joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
Open debate? Lets talk about that gun thread in which you and several others hold a 'religious' belief at the fanatical level. Yeah, its been proved on that thread how 'open to debate' you are on things. You cant even consider even for a nanosecond, that what I was arguing a different perspective, and that perspective might be right and wise. That would be an 'open and free debate'.
Mr. Koch created the Tea Party in its originality. That organization was a pseudo-lobbying group for his business interests. But gained popularity as a political group about 8-10 years after the Militiaman Movement died off (i.e. The Oklahoma City Bombing of 4/19/95). Conservatives and Libertarians within the GOP wanted to reenergize the GOP's failing ratings due to the disaster known as 'former President George W. Bush' and his administration in 2008. So the Tea Party was a group that originally had some good views. However, after it started accepting all the hateful, closed minded and 'low information voters' into its group; the whole thing degenerated into a mindless mob. This group of individuals usually posses no debating skills, no critical thinking skills, listens to ONLY conservative media formats, and feels they are the only ones to rule the nation. Not the sort of group one would accuse of being 'open to debate on any topic'.
An what has the Tea Party's people actually done for the USA? Well, they did almost shut down the US Government. Which is something Al Qaeda was never able to accomplish.....
They want to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. How many of them have read the law? None of them! A debate implies two or more sides are pretty well studied on a particular topic before such a debate begins. But when the Tea Party debates, talking points are used, and their side usually gets OWNED, because the liberals have ALSO learned of those talking points ahead of time and figured out ways of defeating them. The end result of these debates, is Tea Party being destroyed and laughed at for silly notions. However, the liberals enter the debate with them in honest and fair view, ready to listen to viewpoint and consider things. But like the OP that started this thread, they usually have no 'independent free will to think, consider, and maybe add onto an original discussion'.
If anything the Tea Party has shown this nation what happens when we citizens allow individuals great power without great responsibility. The members within the Tea Party bitch high and wide about Democrats and President doing/not doing something to their linking every ten minutes, but give the Tea Party in Congress a 'blank check' to do what ever they want. If you cant hold the people and party you voted into office to twice the level of accountability and responsibility with power as the ones you slam, why should anyone take anything you say seriously?
First you are responding to someone else's comment.
Second when you start out announcing that your wisdom outranks both history and court rulings
you can't expect to be taken seriously.
Third when you come up with Constitutional interpretations that sound like they come straight
from the Kremlin denying the existence of individual rights.
Fourth when proven wrong you accuse others of, and I quote, hiding behind court rulings.
Given all of these things how can you possibly expect to be taken seriously?
a itations
No, I'm responding to your comment. That's why I posted on your post. If I wish to respond to someone else's comment, I would respond onto their comment.
No, my wisdom outranks many persons. An as far as I've seen, allowing anyone, to acquire firearms for any reason, given what we know of the human mind already (i.e. medical science, neurology, psychology, and maybe sociology), seems rather foolish. An tonight, is yet one more reminder that those suffering from mental or emotional trauma with firearms hold very deadly consequences. Not one debate on whether those with firearms should be forced to get tested for mental or emotional problems that could place them and their firearm in jeopardy of hurting/killing themselves and/or others. Likely most conservatives would lose all their guns....
Its one thing to say the 2nd implies the whole thing is about who, why, how, and when of firearms. The Kremlin is in a place called Russia. Last I checked, the US Government's power and reach do not directly affect Russia and their human rights violations.
I was not proven wrong. That's the whole point of that thread. Not once did any of my questions get answered. That a hunter with a rifle killing foxes (for pelts) was NOT the sort of person the 2nd had in mind. Where as a farmer, who was part of his local militia in town, had a musket and would rush to the rally point when an alarm was rised. THAT, is what the 2nd was geared towards. But for you and others, both individuals should have their firearms protected. The reason is, that you ignored the first half of the amendment and reinterpreted the remainder. So, I simply made an argument and placed you specifically into the process, BamaD. That was the question on whether the police could ignore the first two thirds of the 8th amendment and reinterpret the remainder however they wanted. Funny how not one person stated that would be wrong or right. In my book, no part of an amendment should be ignored, nor should it be reinterpreted. in that thread as well, I did listen those that had something to gain by arguing one of two possible outcomes (i.e. society verse individual). The Gun Industry gains through profit. Politicians gain through votes. Conservative media groups gain by viewership. What do I gain by the 2nd being defined as 'you want a gun, your in the local militia'? You cant seem to answer that one.
Being taken seriously is a two way street, BamaD. That is a concept you do not seem to understand. If I took you seriously all the time (or even half that) I would be in a mental institution. I went even so far as to meet you and others halfway. That the 2nd was for organizations with arms, and the 28th as a self defense amendment with arms. Not one of you took up that idea in the discussion. That is because not one of you are open to debate on such a concept. Its to forward looking and wise for you to handle apparently. I scratched my head for days, wondering why not one of you could not muster up "ok, Joe, you and I have a difference of opinion on the 2nd. What is your idea on this other amendment, the one you mentioned about being a self defense for the individual?" That could have led to an open, honest, and maybe even an insightful conversation/debate on something that helps Americans out in enjoying their freedoms.
That's what this thread is about, BamaD. Why we stick to 'battlelines' verse 'open and honest discussion'? Mr. Koch unfortunately does not have much in the way of 'credibility' to what he is arguing given history to the present. But still, does ask the question.
|
RE: People the Left love to HATE - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread