The Conservative Philosophy Of Tragedy

The Conservative Philosophy Of Tragedy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Fightdirecto -> The Conservative Philosophy Of Tragedy (1/24/2013 10:34:20 AM)
quote: The Conservative Philosophy Of Tragedy: Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." That line of defense from gun proponents comes up again and again in the wake of mass shootings, like last week's at Sandy Hook elementary school that left 20 children and seven adults dead. It's true, in a sense: when holding objects that are specifically designed to be the most effective killing machines possible, people do, in fact, kill people. And yes, people have gone on murderous rampages for all of human history, and have used whatever tools were at their disposal – rocks, knives, swords, their own hands – to inflict violence. The problem comes in when the tools at their disposal are really good at killing others without much work on the part of the killer, which is why lots of folks would like to see the United States institute some reasonable laws regulating gun ownership. Time and again, though, the pro-gun right's answer is the same: PEOPLE WILL FIND A WAY TO KILL, AND VIOLENCE IS INEVITABLE, SO TAKING AWAY GUNS WON'T WORK. THEIR SOLUTION SEEMS TO BE A SOCIETY WHERE EVERY CITIZEN HAS A GUN IN ONE HAND AND CROSSED FINGERS ON THE OTHER. THAT PERSPECTIVE REPRESENTS NOT JUST AN INTENSE CULTURAL TIE TO GUNS, BUT A TYPICALLY CONSERVATIVE VIEW OF HUMANITY: PEOPLE (OTHER THAN ME) ARE FUNDAMENTALLY BAD AND OUR TIME ON EARTH IS IN PREPARATION FOR THE AFTERLIFE, SO WHY WORRY ABOUT MAKING IT BETTER? AS WE'VE SEEN IN THE DEBATES ON ISSUES FROM CLIMATE CHANGE TO GENDER EQUALITY TO FOREIGN POLICY, FACTS, STATISTICS AND RATIONAL ARGUMENTS DON'T REALLY MATTER IF THE GOAL OF OFFERING THEM UP IS TO IMPROVE THINGS IN THE HERE AND NOW. IT'S A DEEPLY PESSIMISTIC VIEW OF HUMANITY THAT PROJECTS A STRONG SENSE OF FATALISM. THE POINT OF BEING "GOOD" ISN'T BECAUSE GOODNESS IS VALUABLE UNTO ITSELF OR BECAUSE GOODNESS IS WIDELY BENEFICIAL. THE POINT OF BEING GOOD IS TO EARN HEAVEN POINTS. Goodness, then, is defined according to a very particular set of religious and cultural values, and is highly "in-group" focused. Goodness means…upholding the social pillars that organize society to keep a particular group on top. GOODNESS ISN'T NECESSARILY HELPING OTHER PEOPLE OR TAKING STEPS THAT ARE PROVEN EFFECTIVE AT DECREASING VIOLENCE OR WORKING TO CREATE A MORE ACCEPTING AND HAPPY WORLD FOR OUR CHILDREN. GOODNESS IS UPHOLDING THE POWER STRUCTURES THAT HAVE TRADITIONALLY BENEFITED THE SMALL GROUP OF MEN WHO THINK THEY HAVE A MONOPOLY ON DEFINING "GOODNESS." … The fundamental argument in their favor seems to be that without a social organization that puts white Christian men on top, the hordes of "bad" people will simply be out there – and there is nothing we can do other than arm ourselves against them. That's why "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is still considered an actual argument. It's why the debates on gun control go in circles. One side thinks we have serious but fixable cultural problems with violence, with a masculinity that is tied to aggression and with the glorification of gun culture, and that the wide availability of all sorts of deadly weaponry in such a culture enables an unconscionable amount of lethal violence. THE OTHER SIDE THINKS PEOPLE ARE JUST SINNERS, OUR TIME ON THIS PLANET IS MEANT TO BE TRYING AND UGLY, GUNS REPRESENT FREEDOM AND MAN'S DOMINION OVER THE EARTH, AND GUN DEATHS SIMPLY RESULT FROM A LACK OF CHRISTIANITY AND THE ATTENDANT BREAKS FROM A "TRADITIONAL" MODEL THAT NECESSITATED THE OPPRESSION OF A GREAT MANY AMERICANS. As Dennis Prager argued in the National Review, NO ONE FEARS BEING MASSACRED BY A "DECENT" PERSON. WE FEAR BEING MASSACRED BY SOMEONE BAD… It's easy to read the figures and conclude that conservatives are right: we are a world of awful, violent people who are going to keep on being awful and violent no matter what, so gun control serves no purpose and we'll all be better off in Heaven anyway. But as is true with almost anything that makes life on Earth brutish and miserable, we have the power to change that. Gun deaths are lower in the states with the strictest gun control laws. And THE MAJORITY OF U.S. GUN DEATHS ACTUALLY COMPRISES SUICIDES – acts committed not generally by evil, murderous people, but by individuals who are sick and hurting and need help. Many other gun deaths occur in neighborhoods plagued by violence and poverty. What's clear is that while some gun homicides are surely meticulously plotted by an evil-doer who would find a different weapon if no guns were available, THE VAST MAJORITY IS LETHAL SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE A GUN WAS READILY AVAILABLE. … To people who have no interest in actually finding solutions or making the world a better, safer, happier place, it's like talking to a brick wall. Why improve life on earth if life on earth is temporary and all that matters is to secure a seat in the clouds?... Every nation in the world has people who are sadistic and violent or sick and violent. And yet, the kinds of regular mass rampages that have now happened several times this year alone in the United States seem to be a specifically American phenomenon… Only in America do political writers all seem have a stable of articles about mass shootings that they can bring out and repost or revise when the next one occurs. ONLY IN AMERICA DO WE COLLECTIVELY SHRUG OUR SHOULDERS WHEN YET ANOTHER YOUNG WHITE MAN GOES ON A SHOOTING SPREE. ONLY IN AMERICA DO WE REMAIN CONVINCED THAT PEOPLE WILL KILL NO MATTER WHAT, SO WE MAY AS WELL GIVE PEOPLE VIRTUALLY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO SOME OF THE DEADLIEST HAND-HELD WEAPONS EVER INVENTED. Only here, in America, do we think that the best we can do is a Facebook page and a plea to God. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." [image]local://upfiles/42188/1D4F8FF593804ED39FBBBD331EE9A831.jpg[/image]

Kirata -> RE: The Conservative Philosophy Of Tragedy (1/24/2013 10:46:49 AM)
Ohferchrissake... Maybe it's the sex with the drugs and the fools Or maybe it's the promise of belief? Maybe it's the pleasure and the pain of the cruel Or maybe it's the promise of relief? And i know that we've said it so many times before "once more and never again" But however many times that we've said it before Once more is never the end... http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4359615 K.

DesideriScuri -> RE: The Conservative Philosophy Of Tragedy (1/24/2013 12:10:50 PM)
Complete rubbish from start to end. What is a "conservative?" Well, in America - which Jill Filipovic most likely would have encountered at NYU - a conservative is someone who believes in and stands for limited government and personal responsibility. To a conservative, Government should do something simply because it can, or something needs to be done. It should only do something when it has the authority to do so, and when doing it will protect the rights of the Citizens better or more efficiently than Citizens doing it on their own. When Government limits my choice of something - say, wearing a seat belt - it limits my freedom. Even though I agree that wearing a seat belt is safer and smart, that's not the point at all. If I chose to not wear a seat belt, that's my choice. There is no authority for Government to come in and force me. My not wearing a seat belt isn't infringing on the rights of anyone else. quote: THEIR [conservatives] SOLUTION SEEMS TO BE A SOCIETY WHERE EVERY CITIZEN HAS A GUN IN ONE HAND AND CROSSED FINGERS ON THE OTHER. Not at all. If you don't want to have a gun, in hand, in a safe, or even as one's personal property of any sort, you don't have to. My buying a gun isn't infringing on any of your rights anymore than my buying a bicycle does. The freedom to choose one's own way, providing it doesn't infringe on someone else's freedom to choose their own way. That's the "American Dream." I don't have some despot, tyrant, dictator, monarch, etc. telling me what I can and can't do. The litmus test is if it infringes on another's freedoms. If it doesn't, it's fair game. http://nssf.org/impact/ 209,750 in the US Sporting Arms and Ammunition industry. Total wages of $9.8B. Total Business Taxes: $4.575B (State and Federal). Numbers were compiled in 2012, so my assumption is this is for 2011. You can choose to not own a gun. You can choose to lock it up securely. You can choose to wear a seat belt. Don't force your choice on me. Tazzygirl wrongly accuses me of pushing my "moral beliefs" on her. Don't push your beliefs on someone else. Conservatives what as little government intervention as necessary. If it's necessary, it needs to be there. If it's not necessary, it needs to be gone, or not begun. The people - as a group - will be more resourceful, innovative, and solution finders than Government ever will be. Government is force. The only way Government can get you to do something it wants you to, is by threat of force. That's coercion, and not freedom.

mnottertail -> RE: The Conservative Philosophy Of Tragedy (1/24/2013 12:32:54 PM)
Which says as I always maintain; there are no conservatives in america. Just guys who limit choices and call it freedom of choice, by way of doing the stupidest shit they possibly can, or at least bitching about it.

kdsub -> RE: The Conservative Philosophy Of Tragedy (1/24/2013 1:38:44 PM)
quote: The Conservative Philosophy Of Tragedy: Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." My philosophy...Guns do not make anyone kill anyone... If the desire to kill is there they will kill without guns... But...some guns make the killing more efficient and these guns have no redeeming value. They will not stop a take over of our government by a foreign or domestic power...The entertainment value of these weapons is not worth the life of one person let alone a whole class of 5 year olds. Rational people understand the elimination of assault type weapons will not stop an insane killer from killing but it MAY make it more difficult for the killer to murder as may people as he would like before he is stopped. Laws banning assault type weapons would be but one step in in addressing a situation that cannot remain at the status quo. Butch

kdsub -> RE: The Conservative Philosophy Of Tragedy (1/24/2013 1:46:18 PM)
quote: If I chose to not wear a seat belt, that's my choice Until you become a projectile that may come through someone else’s windshield and kill...Or put a dent in a light pole that my taxes must replace....[:D] Butch

DesideriScuri -> RE: The Conservative Philosophy Of Tragedy (1/24/2013 5:34:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: If I chose to not wear a seat belt, that's my choice Until you become a projectile that may come through someone else’s windshield and kill...Or put a dent in a light pole that my taxes must replace....[:D] Butch That happened a lot, did it? Something tells me that had nothing to do with why we are forced to wear seat belts. IMO, if this was something the insurance company required it would have been a better thing. If I cause an accident and I'm not wearing my seat belt, maybe the deductible is a lot higher. I have the freedom of choice to do it or not (and, I would, Butch). If I am not involved in an accident, driving erratically or some other risky behavior, there is no harm done to anyone.

BamaD -> RE: The Conservative Philosophy Of Tragedy (1/24/2013 7:49:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto quote: The Conservative Philosophy Of Tragedy: Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." That line of defense from gun proponents comes up again and again in the wake of mass shootings, like last week's at Sandy Hook elementary school that left 20 children and seven adults dead. It's true, in a sense: when holding objects that are specifically designed to be the most effective killing machines possible, people do, in fact, kill people. And yes, people have gone on murderous rampages for all of human history, and have used whatever tools were at their disposal – rocks, knives, swords, their own hands – to inflict violence. The problem comes in when the tools at their disposal are really good at killing others without much work on the part of the killer, which is why lots of folks would like to see the United States institute some reasonable laws regulating gun ownership. Time and again, though, the pro-gun right's answer is the same: PEOPLE WILL FIND A WAY TO KILL, AND VIOLENCE IS INEVITABLE, SO TAKING AWAY GUNS WON'T WORK. THEIR SOLUTION SEEMS TO BE A SOCIETY WHERE EVERY CITIZEN HAS A GUN IN ONE HAND AND CROSSED FINGERS ON THE OTHER. THAT PERSPECTIVE REPRESENTS NOT JUST AN INTENSE CULTURAL TIE TO GUNS, BUT A TYPICALLY CONSERVATIVE VIEW OF HUMANITY: PEOPLE (OTHER THAN ME) ARE FUNDAMENTALLY BAD AND OUR TIME ON EARTH IS IN PREPARATION FOR THE AFTERLIFE, SO WHY WORRY ABOUT MAKING IT BETTER? AS WE'VE SEEN IN THE DEBATES ON ISSUES FROM CLIMATE CHANGE TO GENDER EQUALITY TO FOREIGN POLICY, FACTS, STATISTICS AND RATIONAL ARGUMENTS DON'T REALLY MATTER IF THE GOAL OF OFFERING THEM UP IS TO IMPROVE THINGS IN THE HERE AND NOW. IT'S A DEEPLY PESSIMISTIC VIEW OF HUMANITY THAT PROJECTS A STRONG SENSE OF FATALISM. THE POINT OF BEING "GOOD" ISN'T BECAUSE GOODNESS IS VALUABLE UNTO ITSELF OR BECAUSE GOODNESS IS WIDELY BENEFICIAL. THE POINT OF BEING GOOD IS TO EARN HEAVEN POINTS. Goodness, then, is defined according to a very particular set of religious and cultural values, and is highly "in-group" focused. Goodness means…upholding the social pillars that organize society to keep a particular group on top. GOODNESS ISN'T NECESSARILY HELPING OTHER PEOPLE OR TAKING STEPS THAT ARE PROVEN EFFECTIVE AT DECREASING VIOLENCE OR WORKING TO CREATE A MORE ACCEPTING AND HAPPY WORLD FOR OUR CHILDREN. GOODNESS IS UPHOLDING THE POWER STRUCTURES THAT HAVE TRADITIONALLY BENEFITED THE SMALL GROUP OF MEN WHO THINK THEY HAVE A MONOPOLY ON DEFINING "GOODNESS." … The fundamental argument in their favor seems to be that without a social organization that puts white Christian men on top, the hordes of "bad" people will simply be out there – and there is nothing we can do other than arm ourselves against them. That's why "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is still considered an actual argument. It's why the debates on gun control go in circles. One side thinks we have serious but fixable cultural problems with violence, with a masculinity that is tied to aggression and with the glorification of gun culture, and that the wide availability of all sorts of deadly weaponry in such a culture enables an unconscionable amount of lethal violence. THE OTHER SIDE THINKS PEOPLE ARE JUST SINNERS, OUR TIME ON THIS PLANET IS MEANT TO BE TRYING AND UGLY, GUNS REPRESENT FREEDOM AND MAN'S DOMINION OVER THE EARTH, AND GUN DEATHS SIMPLY RESULT FROM A LACK OF CHRISTIANITY AND THE ATTENDANT BREAKS FROM A "TRADITIONAL" MODEL THAT NECESSITATED THE OPPRESSION OF A GREAT MANY AMERICANS. As Dennis Prager argued in the National Review, NO ONE FEARS BEING MASSACRED BY A "DECENT" PERSON. WE FEAR BEING MASSACRED BY SOMEONE BAD… It's easy to read the figures and conclude that conservatives are right: we are a world of awful, violent people who are going to keep on being awful and violent no matter what, so gun control serves no purpose and we'll all be better off in Heaven anyway. But as is true with almost anything that makes life on Earth brutish and miserable, we have the power to change that. Gun deaths are lower in the states with the strictest gun control laws. And THE MAJORITY OF U.S. GUN DEATHS ACTUALLY COMPRISES SUICIDES – acts committed not generally by evil, murderous people, but by individuals who are sick and hurting and need help. Many other gun deaths occur in neighborhoods plagued by violence and poverty. What's clear is that while some gun homicides are surely meticulously plotted by an evil-doer who would find a different weapon if no guns were available, THE VAST MAJORITY IS LETHAL SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE A GUN WAS READILY AVAILABLE. … To people who have no interest in actually finding solutions or making the world a better, safer, happier place, it's like talking to a brick wall. Why improve life on earth if life on earth is temporary and all that matters is to secure a seat in the clouds?... Every nation in the world has people who are sadistic and violent or sick and violent. And yet, the kinds of regular mass rampages that have now happened several times this year alone in the United States seem to be a specifically American phenomenon… Only in America do political writers all seem have a stable of articles about mass shootings that they can bring out and repost or revise when the next one occurs. ONLY IN AMERICA DO WE COLLECTIVELY SHRUG OUR SHOULDERS WHEN YET ANOTHER YOUNG WHITE MAN GOES ON A SHOOTING SPREE. ONLY IN AMERICA DO WE REMAIN CONVINCED THAT PEOPLE WILL KILL NO MATTER WHAT, SO WE MAY AS WELL GIVE PEOPLE VIRTUALLY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO SOME OF THE DEADLIEST HAND-HELD WEAPONS EVER INVENTED. Only here, in America, do we think that the best we can do is a Facebook page and a plea to God. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." [image]local://upfiles/42188/1D4F8FF593804ED39FBBBD331EE9A831.jpg[/image] And the leftist view can be summed much easier. I am smarter better more important and more caring than you so would you stupid f^&**^^% rednecks just shut up and do as you are told.

