Probably second only to religion politics exhibits this phenomena. It is expected this page will be the most active. Not because it will have the most examples in the real world, but because people have very few restraints against pointing out the foibles of other peoples politics. People are more restrained about commenting about other people's religious beliefs. Perhaps because their own religious deficiencies are obvious as well.
If you have specific examples for inclusion on this web site please send them to firstname.lastname@example.org.
In the U.K. they have already banned real guns. But crimes committed with guns is way up so the only thing left to do is ban imitation guns which is what these morons have proposed now.
Complete article follows:
As U.S. and British forces invaded Iraq in March of 2003 the minister told the world the invaders would be repelled and huge numbers of them would be killed. In a matter of days U.S. forces had captured the Baghdad airport and were even making drive by shooting runs through the town and the Minister of Information was telling the world U.S. forces were being driven out of the country. He only had to look out his window to see the tanks, APCs, soldiers and the truth. Even Arab's in other countries continued to believe in their superiority over the invading infidels long after it was obvious Allah was on vacation this month.
(Contributed by Lyle Keeney)
In spite of the documented and fully admitted disastrous consequences of Prohibition, advocates of the Drug War have continued to raise the stakes. Never mind that we no doubt have far more drug related crime, corruption, public expense, and death, than we ever had before such laws. Never mind that criminals and criminal organizations are being given a government enforced monopoly, worth billions of dollars, thereby making drug trafficking more attractive than it could ever have been otherwise. We are to believe that further, military style escalation of the War, and the related, further erosion of our civil rights, will somehow reverse the trend, and make us safer. What we will often hear in response is, "We've come this far. We can't just quit now. We just need more funding." More of a bad thing will somehow equal a good thing, like when I take a wrong turn onto a highway. After going 100 miles in the wrong direction, I am to conclude that, having invested so much time and fuel in going the wrong direction, I need simply increase my speed as a means of dealing with the situation. Turning around would be admitting a failure, discrediting my driving ability forever.
U.S. Democratic Party 2002
In the November election the Democrats lost control of the Senate and lost additional seats in the House. They had believed their position represented 'the people'. Apparently the people disagreed with them. Their response? Instead of modifying their platform to conform with majority of the voters they turned to the left and chose extreme liberal Nancy Pelosi as their House Democratic Whip.
Probably no other political philosophies have suffered greater defeat in practice than socialism and communism. Nearly a 100 years of constant failures in a hundred or more attempts to make the world 'fair', a 'workers paradise', 'an example for the world'. In each case the elite party members prospered while the "workers" suffered through shortages of nearly all human necessities, prison camps, and an early death. Millions of people were slaughtered by the leaders of the USSR, China, and others. Yet today we see Europe, Canada, and many people in the United States still pushing for more socialism. They think "we just need to elect the right people" to make it succeed. What they don't seem to understand is that the "right people" will never be attracted to that much power. Socialism and Communism are about concentrating power in the planning committees and regulators, concentrated power attracts people that want to wield that power. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
When a socialist project fails the promoters do not give up and say they were wrong. They proselyte that it would have worked better had they gone further. If only the government been given still more power to regulate and control.
For a 100 years or more it was believed by many that controlling access to firearms would reduce crime. Prior to 1934 there were no U.S. Federal laws regarding firearms. In the decades since US citizens have been subjected to various degrees of restriction by both the individual states and the Federal Government. In some cases the people have been subject to complete bans and confiscation. In no case have the people been made safer. In some areas two adjacent cities in different states with one having relatively easy access to firearms and the other with highly restricted access to firearm shows the effect it has on crime. The highly restricted areas have far greater violent crime. Chicago and Washington D.C. have some of the worst murder rates in the U.S. and have completely banned purchase of self-defense firearms. The response by the proponents? The bans need to be extended to other areas and even made worldwide.
The anti-gun organizations such as The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (http://www.handguncontrol.org, formerly known as Handgun Control, Inc.) and the Violence Policy Center (http://www.vpc.org) used to mention reduction of crime as a benefit of restrictions on guns. They no longer do that. They know gun control does not mean crime control. Their response? More restrictions on gun are needed -- to prevent "gun violence". The numbers they use to push for legislation and raise money include people killed and injured by police and private citizens in legitimate self defense. Apparently the numbers for the illegitimate uses of firearms are insufficient to justify their cause without relying on deception.
Last Update: 10/23/2004