Blaming internet for Islamic Terrorism is a little like blaming the radio for Nazism.
Of course, the fundamental reason for the rise of Islamic Terrorism and Nazism can both be found in the way children are/were raised: physical beating are common in muslim countries as it was in Germany 100 years ago. Physical beating at a very young age conditioned the human for violence and irrational fear of authority, both are like programming interfaces / surface proteins waiting for a totalitarian government/moral-authority/agitator to plug in and take over the host cell.
Of course, muslims are not the only ones beating their children, just like Germans were not the only ones beating their children 100 years ago. What makes Islamism the primary threat is the same as what made Nazi Germany a greater threat than the equally totalitarian (if not more so) Soviet Union nearly a century ago: it's expansionist.
The solution is requiring mandatory contraception as condition for receiving welfare; it is more humane and more feasible than removing altogether the welfare state that is both attracting the economic migrants and inducing laziness.
To make up for the population loss due to this mandatory contraception, there should be a tax incentive for people to make more babies: 20% income tax credit instead of a fixed amount for every baby.
It is not possible to suppress a virulent religion using secularist force of arms (ref. Soviet experience in Afghanistan and Roman experience suppressing early Christianity). The real danger we face is muslims taking advantage of existing mandatory wealth transfer systems in western society to multiply like the early Christians did and making Islam into a mandatory religion in the West in a century or two, just like Christianity became official religion by 313AD, and Hypatia was murdered by a Christian mob a century later. That would be the dawn of a new dark age. In order to delay that from happening, there has to be a set of incentives for secular women to produce more children.
As for turning Islam into a more peaceful religion, we need to recognize that Christianity did not become a tolerant religion until after the 30 Year War, a genocidal war waged in central Europe between Catholics vs. Protestants, with the French siding with Protestants despite being Catholics themselves due to political balance of power reasons. After the Sunnis and Shiites throw a few nukes at each other, Islam will become a peaceful religion; the voices for reason among muslims can only cower in fear until that happens first.
Aside from helping bringing about that as soon as possible, we need to stay the heck out of middle east and increase our own numbers in the western world.
The fundamental problem we face today in Western modern society is the collapse of human fertility. If this demographic trend continues, we are doomed just like late Roman secularists (including Hypatia) were doomed by the early Christians, by sheer numbers as each generation of early Christians far out-reproduced the secularists. The Dark Age followed after the religious zealots took over.
If during the month of 150 deaths in France, Isis can cause the deaths of 15,000 muslims in the same month in the middleast via their instigation of the internecine wars there, and suck 1500 French muslims to the middleast to be legally droned to death there instead of converting more French women to Islam, it may well be an institution worthy of clandestine funding.
The fundamental solution to the problem has to be a demographic solution: how to encourage western women to produce more children born into surroundings where they can be raised in rational non-violent fashion, with constant attention from parents when toddler then shown proper role models of diligent work ethics by their parents as they enter pre-teen and teenage years, so they can grow up to be rational independent adults, not fearful of risks, not afflicted with the superstitions of power (whether in the name of "god" or "government").
One solution is a 10% tax credit for every child in the household (i.e. 10% reduction in total tax due for every child; 5 children and your total tax liability is cut in half, as your family is raising the next generation for the society), combined with mandatory birth control for receiving any welfare, applied to all welfare recipients native or immigrant. That would quickly optimize the next generation towards a more productive demographic, instead of the current nightmarish breeding of dependent population subsidized by taxes and public borrowing.
Sure, sure, when the police turned up at the hotel in Mumbai, for example, the terrorists just laid down their guns and gave up.
You seriously think these people just gave up because the police arrived? Who do you think you are trying to kid? They didn't give up. They blew themselves up. They were happy to die. That's how fucked up they were. You don't really seem to have much idea of the mentality of these individuals.
The ones who did Mumbai were battle-hardened veterans from the 1998 war in Kashmir mountains. The run-of-the-mill wackos are not battle hardened at all. They want to die in a blaze of "glory" or get their "72 virgins," but they usually do not want to bleed out slowly writhing in pain for hours before expiring, or even have the mental capacity to handle real combat against another group of armed people. It's not just the police that caused the wackos to give up, but they gave up and shot themselves when faced with any armed opposition!
Yes, yes, that is obviously what we need. Young people carrying M4s when they go for their shopping, young people carrying M4s when they're out on the piss at the weekends. Young people carrying M4s at music festivals... I can't for the life of me think why people didn't push for this idea before.
Most music festivals have armed guards nowadays already, and yes the armed guards usually are young people.
