benefit of having the best new technologies which should allow it to quickly bridge the gap.

 

Same thing happened in the US. When industry came to the US, they had to build new factories. Those factories were newer and better than their European counterparts, thus the US experienced a rapid transformation.

 

Unless your insinuating that for some unknown reason Africa wont develop. Which is kind of odd considering that Egypt developed before Europe...

 

Africa doesn't have the resources the world demands like the US did back in the day. And those resources they do have (mining in particular) have been gobbled up by so few companies that there's no major need for the entire continents population to be displaced in favor of new immigrant workers.

[Soxbadger]

Africa doesn't have the resources the world demands like the US did back in the day. And those resources they do have (mining in particular) have been gobbled up by so few companies that there's no major need for the entire continents population to be displaced in favor of new immigrant workers.

 

First of all it presupposes that all resources we use today are the same resources that we will use tomorrow. Thats like saying at the turn of the 19th century the Middle East was always going to be worthless because all it had was sand.

 

Also its already happening. Factories move to where cheap labor is. Its why factories moved across the sea from England to the US (it was cost of labor and lax labor laws more than raw materials) as the US had FREE LABOR called slaves. Thus it was far cheaper to pick cotton in the US and ship it back to England than pick cotton closer. When the US began to industrialize you began to see labor move to cheaper places, Mexico, China, because once again, cheap labor.

 

So it only stands to reason that as China/Vietnam and the rest of the East industrialize, as labor becomes more expense, you will see a shift to the last bastion of cheap labor, Africa.

 

You dont need special resources to open sweat shops to make Nikes, you just need to find a place where the standard of living is so low that $1 a day is a good wage.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

First of all it presupposes that all resources we use today are the same resources that we will use tomorrow. Thats like saying at the turn of the 19th century the Middle East was always going to be worthless because all it had was sand.

 

Also its already happening. Factories move to where cheap labor is. Its why factories moved across the sea from England to the US (it was cost of labor and lax labor laws more than raw materials) as the US had FREE LABOR called slaves. Thus it was far cheaper to pick cotton in the US and ship it back to England than pick cotton closer. When the US began to industrialize you began to see labor move to cheaper places, Mexico, China, because once again, cheap labor.

 

So it only stands to reason that as China/Vietnam and the rest of the East industrialize, as labor becomes more expense, you will see a shift to the last bastion of cheap labor, Africa.

 

You dont need special resources to open sweat shops to make Nikes, you just need to find a place where the standard of living is so low that $1 a day is a good wage.

 

I predicted this in a paper as a sophomore in college 20 years ago. Still waiting for it to happen.

 

[Balta1701]

I predicted this in a paper as a sophomore in college 20 years ago. Still waiting for it to happen.

Did you get the order of Korea-Taiwan-China-India-Southeast Asia correct?

[Soxbadger]

I predicted this in a paper as a sophomore in college 20 years ago. Still waiting for it to happen.

 

Great minds?