Fellow -> RE: The Conservative Philosophy Of Tragedy (1/25/2013 1:05:23 AM)
Actually, it is about the Constitution. The Obamanoids and some "liberals" want people to forget about the second amendment. I essence, they want to declare the Constitution invalid in some areas (they choose). If the Constitutional republic was intact the only way to control gun ownership would be to rewrite the Constitution. Otherwise, the Constitution would supersede any law contradicting it. There is no doubt the Internet freedom of speech and other content will be one of the next targets. There is some child porn and the children are bullied.

joether -> RE: The Conservative Philosophy Of Tragedy (1/25/2013 5:23:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Complete rubbish from start to end. Yeah, truth does hurt sometimes. In this case, much of that is true. Just because you cant accept it doesnt make it any less true. There are conservatives that feel the Theory of Evolution is wrong, because it talks about something that has NOTHING to do with Creationism (that would be the Theory of Abiogenesis). Or that most scientists around the world have agreed that the theory on climate change is true; but argue on how to go about it. Conservative, seeing the arguing assume scientists are still arguing over whether climate change is taking place or not. Conservatives have a hard time admiting that first time gun offenders were moments before the guilty verdict in court, 'honest and law abiding citizen'. Or that hating all minorities, making life as difficult and painful as possible months before a presidential election would not get them what they wanted. Heck, conservatives wanted to waste hundreds of millions of dollars to protect the country from that 0.00004% voter fraud taking place. An that conservatives hold this notion that the 8th amendment doesnt apply to all persons, just certain persons. In each of these cases and more, conservatives are simply ignorant and foolish with their understanding of reality. Conservatives bash the 'liberal media' when news is reported on FACTS that show some Republican or conservatives did something wrong. Yet can't hold the 'conservative media' that lies on the facts to even one billionth the accountibility and responsibility. Yeah, four people died in Bengazi and that's a bad thing. How many US Citizens died in Iraq during and after the Iraq War? Is it less than four? Course not! If the amount of fury conservative hold towards the President over Bengazi, one would think they would have held former President Bush to well over a hundred times that fury. Yet, one could drop a pin in the room on that conservation and hear it from 100 feet away. Lets talk about that debt and deficit. Many conservatives bash the President over both, yet, not even a peep from those same 'fiscal conservatives' when the guy they elected to the White House in 2000 and 2004 turned a $2.5 Trillion debt into $11.5 in eight years. Or turned the surplus from $330 Billion into a deficit of $1.5 Trillion in 2008. Or of Republicans relaxing if not removing many of the regulations that kept Wall Street in check from doing unwise things.....all in the name of profit. Only an insane or ignorant person would believe those companies wouldnt tear up the financial health of the nation onces those rules were lifted. Yeah, truth hurts. When I hear conservatives slam the President, its really not hard to find something Mr. Bush did...worst. An ask them, why they didnt hold Mr. Bush to the same level if not twice that in accountibility and responsibility? They cant seem to demand such things of the people they put into office, yet, attack anyone else they didnt. Why the hell is that?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri What is a "conservative?" Well, in America - which Jill Filipovic most likely would have encountered at NYU - a conservative is someone who believes in and stands for limited government and personal responsibility. To a conservative, Government should do something simply because it can, or something needs to be done. It should only do something when it has the authority to do so, and when doing it will protect the rights of the Citizens better or more efficiently than Citizens doing it on their own. An educated person might start the question off with giving a textbook definition of the word: Conservative. An then proceed to explain with supporting evidence of what that all means. Most conservatives want limited goverment, yet cant define in exact or remote terms what that means. They want to reduce the budget by $1.2 trillion....DURING...a recession. Educated people generally know why this is BAD, while those that study economics can explain what would happen at the macro and micro levels in detail. Funny that FOX News never explain this material to their audience when advocating the goverment to do such. How would this country handle doubling the unemployment rate in six to nine months after dropping that budget by the $1.2 Trillion mark conservatives were pushing for last year there, DS? Your last line is amusing. How many private citizens, organizations and charities have the buying power of the US Goverment? Because when the 'scales of economy' come into play on healthcare, it benefits Americans more. Yet, practically every conservative was against President's original health care plan. And how many actually...READ...the bill, DS? Less than 2%. Have you read the actual bill that was passed in 2010? The Affordable Care Act? Doubt it! Its argued even today, that if the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was allowed to run for one year further, the US economy would have stood a good chance of fully recovering in late 2011 to mid 2012. An who was it that was against this concept? Conservatives. Why? Cus if the economy got better, the President would get re-elected to a second term. Well, got news for you and your conservative buddies....he got re-elected by the majority of Americans. Did any of these conservatives bother to read the ARRA? No. That would take brain power; much easier to let others do your thinking for you! quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri When Government limits my choice of something - say, wearing a seat belt - it limits my freedom. Even though I agree that wearing a seat belt is safer and smart, that's not the point at all. If I chose to not wear a seat belt, that's my choice. There is no authority for Government to come in and force me. My not wearing a seat belt isn't infringing on the rights of anyone else. How about you go talk to those still alive that didnt wear a seat belt. Ask them if they would endure the same accident again without one. An if your still not convinced, simply drive without one. However, if your involved in an accident. Even if the other guy causes it. You should not be able to collect not even a penny in damages from him. Not for your medical bills or car. You made a choice and it was both stupid and foolish. You ignored the decades of solid scientific evidence on the subject matter because of some 'freedom' that exists only in a delusional person's mind. But you are wrong on there being no authority for goverment to decide whether you wear one or not. In the US Goverment, 'We the People...' through representatives, senators and sometimes even a president, create laws that society will abid by. If that society determines that we are to wear seatbets while in a motor vehicle, or have to wear floatation devices while on a water craft; that becomes the law and so long as we follow it, we are not penalized. Failture to abid by society's laws results in one or more penalties. So yes, you can choose to not wear a seatbelt. But if your caught, you pay the penalty. Dont like the penalty? Tough shit! Argue it with your respentative. Given that many Republicans would fail high school physics, chemistry and biology you would stand a decent chance of them fielding such a dumb idea. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: THEIR [conservatives] SOLUTION SEEMS TO BE A SOCIETY WHERE EVERY CITIZEN HAS A GUN IN ONE HAND AND CROSSED FINGERS ON THE OTHER. Not at all. If you don't want to have a gun, in hand, in a safe, or even as one's personal property of any sort, you don't have to. My buying a gun isn't infringing on any of your rights anymore than my buying a bicycle does. This person states one thing, you reply on something else. I understand their position that conservatives want the Wild West rules. The 'Rule of Law' is replaced with the 'Way of the Gun'. The person with the biggest, baddest, fasted gun....makes the rules. Sounds great for a movie backdrop, but unfortunately would reduce this nation to total anarchy within a few weeks. That is the wisdom behind the 'Rule of Law'. It does have its draw backs, but dollar for dollar, pays out in astronomical sums when pitted against the "Way of the Gun'. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The freedom to choose one's own way, providing it doesn't infringe on someone else's freedom to choose their own way. That's the "American Dream." I don't have some despot, tyrant, dictator, monarch, etc. telling me what I can and can't do. The litmus test is if it infringes on another's freedoms. If it doesn't, it's fair game. There are 20, 1st graders DEAD on the floor, because conservatives feel even total psychos should have access to high power firearms, with large magizines. All legally obtained. There's a bunch more teenagers and adults, DEAD in some movie theater, because conservatives cant accept that pistols too, are pretty dangerous in the wrong hands. And legally obtained. And we can play this little game back and forth over whether firearms should be availible or not. An nothing will get accomplished, and ANOTHER mass shooting will take place somewhere in the USA. Do conservatives enjoy going to funerals? By, by your arguement, we could ban ammo sales. Bullets are not arms, they are components. Kind of like how nukes are arms but the actual nuclear material is a comonent of the device. We just ban the sale, distribution, production, and even gift giving of bullets. You can still make your bullets by hand, but not in a mass production enviroment. Oh, an thats allowable under the US Consttution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3). quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri http://nssf.org/impact/ Whats the chance that this is bias material? 'Exceedingly Good' "These are good jobs, paying an average of $46,858 in wages and benefits. And today, every job is important. In fact, in the United States the unemployment rate has reached 8.2 percent. This means that there are already 13,430,000 people trying to find jobs in the state and collecting unemployment benefits."" That is taken directly from your source. Now, what does the blue part have to do with the red part directly? Not very much. The point being made here, is that the information is of a questionable nature....at best! As this document is pushing an industry viewpoint and NOT, a factually, unbiased view on the reality. Its like the tobacco industry in the 1990's publishing booklets that 'showed' smoking does not cause second hand damage. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri 209,750 in the US Sporting Arms and Ammunition industry. Total wages of $9.8B. Total Business Taxes: $4.575B (State and Federal). Numbers were compiled in 2012, so my assumption is this is for 2011. The US Funeral Business is a $20.7 Billion industry. With over two million funerals and employing about 23,000 funeral directors a year. SOURCE I wonder how much of the firearm industry supports the funeral industry? Are you trying to argue here, DS, that if we took guns away, the funeral industry would be hurt too? Oh forgot, guns dont kill people...people kill people. Yeah, I 'forget' that one sometimes. How silly of me. Makes me wonder why we give guns to people in the first place, right? BTW, its not your assumption, its the assumption of the person that wrote the document your quoting word for word. At least you quoted where the information originates. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You can choose to not own a gun. You can choose to lock it up securely. You can choose to wear a seat belt. Don't force your choice on me. Tazzygirl wrongly accuses me of pushing my "moral beliefs" on her. Don't push your beliefs on someone else. WRONG! If 'We the People...' decide that owning a gun is not in the best interests of our nation, and vote on it, that's the rule of the land. Of course, until the US Supreme Court weighs in on the bill. Which makes one wonder, what really sways their final answer? Is it their true, sworn duty to uphold the precise understandings of the US Constitution? Money? Concern for those losing their jobs? Fame? Study of the REAL Quotes of the founding fathers (conservatives seem to make up piles of fake quotes)? Yeah, its gotten so bad, with quotes I mean, that Monticello had to publish the correct and incorrect quotes. Now why would conservatives, push quotes that were written by a 21st century speechwriters and NOT penned by the 3rd President of the United States? Oh, to push an agenda and hope liberals are as dumb as they are on history! quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Conservatives what as little government intervention as necessary. If it's necessary, it needs to be there. If it's not necessary, it needs to be gone, or not begun. The people - as a group - will be more resourceful, innovative, and solution finders than Government ever will be. Government is force. The only way Government can get you to do something it wants you to, is by threat of force. That's coercion, and not freedom. An conservatives also seem to believe that goverment is an inhuman force. That humans, particularly US Citizens do not make up the whole of it, but that some divine or infernal beast actually controls the whole of it. That they have trouble understanding the question, What does the USA buy with $3.2 Trillion in a year? It just boogles their minds even though the answer is simply one word, "yes'". They demand we do not spend money on projects that have no real usefulness, but pass a blind eye when the goverment of 37 states passed laws requiring the population to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that they are A) who they say they are and B) where they live. That's right, all those 4th-amendment violating laws to protect this nation's presidential vote last year from the 0.00004% of voter fraud. Or to eliminate stuff they dont like, while spending more on stuff they feel we should have. Tell me, how does it make sense to pay for 11 nuclear carrier fleets? Or pay $4 Trillion of borrowed money to invade a country in the Middle East that we never actually declared war on? Cus the last time this country actually declared war on someone, Pearl Harbor was recently attacked and Hitler was running Germany! Or how about that pipeline that was argued in 2012? That would generate that bogus 70,000 full time jobs in the USA. Yeah, conservatives didnt like to say that the actual number was around 11,000 part-timers, and the USA would take on the lion's share of potential problems but none of the actual oil would be sold here in the country. But the one that 'takes the cake' on conservatives saying one thing, but turning a blind eye when they do it: The Health Care debate. Did you know that every day Congress is in Session it cost us, the tax payers about $31 million dollars? How much does it cost for a single bill to go from concept to finishing out in either the House or Senate (but not both)? The reason I bring this up, is that Republicans tried to defund the ACA 33 times. That's right, 33 seperate voting moments taking place in the House (with debate) but failing in the Senate all 33 times. Where was the conservative outrage on all of that? So loud that you could STILL hear that pin that dropped on the floor 'a few' paragraphs above' from one mile away! You want conservatives to be taken seriously, DS? Than require them and yourself to be held to the same level of accountibility and responsibility as you blast liberals, Democrats and the President. In fact, do it at twice the level just to be on the safe side.

