(03-12-2018, 10:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]That does seem like a racist post, Classic. And probably not as racist as you would like, considering the last statement. Or am I not correct? lol
Social justice is "revenge" only according to neo-liberal ideology, which reds have swallowed hook line and sinker and believe in from head to toe. Too bad, it's a total fraud. Why should social justice only be of interest to black people? As one black person said, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. But I guess you don't mind if you are treated unjustly. Liberals I think are people who have had a taste of injustice of one kind or another, and thus can empathize. Republican voters such as yourself have not. The Democrats have a Black Caucus because the blacks in congress created it.Social Justice is more associated with black people and black movements. The last time I seriously got into it with a black who felt
Why do the Democrats have a Black Caucus? Can a white become a member of the Black Caucus or does one have to be black to be a member of it? Now, what were you speaking/preaching to me about as far as diversity within blue culture. I've seen more racist comments come from black mouths in politics than I've seen coming from Republican politicians mouths. Who's in charge of punishing black politicians for racist comments? Who has the power to tell a black bitch spouting racist comments or a black dickhead wearing a suit spouting racist comments to shut the fuck up? Is there a Democrat who has the power/BALLS to do it? I haven't seen one yet. Is telling a black bitch to shut her racist pie hole seem racist to you? Now, I realize that feeble liberal mind of yours has been conditioned/trained to scream racist every time a black is criticized, rejected or spoken to and spoken about harshly by someone white. I don't mind blacks but I can't stand their politics and the bulk of their leaders. MLK represented character and preached character. Where did Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton slither in from? A swamp in Alabama and a ghetto in New York. Fine choices. Is that racism or a human observation.
(03-13-2018, 01:08 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (03-12-2018, 10:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]That does seem like a racist post, Classic. And probably not as racist as you would like, considering the last statement. Or am I not correct? lol
I doubt you're correct. He is talking about race, but it's you folks on the left that are the racists.
The left is loaded with racists. As long as you aren't white, you can say all the racist comments you want because BLUES don't seem to care about what the minorities are saying to us. I wonder if they care about what racist browns say about the blacks and what the racist blacks say about the browns.
(03-13-2018, 02:54 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Why do the Democrats have a Black Caucus? Can a white become a member of the Black Caucus or does one have to be black to be a member of it? Now, what were you speaking/preaching to me about as far as diversity within blue culture. (Most of the rest is racist insults of black people, prominent and otherwise).
It's for the constituents of those elected black officials, most of whom represent heavily-black districts. In the past, blacks have gotten hurt by official deeds of Congress on behalf of white supremacists.
In time, politicians generally resemble the character of their districts, and, yes, there will be some who get verbally profane and insular in their views. Yes, there are plenty of black racists. Of course you need to remember what that racism is adapted from. Any white person who does not now recognize that the white Establishment has hurt blacks by such practices as redlining and gross inequity in educational funding is grossly ignorant of reality. But character matters, and that can be the difference between success and misery.
No, blacks have no right to expect to avoid criticism for personal misconduct. This said, they must not be painted with the same broad brush. The funeral director (often the richest black person in town and the effective leader of the black community) and the dope-addled mugger should not be confused, and white people unwilling to make the distinction might as well avoid making judgments about blacks as a whole.
On the other hand, black people need avoid painting us white people with a broad brush. We white people do not form a monolith. If the KKK ever took over and I did not get out fast enough, I would end up a political prisoner getting much the same treatment as many blacks just for being black.
(03-11-2018, 04:29 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2018, 10:13 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, voting is one area that youth are actually better prepared than their elders, because it's less emotional to begin with. That's the point of pushing for the vote for 16 year olds. Personally, I'm not sold on voting at 16, but I'm not totally opposed either.
Hmm. Blue voting and blue politics seem to be more driven by emotion and more reliant upon emotion. I see a lot of emotion being used in politics on the left side. I see political gatherings that remind me of pep rally's associated with my youth/ younger days. I've seen airheads and idiots who didn't seem to understand or recognize the seriousness of the issues at hand or the issues that were at stake at the time.
