Ten oz

Fuel taxes paid at the pump pays for some road maintenance. Much more spending went/goes into building them. People like the simple pay as you go view towards fuel tax. It provides them a sense of ownership. It isn't reality through. Many localities simply don't have the population to support their roads, highways, bridges, and etc via the taxes paid on fuel. Additionally fuel itself is heavily subsidized. The federal govt provides lands, supports infastructure, secures trade routes, and etc. Just look at Harvey, Irma, and Maria; the federal and local govt is spending billions to get the infastructure (ports, pipelines, electricity to run pumps, etc) back online so people can "pay" for fuel. The taxes paid on fuel doesn't cover those costs. Doesn't cover the costs of having U.S. military guarding refineries in places like Iraq. There are layers upon layers of costs. Many states receive more federal dollars than they pay. Unless waitforufo lives in a state where the population is actually paying more money than they are receiving they don't really have anything to complain about:

Paying taxes isn't ala carte. Everyone without exception has things they wish their tax dollars didn't go to. We don't get to just pick and choose. For those responsible for making the decisions regarding how to best spend our collective resources many factors must be considered. Less people with healthcare potentially means a less healthy workforce which would negatively impact GDP. Less people with healthcare potentially means disease can spread through communities faster as they may go unnoticed for longer periods. Such outbreaks could be catastrophic to various localities. Less people with healthcare potentially means more people in medical debt and financially unable to consumer other goods which could result is higher consumer costs. All those reasons and more is why even if the ACA were repealed the federal government would still be spending tax money on Medicare, Medicaid, the VA healthcare system, CDC, and etc. Neither Political party is proposing a totally free market approach.

Yes, the North back by USSR pushed into the South which was backed by U.S.. I didn't attempt to dispute that. My point was that neither the North or South were natural sovereign entities. Japan controlled Korea through both world wars and the decades between. North Korea and a South Korea were created by the USSR and U.S. as a byproduct of Cold War politics. It is an important consideration when attempting to understand the views and motives of all parties involved. Simply pointing the finger and labelling things right vs wrong or good vs evil almost never cuts it when dealing with long standing international disputes. Neither the North or South were pleased at the time with the borders created.

Korea was ruled by the Japan for decades prior to WW2. As Soviets moved in to parts of the North the U.S. moved in to the South. Both the Soviets and the U.S. viewed themselves as liberators who freeing Koreans from Japan. The split between between North and South was a product of the Cold War. Because Japan had ruled prior to that point there wasn't clear ruling govt who could resolve issues of sovereignty and both the North and South took umbrage with the borders. Both sides feeling they were the legitimate Korea. Absent the involvement of USSR and U.S. the Korea war can be described a civil conflict over new leadership in the power vaccum left by the fall of Japan. Unfortunately what happened in Korea is akin to what we have seen in the Middle East where regions were divided up without careful enough considerations for the people vice resources and culture and war has followed for generations. This was done across the globe during the Cold War. It is part of the reason why there is a conflict between China and Tiawan, why U.S. doesn't have normal relations with Cuba, and was a driver for the Vietnam War. None of that excuses Kim Jung-un. He is an evil person in my opinion who leads a regime that is opressive to its people. I just think it is important to keep in mind that more often than not all sides involved in a war believe they are the good guys though. One side being evil towards the righteous for generations isn't how we got to where we are. It almost never is. I think the need to blame and hold each other accountable for sole responsibility of a conflict is a major barrier to peaceful resolutions. It was more than Hilter's speech giving abilities and racist beliefs of the German people that accounted for the rise of the Third Reich. Economic conditions following WW1 created an unsustainable situation which proved to be a terrific breeding ground for Hilter's visceral. Perhaps a few rounds of economic bail outs in the 1920's and early 1930's would have defeated Hilter without shots fired?

Discussing whether Hitler was good or bad is different than bringing actual Nazis on campus to host events. As I previously said I support the idea that the govt should provide accommodations for under represented voices. Considering they are no open Nazis in federal elected positions here in the U.S. it can be argued that Nazis qualify as an under represented voice. Unfortunately Nazis are also considered enemies to the state so that complicates matters. So provided a specific Nazi group isn't considered a terrorist organization by DHS and wants to speak and/or protest I think the govt should accommodate it by providing access to public property (street, park, etc) well as security. That of course is assuming the Nazi group makes the request in a reasonable time frame.

