Posts: 3,956
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
(07-09-2016, 05:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The gun fanatics say that gun control is "prohibition," and then trot out the reasons why prohibition doesn't work. Irrelevant straw man. Or they think that banning military weapons is violating our rights. Both non-starters. Gun control is not gun prohibition, and military weapons are different from civilian guns.
I am not advocating prohibition, at least not in the foreseeable future, or by forcible confiscation. But that will not stop the gun fanatics from claiming that I am.
Some of that is just argument about the definition of a word. Do you want the government to prohibit stuff? If so, you can reasonably be said to favor a prohibition. Check your dictionary. I'm using a common definition.
The other part is fact. Did alcohol prohibition work well in the 1930s? How has the war on drugs been doing? How well have recent attempts to keep bad guys from getting weapons worked?
Putting laws on the books is one thing. Enforcing them is another.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Posts: 1,131
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(07-09-2016, 03:30 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: The money in my wallet and bank accounts and wherever else it's located is mine. The same applies to him. Whether it's government debt or not isn't going to matter to us or anyone who has money. The question is, do we answer the call or do we ignore the call when big government needs more money. What happens then? Questions Democrats should be asking themselves considering their going to be in up to their necks. Do we lend a bunch of self centered, lying, stealing, low life cheats wearing fancy clothes who have been insulting us for years or do we say good bye as their going down. Do you think I'm going to feel bad when Playdude jumps out a window? I think you continue pumping up the blacks as your pissing down on whites. LIBERAL WISDOM AT IT'S BEST.
You overlooked one very important detail about his response. It was literally: It can't happen here. Germany was simply one example of a government going very bad in a short amount of time. We have, courtesy of the NSA, nationwide surveillance of America. This was the kind of thing that only happened in places behind the Iron Curtain when I was young but the Land of the Free does now what it derided communist nations for.
When you look at enough financial data the picture that emerges is very clear and it shows an empire reaching the end of the line. What event will serve as the catalyst that causes a very fragile system to break is unknown. That it will happen is a certainty because there is no chance that either major political party has the will to tell the FSA, along with everyone else, that the party is over. In that moment panicked government officials tend to do very nasty things to save their power, position and in some cases their own lives.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. -- Ludwig von Mises
Posts: 1,131
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(07-09-2016, 10:08 PM)taramarie Wrote: Sorry just catching up now. It was late and had to go to bed. I just got back from work today. Will get myself sorted and check on your link. Yes well the kiwi is trying to part truth from fiction. What works and what doesn't. What is sustainable and what is not. Great recessions and city destroying earthquakes do that to people as reality smacks you across the face. I will bet the GI's also went through the same transition. brb.
Yes, they did. Many of them went on about it at length. The need for survival tends to focus the mind wonderfully.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. -- Ludwig von Mises
Posts: 1,131
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(07-09-2016, 10:42 PM)taramarie Wrote: This was another article of the same site. Quite shocking what government is capable of if its citizens do not have control of its leaders.
WAR ISN'T THIS CENTURY'S BIGGEST KILLER By R.J. Rummel
You are right. This possibility is something that Eric the Obtuse and his ilk can not consider because it means that their god has turned on them. An inconceivable outcome according to the liberal/progressive religion. They still don't get it: No one can be trusted with the ring.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. -- Ludwig von Mises
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(07-09-2016, 07:44 PM)Galen Wrote: (07-09-2016, 03:30 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: The money in my wallet and bank accounts and wherever else it's located is mine. The same applies to him. Whether it's government debt or not isn't going to matter to us or anyone who has money. The question is, do we answer the call or do we ignore the call when big government needs more money. What happens then? Questions Democrats should be asking themselves considering their going to be in up to their necks. Do we lend a bunch of self centered, lying, stealing, low life cheats wearing fancy clothes who have been insulting us for years or do we say good bye as their going down. Do you think I'm going to feel bad when Playdude jumps out a window? I think you continue pumping up the blacks as your pissing down on whites. LIBERAL WISDOM AT IT'S BEST.
