(12-05-2016, 11:04 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: If you think billionaiires or even major movie stars wander around without bodyguards, you're seriously detached from reality.

(12-05-2016, 11:28 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 11:04 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: If you think billionaiires or even major movie stars wander around without bodyguards, you're seriously detached from reality.

Sure they do, but their bodyguards are an small fraction of all gun owners.  These few are not the driving force behind Second Amendment activism.

(12-05-2016, 11:34 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 11:28 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 11:04 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: If you think billionaiires or even major movie stars wander around without bodyguards, you're seriously detached from reality.

Sure they do, but their bodyguards are an small fraction of all gun owners.  These few are not the driving force behind Second Amendment activism.

Do you even read the posts you respond to?  Those few are the driving force behind gutting the second amendment, not behind second amendment activism.  The elites are allowed their bodyguards even under the strictest of proposed gun control regimes; they just prefer no one else have the same privilege.

(12-05-2016, 11:58 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 11:34 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 11:28 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 11:04 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: If you think billionaiires or even major movie stars wander around without bodyguards, you're seriously detached from reality.

Sure they do, but their bodyguards are an small fraction of all gun owners.  These few are not the driving force behind Second Amendment activism.

Do you even read the posts you respond to?  Those few are the driving force behind gutting the second amendment, not behind second amendment activism.  The elites are allowed their bodyguards even under the strictest of proposed gun control regimes; they just prefer no one else have the same privilege.

I do read your posts.  I just don't believe that when you say something without presenting evidence I should bow to your wisdom.  You aren't the Pope. 

(12-05-2016, 11:28 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 11:04 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: If you think billionaiires or even major movie stars wander around without bodyguards, you're seriously detached from reality.

Sure they do, but their bodyguards are an small fraction of all gun owners.  These few are not the driving force behind Second Amendment activism.

(12-05-2016, 11:34 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 11:28 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 11:04 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: If you think billionaiires or even major movie stars wander around without bodyguards, you're seriously detached from reality.

Sure they do, but their bodyguards are an small fraction of all gun owners.  These few are not the driving force behind Second Amendment activism.

Do you even read the posts you respond to?  Those few are the driving force behind gutting the second amendment, not behind second amendment activism.  The elites are allowed their bodyguards even under the strictest of proposed gun control regimes; they just prefer no one else have the same privilege.

(12-05-2016, 03:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 11:34 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 11:28 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 11:04 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: If you think billionaiires or even major movie stars wander around without bodyguards, you're seriously detached from reality.

Sure they do, but their bodyguards are an small fraction of all gun owners.  These few are not the driving force behind Second Amendment activism.

Do you even read the posts you respond to?  Those few are the driving force behind gutting the second amendment, not behind second amendment activism.  The elites are allowed their bodyguards even under the strictest of proposed gun control regimes; they just prefer no one else have the same privilege.

Are you sure you are living on planet Earth, making a statement like that?

(12-05-2016, 12:26 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-04-2016, 11:52 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

Warren Dew Wrote:Abortion is a culture war issue, because it stems from moral judgements that aren't really amenable to rational analysis.

Abortion? It is safe to assume that most abortions are early in the term of a pregnancy. Late-term pregnancies in which a woman has an emotional investment in the pregnancy are rare, and usually involve a non-viable infant or a pregnancy that imposes an extreme danger of death or serious injury to the mother. Giving up a baby to an adoption seems like an easier choice than abortion  except all but boundary conditions, so to speak.

It is far easier to express the black-and-white philosophy of the Religious Right than to deal with the rough edges of boundary conditions. f(x) = 1/x behaves well except around x = 0

I agree with your facts; the vast majority of abortions are early in pregnancy and late term pregnancies usually involve a nonviable infant or a severe danger to the woman.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, though.  Can you clarify?  What are you disagreeing with me on, if anything?

(12-05-2016, 03:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 11:34 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 11:28 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 11:04 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: If you think billionaiires or even major movie stars wander around without bodyguards, you're seriously detached from reality.

Sure they do, but their bodyguards are an small fraction of all gun owners.  These few are not the driving force behind Second Amendment activism.