@ MigL, I did not comment on the merits of having opposing views discussed at Universities. Rather I said Universities should not be obligated. If they choose to bring in people of various views, which most Universities currently do, than more power to them. I just don't feel they should have a legal obligation to bring in every Tom, Dick, and Harry that feels they have something to say. University administrators should be able to make decisions about what is and isn't useful for their students. You think your views should be free from criticism? That isn't how free speech works. You can start a thread about whatever you want, make it as Intelligent as you can, but you cannot control the response nor should you be able to in my opinion. Many posters have told me I am wrong about things. You specifically have accussed me of inaccurately labelling Conservative behavior. It doesn't mean you or anyone else is oppressing me and my freedom of speech. Posters are free to call something you say racist if that is what they understand it to be no different than you are free to post the things you understand.

I said the govt should support under represented voices. Didn't say Universities should. Additionally "all points of view" aren't under represented. Those who have the elected representation that embody them already have a voice in national discussions and decision making. To your point about Universities though; no I don't think they should. A Christian University shouldn't be obligated to provide a platform to Satanic groups nor should Jewish Universities have to host Nazis and etc.

The kneeling stuff to me is a no brainer. It is silent and doesn't force or even request accommodations from others. It is just an individual choice to take an individual action and doesn't burden anyone else. It is the minimum expression of freedom one should expect to have in a free society.

Not a home game, I live is DC ..

I agree, that is the case. However in my opinion there are situations where I think the govt should be providing the infrastructure (megaphone and soapbox). Particularly to under represented communities or organizations. The U.S. govt is meant to represent everyone and not everyone aligns with target audience of our 2 party system. The govt should make efforts to provide vioces to those who lack representation in public offices as a means of ensuring the govt is working for everyone. For example there are currently no open athiests in either body of Congress and only a single Muslim in either body. Yet about a fifth of the population is atheist and there are over 3 million Musilums in the U.S.. So in my opinion the govt should make efforts to ensure those groups at least get the opportunity to speak nationally when they have something to say.

Also MigL Charles Manson wasn't present when When Sharon Tate was murdered yet was still convict for it. Do you believe that Charles Manson holds no responsibility for the Manson Family murders and that only those who physically acted out the murders are responsible? Depends on who told them, when, and how. If a player on the field pointed me out and yell in to the stands 'don't let that man disrepect our house' I think the league would hold them accountable for sure. Ditto Jerry Jones if he gave a pre-game interview saying ' I sure wish that guy with that insulting shirt got what's coming to him'.

What if I attend a NFL Dallas Cowboys home game, have tickets for the home side of the stadium, and am wearing a shirt that reads 'Cowboys are gay'; does security have the right to ask me cover up up or leave? Obviously if someone assualts me they will be committing crime and deserve to be arrrested but that doesn't mean my behavior wouldn't be worth criticism. Now imagine this is how I made my living. I just travel around to different sporting events insulting the home team while streaming live via my phone on a social media service for my followers. Should I be banned?

Where did I say otherwise? You are totally perverting what I said so you can self righteously counter it. Questioning whether or not Ben Shapiro seeks the attention that protests against him creates for self aggrandizing reasons doesn't defend or excuse violence. We have laws on the books against inciting a riot. I did not accused Ben Shapiro the illegal behavior of inciting a riot.

I agree however throughout history democracies have mostly focused the exercise of freedom of speech to professional and semi professional media: radio, books, new papers, magazines, film, etc. When exercised in personto the disruption of a localities daily norms many of the most successful free speech related movements saw their members arrested. Martin Luther King was arrested numerous times for example. In 2017 the average person living in a western democracy has more access to mediums than ever before. People are free to say nearly whatever they want on Youtube, Facebook, Twiiter, instagram, and etc. Self publishing books, animation, film, and all forms of expression has never been easier. Maybe but aren't the protesters part of what make someone like Ben Shapiro a star? If the protests stopped or continued in a calm boring manner I suspect he'd tweak his language till they became attention grabbing again.

I certianly think he should. An argument can be made that lots of speech potentially can enrage people to violence and that one shouldn't be censored because of the bad behavior of others. That said in the case of Ben Shapiro he is only speaking to sell his brand and make money. As such I have no problem with a campus picking and choosing who they will and won't allow to use their facilities to promote themselves.