You overlooked one very important detail about his response. It was literally: It can't happen here. Germany was simply one example of a government going very bad in a short amount of time. We have, courtesy of the NSA, nationwide surveillance of America. This was the kind of thing that only happened in places behind the Iron Curtain when I was young but the Land of the Free does now what it derided communist nations for.
When you look at enough financial data the picture that emerges is very clear and it shows an empire reaching the end of the line. What event will serve as the catalyst that causes a very fragile system to break is unknown. That it will happen is a certainty because there is no chance that either major political party has the will to tell the FSA, along with everyone else, that the party is over. In that moment panicked government officials tend to do very nasty things to save their power, position and in some cases their own lives.
Posts: 1,131
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(07-09-2016, 10:33 PM)taramarie Wrote: (07-09-2016, 10:14 PM)Galen Wrote: (07-09-2016, 10:08 PM)taramarie Wrote: Sorry just catching up now. It was late and had to go to bed. I just got back from work today. Will get myself sorted and check on your link. Yes well the kiwi is trying to part truth from fiction. What works and what doesn't. What is sustainable and what is not. Great recessions and city destroying earthquakes do that to people as reality smacks you across the face. I will bet the GI's also went through the same transition. brb.
Yes, they did. Many of them went on about it at length. The need for survival tends to focus the mind wonderfully.
Wow. I wish I could have heard what they said. The remaining GIs at my work place are beyond talking about their past due to dementia or other age related conditions. Except for one and even she drifts off occasionally. Quite sad to see.
One thing I can tell you is that they did not respect those who simply gave up. They were willing to help if you payed attention to what they were saying. Got a bit of a different perspective about the Great Depression than the Lost had but then they were getting started at about that time. In many ways they were more sympathetic about what Generation X was facing in their twenties than the Boomers were.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. -- Ludwig von Mises
Posts: 1,131
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
07-09-2016, 11:18 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-09-2016, 11:19 PM by Galen.)
(07-09-2016, 11:09 PM)taramarie Wrote: (07-09-2016, 11:01 PM)Galen Wrote: (07-09-2016, 10:42 PM)taramarie Wrote: This was another article of the same site. Quite shocking what government is capable of if its citizens do not have control of its leaders.
WAR ISN'T THIS CENTURY'S BIGGEST KILLER By R.J. Rummel
You are right. This possibility is something that Eric the Obtuse and his ilk can not consider because it means that their god has turned on them. An inconceivable outcome according to the liberal/progressive religion. They still don't get it: No one can be trusted with the ring.
I totally agree. Never fall into a false sense of security with these people. Truth sets us free from blind control.
Yes it does. Blind faith is never a good thing as you see it gets large numbers of people dead.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. -- Ludwig von Mises
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(07-09-2016, 03:30 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: The money in my wallet and bank accounts and wherever else it's located is mine. The same applies to him. Whether it's government debt or not isn't going to matter to us or anyone who has money. The question is, do we answer the call or do we ignore the call when big government needs more money. What happens then? Questions Democrats should be asking themselves considering their going to be in up to their necks. Do we lend a bunch of self centered, lying, stealing, low life cheats wearing fancy clothes who have been insulting us for years or do we say good bye as their going down. Do you think I'm going to feel bad when Playdude jumps out a window? I think you continue pumping up the blacks as your pissing down on whites. LIBERAL WISDOM AT IT'S BEST.
... and why does the money exist? Ultimately it represents what one can buy with it. US dollars are valuable because one can buy desirable stuff with them -- which explains why a banknote with the image of Benjamin Franklin is the most widely-counterfeited banknote in the world. A hint: do no money dealings with North Koreans who have US currency to offer. They have plenty of what looks like US currency, and it is fake.
As in World War II, should the US government need huge amounts of public consumption at the expense of private consumption, then the Feds will find ways to cut back drastically on private consumption. But that will take a war or an incredible natural disaster, like being up to our necks in seawater because global warming has raised sea level.
