'bye

That's very good sarcasm.

I've proposed zero income tax at least twice, on OPP, and backed it up with explanations. Few seemed interested.

I have a theory as to why few here would be interested. It is that political Conservatives aren't ready for change. Income tax has been with us all our lives, so they think it has to keep on as it is.

Much of your post doesn't make sense. And you aren't meriting much attention, because you start off by saying "demorats", which I can see is not a mere misspelling, because you repeat it.

It looks like you're repeating things that somebody like Trump made up.

It's a lot quicker for them to give flip insults, than it is for me to thoroughly address their specific _questions_.

Hah. Go answer your own questions.

I might, but I focused my attention and time on the Original Poster, LogicallyRight. What I can offer for now is my most recent post (before this one) in this thread.

Easiest matter first: Since you ask: The underscore denotes underlining. "_if_" means the word "if" underlined. It's a form of emphasis. Another form of emphasis is "shouting" which is to type in all-caps for emphasis: Like this: It's for EMPHASIS, and (the underscore method for emphasis) can easily be typed on the fly in any medium in which underscores are available, including in PLAIN TEXT mediums. People who work with computers (especially back in the 1980s on Unix computers) sometimes use ASCII characters in such ways to express themselves in plain text. You APPARENTLY didn't get it, but I won't call you STUPID for that. Some mediums such as (maybe) this one allow some limited hypertext for things like underlining or italics, but rather than learn each medium's idiosyncracies, I usually just use primitive methods like the underscore method which works the same in all mediums where typing is possible. Be educational: demonstrate and explain to me how to underline and make italics and make boldface type here in typed posts on One Political Plaza. Then you'd be more useful than when you're dismissing what you don't understand by calling it "apparently stupid". But if it involves square brackets, don't bother with the actual demonstration, because those have an additional unwanted effect of chopping off part of a post when it's being quoted. With the underscore method I don't run into so many unintended effects.

A lot of people (elsewhere) have found the all-caps method too obnoxious, so they called it "shouting".

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <- another thing you may not understand, so I'll explain; I use an extra line of characters as a spacer. I sometimes type a line of characters like that to space out a post, and separate one topic from another. I think it makes it easier to read the post because it breaks it up into parts. Just a couple of extra blank lines would have the same effect, except some "smart" mediums take it upon themselves to condense w****space, so rather than experiment to find out which do that and which don't, I just use a line of characters like ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ which works the same way in all mediums that allow typing.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

My earlier post had subtopics a, b, and c. Thank you for retaining those in your quotes.

a. ("shifting positions"): By now I understand approximately what your position is and how you express it. So it's not worthwhile to go back and explain why I said "shifting positions".

b. and c.: Thank you for responding to b and c. Your answers are intelligible and at least part of the time they are sensible. I don't have much patience with gun advocates but at least part of this discussion is interesting.

I agree with what you wrote in this part: "How about if everybody were to carry hand-grenades all the time? >>>Stupid. To much accidental damage probable and few real good places for it to be effective.
*** Would that be a good way to stop k**lers? >>>Probably not. Might k**l more innocents then k**lers."

So you DO understand what's wrong with everybody carrying hand-grenades all the time, and ARE willing to say it. I appreciate that.

But we differ when it comes to guns. I am applying the same reasoning to many-shot guns as I am to hand-grenades. Hand-grenades are worse, but many-shot guns also have increased risk of "accidental damage" and "k*****g more innocents", as compared with few-shot guns. The increased risk (in all cases, differing mainly by degree), is multi-fold: not only might damages and k*****gs happen by accident, but also they might happen deliberately. A mass shooting causing lots of damage is _more_ likely to happen, and more likely to cause more damage, deaths, and severe injuries, if a lot of people habitually carry many-shot weapons in public, as compared with them having few-shot weapons instead.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In the above, notice the word "accident". One way to have an accident is to lose one's temper. Another is to be too careless with weapons or any other potentially dangerous equipment. There are lots of ways to have accidents. One way to increase their likelihood is to arm everybody with high-powered, many-shot weapons and fire up those people to be very mad at a lot of other people. Another way is to carry a high-powered rifle into a peaceful demonstration "just in case" and then get paranoiac about what other people might do with your high-powered rifle. Yet another way to increase the likelihood of accidents is to be ignorant and intolerant and be in the habit of threatening people and getting mad a lot AND everybody habitually carrying many-shot weapons in public places.

There will always be a lot of ignorant and intolerant people who get mad a lot. But some of the other factors could be successfully addressed -- that is, limited.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

It looks like you didn't pay much attention to the difference in risks posed by many-shot weapons as distinct from few-shot weapons. But you DID pay attention to the difference in risks posed by hand-grenades as distinct from guns.

You said "I would advocate that the person who is carrying, carrying what adequate protection he thinks he needs." and similarly you said "Everyone has the right to make their own decisions on that for thier own protection." Do you apply the same rule to everyone carrying hand-grenades in public?

I think you use this principle: Everyone has a right to do wh**ever he or she thinks he or she needs to do.

