Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

Google, among many, many others, Rocco Laurie, Gregory Foster, Joseph Piagentini, Waverly Jones, Daniel Faulkner, and Edward Byrne (Foster and Jones were black).

(07-01-2016, 07:31 AM)Anthony Wrote: [ -> ]But let's not forget who started this: The Communist terrorist Black Panthers, Black Liberation Army, etc., who shot thousands of cops in the back in the late 1960s and '70s.

Payback is a bitch - ain't it?

"This" goes back an awful long way.  You can go all the way back to dominant black African tribes kidnapping members of weaker black tribes and selling the captives to the white folk on the coast.  Along the way, an awful lot of people died, notably during the US Civil War.  Lots of blood spilled and bad blood.  Lots of just cause.  Lots of times when people figured they were superior and had a good thing going, and wanted it to continue.  Lots of government backed prejudice and persecution.  Lots of anger in response.

It is easy if one is locked into one particular viewpoint on such a complex issue to focus on things that support that viewpoint and neglect things the diminish it.  That's human nature, alas.  It is not, however, constructive if one wants to really understand the problem, resolve the conflict and move on.

There was the beginning of a spiral of violence back in the Awakening.  It's history.  It has little to do with today's racist violence by the authorities.  An active effort to suppress the Black Panthers won't be constructive.  The new Panthers aren't the old Panthers.  Different style and focus.  It might be easy to say the Panthers ought to be forgiven and forgot, but then then should the KKK lynch mobs be forgiven and forgot too?  Arguably, some things can't be and should not be forgotten.  Still, the focus ought to be on todays's problems and today's injustices.  Who is murdering who today?  We can't bring the strange fruit back to life, but something might be done about today's equivalents.  The past isn't going to go away, and there is an awful lot of ugly in the history books, but let's keep our eyes on today's problems.

(06-29-2016, 06:52 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-28-2016, 05:08 PM)playwrite Wrote: [ -> ]Pssss, the other side already has their military  grade gun platform; what  do they want to win more of, bazookas, tanks, ICBM???
Reasonable people, including gun owners like myself, want these high velocity, large mag guns out of civilIan hands and, of course,  we're  going to get angry every time these f'n things are used in mass shootings because that exactly why we want them gone.

You know what the vast majority of them want, but continue to spew pseudo psychological highly emotional sexually tainted verbiage with heavy doses of lies and strawman.  Many think a right to own and carry weapons for self defense a right that ought to be continued.  So long as blue politicians propose more restrictions whenever spree shooters cut loose where there are already absolute prohibitions there will be the sort of stubborn rejection you'd expect in a world view conflict.

I know your fantasy laden daydreams.  If writing a law could make prohibitions work I'd have more sympathy.  I'm in favor within reason of closing loopholes and enforcing what is on the books.  The 'within reason' part is looking at diminishing returns.  Prohibition is expensive and doesn't work.  So long as you don't throw too much money away, put your fingers in the dike until you run out of fingers.  I just think your dyke has too many holes.

As I've said many a time, a reasonable compromise that might give both sides most of what they want is a rewritten 2nd that firmly establishes a right to own and carry in self defense, but allows regulation of magazine size and rate of fire.  Neither side is in a mood for reasonable, though.  Discussing which side is more stubborn and immovable seems fairly pointless.  Either faction can be compared to Gibraltar.

Your 'compromise' is akin to you agreeing to stop beating my wife and children if you're allowed to run any red lights and exceed any speed limit at your leisure. It's  the epidomy of the false equIvalency to compare limiting civilian access to military weapon platforms to providing a gun for anyone anywhere anytime.  Whether concious or not, it is a form of conflating reasonable limits to type of weapontry to the hysteria of total gun bans, used to ofascate the issue.  Its a clever approach but it doesn't mask the underlying ammosexuals derangement -you should have a professional  look into whether it is organic or some past trauma.

(06-29-2016, 06:31 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2016, 12:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]"Reasonable" is what YOU propose. No, there's no doubt at all which side is reasonable, and which not.