It's not the money that creates wealth. The late Ed Koch once suggested that the federal government could wipe out large cash holdings except at banks and other legitimate holders of cash, and effectively demonetize the drug money and other proceeds of illegal activities and tax cheats. Such people as Warren Buffett, the Walton and Rockefeller families, and the Koch brothers wouldn't be burned; they don't have huge amounts of cash lying around. But the drug racketeers are flush with literal cash.
Quote:Do we lend a bunch of self centered, lying, stealing, low life cheats wearing fancy clothes who have been insulting us for years or do we say good bye as their going down.
As a liberal, I can say that about the Hard Right, which I often see as slick narcissists if not sociopaths with insatiable appetites for gain and indulgence but no respect for people other than themselves. Much of what they say insults me.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 1,131
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(07-09-2016, 11:22 PM)taramarie Wrote: (07-09-2016, 11:13 PM)Galen Wrote: One thing I can tell you is that they did not respect those who simply gave up. They were willing to help if you payed attention to what they were saying. Got a bit of a different perspective about the Great Depression than the Lost had but then they were getting started at about that time. In many ways they were more sympathetic about what Generation X was facing in their twenties than the Boomers were.
Well I can understand why they would be more sympathetic. They knew what hardship was like from experience. I would be exactly the same to younger ones trying to get started in a harsh environment that is stacked up to make you fail. I can also understand not respecting those who give up. You do not improve your life with that attitude. Just get back up and try again till you succeed. My generation understands that well due to the quakes. We did not sit and cry about it. We teamed up after every large quake and cleaned up and helped those in need. Same enthusiasm even after our fourth large quake clean up and check on the people. Can do attitude does wonders to improve a situation. I wonder what the different perspective was of the great depression compared to the lost?
The GIs really did tend to think big and the phrase "failure is not an option" really did suit them. They did not think impossible the way Boomers so often do. They also didn't think that things would necessarily be easy but success was an option. For the Lost you have a similar level of competence but the success condition was that the world didn't explode.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. -- Ludwig von Mises
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(07-09-2016, 11:52 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: (07-09-2016, 03:30 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: The money in my wallet and bank accounts and wherever else it's located is mine. The same applies to him. Whether it's government debt or not isn't going to matter to us or anyone who has money. The question is, do we answer the call or do we ignore the call when big government needs more money. What happens then? Questions Democrats should be asking themselves considering their going to be in up to their necks. Do we lend a bunch of self centered, lying, stealing, low life cheats wearing fancy clothes who have been insulting us for years or do we say good bye as their going down. Do you think I'm going to feel bad when Playdude jumps out a window? I think you continue pumping up the blacks as your pissing down on whites. LIBERAL WISDOM AT IT'S BEST.
... and why does the money exist? Ultimately it represents what one can buy with it. US dollars are valuable because one can buy desirable stuff with them -- which explains why a banknote with the image of Benjamin Franklin is the most widely-counterfeited banknote in the world. A hint: do no money dealings with North Koreans who have US currency to offer. They have plenty of what looks like US currency, and it is fake.
As in World War II, should the US government need huge amounts of public consumption at the expense of private consumption, then the Feds will find ways to cut back drastically on private consumption. But that will take a war or an incredible natural disaster, like being up to our necks in seawater because global warming has raised sea level.
It's not the money that creates wealth. The late Ed Koch once suggested that the federal government could wipe out large cash holdings except at banks and other legitimate holders of cash, and effectively demonetize the drug money and other proceeds of illegal activities and tax cheats. Such people as Warren Buffett, the Walton and Rockefeller families, and the Koch brothers wouldn't be burned; they don't have huge amounts of cash lying around. But the drug racketeers are flush with literal cash.
Quote:Do we lend a bunch of self centered, lying, stealing, low life cheats wearing fancy clothes who have been insulting us for years or do we say good bye as their going down.
As a liberal, I can say that about the Hard Right, which I often see as slick narcissists if not sociopaths with insatiable appetites for gain and indulgence but no respect for people other than themselves. Much of what they say insults me.