Do you even read the posts you respond to?  Those few are the driving force behind gutting the second amendment, not behind second amendment activism.  The elites are allowed their bodyguards even under the strictest of proposed gun control regimes; they just prefer no one else have the same privilege.

Are you sure you are living on planet Earth, making a statement like that?

(12-05-2016, 10:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 02:45 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: My point, we are listening/reading your posts and allowing  information to enter our brains and using the information received to form our opinions and judgements and positions relating to you. The blue side is obviously anti-gun. The blue side doesn't see/recognize a need or feel the necessity to own a firearm in today's world. I have read your personal positions on gun control which appear to align with that common belief. You don't see a reason or feel the necessity to own a firearm yourself and you have claimed that you'd be willing to vote to give up your right to own a gun if the issue were to be placed on a ballet. A negative sign to me. However, you do seem to understand our reasons/concerns/stances associated with our gun rights and the issue of gun control and you seem to be able to recognize our right to have them as well. A positive sign to me. Where do you really stand on the issue with information that's been received as a positive sign and a negative sign?

Well, to start with, you obviously are not listening / reading to my posts regarding gun policy.

On the legal and historical side, I favor the 'Standard Model' interpretation, that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms.  I was with Scalia on this case and others.  Another sign that I'm not a classic vanilla blue person is that I think Scalia had his merits in favoring rule of law, interpretation of the text as written, and favoring the meaning the authors intended.

On the statistics and consequences side, I see both sides as having studies and opinions of equal and not that great merit.  Other contributors to the forum will throw statistics at each other.  I don't as nothing is conclusive.  Lacking anything conclusive, I would favor rule of law.

I'm not inclined to sign away my right to own and carry, though I'm not feeling a need to exercise it.

I do favor some loophole closing.  The criminals and mentally unstable should be denied the right to carry, though putting it on paper and enforcing it are quite different.  Prohibitions are very difficult to enforce.  I do not favor passing laws that can't be put into effect.

If it were possible to pass an amendment or hold a constitutional convention, I could see rewriting the 2nd.  I would remove the justification clause, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" to make it absolutely clear that the right is an individual right of the people.  While one original intent of the Second was to have militia members own and carry military arms, this might not be prudent and wise given the more potent present day military weapons.  If acceptable wording could be found that clearly protected arms appropriate for self defense, hunting and other civilian uses, I might be open to restrictions on some military features.

Alas, the country is too divided at this time for amendments or conventions.  The above paragraph must remain an intellectual exercise at this time.

I think I have been absolutely clear and consistent in the above over the last decade plus.

I have had problems with many posters confusing my positions with the plain vanilla blue positions as you just did.  I have some sympathy, and I doubt very much I'm the only person with this problem.  There are a lot of people who contribute regularly.  I find it difficult to remember every nuance of every contributor.  Thus, I try to respond to what someone said in the last post or two rather than count on my correctly remembering something said months or years ago.

Anyway, I hope that clarifies my position on gun policy.  If your memory tells you I'm pure vanilla blue, consider that you might be reading what you expect to read rather than what is being said.  The inability to accurately read what someone with different values is writing is chronic around here.  Folks find it easier to interact with their own vile stereotypes rather than try to wrap their heads around what others are really trying to say.

(12-05-2016, 10:17 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 12:26 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-04-2016, 11:52 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

Warren Dew Wrote:Abortion is a culture war issue, because it stems from moral judgements that aren't really amenable to rational analysis.

Abortion? It is safe to assume that most abortions are early in the term of a pregnancy. Late-term pregnancies in which a woman has an emotional investment in the pregnancy are rare, and usually involve a non-viable infant or a pregnancy that imposes an extreme danger of death or serious injury to the mother. Giving up a baby to an adoption seems like an easier choice than abortion  except all but boundary conditions, so to speak.

It is far easier to express the black-and-white philosophy of the Religious Right than to deal with the rough edges of boundary conditions. f(x) = 1/x behaves well except around x = 0

I agree with your facts; the vast majority of abortions are early in pregnancy and late term pregnancies usually involve a nonviable infant or a severe danger to the woman.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, though.  Can you clarify?  What are you disagreeing with me on, if anything?

Whether abortion is to be outlawed? Maybe I am dealing with a stance more than with a person.