Tis a messy issues.  Tis not obvious.  That's why it isn't getting resolved.  If you have no doubts, you're not on a reasonable side.

This is not reasonableness, tis scantomonious glee of someone loving the status quo - a clear symptom of ammosexuality.

(07-02-2016, 07:59 AM)Anthony Wrote: [ -> ]Google, among many, many others, Rocco Laurie, Gregory Foster, Joseph Piagentini, Waverly Jones, Daniel Faulkner, and Edward Byrne (Foster and Jones were black).

Having problems with basic math is a sure sign of a low-informational voter.

Do you have any credible source for your preposterous 1000s?

(07-03-2016, 05:04 AM)playwrite Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2016, 06:31 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2016, 12:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]"Reasonable" is what YOU propose. No, there's no doubt at all which side is reasonable, and which not.

Tis a messy issues.  Tis not obvious.  That's why it isn't getting resolved.  If you have no doubts, you're not on a reasonable side.

This is not reasonableness, tis scantomonious glee of someone loving the status quo - a clear symptom of ammosexuality.

I'm trying to reprise a basic difference in approach between Eric and I.  I'll go out of my way to show how two conflicting world views can both be considered well and truly justified.  If one side of a conflict is conservative, one is apt to find some time and place in the past where the solutions provided by the world view worked very well, thank you, and might still be working well in some environments.  If the other side is progressive, it is quite likely that the progressive is dwelling somewhere where the old solutions aren't working well anymore.  Anyone following this thread ought to realize that both factions truly believe their approach works and ought to be allowed, while both sides also see obvious flaws in the other side.  My belief, not just in this issue, but in many issues, is that one ought to fully comprehend both sides of a story and respect where both sides are coming from.  While that really isn't the human way, I have a stubborn rainbows and unicorns belief that it ought to be.

On another thread, I recently reminded people once more of the history of the Middle East.  They have good reasons to hate us.  Their world views are not irrational.  The 'terrorists' didn't spring out of nowhere.  Many US citizens, even though they ought to know better, persist in a perspective that we are the good guys pushing democracy and human rights while they are irrational religious fanatics.  That might feel good, but it doesn't make for a working understanding of the problem.  Without a working understanding of the problem, the problem isn't going to go away.

Eric is more representative of the human way.  He has his perspective.  He is absolutely correct, the other guy is absolutely wrong, and he ain't gonna listen.  While he might be worse than most posters in this respect, milder variations on this sort of 'my way or the highway' thinking dominates most of our partisan threads.  You don't often get conversations with both people listening... with either person listening, really.  He's just one of the worst case obvious examples.

Meanwhile, there you go again with ammosexuality.  You know full well I don't own a firearm, let along be obsessed with stockpiling ammunition.  I own a bow and about a dozen target arrows.  That's it.  There are times I think all you've got is that one strawman argument that you know full well is bogus.  Whenever you can't answer a point, you run at the mouth with ammosexuality.  It's about as meaningful and argument as comparing folks with Hitler.  It's a sign you haven't a rational argument.  If  you insult and lie over and over again, do you think you are going to get anywhere?  If we were talking about a racial or sexual issue, the sort of repeated insult based argument you indulge in would have long since been reported to the moderator.  If you continue, I'm considering doing just that.

Cause it is a sexual insult.  As far as I can read it, you believe you have a proper respectful relationship with your rifle, but add one feature to the weapon and the relationship becomes akin to a black guy being with a white girl, or two women being together.  You go bonzo nuts with the sort of language I'd expect of a bigot.  It's not a rational argument.  You are not diagnosing a disease that exists outside of your obviously disturbed mind.  All you are doing is making rational conversation impossible by constantly diverting the conversation away from the issue and into your perverse pseudo-sexual hang up.

Playwrite, your arrogant condescension is not winning you any friends.

Somehow I think that gun control will fare better as 'ammo control'. How many rounds does a deer hunter need?

Of course target shooters use much ammo... but they are well-behaved people.

Now how much ammo does a drug lord need? How much ammo does a drug lord have a God-given right to?

(07-03-2016, 08:10 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm trying to reprise a basic difference in approach between Eric and I.  