imdoingitagain -> RE: The Conservative Philosophy Of Tragedy (1/25/2013 5:45:50 AM)
Well, at least you have mastered the straw man argument. Perhaps next we came try taking a step towards intelligent debate. Though, that IS a little bit harder than arguing against the imaginary, insane people that you've made yourself believe is the "other side."

joether -> RE: The Conservative Philosophy Of Tragedy (1/25/2013 6:23:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: imdoingitagain Well, at least you have mastered the straw man argument. Perhaps next we came try taking a step towards intelligent debate. Though, that IS a little bit harder than arguing against the imaginary, insane people that you've made yourself believe is the "other side." You want an actual intelligent debate? Then take something that FD posted in 'post 1' and explain why its not true. Give the supporting information. And we'll debate it. DS bashed all liberals while giving a free pass on the wrongs conservatives have either performed or ignored on. Its become hard, quite honestly, to hold a rational discussion with conservatives on....ANY...topic of interest to our nation. All of us on Collarme are passionate individuals. We do not hold our passions only on one concept but many, many, things. I would gamble that DS is quite passionate on many different things, bdsm being one of them. An if he wished to say something to the effect of "Lets agree that both sides have done wrong, table it, move forward, and try to make the future better", I could agree. Both sides, and even moderates have done damage across the board. So how do we move forward?

imdoingitagain -> RE: The Conservative Philosophy Of Tragedy (1/25/2013 6:41:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: imdoingitagain Well, at least you have mastered the straw man argument. Perhaps next we came try taking a step towards intelligent debate. Though, that IS a little bit harder than arguing against the imaginary, insane people that you've made yourself believe is the "other side." You want an actual intelligent debate? Then take something that FD posted in 'post 1' and explain why its not true. Give the supporting information. And we'll debate it. DS bashed all liberals while giving a free pass on the wrongs conservatives have either performed or ignored on. Its become hard, quite honestly, to hold a rational discussion with conservatives on....ANY...topic of interest to our nation. All of us on Collarme are passionate individuals. We do not hold our passions only on one concept but many, many, things. I would gamble that DS is quite passionate on many different things, bdsm being one of them. An if he wished to say something to the effect of "Lets agree that both sides have done wrong, table it, move forward, and try to make the future better", I could agree. Both sides, and even moderates have done damage across the board. So how do we move forward? Step one: Stop making up ridiculous ideas about what the "other side" believes. Step two: Make note of the fact that that was the second time I put "other side" in quotes... Try to figure out why that is. Step three: Stop trying to group everyone into thee specific little groups (conservative, liberal, etc) It shouldn't be necessary to explain why these radical ideas of what people think their opponents think (not what they ACTUALLY think) aren't true... For example, how many people have you actually met that have told you that they need a missile launcher to protect their family?

vincentML -> RE: The Conservative Philosophy Of Tragedy (1/25/2013 6:52:16 AM)
quote: An if he wished to say something to the effect of "Lets agree that both sides have done wrong, table it, move forward, and try to make the future better", I could agree. Both sides, and even moderates have done damage across the board. So how do we move forward? There once was a time when conservatives defended the natural environment and the civil rights of all people. Now they claim to cherish individual freedom and responsibility as long as their individual freedom does not infringe upon the individual freedom of other people. It is just a bumper sticker slogan that might have had a reality in the frontier during the 19th C. but does not stand the test of an interdependent community of 330 million people. Conservatives also want limited government but again a bumper sticker slogan. They never define what limited government means. Today's conservatives will not own up to the fact that they are the lap dogs of corporate capitalism and fundamentalist christianity. The conservative movement has been co-opted by big buck$ and big preachers. So, there will be no moving forward without the struggle of opposing philosophies.