The SJWs are the left's version of the Trumpists, so yes, both sides do it. The biggest difference is centrality. The GOP has swallowed the fear mongering and nativist nonsense from the Trump team, hook, line and sinker. If that becomes the baseline attitude in the Democratic Party as well, then we have real troubles ahead.
FWIW, there are voices on the left fighting back against this tendency on that side. I don't hear those voices on the right.
(03-11-2018, 04:54 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2018, 01:14 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]Bob Butler 54 Wrote: (03-11-2018, 02:03 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]This decision is a year old, but I had forgotten....
... "Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.
Which directly conflicts what the US Supreme Court said in establishing a litmus test, saying the courts could only limit civilian use weapons. The courts often rule politically rather than following precedent.
So I guess that means I can have a Vulcan cannon.
![[Image: M61_Vulcan.jpg]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/M61_Vulcan.jpg)
There is one interpretation, since cannon were owned by the state and not by individuals in the founding father's time, that the state should be free to regulate crew served military weapons. Some ranking NRA folk have endorsed this. As the words "crew served" do not appear in the Second, you have to do a lot of legal dancing to interpret to constitution that way.
Though does that make a justice follow the author of a law's intent? Does that make prohibition work? Does that make it a good idea to force conflicting survival values on one another using representative democracy?
I suppose you are worried about spree shooters unloading their Vulcan from their pickup truck at an elementary school or hospital? I'm sure the possibility would worry you into violating the constitution.
Just so you know. There was an idiot I knew in my youth (he lived next door to me at the time) who had a violent streak from early age (he actually tired to hang me in his basement when I was 8). As an adult, he was able to buy and keep on his property a piece of field artillery, get primers for the casings and reload them in his home. He couldn't get the actual rounds, so he used baseballs. He fired them at, among other targets, 18-wheelers passing by his property. He was arrested many times before he managed to get killed in a gun fight with several of his "neighbors".
That should never have been allowed in the first place. Never!
(03-13-2018, 03:16 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018, 01:08 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (03-12-2018, 10:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]That does seem like a racist post, Classic. And probably not as racist as you would like, considering the last statement. Or am I not correct? lol
I doubt you're correct. He is talking about race, but it's you folks on the left that are the racists.
The left is loaded with racists. As long as you aren't white, you can say all the racist comments you want because BLUES don't seem to care about what the minorities are saying to us. I wonder if they care about what racist browns say about the blacks and what the racist blacks say about the browns.
Racism is real, but making everything about racism is stupid. The same applies to gender, gender identity, nativism and heritage. They're all the same overblown appeal to ones side in the conflict ... which is where this is headed unless calmer, saner minds prevail.
At least the cries of racism and sexism had a root in reality. It's hard to argue that whites and Christians have been oppressed in a country they have ruled since its inception. That this is changing now is no reason to act like the oppressed. The truly oppressed are those of us NOT in the top 1%, which should be the basis for common cause across racial, gender and any other lines you might choose. That the 1% have so successfully managed to keep the fires burning just makes them stronger.
(03-13-2018, 10:46 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]Just so you know. There was an idiot I knew in my youth (he lived next door to me at the time) who had a violent streak from early age (he actually tired to hang me in his basement when I was 8). As an adult, he was able to buy and keep on his property a piece of field artillery, get primers for the casings and reload them in his home. He couldn't get the actual rounds, so he used baseballs. He fired them at, among other targets, 18-wheelers passing by his property. He was arrested many times before he managed to get killed in a gun fight with several of his "neighbors".
That should never have been allowed in the first place. Never!
You should have figured out that episodes can't be used in the gun debate. They usually favor one side or the other. Whatever your values are, the corresponding episodes get thrown away. Many a right winger would suggest the ability of the neighbors above to arm ultimately solved the problem, for example.
The good guys should be well trained, equipped and ready. The bad guys should be disarmed, but often can't be by law. That can be shifted. The abuse of a right could remove it. The violently mentally defective are rare, but they can and should be disarmed. They still deserve due process, though. You shouldn't ignore the law because you don't like it, and in general prohibition is not the answer.