You are simply self-deceived.

We could agree that some measures might be needed, as you sometimes say, and let it go at that. Instead, you feel compelled nevertheless to call all gun control measures "prohibition" and say they aren't important. You take out a stand you call "reasonable" and then proceed to call more progressive approaches unreasonable and do not consider them. You speak of values lock, but are yourself the supreme example of same.

So, your discussion of me might get agreement from others also deceived, but it gets the conversation nowhere. Do you care about that? Then stick to the issues, not personalities, and do what you say you do instead of just what you accuse others of doing.

(07-04-2016, 04:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-03-2016, 08:10 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm trying to reprise a basic difference in approach between Eric and I.  

You are simply self-deceived.

Someone is self deceived.  

What measures with regard to prohibiting access to weapons do you most wish for?  (I'd suggest limiting rate of fire and magazine size, but propose something.)  To what degree are you willing to grant in perpetuity a right to own and carry weapons for self defense?  I have proposed one tit-for-tat that attempts to grant both sides the most central elements of what they desire.  I'm open to tweaks.  You have persistently rejected anything except those who you disagree with completely surrendering.

You are hardly alone.  On this board, as in the general population of the US, very few are open to considering and acknowledging the culture of the other guys.  I'm not getting much in the way of agreement or tweaks from the conservatives either.  I'm not saying that wanting all and being willing to yield nothing is unique to either side, is more common among Blue than Red.  

The country is very sincerely and deeply divided.  The values are profoundly deep and sincere on both sides.  If you can't acknowledge that, no doubt about the lack of connection with reality.

(07-03-2016, 06:59 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Somehow I think that gun control will fare better as 'ammo control'. How many rounds does a deer hunter need?

The problem remains the practical one of implementing any sort of prohibition.  I'm not rejecting the notion out of hand, but what makes you think it will be less difficult to control possession of the ammunition than the weapon?  How would it be easier to achieve than controlling drugs?

(07-04-2016, 08:44 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-04-2016, 04:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-03-2016, 08:10 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm trying to reprise a basic difference in approach between Eric and I.  

You are simply self-deceived.

Someone is self deceived.  

What measures with regard to prohibiting access to weapons do you most wish for?  (I'd suggest limiting rate of fire and magazine size, but propose something.)  To what degree are you willing to grant in perpetuity a right to own and carry weapons for self defense?  I have proposed one tit-for-tat that attempts to grant both sides the most central elements of what they desire.  I'm open to tweaks.  You have persistently rejected anything except those who you disagree with completely surrendering.

I do not propose prohibition. You use that word, but it does not compute.

We have agreed on some control measures. What I most wish for is irrelevant at this time; it can't happen. Maybe someday. I am not in favor of rights to carry weapons. I am in favor of whatever controls can be agreed upon. I shifted my position some time ago in rejecting bans on civilian weapons or confiscations by force. We have gone backwards on guns in recent years, and I want to go forwards again. I do not value the 2nd amendment. I value the Constitution, and the amendment process and the Supreme Court, which allows the Constitution to be a living and not an outdated document. The 2nd Amendment was outdated almost from the start. No, I am not open to a different opinion on those things.

Quote:You are hardly alone.  On this board, as in the general population of the US, very few are open to considering and acknowledging the culture of the other guys.  I'm not getting much in the way of agreement or tweaks from the conservatives either.  I'm not saying that wanting all and being willing to yield nothing is unique to either side, is more common among Blue than Red.  

I do not value the gun culture at all. I value life. Guns are for killing people, and where necessary this should be done by paid professionals as directed and supervised by democratic authorities. Yes, I am values locked on that. I am in favor of whatever legislative compromises can reduce gun violence. I realize today that I can't get my own way on this. My own way matters less to me than reducing needless deaths and injuries.

Quote:The country is very sincerely and deeply divided.  The values are profoundly deep and sincere on both sides.  If you can't acknowledge that, no doubt about the lack of connection with reality.