I think we can all find some 'objectionable' abortion, typically one done for purely-selfish reasons... let us say a danseuse having an abortion so that she can continue as a professional dancer and not miss out on some of her peak earnings. Or perhaps an abortion paid for by some heel (with a bonus of some getting-life-together money) with political aspirations who decides that it is better to pay for an abortion than have an illegitimate child as a potential detriment to his political career.

...If there were some way to tell that the fetus were going to grow up be a dangerous sociopath, let us say Josef Stalin or Ted Bundy, would you support the abortion?

Abortion has always been a tough issue for debate.

(12-04-2016, 11:13 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-04-2016, 10:14 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: The problem is that they don't understand it themselves.  Most of them believe their own side's propaganda, rather than understanding it's about dictatorship of the urban majority over the hinterlands, all in the cause of the blue urban elites.

You started out good, saying each side is into their own propaganda.  You then pushed your own side's propaganda without thinking from the other perspective.

Bush 43 was tagged with the 'Republicans are Fascists' propaganda during his entire time in office.  I shouldn't need to reprise that?  Trump is being labeled as a Putin Friend or Putin Light, a potential strong man.  He too is going to be tagged as a dictator in an un American style.  His failure to 'drain the swamp' in his cabinet choices will also get him tagged as a representative of the elite.  I'm not going to argue against the rural perception that the blue folk are trying to dictate over them.  That's real enough and has cause enough.  Just don't lose track of equal and opposite beliefs on the other side.

I also see the culture wars stuff as coming from the bases more than from the elites, again using guns an reproductive health care as examples.  Oh, the elites of both stripes will use such issues to gather votes, but the bases care about such issues in and of themselves and would with or without encouragement and support from the wealthy.

(12-04-2016, 11:26 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-04-2016, 10:14 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 11:36 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 05:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

The Electoral College isn’t just undemocratic, as watching the second-place candidate in the popular vote become president-elect has reminded us. It’s also racially biased. Not just in the historical sense that it was founded on slavery, but concretely in the present day, as the graph above shows. Lara Merling and Dean Baker lay it out: The Electoral College, like the Senate, is biased toward small states. And guess what?

The states that are overrepresented in the Electoral College also happen to be less diverse than the country as a whole. Wyoming is 84 percent white, North Dakota is 86 percent white, and Rhode Island is 74 percent white, while in California only 38 percent of the population is white, in Florida 55 percent, and in Texas 43 percent. [...]

African American votes on average have a weight that is 95 percent as much as white votes, Hispanic votes are on average 91 percent, and Asian American votes, 93 percent as much of a white vote. In the Electoral College, white votes matter more.

And that’s one more reason for Republicans to defend the Electoral College.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/25/1599868/-From-slave-states-to-whose-vote-counts-the-Electoral-College-has-protected-white-power

We understand that the American system that's in place does not favor the blues politically. We understand that blues want to remove the American system that is in place. We understand it and understand why blues want do it and have a fairly good grasp of what types of systems they'd be replacing it with and so on. Why not, you ask... What's wrong, you ask...The answers are pretty simple once you understand that we understand and are aware of your sides political motives and intents relevant to the future of America.

The problem is that they don't understand it themselves.  Most of them believe their own side's propaganda, rather than understanding it's about dictatorship of the urban majority over the hinterlands, all in the cause of the blue urban elites.

I know. What's up with that? Are they clueless or do they actually believe that we can't read and have no comprehension what so ever? BTW, most of them here are heavy into the propaganda. Lots of money in delivering propaganda.

(12-06-2016, 11:32 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-04-2016, 11:13 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-04-2016, 10:14 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: The problem is that they don't understand it themselves.  Most of them believe their own side's propaganda, rather than understanding it's about dictatorship of the urban majority over the hinterlands, all in the cause of the blue urban elites.

You started out good, saying each side is into their own propaganda.  You then pushed your own side's propaganda without thinking from the other perspective.