Hint: The ones you rely on are the ones who are more likely to screw you. You don't have to worry about me screwing you. I'm all good as far as money and property are concerned. Hint: We didn't take your jobs. The Democrats basically gave them to the world. You need to think about all the happy Mexicans and Chinese that were created with your parties sacrifice. I mean, come on, how do liberal frat boys really have in common with the working class. Really, I do feel sorry for those folks and wish they had good politicians who cared more about them and less about supporting them enough to keep themselves in office. I understand that the bulk of your base is pretty clueless and uncaring as far as the going on in the world. I understand the liberal educated get the bulk of their information networks that cater to them. Its so funny to see how they react when they when they're challenged by someone who has a bit more brain than they're accustomed too. BTW, they don't seem to care about the working class as much as they're concerned about the poor.
Posts: 3,956
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
(07-10-2016, 01:49 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (07-09-2016, 11:52 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: As a liberal, I can say that about the Hard Right, which I often see as slick narcissists if not sociopaths with insatiable appetites for gain and indulgence but no respect for people other than themselves. Much of what they say insults me.
Hint: The ones you rely on are the ones who are more likely to screw you. You don't have to worry about me screwing you. I'm all good as far as money and property are concerned. Hint: We didn't take your jobs. The Democrats basically gave them to the world. You need to think about all the happy Mexicans and Chinese that were created with your parties sacrifice. I mean, come on, how do liberal frat boys really have in common with the working class. Really, I do feel sorry for those folks and wish they had good politicians who cared more about them and less about supporting them enough to keep themselves in office. I understand that the bulk of your base is pretty clueless and uncaring as far as the going on in the world. I understand the liberal educated get the bulk of their information networks that cater to them. Its so funny to see how they react when they when they're challenged by someone who has a bit more brain than they're accustomed too. BTW, they don't seem to care about the working class as much as they're concerned about the poor.
It seems like life experience has exposed you two to divergent sorts of folk? If so, your assumptions of how humans and members of various cultures behave are incompatible? I'm also seeing some vile stereotypes? Those with different values are presumed to be vile in one way or another?
I tend to trust more what people say positively about their own culture, and be dubious about attempts to slander folks they disagree with. If this goes on focusing on slandering the other guy, I'd not trust much of it.
Still, it shows how and why we get divided. All one has to do is nurse grudges and think the worst about those who think differently and we end up where we are.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Posts: 1,131
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(07-10-2016, 03:12 AM)taramarie Wrote: A video for liberals to consider.
Stats on what they believe is ok culturally do not lie. It should be deeply disturbing to progressives freedom we fought for.
Please watch with open ears and minds as this is reality especially as it will affect the future of future generations.
I don't see Hillary as being particularly competent or truthful but he does outline rather clearly the inability, or rather unwillingness, of the left to identify or name this particular problem. I can think of quite a few other issues where this is true as well. I bet you have been researching how Europe has dealt with Islam in the past and it is not pretty. Many of the the former Warsaw Pact countries are refusing to take any of the migrants because of that history.
You may find this little video on the Crusades to be of some value.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. -- Ludwig von Mises
Posts: 1,131
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(07-10-2016, 04:34 AM)taramarie Wrote: Neither do i mate. That was not the purpose of why i shared the video but more to do with the spread of regression. The stats are what concern me. Yes i have been doing a bit of study  I have a few more vids lined up to watch later of interviews with others educated on this topic but they will have to wait till tuesday and the following days as it is late here and i have a double shift tomorrow. Thanks for the vid i will add it to the collection
I understand that but it was about the only real problem that I had with what he was saying. It seems unlikely that the left will take his warning seriously and that will create problems for them in the future.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. -- Ludwig von Mises
Posts: 1,131
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
07-10-2016, 05:01 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-10-2016, 05:03 AM by Galen.)