No doubt about the division of our country on values. The Red side is mainly authoritarian, but also paradoxically libertarian; which actually means allowing economic authority to dominate us. The gun culture is part of the red values. There's no doubt at all about which side is more willing to compromise on this and all issues; the Blue side is. That's reality.

(07-05-2016, 12:52 AM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]Before the hounds of hell descend upon me let me address from my observation Americans give a smear to groups. Reds, blues, etc and act as if ALL people who identify with one or the other will be as bad as the EXTREMISTS and stereotypes of that cohort. America is very tribal from what i can gather. Rather than going by judgement, best to start listening and seeing the reasons behind beliefs and also seeing that not everyone fits the mold. But listening and putting evidence first would be a start. Should I get my hopes up that America will listen to that though? I doubt it. Too much polarization colouring views of life to start changing colours now. I can only have hope for future generations thinking older folks are frigging morons for letting blind idealism stand in the way of seeing one another and coming together to fix old issues.

I'm not saying the above is unjustified or shouldn't be said, but kindly don't assume that the frequent contributors here are representative of the US population in general.  Political forums attract those with intense values.  We're unusual in centering on S&H, a political perspective that encourages the notion that profound social and political change are possible or perhaps inevitable.  Thus we have a more varied collection of somewhat extreme perspectives being presented than you'll find at a forum centered on one side of an issue or on a political party, let alone at virtual or real places not dedicated to politics.

I also lurk at a forum dedicated to the local football team, and get together with role playing game fanatics.  Members of these other groups know as little of my political slants as I suspect people here are aware of my preferences in sports and role playing.  I feel safe in saying that the conversation here does not at all resemble what is encountered in the real world.

(07-05-2016, 12:10 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I do not propose prohibition. You use that word, but it does not compute.

We have agreed on some control measures.

Most gun control advocates want weapons of certain types out of circulation.  The same problems encountered in the war on drugs and in 1930s alcohol prohibition exist with the current and proposed gun prohibitions.  You don't like the word as it reminds everyone about how difficult the practical problems of prohibiting stuff is.  The one sure thing prohibitions do is provide opportunity for profits for criminals.  Actually keeping stuff out of circulation is hard.  There are very real trade offs involving the cost of attempting to enforce a prohibition, increased criminal profit and violence resulting from attempts to bypass the prohibition, and the very limited impact such laws actually have on availability.

I don't care if you like the word or not.  Do you want possession of certain things prohibited by the government?  If so, the word applies and the problems with the government attempting to enforce prohibitions should be remembered.  You can spend as much time as  you like describing how intense you feel about the issue, but some care about how difficult it is to actually implement your ideas.  Is it practical?  Does it work?

(07-05-2016, 12:10 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:The country is very sincerely and deeply divided.  The values are profoundly deep and sincere on both sides.  If you can't acknowledge that, no doubt about the lack of connection with reality.

No doubt about the division of our country on values. The Red side is mainly authoritarian, but also paradoxically libertarian; which actually means allowing economic authority to dominate us. 

I don't trust the recent over use of the word 'authoritarian'.  It reminds me too much of the recent habit of calling all Democrats Communist and all Republicans Fascist.  These days it seems fashionable to use 'Authoritarian' to replace either 'Fascist' or 'Communist', but does the word really apply?

Both cultures have strong values and try to use the government to enforce their values.  Using government authority to enforce values is going to appear by the victim of such authority as an assault on freedom and as authoritarian policy.  Enforce a prohibition?  Authoritarianism!  Making sure the baker sells wedding cakes to homosexuals?  Authoritarianism!  I see most value systems as being justifiable, as having a solid basis in history and culture.  I understand the desire to use the government to enforce one's values on everyone.  On the other hand, the more one subculture attempts to use the government to enforce their values on all, the less free we are, the more tempting it gets to use words like 'authoritarian'.  There is something to be said for the government just leaving the People alone to make their own decisions.

Still, if someone likes the policy being enforced, it won't seem like authoritarianism, it would seem a well justified lawful measure intended to improve the community.

At least 'authoritarian' is an all purpose insult usable by both sides on lots of issues.  I personally think it is being over used.  It's a little better than 'Nazi' and 'Communist' though.  Slightly more true.  Negligibly more true.