If you hate guns and self-defense so much, why don't you advocate disarming the secret service? or even disarming the police?
Unless somewhere is under very heavy guard, then anywhere is a potential target. Station, shopping mall, wherever. Every city has any number of soft targets. Nothing can be done about it, unless you want to live in a world where every single building you enter has multiple armed guards stationed at the entrances, where you are searched and go through a metal detector...
You seemed to have missed the very simple fact that almost all of the mass shooting events took place where guns were banned. When the few instances where one or two concealed carry civilians were present despite the ban, the wannabe mass murders quickly killed themselves! Even in this Paris incident, the mere showing up of police being able to shoot back quickly led to the terrorists blowing themselves up instead of trying to do real battle against armed opponents. The terrorists may well have killed themselves earlier or not have started the massacre to begin with if even 1% of the 2000+ "sitting ducks" in that theater had been armed. The "soft targets" are soft only because gun control laws preventing law abiding citizens from protecting themselves.
So like I said, your idea is to allow a bunch of pissed up young kids to carry concealed weapons. Good plan.
Exactly! Civilians should be encouraged to train and qualify for M4, the standard Army and Marines officers' side arm. 2nd Amendment has to be strengthened in the face of this new "Pervasive/Total War" threat, and many of the gun control laws have to be lifted. Otherwise, not even having police and National Guard deployed on every street would be able to defend this kind of threat, but only subject the uniformed defenders to random murder by those religious thugs.
So like I said, your idea is to allow a bunch of pissed up young kids to carry concealed weapons. Good plan.
The pissed up young kids who want to shoot up people seem to choose the same gun-free zones, aka free-shooting zones. Logic seems to indicate, gun-free zones are open invitations to pissed off mass murderers and wannabes, foreign and domestic.
What a complete nonsense. What do you think a few concealed weapon carriers would have done in the face of such carnage? There were 3 or 4 of them. All suicide bombers, all apparently heavily armed, and quite probably well trained. A dozen well trained and armed police would have struggled to contain them even ignoring the element of surprise.
As soon as the 3 or 4 of the terrorists had guns out, the element of surprise would be on the side of the concealed carry gun holders. If you think "a few concealed weapons carriers" are not enough, then we should advocate for higher percentage of carry. If the 6-round hand gun is not enough, the M4 carbine is quite portable and is the standard issue side arm replacing pistols for lower to mid level officers in the Marine and Army.
Hypatia was carved to death by a Christian mob exactly 100 years after Constantine legalized Christianity. Constantine only legalized Christianity after 100+ years of Roman persecution trying to stamp out Christianity costing the Roman state enormous treasure and corruption.
yet uses Uber himself because it is not regulated by the taxi commission!
This is not necessarily true. Uber has many benefits. The two biggest benefits seem to be that you can get an Uber really really quickly and they are cheap. If Uber becomes regulated, it may get more expensive, but it may still be cheaper than taxi cabs. They will still be easier to faster than cabs.
At best, you could mean that he uses Uber b/c it is cheap, which is b/c it is unregulated, but you are out on a limb that is barely tethered to the tree.
Only to people who are too dumb to realize taxi commissions regulate taxis via medallions, which would make taxi/uber limited in supply, hence expensive and slow / short in supply.
Plus, rich people who want a higher tax but don't voluntarily give money to the government are not hypocrites.
Only to people who are too dumb to realize the rich advocating raising taxes but do not voluntarily give money to government are really advocating their power to spend more of your money --- because they already own the government!
People who use Uber, but want a level playing field between local cabs and internet based cabs are not hypocrites. Same goes for those who use ecommerce sites, but want a sales tax levied to even that playing field.
Only if the advocacy is for abolish the taxi commission and all regulation on taxi, as a way of leveling the field.
How do you think the taxi commissions came about? Organized and paid for by taxi company owners who wanted the government to step in to limit supply, so they can raise prices! Slow response is just a side effect of reduced supply! Duh! What you want free taxis just like free healthcare from Uncle Bernie? When there is no taxi no healthcare for you, it is "free"! LOL
The entire difference between Uber vs. regular cab service is that Uber is not regulated by the taxi commissions
No. Uber is cheaper because it's not an oligopoly like most taxi services. I called up three different taxi companies listed in the Yellow Pages to comparison shop and literally the same guy answered all three calls and told me that all taxi numbers go to the same place and they charge the same rates. Free market my ass.