And I think you are prone to dismiss the issue of everyone carrying hand-grenades, by merely calling that action "stupid". But there is still the matter of whether everyone has a right to do it. Do they or don't they? Why or why not? Is your principle still the same: (this time in your words): "Everyone has a right to make their own decisions on that for their own protection"?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Rather than one principle, I'll invoke two principles. The idea is sometimes stated as "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." My first principle is the same as yours (or similar): "Everyone has a right to make their own decisions for their own protection and their own decisions to do wh**ever they think they need to do." My second principle is: "No-one has the right to put other people's lives and well-being at unnecessary risk." (Notice the word "unnecessary".). The two principles have to be balanced against each other.

I apply the two principles to guns, and I also apply the same two principles to hand grenades. Wh**ever means of self-defense a person might choose, it needs to be weighed against the risk of needless harm to others. (Notice the word "needless".)

So, I say that IF the general population is going to carry weapons in public, then it is appropriate to limit that to few-shot guns, RATHER THAN either many-shot guns or hand-grenades. The few-shot guns are SUFFICIENT as a REASONABLE precaution for self-defense in public spaces. The many-shot guns and the hand-grenades are each EXCESSIVE as REASONABLE precautions for self-defense in public spaces, AND pose greater risks to the other people in the public spaces.

The idea of limits on what people can do is not unusual. It's pretty much what most laws are. Most laws are limits on what people can do. You would not do away with all limits of any kind, would you? A big reason for limits on what people can do is to limit the harm they might do to other people.

You are too condescending and too much a waste of time. I've spent a lot of time studying and responding to your posts in the past. At the end of each rather long discussion, you are just dismissive, saying something like that I'm only writing an "opinion" or wh**ever was the other dismissive thing you said, which I could see didn't have any relationship to have factual or how well sourced or reasoned each post was. Rather than simply stop or gracefully bow out (which could have been done with a nice summary -- a few people here do that), you always had to sneer or say something derogatory, and you didn't give satisfaction with your argument or, at the end, lack thereof.

Back on the topic of Congressional committee memberships, and who's allowed on committees and who isn't:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/28/marjorie-taylor-greene-kevin-mccarthy-republicans-house-committee

This article describes Marjorie Taylor Greene, what kinds of remarks _she_ has made, and the Republican congresspeople's reinstatement of _her_ onto committees.

The article also helps to reveal what sort of person Republicans seem to like.

Despite the Republican nonsense, I anticipate that there will be _something_ left that is truly great about America in the future. Maybe it will be: Social Security? But some other countries probably do that better. Medicare? But some other countries do that better. National parks? Maybe so. The ability to k**l and torture more and faster than other countries do it? No, that's not "great"; it is of questionable value. Women's suffrage? America did that sooner than Switzerland did it. Freeing the s***es? No, most other countries did that sooner than America did. So far, the thing that's truly great about America might be its national parks.

I will be going to a national park for a little while later this year. Here in America.*

* (assuming Republicans don't enable destruction of that national park before I get there)

Britain and Holland are small countries, and look at what they did.

Being small is an inadequate excuse.

Moreover (if it even matters, which maybe it doesn't), "small" is not an all-encompassing term; a small country with a large nuclear arsenal and a military is not the same as a small country without either. A small country with a powerful supporting partner is not the same as a small country with less support.

As long as Israel is "hell bent on" (borrowing your words) "vaporizing" Palestinians off the face of the Earth, then any other country would be _equally_ justified in doing some similar thing to Israel. That "equal" justification would be just as bad for Israel to use, as it is for any other country to use.

Israel has demonstrably been _more_ "hell bent on vaporizing" others than the surrounding countries have been. This dates all the way back to the Book of Joshua, if not earlier in the Bible, and it has continued in the 20th and 21st centuries (particularly starting sometime near the middle of the 20th century, in Palestine), though I think the Book of Joshua is the more starkly drawn example of it (and, maybe, of the attitude that supports it).

Just now I "got a clue" and am inspired by your final phrase "by ANY MEANS NECESSARY!!" I happen to think that your words and attitude are wrong and harmful. Does that mean I should put a stop to you "by ANY MEANS NECESSARY!!"? No, not really.

Usually when people use extreme phrases like "by ANY MEANS NECESSARY!!" they're oversimplifying something and should think more about the situation and learn more perspectives about it. Be careful because someday others might take the "by ANY MEANS NECESSARY!!" attitude toward you, just as you have toward others.

I think that a lot of people are taking a "by ANY MEANS NECESSARY!!" attitude about Israel or Palestine while not knowing much about them.

There are things I'm ignorant about, but my ignorance is less harmful because I stop short of acting on it "by ANY MEANS NECESSARY!!".

(I do suspect that both Malcolm X and John Brown may have been justified in their ideas about "by any means necessary"; but I could be wrong about that. Maybe they could have been more accurate by saying "by almost any means necessary".)

I don't know about these things about "9-11". But your first sentence looks like a pretty good match for what Israel is doing. That sentence is "Israel is an aggressor, apartheid state committing a slow genocide of Palestinians and bent on domination."

Israel is invoked many times in the Republican push to remove Ilhan Omar from the foreign affairs committee in Congress. Republicans' typical arguments often include something like "Israel is our ally", apparently blindly stated without considering _whether_ Israel should be our ally and whether anyone in the U.S. should ever criticize Israel for anything.