(07-03-2016, 08:10 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-03-2016, 05:04 AM)playwrite Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2016, 06:31 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2016, 12:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]"Reasonable" is what YOU propose. No, there's no doubt at all which side is reasonable, and which not.

Tis a messy issues.  Tis not obvious.  That's why it isn't getting resolved.  If you have no doubts, you're not on a reasonable side.

This is not reasonableness, tis scantomonious glee of someone loving the status quo - a clear symptom of ammosexuality.

I'm trying to reprise a basic difference in approach between Eric and I.  I'll go out of my way to show how two conflicting world views can both be considered well and truly justified.  If one side of a conflict is conservative, one is apt to find some time and place in the past where the solutions provided by the world view worked very well, thank you, and might still be working well in some environments.  If the other side is progressive, it is quite likely that the progressive is dwelling somewhere where the old solutions aren't working well anymore.  Anyone following this thread ought to realize that both factions truly believe their approach works and ought to be allowed, while both sides also see obvious flaws in the other side.  My belief, not just in this issue, but in many issues, is that one ought to fully comprehend both sides of a story and respect where both sides are coming from.  While that really isn't the human way, I have a stubborn rainbows and unicorns belief that it ought to be.

On another thread, I recently reminded people once more of the history of the Middle East.  They have good reasons to hate us.  Their world views are not irrational.  The 'terrorists' didn't spring out of nowhere.  Many US citizens, even though they ought to know better, persist in a perspective that we are the good guys pushing democracy and human rights while they are irrational religious fanatics.  That might feel good, but it doesn't make for a working understanding of the problem.  Without a working understanding of the problem, the problem isn't going to go away.

Eric is more representative of the human way.  He has his perspective.  He is absolutely correct, the other guy is absolutely wrong, and he ain't gonna listen.  While he might be worse than most posters in this respect, milder variations on this sort of 'my way or the highway' thinking dominates most of our partisan threads.  You don't often get conversations with both people listening... with either person listening, really.  He's just one of the worst case obvious examples.

Meanwhile, there you go again with ammosexuality.  You know full well I don't own a firearm, let along be obsessed with stockpiling ammunition.  I own a bow and about a dozen target arrows.  That's it.  There are times I think all you've got is that one strawman argument that you know full well is bogus.  Whenever you can't answer a point, you run at the mouth with ammosexuality.  It's about as meaningful and argument as comparing folks with Hitler.  It's a sign you haven't a rational argument.  If  you insult and lie over and over again, do you think you are going to get anywhere?  If we were talking about a racial or sexual issue, the sort of repeated insult based argument you indulge in would have long since been reported to the moderator.  If you continue, I'm considering doing just that.

Cause it is a sexual insult.  As far as I can read it, you believe you have a proper respectful relationship with your rifle, but add one feature to the weapon and the relationship becomes akin to a black guy being with a white girl, or two women being together.  You go bonzo nuts with the sort of language I'd expect of a bigot.  It's not a rational argument.  You are not diagnosing a disease that exists outside of your obviously disturbed mind.  All you are doing is making rational conversation impossible by constantly diverting the conversation away from the issue and into your perverse pseudo-sexual hang up.

What a word salad of crapola - comparing a ban on military weapon platforms for civilian use to the ME and racism???  Where's the smoking and drugs comparison nonsense? 

You're just spouting a false equivalency over and over again, and thinking your word salad covers it up. It doesn't.

This is real simple - weapons with a combined high muzzle velocity and capacity, the ones being increasingly used in more and more mass killings, need to be ban from civilian access.  That has nothing to do with banning all guns.  It has nothing to do with stopping all crime, all suicides, all gun accidents. It will be simpler to enforce than ME peace, meth labs, racism or any other horseshXt you want to throw out there.

The question here is why a non-gun owner is so strident about guns.  You've said its about staying true to the Constitution, but then you get all bent out of shape if someone suggests that a different SCOTUS in the not-so-distant future, can change what that means today, which, by the way, is in the same Constitution - you should read it.  