(07-10-2016, 04:53 AM)taramarie Wrote: (07-10-2016, 04:48 AM)Galen Wrote: (07-10-2016, 04:34 AM)taramarie Wrote: Neither do i mate. That was not the purpose of why i shared the video but more to do with the spread of regression. The stats are what concern me. Yes i have been doing a bit of study I have a few more vids lined up to watch later of interviews with others educated on this topic but they will have to wait till tuesday and the following days as it is late here and i have a double shift tomorrow. Thanks for the vid i will add it to the collection
I understand that but it was about the only real problem that I had with what he was saying. It seems unlikely that the left will take his warning seriously and that will create problems for them in the future.
Sad part is they will be undoing their own work which will not benefit future generations to come.
Survival will push nominally left groups over to the right as appears to be happening with the gay crowd. They are now arming up because they figured out the left won't save them. Steven Crowder pointed out that the left created Milo in the full video where that clip came from. There are going to be many groups that decide they would rather have the religious right simply because they can survive that.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. -- Ludwig von Mises
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
07-10-2016, 07:02 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-10-2016, 07:08 AM by pbrower2a.)
(07-10-2016, 05:01 AM)Galen Wrote: (07-10-2016, 04:53 AM)taramarie Wrote: (07-10-2016, 04:48 AM)Galen Wrote: (07-10-2016, 04:34 AM)taramarie Wrote: Neither do i mate. That was not the purpose of why i shared the video but more to do with the spread of regression. The stats are what concern me. Yes i have been doing a bit of study I have a few more vids lined up to watch later of interviews with others educated on this topic but they will have to wait till tuesday and the following days as it is late here and i have a double shift tomorrow. Thanks for the vid i will add it to the collection
I understand that but it was about the only real problem that I had with what he was saying. It seems unlikely that the left will take his warning seriously and that will create problems for them in the future.
Sad part is they will be undoing their own work which will not benefit future generations to come.
Survival will push nominally left groups over to the right as appears to be happening with the gay crowd. They are now arming up because they figured out the left won't save them. Steven Crowder pointed out that the left created Milo in the full video where that clip came from. There are going to be many groups that decide they would rather have the religious right simply because they can survive that.
Concerns for survival will cause people to recognize the necessity for law and order with law enforcement even-handed in its responsiveness to people. Such a group as Black Lives Matter does not want a free-for-all for crime; it simply wants cops to become less trigger-happy with black suspects.
The Religious Right is anti-intellectual to the extent that it offers education suitable only for low-paid, drudge work that will keep minorities as second-class citizens. It tolerates little difference in culture, so if my musical tastes are more typical of a Czech than of an American, I will be in trouble. With an effort to impose its religion upon people of different traditions, it might cause such a phenomenon as the revival of Jewish communities that have not existed in some places for over seventy years. They might even have a linguistic resemblance; after all, standard English is related to the Yiddish once spoken in such communities. Like Yiddish, English can be written in Hebrew letters, so to a Pole or a Hungarian, Judeo-English might even look like Yiddish.
Not so long ago, "Religious Right" meant conventional Protestantism aligned with right-wing economics. It needed freedom of religion to propagate itself. That implied Jerry Falwell, D. James Kennedy, and Oral Roberts. Once in power it might try to compel Americans to go its way, emigrate, or die. Give it the powers of the Spanish Inquisition, and people who teach something so un-Biblical as evolution might have to account to the authorities who offer the choice of "Believe it or burn". You may find it hard to believe, but the Inquisition held that it was doing the most humane thing possible in converting Jews and Muslims and correcting witches and heretics because such misguided people would have been headed to Hell. Even burning at the stake was presented as preparation for the doomed heretic, sorcerer, or reverting convert for what awaited him in Hell. If someone recanted while dyi9ng -- well, the flames of Earthly Hell did their duty and saved the souls of the killed.
The fanatic is the menace of both progress and human decency. The sinner is often the vital innovator.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 3,956
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
This thread focuses on government policy and how it effects homicide rates. A casual familiarity with the statistics also shows economics, drugs and race are significant factors. Still, while drug dealers are statistically more likely to be involved in homicides than others, no one truly cares if drug lords are shooting other drug lords. The reasons for the violence are generally ignored. It is presumed that gun policy is the dominant factor, which it is not.