DesideriScuri -> RE: The Conservative Philosophy Of Tragedy (1/25/2013 9:27:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Complete rubbish from start to end. Yeah, truth does hurt sometimes. In this case, much of that is true. Just because you cant accept it doesnt make it any less true. There are conservatives that feel the Theory of Evolution is wrong, because it talks about something that has NOTHING to do with Creationism (that would be the Theory of Abiogenesis). Or that most scientists around the world have agreed that the theory on climate change is true; but argue on how to go about it. Conservative, seeing the arguing assume scientists are still arguing over whether climate change is taking place or not. Conservatives have a hard time admiting that first time gun offenders were moments before the guilty verdict in court, 'honest and law abiding citizen'. Or that hating all minorities, making life as difficult and painful as possible months before a presidential election would not get them what they wanted. Heck, conservatives wanted to waste hundreds of millions of dollars to protect the country from that 0.00004% voter fraud taking place. An that conservatives hold this notion that the 8th amendment doesnt apply to all persons, just certain persons. In each of these cases and more, conservatives are simply ignorant and foolish with their understanding of reality. Voter ID laws are not racially discriminatory. That's just rhetoric from the Left. "Most scientists around the world agree" isn't proof, no matter how many times someone screams, "consensus!" Acknowledging that fact is the first step to being open minded about the factors behind climate change, and does not require one to deny that climate change is happening. quote: Conservatives bash the 'liberal media' when news is reported on FACTS that show some Republican or conservatives did something wrong. Yet can't hold the 'conservative media' that lies on the facts to even one billionth the accountibility and responsibility. Yeah, four people died in Bengazi and that's a bad thing. How many US Citizens died in Iraq during and after the Iraq War? Is it less than four? Course not! If the amount of fury conservative hold towards the President over Bengazi, one would think they would have held former President Bush to well over a hundred times that fury. Yet, one could drop a pin in the room on that conservation and hear it from 100 feet away. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution [image]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/H.J.Res._114_Iraq_Resolution_Votes_October_2002.png/400px-H.J.Res._114_Iraq_Resolution_Votes_October_2002.png[/image] Thank God, it was just that Republicans held super-majorities and could pass whatever they wanted without having to worry about Democrat opposition. Or... quote: Lets talk about that debt and deficit. Many conservatives bash the President over both, yet, not even a peep from those same 'fiscal conservatives' when the guy they elected to the White House in 2000 and 2004 turned a $2.5 Trillion debt into $11.5 in eight years. Or turned the surplus from $330 Billion into a deficit of $1.5 Trillion in 2008. Or of Republicans relaxing if not removing many of the regulations that kept Wall Street in check from doing unwise things.....all in the name of profit. Only an insane or ignorant person would believe those companies wouldnt tear up the financial health of the nation onces those rules were lifted. Yeah, truth hurts. When I hear conservatives slam the President, its really not hard to find something Mr. Bush did...worst. An ask them, why they didnt hold Mr. Bush to the same level if not twice that in accountibility and responsibility? They cant seem to demand such things of the people they put into office, yet, attack anyone else they didnt. Why the hell is that?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! The same can be said of Liberals. They don't hold their people to the same level they hold the other people. Neat, huh? http://american.com/archive/2011/july/the-government2019s-four-decade-financial-experiment [image]http://american.com/graphics/2011/pollock-feature-graphs-7-12.11/Pollock_graph%201.JPG[/image] http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm Historical Outstanding Debt quote: 09/30/2012 16,066,241,407,385.89 (+$1276B) 09/30/2011 14,790,340,328,557.15 (+$1229B) 09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79 (+$1652B) 09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75 (+$1885B) 09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49 (+$1017B) 09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48 (+$501B) 09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23 (+$574B) 09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50 (+$553B) 09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32 (+$596B) 09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62 (+$555B) 09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16 (+$421B) 09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06 (+$134B) 09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86 Bush = [9/30/2009] - [9/30/2001] = [$11,909,829,003,511.75]-[$5,807,463,412,200.06]=$6,102,365,591,311.64 Obama = [9/30/2012] - [9/30/2009] = [$16,066,241,407,385.89]-[$11,909,829,003,511.75]=4,156,412,403,874.10 You are also including people who weren't on this board, in your analysis of who was bitching and who wasn't. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri What is a "conservative?" Well, in America - which Jill Filipovic most likely would have encountered at NYU - a conservative is someone who believes in and stands for limited government and personal responsibility. To a conservative, Government should do something simply because it can, or something needs to be done. It should only do something when it has the authority to do so, and when doing it will protect the rights of the Citizens better or more efficiently than Citizens doing it on their own. An educated person might start the question off with giving a textbook definition of the word: Conservative. An then proceed to explain with supporting evidence of what that all means. Most conservatives want limited goverment, yet cant define in exact or remote terms what that means. They want to reduce the budget by $1.2 trillion....DURING...a recession. Link? quote: Educated people generally know why this is BAD, while those that study economics can explain what would happen at the macro and micro levels in detail. Funny that FOX News never explain this material to their audience when advocating the goverment to do such. How would this country handle doubling the unemployment rate in six to nine months after dropping that budget by the $1.2 Trillion mark conservatives were pushing for last year there, DS? Don't include me in the group that watches Fox News Channel ([8D] Tazzy]. President's Unified Budget Deficit Estimates 2013 estimate $901.4B 2014 $667.8B 2015 $609.7B 2016 $648.8B 2017 $612.4B For all the bluster the Democrats were issuing during the Bush years, they certainly didn't do a whole helluva lot to change it. quote: Your last line is amusing. How many private citizens, organizations and charities have the buying power of the US Goverment? Because when the 'scales of economy' come into play on healthcare, it benefits Americans more. Yet, practically every conservative was against President's original health care plan. And how many actually...READ...the bill, DS? Less than 2%. Have you read the actual bill that was passed in 2010? The Affordable Care Act? Doubt it! I still argue that it has the authority to do so. How much of the cost reductions are going to come from reducing the amount of reimbursements to providers? Hasn't that been proposed before? Doc Fix Bill ring a bell? quote: Its argued even today, that if the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was allowed to run for one year further, the US economy would have stood a good chance of fully recovering in late 2011 to mid 2012. An who was it that was against this concept? Conservatives. Why? Cus if the economy got better, the President would get re-elected to a second term. Well, got news for you and your conservative buddies....he got re-elected by the majority of Americans. Did any of these conservatives bother to read the ARRA? No. That would take brain power; much easier to let others do your thinking for you! How many politicians read the bills? quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri When Government limits my choice of something - say, wearing a seat belt - it limits my freedom. Even though I agree that wearing a seat belt is safer and smart, that's not the point at all. If I chose to not wear a seat belt, that's my choice. There is no authority for Government to come in and force me. My not wearing a seat belt isn't infringing on the rights of anyone else. How about you go talk to those still alive that didnt wear a seat belt. Ask them if they would endure the same accident again without one. An if your still not convinced, simply drive without one. However, if your involved in an accident. Even if the other guy causes it. You should not be able to collect not even a penny in damages from him. Not for your medical bills or car. You made a choice and it was both stupid and foolish. You ignored the decades of solid scientific evidence on the subject matter because of some 'freedom' that exists only in a delusional person's mind. How am I ignoring decades of scientific evidence? Did you not notice the part where I stated that - and I quote myself - "I agree that wearing a seat belt is safer and smart?" quote: But you are wrong on there being no authority for goverment to decide whether you wear one or not. In the US Goverment, 'We the People...' through representatives, senators and sometimes even a president, create laws that society will abid by. If that society determines that we are to wear seatbets while in a motor vehicle, or have to wear floatation devices while on a water craft; that becomes the law and so long as we follow it, we are not penalized. Failture to abid by society's laws results in one or more penalties. So yes, you can choose to not wear a seatbelt. But if your caught, you pay the penalty. Dont like the penalty? Tough shit! Argue it with your respentative. Given that many Republicans would fail high school physics, chemistry and biology you would stand a decent chance of them fielding such a dumb idea. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: THEIR [conservatives] SOLUTION SEEMS TO BE A SOCIETY WHERE EVERY CITIZEN HAS A GUN IN ONE HAND AND CROSSED FINGERS ON THE OTHER. Not at all. If you don't want to have a gun, in hand, in a safe, or even as one's personal property of any sort, you don't have to. My buying a gun isn't infringing on any of your rights anymore than my buying a bicycle does. This person states one thing, you reply on something else. Where did my reply not address the claim? The claim was that Conservatives want every Citizen to have a gun and to cross their fingers. My claim is that no one is going to force anyone to buy a gun. That is being left to the individual to decide for him or herself. quote: I understand their position that conservatives want the Wild West rules. The 'Rule of Law' is replaced with the 'Way of the Gun'. The person with the biggest, baddest, fasted gun....makes the rules. Sounds great for a movie backdrop, but unfortunately would reduce this nation to total anarchy within a few weeks. That is the wisdom behind the 'Rule of Law'. It does have its draw backs, but dollar for dollar, pays out in astronomical sums when pitted against the "Way of the Gun'. Where is any of that true? quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The freedom to choose one's own way, providing it doesn't infringe on someone else's freedom to choose their own way. That's the "American Dream." I don't have some despot, tyrant, dictator, monarch, etc. telling me what I can and can't do. The litmus test is if it infringes on another's freedoms. If it doesn't, it's fair game. There are 20, 1st graders DEAD on the floor, because conservatives feel even total psychos should have access to high power firearms, with large magizines. All legally obtained. You are mistaking the legal obtainee with the perpetrator. Adam Lanza was refused opportunity to purchase a gun the week before because he didn't want to wait the 14-day background check. [ quote: Just days before the school shooting, Adam Lanza attempted to purchase a single “long gun” rifle from a local gun store but was turned away because he did not want to wait for the required 14-day background check, according to two federal law enforcement officials. Sources said he entered the store “earlier in the week” in the Newtown area and inquired about buying one rifle. He was only 20 years old, and did not have a permit for firearms, and was told about a 14-day background check that would have to be done, the sources said. “He didn’t want to wait the 14 days,” said one source, declining to be identified because the case is still under review. “So they denied him. The sale did not take place.” [pquote]There's a bunch more teenagers and adults, DEAD in some movie theater, because conservatives cant accept that pistols too, are pretty dangerous in the wrong hands. And legally obtained. And we can play this little game back and forth over whether firearms should be availible or not. An nothing will get accomplished, and ANOTHER mass shooting will take place somewhere in the USA. Do conservatives enjoy going to funerals? What else are you going to ban? What's next? Hot dogs? Marshmallows? Cinnamon? What can't you use to commit murder? They've already banned Jarts. What's next? [Sidebar]This was hilarious!!![/Sidebar] quote: By, by your arguement, we could ban ammo sales. Bullets are not arms, they are components. Kind of like how nukes are arms but the actual nuclear material is a comonent of the device. We just ban the sale, distribution, production, and even gift giving of bullets. You can still make your bullets by hand, but not in a mass production enviroment. Oh, an thats allowable under the US Consttution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3). Then, why have they not gone to that effort? Could it be that it would be a de facto ban on arms? quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri http://nssf.org/impact/ Whats the chance that this is bias material? 'Exceedingly Good' "These are good jobs, paying an average of $46,858 in wages and benefits. And today, every job is important. In fact, in the United States the unemployment rate has reached 8.2 percent. This means that there are already 13,430,000 people trying to find jobs in the state and collecting unemployment benefits."" That is taken directly from your source. Now, what does the blue part have to do with the red part directly? Not very much. The point being made here, is that the information is of a questionable nature....at best! As this document is pushing an industry viewpoint and NOT, a factually, unbiased view on the reality. Its like the tobacco industry in the 1990's publishing booklets that 'showed' smoking does not cause second hand damage. Which part is incorrect? Would banning the sale, manufacture and trading of certain firearms and accessories and ammo for those firearms somehow not have an effect on unemployment? quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri 209,750 in the US Sporting Arms and Ammunition industry. Total wages of $9.8B. Total Business Taxes: $4.575B (State and Federal). Numbers were compiled in 2012, so my assumption is this is for 2011. The US Funeral Business is a $20.7 Billion industry. With over two million funerals and employing about 23,000 funeral directors a year. SOURCE I wonder how much of the firearm industry supports the funeral industry? Are you trying to argue here, DS, that if we took guns away, the funeral industry would be hurt too? Oh forgot, guns dont kill people...people kill people. Yeah, I 'forget' that one sometimes. How silly of me. Makes me wonder why we give guns to people in the first place, right? BTW, its not your assumption, its the assumption of the person that wrote the document your quoting word for word. At least you quoted where the information originates. Per the footnote for that data: quote: [1] John Dunham and Associates, New York, March 2012. Direct impacts include those jobs in firearms and ammunition manufacturers, as well as companies that manufacture products such as ammunition holders and magazines, cases, decoys, game calls, holsters, hunting equipment, scopes, clay pigeons and targets. Direct impacts also include those resulting from the wholesale distribution and retailing of firearms and ammunition in sporting goods retailers and variety/mass merchandise stores quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You can choose to not own a gun. You can choose to lock it up securely. You can choose to wear a seat belt. Don't force your choice on me. Tazzygirl wrongly accuses me of pushing my "moral beliefs" on her. Don't push your beliefs on someone else. WRONG! If 'We the People...' decide that owning a gun is not in the best interests of our nation, and vote on it, that's the rule of the land. Of course, until the US Supreme Court weighs in on the bill. Which makes one wonder, what really sways their final answer? Is it their true, sworn duty to uphold the precise understandings of the US Constitution? Money? Concern for those losing their jobs? Fame? Study of the REAL Quotes of the founding fathers (conservatives seem to make up piles of fake quotes)? Yeah, its gotten so bad, with quotes I mean, that Monticello had to publish the correct and incorrect quotes. Now why would conservatives, push quotes that were written by a 21st century speechwriters and NOT penned by the 3rd President of the United States? Oh, to push an agenda and hope liberals are as dumb as they are on history! OMG!! Someone got something wrong!!! Seems to have happened to Ben Franklin, George Washington, and Sun Tzu, too (no others were checked, so I'm assuming - again - there are many more). The best thing to do would be to inform, no? quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Conservatives what as little government intervention as necessary. If it's necessary, it needs to be there. If it's not necessary, it needs to be gone, or not begun. The people - as a group - will be more resourceful, innovative, and solution finders than Government ever will be. Government is force. The only way Government can get you to do something it wants you to, is by threat of force. That's coercion, and not freedom. An conservatives also seem to believe that goverment is an inhuman force. That humans, particularly US Citizens do not make up the whole of it, but that some divine or infernal beast actually controls the whole of it. That they have trouble understanding the question, What does the USA buy with $3.2 Trillion in a year? It just boogles their minds even though the answer is simply one word, "yes'". They demand we do not spend money on projects that have no real usefulness, but pass a blind eye when the goverment of 37 states passed laws requiring the population to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that they are A) who they say they are and B) where they live. That's right, all those 4th-amendment violating laws to protect this nation's presidential vote last year from the 0.00004% of voter fraud. Or to eliminate stuff they dont like, while spending more on stuff they feel we should have. Tell me, how does it make sense to pay for 11 nuclear carrier fleets? Or pay $4 Trillion of borrowed money to invade a country in the Middle East that we never actually declared war on? Cus the last time this country actually declared war on someone, Pearl Harbor was recently attacked and Hitler was running Germany! Congress - as shown earlier in this post - authorized the war in Iraq. quote: Or how about that pipeline that was argued in 2012? That would generate that bogus 70,000 full time jobs in the USA. Yeah, conservatives didnt like to say that the actual number was around 11,000 part-timers, and the USA would take on the lion's share of potential problems but none of the actual oil would be sold here in the country. None? Wow. Imagine that. So, American refineries aren't going to refine that oil? But the one that 'takes the cake' on conservatives saying one thing, but turning a blind eye when they do it: The Health Care debate. Did you know that every day Congress is in Session it cus us, the tax payers about $31 million dollars? How much does it cost for a single bill to go from concept to finishing out in either the House or Senate (but not both)? The reason I bring this up, is that Republicans tried to defund the ACA 33 times. That's right, 33 seperate voting moments taking place in the House (with debate) but failing in the Senate all 33 times. Where was the conservative outrage on all of that? So loud that you could STILL hear that pin that dropped on the floor 'a few' paragraphs above' from one mile away! You aren't arguing with reality there. According to your argument, Congress would not have been in session, except for those 33 bills. As I think we both know that isn't true - at all - this complaint falls flat. Add to that my belief that Congresspeople shouldn't be in session a majority of their time and should be paid to the point that they would need employment outside of Congress, and your argument with me is further flattened. And, then to bring it all to a close, I am also against Omnibus Bills that create massive legislation patchworked together that is very easily used as campaign rhetoric by both sides, and obscures the costs of the various parts of the bills. Btw, there were 6,729 House Bills introduced by the 112th Congress, and 3,716 Senate Bills. So, of those 6,729 bills, 33 of them were to defund the ACA, and you are going to blame those 33 bills in full for the $31M/day it costs for Congress to be in session? quote: You want conservatives to be taken seriously, DS? Than require them and yourself to be held to the same level of accountibility and responsibility as you blast liberals, Democrats and the President. In fact, do it at twice the level just to be on the safe side. Fuck twice the level. That's horseshit and you know it. Neither party holds itself as accountable as they hold the other party. And, I'm not a Republican, but a conservative. <cough, cough> Blue Dog Democrats <cough, cough> are conservative Democrats <cough, cough> A conservative isn't limited to the Republican Party. Have I never gone against the Republican Party? That sure seems to be your claim.