I think the problem is you have latched onto the notion that you are all-knowing when it comes to Constitutional law, and just can't climb down.  Narcissism?

(07-03-2016, 01:55 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-03-2016, 08:10 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-03-2016, 05:04 AM)playwrite Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2016, 06:31 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2016, 12:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]"Reasonable" is what YOU propose. No, there's no doubt at all which side is reasonable, and which not.

Tis a messy issues.  Tis not obvious.  That's why it isn't getting resolved.  If you have no doubts, you're not on a reasonable side.

This is not reasonableness, tis scantomonious glee of someone loving the status quo - a clear symptom of ammosexuality.

I'm trying to reprise a basic difference in approach between Eric and I.  I'll go out of my way to show how two conflicting world views can both be considered well and truly justified.  If one side of a conflict is conservative, one is apt to find some time and place in the past where the solutions provided by the world view worked very well, thank you, and might still be working well in some environments.  If the other side is progressive, it is quite likely that the progressive is dwelling somewhere where the old solutions aren't working so well anymore.  Anyone following this thread ought to realize that both factions truly believe their approach works and ought to be allowed, while both sides also see obvious flaws in the other side.  My belief, not just in this issue, but in many issues, is that one ought to fully comprehend both sides of a story and respect where both sides are coming from.  While that really isn't the human way, I have a stubborn rainbows and unicorns belief that it ought to be.

On another thread, I recently reminded people once more of the history of the Middle East.  They have good reasons to hate us.  Their world views are not irrational.  The 'terrorists' didn't spring out of nowhere.  Many US citizens, even though they ought to know better, persist in a perspective that we are the good guys pushing democracy and human rights while they are irrational religious fanatics.  That might feel good, but it doesn't make for a working understanding of the problem.  Without a working understanding of the problem, the problem isn't going to go away.

Eric is more representative of the human way.  He has his perspective.  He is absolutely correct, the other guy is absolutely wrong, and he ain't gonna listen.  While he might be worse than most posters in this respect, milder variations on this sort of 'my way or the highway' thinking dominates most or our partisan threads.  You don't get conversations with both people listening... with either person listening, really.  He's just one of the worst case obvious examples.

Meanwhile, there you go again with ammosexuality.  You know full well I don't own a firearm, let along be obsessed with stockpiling ammunition.  I own a bow and about a dozen target arrows.  That's it.  There are times I think all you've got is that one strawman argument that you know full well is bogus.  Whenever you can't answer a point, you run at the mouth with ammosexuality.  It's about as meaningful and argument as comparing folks with Hitler.  It's a sign you haven't a rational argument.  If  you insult and lie over and over again, do you think you are going to get anywhere?  If we were talking about a racial or sexual issue, the sort of repeated insult based argument you indulge in would have long since been reported to the moderator.  If you continue, I'm considering doing just that.

Cause it is a sexual insult.  As far as I can read it, you believe you have a proper respectful relationship with your rifle, but add one feature to the weapon and the relationship becomes akin to a black guy being with a white girl, or two women being together.  You go bonzo nuts with the sort of language I'd expect of a bigot.  It's not a rational argument.  You are not diagnosing a disease that exists outside of your obviously disturbed mind.  All you are doing is making rational conversation impossible by constantly diverting the conversation away from the issue and into your perverse pseudo-sexual hang up.

You are spot on regarding the character of both playwrite and Eric. I have mentioned the exact same thing to both of them.

Please, you're going to make me cry.

Boo-hoo. 

(07-04-2016, 04:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-03-2016, 08:10 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm trying to reprise a basic difference in approach between Eric and I.  

You are simply self-deceived.

We could agree that some measures might be needed, as you sometimes say, and let it go at that. Instead, you feel compelled nevertheless to call all gun control measures "prohibition" and say they aren't important. You take out a stand you call "reasonable" and then proceed to call more progressive approaches unreasonable and do not consider them. You speak of values lock, but are yourself the supreme example of same.