(03-13-2018, 10:55 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018, 03:16 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018, 01:08 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (03-12-2018, 10:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]That does seem like a racist post, Classic. And probably not as racist as you would like, considering the last statement. Or am I not correct? lol
I doubt you're correct. He is talking about race, but it's you folks on the left that are the racists.
The left is loaded with racists. As long as you aren't white, you can say all the racist comments you want because BLUES don't seem to care about what the minorities are saying to us. I wonder if they care about what racist browns say about the blacks and what the racist blacks say about the browns.
Racism is real, but making everything about racism is stupid. The same applies to gender, gender identity, nativism and heritage. They're all the same overblown appeal to ones side in the conflict ... which is where this is headed unless calmer, saner minds prevail.
At least the cries of racism and sexism had a root in reality. It's hard to argue that whites and Christians have been oppressed in a country they have ruled since its inception. That this is changing now is no reason to act like the oppressed. The truly oppressed are those of us NOT in the top 1%, which should be the basis for common cause across racial, gender and any other lines you might choose. That the 1% have so successfully managed to keep the fires burning just makes them stronger.
Racism and sexism exists today. I don't deny it or pretend/ act as if they don't exist today. The Christians are/were being oppressed by blues in blue regions and areas. I'm not feeling it myself because I'm not all that much of a Christian and not all that deep into Christianity. I'm not feeling all that oppressed by the so-called one percent either because I'm not all that associated with them as a group and I'm not all that financially attached or financially reliant (reliant on their tax dollars for welfare programs or their financial contributions as individuals) on them. At times, I pointed to the blues who were doing all that they could do to oppress me at the time, that what they were doing was oppression. I didn't cry fowl or whine about it.. I just pointed it out so they understood why I was directly involved with defeating them and eliminating them. I don't see any blue bully's or the blue wimps who followed or went along with them posting and making the lives and the experience of posting miserable for others anymore. Hint: I'm a mean old son of a bitch. A formidable adversary to those who like to oppress and those get into oppressing and those who seem willing to go along with it.
(03-13-2018, 02:23 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018, 10:46 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]Just so you know. There was an idiot I knew in my youth (he lived next door to me at the time) who had a violent streak from early age (he actually tired to hang me in his basement when I was 8). As an adult, he was able to buy and keep on his property a piece of field artillery, get primers for the casings and reload them in his home. He couldn't get the actual rounds, so he used baseballs. He fired them at, among other targets, 18-wheelers passing by his property. He was arrested many times before he managed to get killed in a gun fight with several of his "neighbors".
That should never have been allowed in the first place. Never!
You should have figured out that episodes can't be used in the gun debate. They usually favor one side or the other. Whatever your values are, the corresponding episodes get thrown away. Many a right winger would suggest the ability of the neighbors above to arm ultimately solved the problem, for example.
The good guys should be well trained, equipped and ready. The bad guys should be disarmed, but often can't be by law. That can be shifted. The abuse of a right could remove it. The violently mentally defective are rare, but they can and should be disarmed. They still deserve due process, though. You shouldn't ignore the law because you don't like it, and in general prohibition is not the answer.
I should have noted that the "neighbors" were in "business" with this guy, and the gun fight was "all business". There were no good guys here. Still, he had an artillery piece and used it more than once. I'm sure the local law enforcement in the rural area he occupied at the time was accepting, if not very bright.
(03-13-2018, 10:55 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018, 03:16 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018, 01:08 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (03-12-2018, 10:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]That does seem like a racist post, Classic. And probably not as racist as you would like, considering the last statement. Or am I not correct? lol
I doubt you're correct. He is talking about race, but it's you folks on the left that are the racists.
The left is loaded with racists. As long as you aren't white, you can say all the racist comments you want because BLUES don't seem to care about what the minorities are saying to us. I wonder if they care about what racist browns say about the blacks and what the racist blacks say about the browns.
Racism is real, but making everything about racism is stupid. The same applies to gender, gender identity, nativism and heritage. They're all the same overblown appeal to ones side in the conflict ... which is where this is headed unless calmer, saner minds prevail.