DomYngBlk -> RE: The Conservative Philosophy Of Tragedy (1/25/2013 11:24:52 AM)
Back to not being a republican this week? So can we expect the republican "you" to show next week? lol

joether -> RE: The Conservative Philosophy Of Tragedy (1/25/2013 1:22:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: imdoingitagain Step one: Stop making up ridiculous ideas about what the "other side" believes. Cus the other side is going to do that, right? In some sort of 'honor system'? Go right ahead and believe that fantasy. Go through the threads on this very forum. Through each of the posts of those threads. Your going to find plenty of instances, in which most of the conservative posters on here have put words into everyone's mouths. Dont see you telling those folks to stop doing the same crap do I? Which is why I was pointing out...ALL...THOSE...THINGS...TO...DS. Example after example of how conservatives ignored things while bashing liberals on it. If your going to tell people to stop posting in that manner, shouldnt you start by stating how you will govern yourself? And that should you cross the line, how you will penalize yourself? No, better to force everyone to a rule system that you dont have to follow nor penalized when you go against the very rules. Now, we could create a seperate thread. Within this thread, is a 'rules of discussion'. One of these rules is an agreement by all persons that making arguements based on what we think the other side believes could be one of them. Stating that if such a rule is broken, the poster must agree not to post for one day's time. Sounds all perfectly nice and civilized, right? What prevents me from simply going against that rule for political points? Absolutely nothing. An if it was an honest mistake publically but privately it was intended? How do you investigate the motive? Granted we would need to devise the exact wording of such a rule. Not to strict or no one will agree to it. Not to broad or no one will take it seriously. And if the writer of the rule breaks it, what then? They are the one that should know the rule as they broke it? Should we not hold the writer of the rule to a higher standard, as they did write it? Or carry everyone across at equal measure? quote: ORIGINAL: imdoingitagain Step two: Make note of the fact that that was the second time I put "other side" in quotes... Try to figure out why that is. You learned how to put words in quotes. I can place words in quotes "too". Yes, as I said above, you want me to follow a rule you dont have to follow. Doesn't work that way. quote: ORIGINAL: imdoingitagain Step three: Stop trying to group everyone into thee specific little groups (conservative, liberal, etc) Well, easier than writing all the groups that generally fall under each heading, right? For conservatives we have: A) Sarah Palin morons, B) Tea Party idiots, C) Boehner locals, D) Cantor's for Treason, E) Scalia Rule of Law, F) Ron Paul lunies, G) Alex Jone Conspiracy Nuts, and so on. Which would be easier to write? 791 different groups....or.....just one word? Would you like it better if I just name each of the 35,000,000 persons that fall under the notion of the conservative philosophy? Or is it much easier to say "Conservatives hate Hillary Clinton" and assume you will know which type of person within conservative circles would not hate the woman? Thats quite a bit of work on anyone's part in trying to decide which groups of the whole would or would not agree to such a thing. Even though, whose to say that others will agree or disagree with poster, that their specific list correctly included or discluded the right selection of specific groups/individuals? We could spend whole threads arguing whether one group's inclusion/removal was correct and STILL not come to an agreement. And would take perhaps a hundred times as long to arrive at the point of the original piece. Its an insane system to perform, and I seriously doubt your going to get many (if any) that agree to that format. Much easier to say "Conservatives believe..." or "Why are conservatives dumb when....", when the alternative is much more time consuming to create. quote: ORIGINAL: imdoingitagain It shouldn't be necessary to explain why these radical ideas of what people think their opponents think (not what they ACTUALLY think) aren't true... For example, how many people have you actually met that have told you that they need a missile launcher to protect their family? An yet it is... How many people need high power, militarized style, continously firing, weapons of war, with large ammo containers, armor piecering ammunition to hunt a defenseless deer from three hundred yards away? Or dozens of guns to fight the very goverment that the owners of said guns believes 'has to' and 'will' become tyrannical, thereby justifying any and all their actions and words regardless of how insane both things sounds initially? I can play that game "too". Notice that's the second time I placed quotes on the word, too. Try to figure out why that is. Allow me to answer your question in all seriousness.... A number that is alarming to any sane American. Does the date 4/19/95 mean anything to you? Dont look it up, just try to answer it yourself. An then study how conservatives spoke on things in the months leading up to that date. If 4/19/95 is a bit...ancient...., how about 1/8/11? Go and study how conservatives were behaving in the months leading up to that date. Your going to find that the months leading up to those two dates are very similair if not exact. And that if missile launchers and their ammo were as obtainable like the AR-15s being stripped off store shelves right now is any indication, a very high number. There is what we think someone is saying (i.e. a guess) and what we think they are saying given experience, time, and examples (i.e. educated guess). I would like to think even the most hard core of NRA members would find the idea of purchasing a missile laucher to protect their family to be the moment they should go seek therapy.

DesideriScuri -> RE: The Conservative Philosophy Of Tragedy (1/25/2013 1:57:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk Back to not being a republican this week? So can we expect the republican "you" to show next week? lol You can expect it. I wouldn't hold your breath though. I've been a Libertarian for the past 4½ - 5 years now. Too bad you can't see the difference.

crazyml -> RE: The Conservative Philosophy Of Tragedy (1/25/2013 2:02:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether Go through the threads on this very forum. Through each of the posts of those threads. Your going to find plenty of instances, in which most of the conservative posters on here have put words into everyone's mouths. Dont see you telling those folks to stop doing the same crap do I? Ah cool.. yup. I see your logic.

imdoingitagain -> RE: The Conservative Philosophy Of Tragedy (1/25/2013 2:06:54 PM)
Your specific question was under the scenario that these words were said: "Lets agree that both sides have done wrong, table it, move forward, and try to make the future better" and you said, "I could agree. Both sides, and even moderates have done damage across the board. So how do we move forward?" So, I give you a proposal as to how to do that which is supposed to be after all of it is tabled and your response is "Well, they do this!" So, apparently, you don't seem willing to table it and move forward so all of this is pointless. Then, you go on to tell me, specifically what I do and don't do, all of this after I had made (at the time) seven posts on these boards. That is QUITE an impressive feat. For the record, I put my quotes because of my belief that there is not-or at the very least not be-"the other side" since we are all people (who should be) working towards the betterment of all of us. Your quotes, really don't make sense. Unless, of course, you were doing the quotes for emphasis thing, if so, I have no words. As to your personal reason for putting everyone into groups, the fact that you had an insulting name for just about every group you mentioned, explains to me exactly why you do it...

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125