You could make this easier, Stumbler - simply make it illegal for anyone to disagree with you.

 

I'm not American

but abolishing the N.R.A. would be a step in the right direction.

 

I think abolishing the I.R.S. would be more productive.

 

Not at all prtndr I know misconceptions, illogical conclusions, and false accusations as well as illogical, irrational false information? You know that first hand by now prtndr.

You're not from this country but I am and while I'm not in favor of censorship, banning or abolishing anything, I would not miss the NRA and can see where we would be better off without it and my guns would still be with me.

 

How does one abolish misconceptions? Illogical conclusions - Is that defined as any conclusion other than the one you reach?

 

I already said I'm not in favor of abolishing anything but you can certainly correct misconceptions and correct the irresponsible individuals that spread them especially on the public airways and mass media.

No, its defined by conclusions like this:

Do you want to sort through that and point out the logical conclusions to me?

 

I would like to see the Federal government get scaled way, way, way, back to only it's basic fundamental role. Maintaining the military, the Post Office, regulating interstate commerce, conducting foreign relations, etc. Just the stuff the U.S. Constitution lays out.

Then allow each of the 50 states to evolve their own unique culture and develop their own unique laws regarding all of the hot button issues of the day, such as abortion, drug laws, healthcare, marriage, education, etc.

 

judging by what I've seen, that would work really, really badly. They'd get away with some fucked up shit, imo, and it would not be good

@ OP, I've another, yes. Make guns illegal
How to annoy an american: do exactly what I've done in this thread. Tell them it would be good if weed were legal and guns weren't.
Only joking... I know there's plenty of americans on both sides of that argument. Or at least a few on my side of the guns one. I think.

 

amen to that, i hate that fuckeeeer that and liberals they all go France. I work hard for my money i should be able to keep it insted of he goverment take it give it to people that sit on there ass all day because they are to lasy to get a job. But dont get me started or i will never stop.

 

I can see your point - if only we could stop those irresponsible individuals from spreading their incorrect understanding of events and their illogical conclusions to the masses. Then only the one real truth would be allowed and true progress would come to the country. That's what you're asking for, right?

Now, all we have to do is repeal that silly first amendment to the constitution and we'll have it right. I'll write my congressman today......

It always amuses me when those who call themselves liberals* want to restrict speech - not their speech, of course, just everybody else's. In some parts of the world, such people are called fascists.

(* Liberal - defined as "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.")

 

I agree. No matter what side of the aisle you sit on, the core issue is corruption and deception. If politicians and corporations are held to a standard of full disclosure, the world would be a better place.

Also I think it needs to start with a good solid education system. Our current one needs a complete overhaul, because it's failing.

 

Ok, let's abolish all the bullshit! Just do the right thing and and cleanse the US
with burning fire!!!!!
That'll solve all the problems!!!!!

 

Libel, slander, and fraud are not protected under the first amendment. That's already the law, and has been for a long time... I think stumbler would just like to see it enforced. Opposing ideas should be heard, but it should be a crime to willfully deceive for personal gain, and interestingly enough, it is.

 

i have some? we can share?

 

Man of few words that he is, I'm glad Stumbler has you to define and defend him. Maybe he'll lend you his tinfoil hat as well.

 

That statement can't be proven as true or false. It is opinion, and contrary to your desires, individuals in this country are allowed to analyze facts and come to their own opinion as to what they mean and what they portend. There's that pesky old 1st amendment again. Damn those founding fathers!

 

OP: Did you think civil discussion would even make it to the second page on this one? I laugh.

 

Oh please, I'm hardly defending him. I am personally a near libertarian, who simply thinks that any concentration of power is a bad thing. Isn't that what you see wrong with socialism too? Or do you have a problem with U.S.Code deemed fair by a largely conservative interpretation of the constitution by largely conservative judges?

*shrug*

I'm not on anybody's side prtndr, I think either side has some good ideas, and some bad ideas, and it doesn't really matter because neither side has an answer for the big problem, which is that everyone will fuck over some people to help other people. I have not yet seen any suggestions in that regard either.

 

Diplomacy

 

Perfectly fair, but they should not be allowed to claim opinion as fact. If I have an opinion that arsenic is good for you, that's fine. But if I tell a bunch of school kids that antifreeze is really just cool-aid, do I still have a first amendment right? Now what if I'm a teacher at their school?

It would be a crime. There's a reason for that, and it's a damn good one. People can and should continue to be held responsible for the damages they cause with dangerous words. Our first amendment protects a lot of speech, but not all of it. You are not permitted to yell "fire" in a theater or stadium. If you do, you will be charged with the deaths of those trampled.