"Real" and "pervasive" are two different things. Some white person may hate what a black person did for reasons absolutely nothing to do with race, such as discourteous driving. Explanations of strange phenomena that suggest ethnic insensitivity must be brushed off if there are innocent explanations. Rachel Dolezal got into trouble because she assumed that everything was about race. People with more experience with blackness know otherwise. Blatant, unambiguous expressions of animus must get stern responses depending to the extent of the level of provocation. Use the infamous n-word in a hostile context in an educational setting in which I am the teacher, and you will get an unpleasant trip to the principal's office. I didn't believe my ears when I heard it, but someone complained and I believed what I heard.
Quote:At least the cries of racism and sexism had a root in reality. It's hard to argue that whites and Christians have been oppressed in a country they have ruled since its inception. That this is changing now is no reason to act like the oppressed. The truly oppressed are those of us NOT in the top 1%, which should be the basis for common cause across racial, gender and any other lines you might choose. That the 1% have so successfully managed to keep the fires burning just makes them stronger.
Adolf Hitler told German gentiles that Jews were exploiters and oppressors, and that he would be the agent of rectifying that 'wrong'. We obviously cannot accept every claim of mistreatment by some elite as both real and characteristic of all members of that elite. We must all be wary of 'bum raps', many of them the result of bigotry meeting hurt feelings.
Economic distress of course is a reality in America. How well this Crisis goes will reflect to no small part how we deal with such distress.
(03-13-2018, 02:47 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]Racism and sexism exists today. I don't deny it or pretend/ act as if they don't exist today. The Christians are/were being oppressed by blues in blue regions and areas. I'm not feeling it myself because I'm not all that much of a Christian and not all that deep into Christianity. I'm not feeling all that oppressed by the so-called one percent either because I'm not all that associated with them as a group and I'm not all that financially attached or financially reliant (reliant on their tax dollars for welfare programs or their financial contributions as individuals) on them. At times, I pointed to the blues who were doing all that they could do to oppress me at the time, that what they were doing was oppression. I didn't cry fowl or whine about it.. I just pointed it out so they understood why I was directly involved with defeating them and eliminating them. I don't see any blue bully's or the blue wimps who followed or went along with them posting and making the lives and the experience of posting miserable for others anymore. Hint: I'm a mean old son of a bitch. A formidable adversary to those who like to oppress and those get into oppressing and those who seem willing to go along with it.
Since the economy crashed a decade ago, that 1% has grabbed fully 84% of all the gains in the economy. Most people are still recovering, but the 1% are flying high -- especially so for the .01%.
Ross Douthat wrote about it in the NY Times in February. Ross is an old-style conservative, so this is not a shot from Blue America.
(03-13-2018, 02:47 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018, 10:55 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018, 03:16 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018, 01:08 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (03-12-2018, 10:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]That does seem like a racist post, Classic. And probably not as racist as you would like, considering the last statement. Or am I not correct? lol
I doubt you're correct. He is talking about race, but it's you folks on the left that are the racists.
The left is loaded with racists. As long as you aren't white, you can say all the racist comments you want because BLUES don't seem to care about what the minorities are saying to us. I wonder if they care about what racist browns say about the blacks and what the racist blacks say about the browns.
Racism is real, but making everything about racism is stupid. The same applies to gender, gender identity, nativism and heritage. They're all the same overblown appeal to ones side in the conflict ... which is where this is headed unless calmer, saner minds prevail.
At least the cries of racism and sexism had a root in reality. It's hard to argue that whites and Christians have been oppressed in a country they have ruled since its inception. That this is changing now is no reason to act like the oppressed. The truly oppressed are those of us NOT in the top 1%, which should be the basis for common cause across racial, gender and any other lines you might choose. That the 1% have so successfully managed to keep the fires burning just makes them stronger.