The current concern is with spree shooters, who are often described as 'lone nuts'. CNN recently put up an article on why young males might be prone to violence, The evolutionary psychology behind mass shootings. It is written from the evolutionary behavior perspective. Basically, the status one gets as a young man is apt to follow a male for the rest of his life. In the old hunter gatherer days, the ability to excel in violent physical acts, as a hunter and/or warrior, and the parallel ability to dominate and bully emotionally as the leader of the active males, yields status. It's about testosterone. It's why young males put on football uniforms and manhandle one another.
The argument is fairly simple. Spree shooters are losers. They cannot get status or win the girl. There is allegedly an itch in the male psyche that suggests the thing to do when one is at the bottom of the pecking order is show proficiency in violence.
This suggests that part of the rise in spree shooters might be coming from the inability or difficulty of young people to launch cleanly into adulthood. It's the outcast loser that tends towards suicidal behaviors, but going out in a burst of gunfire seems the thing to do when one is caught in at the bottom.
It is certainly easier to change gun policy than to make it easier for young troubled males to adapt to society. Well. Maybe not. Todays politics make it very hard to change gun policy. Still, spree shooters are becoming a more common phenomena. Some part of it at least is an inability to face social pressures. I would certainly expect the troubles of young men will be visible after the fact, given 20 20 hindsight.
If nothing else, if it is not possible to change the culture such that all 'weirdos and losers' are embraced and welcomed, we might at least learn to recognize the symptoms better.
Anyway, the CNN piece is worth a read.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
07-10-2016, 02:02 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-10-2016, 02:33 PM by Classic-Xer.)
(07-10-2016, 02:27 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: (07-10-2016, 01:49 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (07-09-2016, 11:52 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: As a liberal, I can say that about the Hard Right, which I often see as slick narcissists if not sociopaths with insatiable appetites for gain and indulgence but no respect for people other than themselves. Much of what they say insults me.
Hint: The ones you rely on are the ones who are more likely to screw you. You don't have to worry about me screwing you. I'm all good as far as money and property are concerned. Hint: We didn't take your jobs. The Democrats basically gave them to the world. You need to think about all the happy Mexicans and Chinese that were created with your parties sacrifice. I mean, come on, how do liberal frat boys really have in common with the working class. Really, I do feel sorry for those folks and wish they had good politicians who cared more about them and less about supporting them enough to keep themselves in office. I understand that the bulk of your base is pretty clueless and uncaring as far as the going on in the world. I understand the liberal educated get the bulk of their information networks that cater to them. Its so funny to see how they react when they when they're challenged by someone who has a bit more brain than they're accustomed too. BTW, they don't seem to care about the working class as much as they're concerned about the poor.
It seems like life experience has exposed you two to divergent sorts of folk? If so, your assumptions of how humans and members of various cultures behave are incompatible? I'm also seeing some vile stereotypes? Those with different values are presumed to be vile in one way or another?
I tend to trust more what people say positively about their own culture, and be dubious about attempts to slander folks they disagree with. If this goes on focusing on slandering the other guy, I'd not trust much of it.
Still, it shows how and why we get divided. All one has to do is nurse grudges and think the worst about those who think differently and we end up where we are.
Bob, I don't have issues with your so-called values. I'm sure that we have similar values. I have issues with your politicians and whether or not they truly represent certain values or if they're just using values to get ahead. I have at least three sets of values. I represent American values (classical liberal values). I have moral values. I have personal values. I get the impression that you have one set of values and that's it. I get the impression that progressive values are it as far as your values go. Although, when I press you a bit, I learn you have values we do commonly share. Values that are at odds with the progressive values that you stand for. In short, I don't like your politicians. I don't like the bulk of your base. I don't like the people your party attracts. PB is pathetic. Eric is a self centered leach. Odin is an issue waiting to happen. Hilary Clinton is Hilary Clinton. Kerry is a weasel. Al Sharpton is worthless piece of shit. Liberal today ain't what means and you're tied it. White American and portions of black America, brown America, yellow America, gay America, female America have had with your people. A large enough group to cut ties, remove the Constitution and the flag and reestablish and move on. You'll have a choice to make when this begins to happen during the 4t.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(07-09-2016, 06:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: (07-09-2016, 05:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The gun fanatics say that gun control is "prohibition," and then trot out the reasons why prohibition doesn't work. Irrelevant straw man. Or they think that banning military weapons is violating our rights. Both non-starters. Gun control is not gun prohibition, and military weapons are different from civilian guns.