Bush 43 was tagged with the 'Republicans are Fascists' propaganda during his entire time in office.  I shouldn't need to reprise that?  Trump is being labeled as a Putin Friend or Putin Light, a potential strong man.  He too is going to be tagged as a dictator in an un American style.  His failure to 'drain the swamp' in his cabinet choices will also get him tagged as a representative of the elite.  I'm not going to argue against the rural perception that the blue folk are trying to dictate over them.  That's real enough and has cause enough.  Just don't lose track of equal and opposite beliefs on the other side.

I also see the culture wars stuff as coming from the bases more than from the elites, again using guns an reproductive health care as examples.  Oh, the elites of both stripes will use such issues to gather votes, but the bases care about such issues in and of themselves and would with or without encouragement and support from the wealthy.

Adding just a bit to this: the urban majority is finally getting fed-up with rule by the rural minority.  I'm sure that rural minority thinks they have been dictated-to and aren't the problem, but there are two very distinct sides here.  The case for the urban majority was covered by the NY Times in this Sunday Review article.

(12-06-2016, 02:05 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I just read what you say, read what you write, without expectations being involved. I know what you're talking about with that though, I spent years dealing with people like that here and it really aggravated me. I don't twist your words. I don't put words in your mouth. I don't skew your opinions or alter your opinions to suit my expectations or views. I don't add false meanings or alternate thoughts or do whatever I want to with what you've written. Mike Alexander and other blues did that stuff with me all the time. Do you know how many times that I wished that Mike was  within arms reach?  I'm not like Mike Alexander and some of the other blues. I spent the bulk of my time duking it out with them and still do to a lesser extent today. I don't know what the old forum was like before I began participating. I just know what it was like during Bush's second term. You were a vanilla blue poster back then. I have noticed some changes in your positions. You've given up on gun control/changing the 2nd Amendment to suit the blues and appear to be more in line with my views/values on that issue. You may have been opposed to it all along but I hadn't seen you take a firm stance on it with other blues until recently.

(12-04-2016, 01:42 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Clueless.  They actually think propaganda sources like The New York Times are reliable sources, despite their history of making up the news.

(12-05-2016, 02:50 AM)Galen Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 02:45 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: My point, we are listening/reading your posts and allowing  information to enter our brains and using the information received to form our opinions and judgements and positions relating to you. The blue side is obviously anti-gun. The blue side doesn't see/recognize a need or feel the necessity to own a firearm in today's world. I have read your personal positions on gun control which appear to align with that common belief. You don't see a reason or feel the necessity to own a firearm yourself and you have claimed that you'd be willing to vote to give up your right to own a gun if the issue were to be placed on a ballet. A negative sign to me. However, you do seem to understand our reasons/concerns/stances associated with our gun rights and the issue of gun control and you seem to be able to recognize our right to have them as well. A positive sign to me. Where do you really stand on the issue with information that's been received as a positive sign and a negative sign?

There is the small matter of how prohibitions tend to not work.

(12-05-2016, 11:28 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 11:04 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: If you think billionaiires or even major movie stars wander around without bodyguards, you're seriously detached from reality.

Sure they do, but their bodyguards are an small fraction of all gun owners.  These few are not the driving force behind Second Amendment activism.

(12-06-2016, 12:08 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(12-06-2016, 11:39 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-04-2016, 11:26 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-04-2016, 10:14 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 11:36 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: We understand that the American system that's in place does not favor the blues politically. We understand that blues want to remove the American system that is in place. We understand it and understand why blues want do it and have a fairly good grasp of what types of systems they'd be replacing it with and so on. Why not, you ask... What's wrong, you ask...The answers are pretty simple once you understand that we understand and are aware of your sides political motives and intents relevant to the future of America.

The problem is that they don't understand it themselves.  Most of them believe their own side's propaganda, rather than understanding it's about dictatorship of the urban majority over the hinterlands, all in the cause of the blue urban elites.

I know. What's up with that? Are they clueless or do they actually believe that we can't read and have no comprehension what so ever? BTW, most of them here are heavy into the propaganda. Lots of money in delivering propaganda.

So you both deny the data that clearly shows that the less urban and consequently more white get more power than they deserve ... and you believe this is fair?  It's getting harder to convince the urban many that granting excessive political power to their poorer rural cousins is acceptable.

The biggest noise from rural is from rural in blue states. Rural in red states have very little to bitch about.