Racism and sexism exists today. I don't deny it or pretend/ act as if they don't exist today. The Christians are/were being oppressed by blues in blue regions and areas. I'm not feeling it myself because I'm not all that much of a Christian and not all that deep into Christianity. I'm not feeling all that oppressed by the so-called one percent either because I'm not all that associated with them as a group and I'm not all that financially attached or financially reliant (reliant on their tax dollars for welfare programs or their financial contributions as individuals) on them. At times, I pointed to the blues who were doing all that they could do to oppress me at the time, that what they were doing was oppression. I didn't cry fowl or whine about it.. I just pointed it out so they understood why I was directly involved with defeating them and eliminating them. I don't see any blue bully's or the blue wimps who followed or went along with them posting and making the lives and the experience of posting miserable for others anymore. Hint: I'm a mean old son of a bitch. A formidable adversary to those who like to oppress and those get into oppressing and those who seem willing to go along with it.
That's fine Classic Xer, and I identify with that too to some extent; although it's really the politics of red America and not blue America that is the oppressor that I see. As David pointed out, it's mainly an economic oppression today, although racist appeals are used to further it. But this oppression is furthered by the red political side; the neo-liberal, classic-liberal, libertarian-economics, trickle-down economics, Reaganomics side. That is what keeps the 1% in power, and the rest of us more oppressed. It's not that all of us are suffering to an equal degree; it's still a pretty good country. But many people today, of all races, are feeling held back in an economy that is not providing opportunity as it used to. I think it can, again. But we need to have the government programs that help the people and provide what business and the so-called free (but largely corporate) market alone cannot provide, and the regulations that keep the 1% in line. Trump and Ryan et al wish to keep tearing these down, and think that makes the economy go faster. It doesn't. We also need to think outside the box of the traditional ways we have lived our lives. The conventional paths just aren't there for most of us anymore.
You are not oppressed if you have to pay taxes, of which a small portion goes to help others. That helps you too. Neo-liberal individualism just puts blinders on so people such as yourself have a hard time seeing that helping the less fortunate helps yourself too. Christians are not and have not been oppressed, just because others insist on having the same rights as Christians have in this society. And that's all that has happened.
(03-13-2018, 02:23 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018, 10:46 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]Just so you know. There was an idiot I knew in my youth (he lived next door to me at the time) who had a violent streak from early age (he actually tired to hang me in his basement when I was 8). As an adult, he was able to buy and keep on his property a piece of field artillery, get primers for the casings and reload them in his home. He couldn't get the actual rounds, so he used baseballs. He fired them at, among other targets, 18-wheelers passing by his property. He was arrested many times before he managed to get killed in a gun fight with several of his "neighbors".
That should never have been allowed in the first place. Never!
You should have figured out that episodes can't be used in the gun debate. They usually favor one side or the other. Whatever your values are, the corresponding episodes get thrown away. Many a right winger would suggest the ability of the neighbors above to arm ultimately solved the problem, for example.
The good guys should be well trained, equipped and ready. The bad guys should be disarmed, but often can't be by law. That can be shifted. The abuse of a right could remove it. The violently mentally defective are rare, but they can and should be disarmed. They still deserve due process, though. You shouldn't ignore the law because you don't like it, and in general prohibition is not the answer.
The idea that there are good guys and bad guys, and the good guys should have guns to stop the bad guys, is a fool's nonsense that gets us nowhere. Everyone with a gun is a potential bad guy. Guns make people into bad guys. Disarmament should be the goal. I understand that USA people aren't there yet, so mass prohibition and mass confiscation is not possible, but prohibition on certain kinds of guns, and due process to limit who can get guns, are still allowed and should be done.
(03-13-2018, 10:27 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2018, 04:29 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2018, 10:13 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, voting is one area that youth are actually better prepared than their elders, because it's less emotional to begin with. That's the point of pushing for the vote for 16 year olds. Personally, I'm not sold on voting at 16, but I'm not totally opposed either.
Hmm. Blue voting and blue politics seem to be more driven by emotion and more reliant upon emotion. I see a lot of emotion being used in politics on the left side. I see political gatherings that remind me of pep rally's associated with my youth/ younger days. I've seen airheads and idiots who didn't seem to understand or recognize the seriousness of the issues at hand or the issues that were at stake at the time.