I am not advocating prohibition, at least not in the foreseeable future, or by forcible confiscation. But that will not stop the gun fanatics from claiming that I am.
Some of that is just argument about the definition of a word. Do you want the government to prohibit stuff? If so, you can reasonably be said to favor a prohibition. Check your dictionary. I'm using a common definition.
The other part is fact. Did alcohol prohibition work well in the 1930s? How has the war on drugs been doing? How well have recent attempts to keep bad guys from getting weapons worked?
Putting laws on the books is one thing. Enforcing them is another.
It's not about the definition; that can't be disputed. You can't say that alcohol prohibition has ended, and then say gun control is prohibition. Not and still be in accord with reality. Drinking is NOT allowed for everyone and under all conditions. To think so is not to be concerned with facts. So the argument that prohibition does not work is a pure straw man, and does not deserve consideration in this debate.
Posts: 3,956
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
(07-10-2016, 02:02 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Bob, I don't have issues with your so-called values. I'm sure that we have similar values. I have issues with your politicians and whether or not they truly represent certain values or if they're just using values to get ahead. I have at least three sets of values. I represent American values (classical liberal values). I have moral values. I have personal values. I get the impression that you have one set of values and that's it. I get the impression that progressive values are it as far as your values go. Although, when I press you a bit, I learn you have values we do commonly share. Values that are at odds with the progressive values that you stand for. In short, I don't like your politicians. I don't like the bulk of your base. I don't like the people your party attracts. PB is pathetic. Eric is a self centered leach. Odin is an issue waiting to happen. Hilary Clinton is Hilary Clinton. Kerry is a weasel. Al Sharpton is worthless piece of shit. Liberal today ain't what means and you're tied it. White American and portions of black America, brown America, yellow America, gay America, female America have had with your people. A large enough group to cut ties, remove the Constitution and the flag and reestablish and move on. You'll have a choice to make when this begins to happen during the 4t.
This one takes some answering. Sorry if I go on at length, look at it from multiple angles, and the angles sometimes conflict with one another. Well, sorta sorry. That's kind of what I do.
Elites seek power and wealth. It's what they do. They hang out with one another, make friends with each other, and make deals with each other. In other words, power corrupts. Liberals distrust conservative politicians. Conservatives distrust liberal politicians. We will be making progress when liberals and conservatives come together to distrust all politicians.
At this point, I can complement the conservatives in that they have rejected their establishment business as usual politicians and are at least trying for something radically different. The radically different I can approve of. That the choice is Trump.... Not so much, but I'll leave that alone for the moment.
Conservative politicians give lip service to smaller government. Progressives give lip service to government serving the working People. Both are admirable goals. The bases on both sides are reasonable in looking for these things. Neither is happening, not to anywhere near the extent that I would like. To a great extent, each flavor of politician is blocking the other, making it hard to keep promises made to either base. I'd like to see more creative cooperation in working together to get closer to doing both. What I'm seeing is the use of the other party as an excuse for not doing as promised.
To a great extent, this is because the political elites are serving the monetary elites rather than either base. Campaign contributions from wealthy donors is seen as a better path to gain and keep power than serving the base. This is apt to continue until and unless we have a major values shift. Accepting contributions from major donors has got to be viewed as a sign of corruption, a disqualification from serving in office.