So, your discussion of me might get agreement from others also deceived, but it gets the conversation nowhere. Do you care about that? Then stick to the issues, not personalities, and do what you say you do instead of just what you accuse others of doing.

What's weird about it is not those who see some enormous insight into his word salad, but he actually believes he's offering measured reasonableness.  He can't seem to grasp that he is offering the status quo and that status quo is making mass shootings something for us all to just live with.  Like I said, weird.

(07-04-2016, 08:44 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-04-2016, 04:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-03-2016, 08:10 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm trying to reprise a basic difference in approach between Eric and I.  

You are simply self-deceived.

Someone is self deceived.  

What measures with regard to prohibiting access to weapons do you most wish for?  (I'd suggest limiting rate of fire and magazine size, but propose something.)  To what degree are you willing to grant in perpetuity a right to own and carry weapons for self defense?  I have proposed one tit-for-tat that attempts to grant both sides the most central elements of what they desire.  I'm open to tweaks.  You have persistently rejected anything except those who you disagree with completely surrendering.

You are hardly alone.  On this board, as in the general population of the US, very few are open to considering and acknowledging the culture of the other guys.  I'm not getting much in the way of agreement or tweaks from the conservatives either.  I'm not saying that wanting all and being willing to yield nothing is unique to either side, is more common among Blue than Red.  

The country is very sincerely and deeply divided.  The values are profoundly deep and sincere on both sides.  If you can't acknowledge that, no doubt about the lack of connection with reality.

Go back up thread and see that your entire premise is based on tweaking the 2nd Amendment.

You are delusional.

(07-04-2016, 09:13 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-04-2016, 08:44 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-04-2016, 04:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-03-2016, 08:10 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm trying to reprise a basic difference in approach between Eric and I.  

You are simply self-deceived.

Someone is self deceived.  

What measures with regard to prohibiting access to weapons do you most wish for?  (I'd suggest limiting rate of fire and magazine size, but propose something.)  To what degree are you willing to grant in perpetuity a right to own and carry weapons for self defense?  I have proposed one tit-for-tat that attempts to grant both sides the most central elements of what they desire.  I'm open to tweaks.  You have persistently rejected anything except those who you disagree with completely surrendering.

You are hardly alone.  On this board, as in the general population of the US, very few are open to considering and acknowledging the culture of the other guys.  I'm not getting much in the way of agreement or tweaks from the conservatives either.  I'm not saying that wanting all and being willing to yield nothing is unique to either side, is more common among Blue than Red.  

The country is very sincerely and deeply divided.  The values are profoundly deep and sincere on both sides.  If you can't acknowledge that, no doubt about the lack of connection with reality.

I agree and I can see it especially as a foreigner as I know of another culture that is not as deeply divided as America. You are certainly not self deceived. You are aware and take all sides into account.

Best example of damning admiration I've ever seen.

(07-05-2016, 12:41 AM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]Reds and libs have told me blues are authoritarians on different issues. Thing is neither is listening so nothing will be done. Some of them would also say they value life too and some blues don't (abortion). For me personally, I do not like guns. Never have, never will. I have never touched a gun in my life and distrust anyone with one. Reason being is the culture i was brought up in. Illegal to carry guns here and you never see a gun anywhere here. To me it means defense is up and an area is dangerous. (My reaction when i went to South Africa.) It means danger to me. As to abortion it should be the decision of the parents, or if a rape case; the mother as she has to live with the actions against her. No matter the thoughts of outsiders it should be her decision. However my first comments are to address what is being said on the other side. If blues do not listen to reds, why should they listen to you? That has lead to extremism, anger and polarization, as well as other reasons of course.

Dear, New Zealand is beautiful place with very interesting cultures.

It does, however, have a population that is half that of my city.  And on the world stage, it is a backwater, a beautiful, backwater, but still a backwater.  My city (NYC), my state (the Empire State), and my country (USA), on the other hand, is, well, you know.

If we're looking for advice on sheep shearing, well, maybe (I think some guys in Wyoming won the last world contest).  If I'm looking for how, as a deep Blue, to handle the Reds here in my own country, I think I might look elsewhere - Luxembourg perhaps?