I am soliciting for that well as the negative.

UC Berkeley recently cancelled their Freedom of Speech week which has led to criticism from various groups with some insisting, Milo Yiannopoulos specifically, they will proceed as planned with their events on and or near campus. The decision to cancel by campus officials wasn't a frivolous one in my opinion. When conservative writer Ben Shapiro appeared on campus the school spent about $600,000 on security blowing through its annual “demonstration fund” of $250,000. I don't think UC Berkeley should be forced to financially subsidize new media figures self aggrandizing promotion events. Ben Shapiro has a radio show Milo Yiannopoulos is a published author both have platforms where their speech can be heard. I see no reason why UC Berkeley is under any obligation to host their brands. I see no difference between them demanding campus access and a pop musician demanding the campus allow them to set up in their quad and promote their new songs. I have seen where posters have lambasted moderators on this site claiming their freedom of speech was being oppressed. What are the limits? Can freedom of speech be abused or is any and all unfettered expression equal and deserving of protection?

This is a problem conservatives have faced for sometime. Rational consevatives have attempted to distance themselves from the bigoted and anti science views of the tea party for years and now find themselves doing the same with Trump but clearly with the tea party caucus having solid influence in Congress and Trump living in the White House their views are not obviously outliners which only a small minority of Conservatives support. It is misleading to pretend they are in my opinion. One shouldn't call themselves a Conservative, Liberal, Demorcrat, Republican, or etc but then cherry pick which views amongst popularly supported those ideologies they are willing to conced exist.

Do you recall the Republican primary debates in 2012 where cheers erupted when someone in the audeince shouted out "let them die" while Ron Paul was answerig a question about who should pay for a sick person who required care but didn't have coverage? That type of attituded has permeated healthcare discussion since the ACA was past and was popular amongst various tea party circles. In my opinion such attitudes are what Phi for All is referencing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T9fk7NpgIU

I don't think it is accurate to say its an idealogy about the role of govt. Republicans aren't trying to repeal Medicare and that is a govt entitlement. Only thing a citizen must do to not "squander all opportunities" related to medicare is to not die before turning 65yrs of age. Republican ideology on the matter lacks consistency which leaves the door wide open to different interpretations. Nothing misleading about Phi for All's interpretation. IF republicans had a unifying position or cut in dried ideology on the matter then one would be able to mislead or misrepresent it; but they don't.

The problem I see with both your and Phi for All's posts is that the GOP's policy goals with healthcare have next to nothing to do with Healthcare and everything to do with tax cuts. The reason the GOP are taking another swing at healthcare so soon after their previous failure is because they need to get an ACA repeal done or else they won't be able to get a deal done they want on taxes. So it isn't so much that Republicans don't think people "deserve" healthcare or are considering those who "squander all opportunities" but rather that Republicans don't care about healthcare in lieu of their attempt to cut taxes. While no individual elected Republican has said the exact words 'Not all Americans deserve healthcare' many of their actions have shown indifference towards people having or not having healthcare. So it isn't much of a stretch to assume most Republicans are not of the opinion it is something "all Americans deserve".So Phi for All's point disingenuous or prejudicial. It merely concludes reasonable assumptions you disagree with but that the Republican Party at large doesn't address. Trump campaigned on healthcare for all paid for by the government but then pressured members of Congress to support a repeal of the ACA with nothing replacing it. There is termondous inconsistency amongst Republican party leadership regarding healthcare which does beg to question there motives and views which is what Phi for All did.

No, waitforufo is attempting to pretend it is the same thing when it isn't. In context Nancy Pelosi was discussing the impact. She was saying we all have seen the controversies and now we will see the impact. The CBO cost estimate for the bill passed the Senate on December 24, 2009. The ACA had 79 committe hearings and was being openly debated by the Senate by the time of Nancy Pelosi's remarks. What was in the bill was known. Waitforufo is either hoping we are all ignorant of the ACA's actual legislative history or is ignorant of it themselves. The ACA passed March 23rd 2010. Nancy Pelosi's qoute is from March 10th of 2010. The major ACA provisions didn't even take effect untill 2014 which means opponents of the bill had nearly 4yrs of additional time to debate it and win enough seats to repeal it prior to it taking effect. "“You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention — it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. Furthermore, we believe that health care reform, again I said at the beginning of my remarks, that we sent the three pillars that the President’s economic stabilization and job creation initiatives were education and innovation — innovation begins in the classroom — clean energy and climate, addressing the climate issues in an innovative way to keep us number one and competitive in the world with the new technology, and the third, first among equals I may say, is health care, health insurance reform. Health insurance reform is about jobs. This legislation alone will create 4 million jobs, about 400,000 jobs very soon. "