To be a good member of the foreign affairs committee, one would _have_ to be willing to criticize _any_ country according to what it _does_ or _says_, _not_ to unequivocally support any country no matter how badly it acts. The one _possible_ exception (_if_ _any_) to this rule would be one's _own_ country (the U.S.), but even then, regarding the U.S., _somebody_ within the U.S. should speak critically about wh**ever wrongs the U.S. does. Critical thinking and criticizing wrongs are important functions.

Here's the latest good article I've seen regarding Ilhan Omar _and_ regarding Israel. The article illustrates the paucity of her opponents' arguments, and notably their blind obeisance to Israel, and their harmful choosing the wrong side in the debate. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/1/republicans-push-to-remove-ilhan-omar-from-foreign-affairs-panel

I agree with much of what you have written here.

You say, "The regime, which is the only possessor of nuclear warheads in the region without being a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty ..."

I believe it.

You say, "... has made various efforts in the past years to hamper Iran’s peaceful nuclear program ...".

Is there such a thing as "a peaceful nuclear program"?

(I think the answer is obvious but I'm curious about where such a discussion would rapidly go.)

You ask, "Why has Israel refused inspection ... by the IAEA?"

Because it _can_ and _wants_to_. Why does anybody _allow_ inspection of anything by anyone? I think that allowing is done to demonstrate t***h and foster peace. Or sometimes the allowing may be coerced; but even if coerced it may still demonstrate t***h and foster peace. Nobody is coercing Israel yet; Israel (the government of it) is not interested in fostering t***h in such matters; and Israel (the government of it) has such a one-sided idea of "peace" that it doesn't relate to even-handed cooperation by Israel.

Who allows inspection by the IAEA, and who doesn't? I believe Iraq and Iran do allow it, while Israel and North Korea don't. Does the IAEA inspect in Russia or in the U.S.? I doubt it. Why doesn't it? (I think I can guess what the answer is, but would like your clarification on the matter.)

The Israeli government is backed by the U.S. government; the U.S. government is powerful enough, and backs Israel so abjectly, that Israel has been able to do wh**ever it wants. How is the U.S. so powerful and abject at the same time? The U.S. is powerful in that it uses force in many places around the world. The U.S. is abject about Israel because of a bad kind of politics built by people such as in a lobby, supporting Israel, to the U.S. Congress. The U.S. people, also, have a limited view of what Israel is about. The U.S. people remember the Holocaust that was against Jews in Europe in WW II and the U.S.'s role in WW II. The U.S. people at large don't have much room in their heads to _also_ recognize the wrongs that _Israel_ does now. This simple-mindedness of the U.S. people regarding Israel is nourished (that is, kept simple and naive, and reinforced in its simplicity and naïveté) by the Israel-supporting lobby and by people similar to it.

I agree that "Israel poses a threat to the world with its nuclear arsenal"; however, I could say the same about several other countries, probably including the U.S. Right now I feel that North Korea's the worst and maybe Israel's the second worst, in this regard.

"... inspectors ... go on a fishing expedition ..." Maybe so. I think the IAEA _itself_ is probably impartial enough; but, the IAEA is probably subject to influence from the U.S. which is abjectly backing Israel.

You say, "So what say you?"

I say: I am interested in what LogicallyRight has to say in response to my post to him or her.

So you _did_ reply, though without directly answering my questions.

You say,

"The most important reason to own a gun is to protect yourself from the bastard that wants to prevent you from owning a gun."

I say, that's not the most important reason. A _more_ important reason to own a gun is (a) to protect yourself in the event that some entity _would_ do you or your family very serious harm but (b) can be stopped by you, but (c) can be stopped by you only if you have a gun.

As I described in my first post here, a light armament (few shots) would almost always suffice for that situation; and, the light armament incurs less risk generally, as compared with heavy armament (many shots), in the environment where a great many people are often carrying around such a weapon (the few-shot one versus the many-shot one) in public.

You did not ask, but I would agree with your statement "If people want to k**l, they will k**l" in the sense that if a person wants badly enough to k**l, he or she will probably find a way to k**l, and I would add: will probably find a way to k**l whether the victim has a gun or not.

Like today, for example. If I had really, _really_ wanted to k**l, I could easily have k**led at least one person today, even if all the people were carrying guns. And I would have done it without a gun. I'd probably be dead or imprisoned by nightful, but in the scenario, I would have accomplished the supposed goal of k*****g.

You say, "...dictatorial power like biden tries to exercise...". Biden is a fairly normal president, with a long visible relevant past (being in Congress a long time). The person who tends more to try to exercise dictatorial power is Trump. So when you are aiming your criticism, you are widely missing the mark, and if you're not careful, you'll enable the rise of a real dictator while disabling those who (or government functions which) would rein in or stop a dictator. One of the main reasons our government was created and designed was and is to rein in or stop a dictator, such as any would-be dictator in the position of president (whether it's called president, king, or queen) -- the idea was that we did not want another king, so we made this kind of government instead with checks against a chief executive's power.