581–590 of 681 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Gatling gun also predates any widespread gun control. Notably, the Gatling gun is still legal almost everywhere, including California (lulz!). If that is legal, what is the actual point of 99% if the rest of the bans, etc?
The main point is that there isn't an epidemic of gatling gun crimes in America.
Another bad decision that won't stand the test of time. The decision says more about the justices themselves than it does the decision. Voting the "right way" gets positive press attention, invites to the DC social circle, etc. Kavanaugh and Barrett are both attention seeking, weak willed individuals that Roberts plays like puppets. Personally, Trump should not have nominated either of them. And W's nomination and se…
Another bad decision that won't stand the test of time. The decision says more about the justices themselves than it does the decision. Voting the "right way" gets positive press attention, invites to the DC social circle, etc. Kavanaugh and Barrett are both attention seeking, weak willed individuals that Roberts plays like puppets. Personally, Trump should not have nominated either of them. And W's nomination and se…
I'm sorry, you are saying that using the highest law of the land to settle a legal question it directly addresses is historically disingenuous?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And some other country might be liking those Founding Fathers concepts' even more. So? Doesn't change the fact that they weren't very good with not letting class/race/gender/etc position influence their policy making. And that's the claim we're discussing whether they've been good at, not whether they came up with some good new concepts like "due process" and "the right to free speech". They had "due process" but the…
[flagged]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slave...
> Those cultures didn’t think slavery was wrong.
Southern antebellum culture was so beyond the pale it not only “didn’t think slavery was wrong,” it thought slavery was so good and so fundamental to its way of life that “mass fratricide,” as you put it, was preferable to abolition.
Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45407005
Earlier quoted context omitted.
America had a pretty decent sized fascist movement in the early 1900s.
“Average”, son. Was the average American a fascist in the early 1900s? The fascist party in the early 1900s was a fringe party. It existed and was considered a legitimate opinion, fine, but don’t act like the average American was anywhere near fascist. What in gods name would blood and soil even mean when you’ve got Italians living next to Irish living next to Poles living next to English? You haven’t got any blood t…
Like that stops people. Hitler hardly matched his own Aryan ideal.
> Was the average American a fascist in the early 1900s? … The fascist party in the early 1900s was a fringe party.
That’s equally true about Germany. As the sibling comment notes, it’s the era of Jim Crow and the female half of the country can’t even vote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The United States is made up of… states. The United States also posesses some territories, which are not states. This is why Puerto Ricans got their citizenship by statue in 1917, rather than via the Fourteenth Amendment. > American Samoa was included and considered in the United States and "subject to the jurisdiction" as recently as 2019… No, it wasn't. That case was overturned on appeal. It remains under US jurisd…
>The United States is made up of… states. And territories, minor outlying islands, and a federal district. >No, it wasn't. Yes it was, the opinion of the court held that those born in American Samoa were born in the United States. : >“Plaintiffs, having been born in the United States, and owing allegiance to the United States, are citizens by virtue of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” Waddoups add…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, and politely, wtf is that logic? You are disenfranchised when your judicial branch interprets law in a way that disproportionately benefits only the people who are most similar to the authors. Also, how wealthy are you? Why did you bring up your race instead of how much land you own? Why pull the culture war into this? Certain interpretations of the constitution disproportionately benefit people who own a lot of…
You brought up race. I’m just responding.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, and politely, wtf is that logic? You are disenfranchised when your judicial branch interprets law in a way that disproportionately benefits only the people who are most similar to the authors. Also, how wealthy are you? Why did you bring up your race instead of how much land you own? Why pull the culture war into this? Certain interpretations of the constitution disproportionately benefit people who own a lot of…
You brought up race. I’m just responding.
Did you edit your comment?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair a lot of it had also to do with the sheer immense amount of vast, mostly unused ,fertile land available in north America. I sincerely doubt the American experiment would have worked this well if they had rowdy neighbours and infighting due to resource constraints. For almost 200 years the solution to most things in the USA was to get a chunk of either their people or immigrant to move to the neck of the wo…
> sheer immense amount of vast, mostly unused ,fertile land available in north America it was not "available", it only became "available" after we killed off nearly all the inhabitants and stole their land
The Indians were nomadic hunter-gatherers who were sparsely distributed around the US and moved seasonally. Diseases killed the majority. Inter-tribal warfare was the second leading cause of death (tribes that had been fighting for generations with rocks and sticks got access to horses, steel blades and guns and became much more lethal) and deaths attributable to European settlers were negligible compared to the first two causes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm asking you, is this really such a big problem that it requires getting rid of welfare? Is the US financially in trouble because it pays out welfare to undeserving layabouts? I seriously doubt it.
Yes im absolutely certain the broken redistribution system is one of the most pressing problems in US, but of course its not the only one. Not because recipients dont "deserve" a living but rather it poisons the productive and it provides the wrong incentives to recipients while conditioning them to depend on a bloated government that now has total leverage on their life (and of course, virtually assured votes to who…