It would help if you quantified this. How many people are beig shot, by what type of weapons, and what regulations are in place preventing firearm sales and are those regulations the same in all the countries? I am not going to waste my morning researching all the data needed by country to analyze your questions when you've provided none to kick off the discussion. With one simple search I found the following and it shows Columbia has just started taking steps to reduce the number of firearms people carry. Seems that obtaining a permit to carry a firearm was rather easy till just last year which implies obtaining firearms was easy as well which counters the assertion that "guns are really hard to get": "Colombia has extended a nationwide ban on carrying firearms until the end of 2016, an attempt to reduce violent deaths at a time the nation is attempting to consolidate peace. On January 19, Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos announced that an executive decree banning carrying firearms in public would continue until the end of this year. The ban was originally in place from December 23, 2015, through January 31. According to BBC Mundo, it is the first time Colombia has implemented a nationwide ban against carrying of weapons. Previous bans have been limited to specific geographic regions, such as certain districts of Bogotá, and were shorter in duration. Santos said the initial December to January restriction had produced positive results towards reducing homicides, saving many lives. During this period, Colombian Minister of Defense Luis Carlos Villegas said homicides fell 13 percent when compared to the same period in 2015. Hoping to usher in an era where disputes are resolved peacefully, Villegas said the 2016 weapons restriction is intended to address two problems. The first is homicides resulting from arguments and committed using a firearm. Colombia has issued 500,000 carry permits for firearms and another 400,000 possession permits; meaning roughly one in 53 citizens has a weapons permit. Santos' decree reverts all carry permits to possession permits, meaning firearms can no longer be carried in public except in certain cases. " http://www.insightcrime.org/news-briefs/colombia-implements-ban-against-carrying-guns-2016

And right now there are people in North Korea saying "my worry is the U.S. President with destory every man and women in my country". In Pakistan you don't think there are concern people wondering is a drone might mistakely blow up their home? Fear and dread and not exclusive feelings reserved for the righteous. Everyone and image those they perceive to be their nemesis doing something which frightens them. Could a nuclear weapon or nuclear material imaginally be smuggled in to a major city by NK, Pakistan, a former Soviet, or etc; yes. That said there are many more tangible threats and known risks governments can be focusing on. One can scare the piss out themselves all day with baseless scenarios. To our knowledge no govts or groups are actively attempting to move nuclear weapons into a major city.

Upton Sinclair identified this in his 1906 work The Jungle. Rather than society responding by demanding the social supports Upton advocated society instead turned to pay as you go legal acts where industries simply gets away with what they can till caught. Regulating industry without doing anything to replace or reduce purely capitalistic drives ensures the reward nearly always is be worth the risk. We see a micro version of this with performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) in sports. The risk of being caught is missing a couple of events/games and an apology tour in the media. The reward can be hundreds of millions of dollars and huge fandom. For many athletes being an ultra wealthy superstar of a sport who had to apologize once or twice is perferred to being average in their sport even though average pro athletes make good money. End of the day there simply isn't always middle ground which can be reached and often times positions are purposely taken extremes to ensure middle ground is more favorable to one side than the others. The fossil industry knows climate change is man made and real but they don't want to give up the trillions they can still make so they promote controversy in an attempt to influence where the middle ground is. The public at large demand our politicians reach compromises between real ideals and fake ideals. That isn't good. Politicians should be finding compromises between competing real ideals and not compromising purely to placate those who threaten to hold their breath till they pass out. There is no honest discussion to be had with liars and I think it is fair to say they liars do currently have a modicum of control over national dialogue. I agree with iNow's post but also think it is redundant. Throughout history there has always been segments of all societies which put selfish desires over the greater good regardless how obvious the error. That hasn't changed and isn't about to change in the near future.