The SJWs are the left's version of the Trumpists, so yes, both sides do it. The biggest difference is centrality. The GOP has swallowed the fear mongering and nativist nonsense from the Trump team, hook, line and sinker. If that becomes the baseline attitude in the Democratic Party as well, then we have real troubles ahead.
FWIW, there are voices on the left fighting back against this tendency on that side. I don't hear those voices on the right.
Trump has placed the Democratic party in a tough position. Does the Democratic party stick with American tradition or let go of it? Do you see any one affiliated with the right trashing liberal College's, burning down portions of cities, rioting with police, tearing down statues, entering political rally's and taking over the stage, overwhelming security and chasing guest speakers off stages and so forth? You hear them because they aren't really needed on the right.
(03-13-2018, 05:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018, 02:23 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018, 10:46 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]Just so you know. There was an idiot I knew in my youth (he lived next door to me at the time) who had a violent streak from early age (he actually tired to hang me in his basement when I was 8). As an adult, he was able to buy and keep on his property a piece of field artillery, get primers for the casings and reload them in his home. He couldn't get the actual rounds, so he used baseballs. He fired them at, among other targets, 18-wheelers passing by his property. He was arrested many times before he managed to get killed in a gun fight with several of his "neighbors".
That should never have been allowed in the first place. Never!
You should have figured out that episodes can't be used in the gun debate. They usually favor one side or the other. Whatever your values are, the corresponding episodes get thrown away. Many a right winger would suggest the ability of the neighbors above to arm ultimately solved the problem, for example.
The good guys should be well trained, equipped and ready. The bad guys should be disarmed, but often can't be by law. That can be shifted. The abuse of a right could remove it. The violently mentally defective are rare, but they can and should be disarmed. They still deserve due process, though. You shouldn't ignore the law because you don't like it, and in general prohibition is not the answer.
The idea that there are good guys and bad guys, and the good guys should have guns to stop the bad guys, is a fool's nonsense that gets us nowhere. Everyone with a gun is a potential bad guy. Guns make people into bad guys. Disarmament should be the goal. I understand that USA people aren't there yet, so mass prohibition and mass confiscation is not possible, but prohibition on certain kinds of guns, and due process to limit who can get guns, are still allowed and should be done.
Everyone with a gun is a potential good guy who could save your life.
(03-13-2018, 05:55 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018, 05:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]The idea that there are good guys and bad guys, and the good guys should have guns to stop the bad guys, is a fool's nonsense that gets us nowhere. Everyone with a gun is a potential bad guy. Guns make people into bad guys. Disarmament should be the goal. I understand that USA people aren't there yet, so mass prohibition and mass confiscation is not possible, but prohibition on certain kinds of guns, and due process to limit who can get guns, are still allowed and should be done.
Everyone with a gun is a potential good guy who could save your life.
I see both groups seeing the world working in a certain simplistic way, and it becomes clear what you have to do to make things 'better'. Few people want to really accept what the other believes at the core level. Both are willing to try to coerce the other guy into following alien beliefs, attempting to use democracy to crush rights, or use rights to block democracy.
Perhaps both sets of values can work. Perhaps in some reality prohibition can work, politicians or appointees can bend the law to their daydreams without consequences, prohibition could work, Washington could bend values and pigs could fly. Perhaps some world could exist where having the good guys constantly defenseless is a win.
The blue daydream on violence cannot and has not worked.
(03-13-2018, 06:41 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018, 05:55 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018, 05:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]The idea that there are good guys and bad guys, and the good guys should have guns to stop the bad guys, is a fool's nonsense that gets us nowhere. Everyone with a gun is a potential bad guy. Guns make people into bad guys. Disarmament should be the goal. I understand that USA people aren't there yet, so mass prohibition and mass confiscation is not possible, but prohibition on certain kinds of guns, and due process to limit who can get guns, are still allowed and should be done.
Everyone with a gun is a potential good guy who could save your life.
I see both groups seeing the world working in a certain simplistic way, and it becomes clear what you have to do to make things 'better'. Few people want to really accept what the other believes at the core level. Both are willing to try to coerce the other guy into following alien beliefs, attempting to use democracy to crush rights, or use rights to block democracy.