The Republicans have traditionally been the party of the Robber Barons. While the parties have flip flopped on many issues, with at one point the Republicans being the party freeing the black people, and at another time their being the isolationists, some things change, with the Democrats flip flopping on such issues right with them. Still, the Republicans have always been with the Robber Barons. If anything is changing recently, it is that both parties are currently serving the Robber Barons. Both parties -- well, Sanders did buck the trend somewhat -- are in bed with big money. This is not a good thing for Everyman.
I've been watching the various partisans on the forum accuse the other side's politicians of being, dirty, rotten, corrupt, divorced from service to the people and being otherwise vile and unspeakable, and I can agree whole heartedly with most of it. Going in either direction. I'd like to see more emphasis on politics, less emphasis on personal vilification. I don't want to spend a lot of time reading about bad personal habits or personalities. I'm more concerned with how politicians drive policy, less about them as people. I'm not in love with Hillary, nor do I assume that all Republicans are in love with Trump. That our current political system nominated two people very much disliked for good reason by lots of folk is very very problematic. As much as I dislike our two presumptive nominees, I dislike the process that made them our presumptive nominees even less. The insider elites have got a system of locking out anyone who might rock the boat down pretty good.
Jefferson's self evident truths are close to the heart of my political values. People will suffer corruption and tyranny while it can be suffered, but have the right to revolt when it becomes intolerable. Just how intolerable is intolerable? When does Jefferson cease to be a founding father embodying stability, democracy, Rights and all our American virtues, and when do we remember Jefferson the revolutionary? Is now the time to water the Tree of Liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants? You have clearly reached your Popeye Point. Enough is enough, and enough is too much.
I don't know that the country is with you yet. We have the beginnings of a spiral of rhetoric and violence, but the spiral is centered on systematic government mistreatment -- including fatal mistreatment -- of minorities. It isn't centered on economic inequality. I'd like to see it embrace both. We are also early on in the spiral. We are no where close to where the Sons of Liberty went before the Revolution, John Brown before the Civil War, or even the Communists leading up to and during the Great Depression.
In a way, I'm almost encouraged by the spiral. The corrupt elites aren't apt to give up their self serving system without a threat of violence, a threat that they could lose their position entirely. I half anticipate that they will give ground in the presence of a viable threat, but will continue to resist calls for change otherwise. The ballot box might be mighty, but it is clearly not mighty enough. The voice of the people has be divided and neutralized. In an abstract and distant way, yes, the Powers that Be need to know that what they have been doing is unacceptable.
This doesn't mean I'm going to go out, buy a bunch of firearms, and try to find the physical address of various 4T posters. They aren't the enemy. No matter how much some of them irritate, violence at this point doesn't seem the correct way to end the irritation.
In general, I'd like to see a more nuanced, less partisan, view of the crisis. Folk on both sides are buying in to much to the unraveling values. They have decent ideas of what ought to be done. The have biased false demonized views on what the other faction wants to do. An awful lot of energy is being spent trying to convince the other guys that they are bad guys. Good luck with that. Everyone is equally dedicated to the principle that they are on the side of the angels. I see no angels here, and few true devils. I don't see attempts to demonize as overly constructive. Folks are pretty much immune to seeing themselves as vile demons, no matter what vile image of them you have imagined and might even believe in.
Both sides have seen some stuff that is real and should be pursued.
Is anyone against a small effective government that really helps those who really need help, tries not to interfere too much with people's lives, and is not in the business of enriching those already rich? Is there are way to pursue virtues rather than try to work up as much misunderstand and rage as possible to those caught under the other jaw of the trap?
I'd like to think so. At least, I'd like to think we could do better.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Posts: 3,956
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
(07-10-2016, 04:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's not about the definition; that can't be disputed. You can't say that alcohol prohibition has ended, and then say gun control is prohibition. Not and still be in accord with reality. Drinking is NOT allowed for everyone and under all conditions. To think so is not to be concerned with facts. So the argument that prohibition does not work is a pure straw man, and does not deserve consideration in this debate.
Again, check your dictionary.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
|