You are too dumb to realize that the taxi oligopoly (and price fixing) is the result of city taxi commission regulations. Uber is an attempt to get around the government taxi commissions. Bernie wants Uber to come under the same taxi commissions, yet uses Uber himself because it is cheaper while not being under the regulations of the taxi commissions.
So, are you going to accept that entrepreneurs should be allowed to sell crack on school grounds to children?
This is what the free market looks like. This is capitalism without regulations.
This is what an entrepreneur and small business owner looks like.
The criminally high profit of drug dealing (both illegal type and the legal big pharmas) is the result of government regulations on drugs!
Selling cracks on school grounds to children would be no more profitable than selling candies on school grounds to children if cracks were fully legal. Few would find the incentive to go through the trouble to sell either to children with little money to spend.
Read the fate of Hypatia. That's what awaits the "enlightened"/"strong and independent" women and the cultures that lure them away from the fundamental duty of reproduction, thereby having their offsprings over-run by benighted fucktards.
It is weak sauce. It's not hypocritical to use a product or service that you think needs improvement.
The entire difference between Uber vs. regular cab service is that Uber is not regulated by the taxi commissions. Bernie advocates putting taxi commission regulation on Uber, yet uses Uber himself because it is not regulated by the taxi commission! That is hypocracy writ large. Bernie is proving himself to be just another fraud.
ncreasing dividends (mostly to the already wealthy who reinvest or help the government borrow money by buying US Treasuries, or jacking up the price of real estate), stock buybacks (making those who already own lots of stock even wealthier). The Effective corporate (what companies actually pay, not the maximum rate they could theoretically pay) taxes are rock bottom. Wealthiest 1% have increased their income and wealth exponentially over the past 30 years; but the buying power of the median household is flat as a board.
These are the results of the fiat central banking system creating an artificially low interest rate benefiting those with special connection to the government at the expense of the rest of the population.
And yet, job creation is weak as can be, weakest Recovery in History.
That's the result of government and FED intervention preventing liquidation of previous bad investments.
The empirical facts on the ground do not support the contention that taxes are too high, companies don't have enough tax or cash on hand, the wealthy are losing ground, and the ordinary worker is too spoiled or their power has grown (at all).
Instead we see speculative busts and bubbles, housing costs far outstripping wages, stock buybacks, etc.
Once again, the fault is with the fiat banking system creating artificially low borrowing cost for the most wasteful entities such as the government itself and the biggest banks, and bailing them out by transferring the cost of their mistakes to everyone else.
Plus all the jobs created by people spending dividend money. More importantly, it is the profit that improves living standards, not jobs per se. If you just want a job without profit, you can dig a hole and bury it all day long, getting paid in pennies and call that a job.
We already have that. Corporate profits are the highest in post war history Corporations, particularly the offshorers, are flush with cash,
Profit is not the same as corporate profit. The vast majority of business entities are sole proprietors, not corporations, and certainly not the large corporations that go into "corporate profit," which is little more than a measure of the monopolistic power of large corporations.
You would just have more people working as lobbyists lobbying for tariffs for their particular industries, all at the expense of American consumers of course.
So what? They lobby like hell today. I didn't propose that raising tariffs would be a stop to lobbying. Allowing only human beings to lobby government and not property would be a start. After all, we don't allow cats, sticks, and crabgrass to lobby government, why pieces of paper?
Tariffs would vastly increase lobbying opportunity. BTW, pieces of paper do not lobby any more than cats, sticks or crabgrass; it's always the human beings lobbying another set of human beings (the latter may be called "government," a make-belief entity).
How exactly would Americans have higher standards of living than other countries even if we kept all the smoke stack industries and other countries copied exactly the same? The relatively decline in US vs. the rest of the world is simply the result of failure to innovate and advance ahead.
Tariffs - and there still would be domestic competition. You realize that KFC competes with Popeyes and GM with Ford. As did Zenith with RCA back in the day.
Please re-read my question. American living standards would not be higher living standards than other countries if other countries do exactly the same things that we do, tariffs or no tariffs. Real higher living standards can only happen if we have higher productivity than other countries. Cutting ourselves from global trade is certainly not going to make our productivity higher than other countries. They can just copy us. Free trade is a way of extracting a fee (their cheap labor) while letting copying take place.
Exactly! Even if China did not exist, there would be Vietnam, India, and etc..
Only thanks to US Outsourcing. India is far, far, less industrialized than China and is a basket case, despite the growth of IT for a fraction of it's middle class (who are mostly landlords).
Its going through the same sort of rapid economic growth that China went through 15 years ago. Guess what? India opened its doors to free trade in the early 1990's, vs. China in the late 1970's, about 15 years difference.