Perhaps both sets of values can work. Perhaps in some reality prohibition can work, politicians or appointees can bend the law to their daydreams without consequences, prohibition could work, Washington could bend values and pigs could fly. Perhaps some world could exist where having the good guys constantly defenseless is a win.
The blue daydream on violence cannot and has not worked.
Ohh.... I think pigs can fly.
Us liberals just need to give them wings!
Daydreams can connect you to possibilities. Facts can clarify realities. In both of those, the liberals win on guns.
(03-13-2018, 05:55 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018, 05:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018, 02:23 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018, 10:46 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]Just so you know. There was an idiot I knew in my youth (he lived next door to me at the time) who had a violent streak from early age (he actually tired to hang me in his basement when I was 8). As an adult, he was able to buy and keep on his property a piece of field artillery, get primers for the casings and reload them in his home. He couldn't get the actual rounds, so he used baseballs. He fired them at, among other targets, 18-wheelers passing by his property. He was arrested many times before he managed to get killed in a gun fight with several of his "neighbors".
That should never have been allowed in the first place. Never!
You should have figured out that episodes can't be used in the gun debate. They usually favor one side or the other. Whatever your values are, the corresponding episodes get thrown away. Many a right winger would suggest the ability of the neighbors above to arm ultimately solved the problem, for example.
The good guys should be well trained, equipped and ready. The bad guys should be disarmed, but often can't be by law. That can be shifted. The abuse of a right could remove it. The violently mentally defective are rare, but they can and should be disarmed. They still deserve due process, though. You shouldn't ignore the law because you don't like it, and in general prohibition is not the answer.
The idea that there are good guys and bad guys, and the good guys should have guns to stop the bad guys, is a fool's nonsense that gets us nowhere. Everyone with a gun is a potential bad guy. Guns make people into bad guys. Disarmament should be the goal. I understand that USA people aren't there yet, so mass prohibition and mass confiscation is not possible, but prohibition on certain kinds of guns, and due process to limit who can get guns, are still allowed and should be done.
Everyone with a gun is a potential good guy who could save your life.
Or a potential bad guy who could take it.
And, in states with more guns and fewer gun laws, it happens more often.
Facts matter.
(03-13-2018, 05:35 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018, 10:27 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2018, 04:29 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2018, 10:13 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, voting is one area that youth are actually better prepared than their elders, because it's less emotional to begin with. That's the point of pushing for the vote for 16 year olds. Personally, I'm not sold on voting at 16, but I'm not totally opposed either.
Hmm. Blue voting and blue politics seem to be more driven by emotion and more reliant upon emotion. I see a lot of emotion being used in politics on the left side. I see political gatherings that remind me of pep rally's associated with my youth/ younger days. I've seen airheads and idiots who didn't seem to understand or recognize the seriousness of the issues at hand or the issues that were at stake at the time.
The SJWs are the left's version of the Trumpists, so yes, both sides do it. The biggest difference is centrality. The GOP has swallowed the fear mongering and nativist nonsense from the Trump team, hook, line and sinker. If that becomes the baseline attitude in the Democratic Party as well, then we have real troubles ahead.
FWIW, there are voices on the left fighting back against this tendency on that side. I don't hear those voices on the right.
Trump has placed the Democratic party in a tough position. Does the Democratic party stick with American tradition or let go of it? Do you see any one affiliated with the right trashing liberal College's, burning down portions of cities, rioting with police, tearing down statues, entering political rally's and taking over the stage, overwhelming security and chasing guest speakers off stages and so forth? You hear them because they aren't really needed on the right.
You have a point that the left fringe has a violent side.
But, with caveats. The antifa group may have broken a window or two at Berkeley and chased a racist speaker away from Cal. But they also stand up to right wing violent groups too, who start fights and who ran down a peaceful protester in VA.
Ferguson MO got burned down, but burning cities was mainly something that left radicals did when you were a baby. It's not a big deal on the left now. And when conservative police kill black people for no reason, young black people can get frustrated when not allowed justice.
I don't know if a mob has torn down a statue yet. But city and state officials have rightly removed statues memorializing racists, and the current ambassador to the UN took down a confederate flag.
The left did not have a candidate who encouraged police and followers at his rallies to beat people up. The right did, and he was elected president by the electoral college.
I think the left will adhere to American values for the most part, in the sense that most will prefer to vote Democratic or vote for some other non-GOP party rather than engage in riots.
(03-13-2018, 10:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018, 05:35 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018, 10:27 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2018, 04:29 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2018, 10:13 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, voting is one area that youth are actually better prepared than their elders, because it's less emotional to begin with. That's the point of pushing for the vote for 16 year olds. Personally, I'm not sold on voting at 16, but I'm not totally opposed either.
Hmm. Blue voting and blue politics seem to be more driven by emotion and more reliant upon emotion. I see a lot of emotion being used in politics on the left side. I see political gatherings that remind me of pep rally's associated with my youth/ younger days. I've seen airheads and idiots who didn't seem to understand or recognize the seriousness of the issues at hand or the issues that were at stake at the time.
The SJWs are the left's version of the Trumpists, so yes, both sides do it. The biggest difference is centrality. The GOP has swallowed the fear mongering and nativist nonsense from the Trump team, hook, line and sinker. If that becomes the baseline attitude in the Democratic Party as well, then we have real troubles ahead.
FWIW, there are voices on the left fighting back against this tendency on that side. I don't hear those voices on the right.
Trump has placed the Democratic party in a tough position. Does the Democratic party stick with American tradition or let go of it? Do you see any one affiliated with the right trashing liberal College's, burning down portions of cities, rioting with police, tearing down statues, entering political rally's and taking over the stage, overwhelming security and chasing guest speakers off stages and so forth? You hear them because they aren't really needed on the right.
You have a point that the left fringe has a violent side.
But, with caveats. The antifa group may have broken a window or two at Berkeley and chased a racist speaker away from Cal. But they also stand up to right wing violent groups too, who start fights and who ran down a peaceful protester in VA.
Ferguson MO got burned down, but burning cities was mainly something that left radicals did when you were a baby. It's not a big deal on the left now. And when conservative police kill black people for no reason, young black people can get frustrated when not allowed justice.
I don't know if a mob has torn down a statue yet. But city and state officials have rightly removed statues memorializing racists, and the current ambassador to the UN took down a confederate flag.
The left did not have a candidate who encouraged police and followers at his rallies to beat people up. The right did, and he was elected president by the electoral college.
I think the left will adhere to American values for the most part, in the sense that most will prefer to vote Democratic or vote for some other non-GOP party rather than engage in riots.
The problem is that the Right has sold out principles for power. It used to be that conservatives showed a predictable disdain for demagoguery. Donald Trump, the consummate demagogue of American politics, puts the lie to that idea. It used to be that conservatives tolerated no violence except in repressing outright crime. Having sold out to near-fascists, that is over. They used to proceed with caution, or at least back down gingerly if something went awry. That is over.
This is a 4T, and public sentiment will congeal around one clear set of values that will become increasingly hide-bound -- and even conservative. Conservatives could see reports of racist violence by segregationists and respond with "we just don't do that" -- and end up voting for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. They could recognize that liberal reforms of twenty years earlier worked well enough that promising to undo them was a sure way to electoral defeat.
Kindness, caution, and conscience as cardinal virtues that serve a polity well. Just think of a political order with none of them -- Nazi Germany. Yes, the horrid regime fought it out to the end, but a system like FDR's America does not come to an end when the President dies; Churchill could lose an election as proof that a system whose leadership needed dictatorial powers (except for any questionable right to mass murder) just to survive could show a full commitment to democracy. The July 20 Plot would have never occurred in Britain or America.
Wars come to an end when the defeated are either exterminated (which is extremely difficult or problematic as well as grossly amoral) or find that they have nothing for which to fight. If this Crisis Era culminates in a war, Donald Trump will show himself consummately inept.