Guests may browse all the site, but only registered users can post in the main forums.
Unregistered users may post in the Free Range Talk Forum

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Gun Rights and Violence
#21
Liberty,

If you want "intelligent improvement", then you should participate in making that happen, rather than simply obstructing the D - that's my main point.

As far as that goes, there are probably many things that could be done to improve our systems, including making sure that mentally ill folks are in the databases, making sure that those are checked, etc.  I'm less interested in arguing about specifics than in getting us all to talk about the issue together constructively.

If we do that, I'm confident we could all agree on some ways to improve things, and I'd like to see that happen.

 
Reply
#22
Quote:If you want "intelligent improvement", then you should participate in making that happen, rather than simply obstructing the D - that's my main point.
Last time the Ds had any say, they banned guns.  They cannot be trusted to even offer ideas.  That's my point.
Winner.
Winner.

Chicken Dinner.


Reply
#23
Lets see... the President said that Australia is what we should aim for, and he won't let us import M1 Garands because he doesn't want "those military weapons on the street."  The vice-president refers to gun owners and NRA members as a homosexual sex act. That pretty much shuts down any conversation.  Gun owners have given up enough and get frustrated when you see prescription, brain chemical altering drugs being used in almost all the mass shootings.  Why won't the Dems even acknowledge this?  Why doesn't the first black President say something about men not being there for their children (70-some percent of black children in the country are born out of wedlock)?  Why do we continue to diefy the single mother and not hold men accountable?  Why do we punish little boys for being little boys (forked-up zero tolerance policies) and lock them up in all day kindergarten instead of actually engaging them (and when they do act up, we give little children brain altering drugs)?  Why is none of this even in the national conversation?  But lets just talk about banning guns from law abiding citizens, and if you don't want to give any ground there, well, you are just being an NRA brainwashed obstructionist.
 
Reply
#24
That's not what you said.

You said that if D proposed any ideas, you'd oppose them even if you thought they were good ones.


 
Reply
#25
(07-13-2014, 03:46 PM)'jafs' Wrote: That's not what you said.

You said that if D proposed any ideas, you'd oppose them even if you thought they were good ones.


 

 

Give them an inch, they will take a mile.  That's why you don't even let them think about having an inch.   Someone else can have the inch because they haven't shown they will take the mile regarding guns.  It's simple.  I don't know why you don't understand.
 
Winner.
Winner.

Chicken Dinner.


Reply
#26
I understand quite well, and have expressed my opinion about that sort of stance.

My father in law, a committed liberal D says the same sort of thing about R.  It's the essence of the current toxic atmosphere in politics, and gets us nowhere.

We should evaluate ideas on their own merit, not based on who proposes them, and work together - our system is designed so that's almost always necessary, given the checks and balances we have.

If R proposed raising the minimum wage, should D oppose that because they don't trust them?

But I get that you're committed to that position, and I don't think anything I say will make any impact on it - so I'll probably stop here


 
Reply
#27
Quote:If R proposed raising the minimum wage, should D oppose that because they don't trust them?
Lets put that in your hands.  The Rs can set the minimum wage, OK.  You trust them.  But then the R's start doing things you aren't sure you like - but you gave up something in return.  You gave up right-to-work laws in those states by making them illegal at the federal level and you get an extra $3/hr extra.   Do you still want to let the R's have any control over wages in this country?  They might give you the bone, but they will be the ones coming out on top.  R's know how to cheat people out of money while making you think they are your friends and they will get every nickle out of your pocket they can reach.  Really, that's one thing they do very efficiently is screw over the lower middle class like me.   I expect them to be greedy and therefore do not trust them with any legislation regarding workers "rights" for lack of a better word.

So how much are you willing to give up to the R's to get $3/hr of more petty money?  How much do you cost?

If you can be bribed so easily without thinking about the consequences of your surrender, you are the problem.  How do you not get this?   Parties have shown very well their intention regarding all these major issues.  If you let one fool you, well, you don't let them have a chance for a while.  That seems fair to me.

 
Winner.
Winner.

Chicken Dinner.


Reply
#28
Almost had me there, Liberty.  I thought for a second that you might have convinced me about your Libertarian ways.  Just for second, though.  

What you've done is give good reasons to distrust Democrats and Republicans.  I agree.  My continuing problem is that you haven't given any good reasons to trust third party candidates or independents.  Here's the problem, Democrats and Republicans have both an ideology and a record upon which they run.  Generally speaking, their records are not very good.  Those third party and independents, they have only an ideology, but no actual record.  Ideology is fine, but it's only useful for discussions like this.  When it comes to the nuts and bolts of running government, I can't see any reason to believe that any candidate, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, etc. would suddenly not find themselves in the same predicament that every other elected representative finds themselves in, that being that in order to successfully run the government, compromises need to be made.  

Let's face it, if our good Keen Umbehr were elected governor, considering how many changes his ideology might dictate, he would probably be the one forced to make the most compromises, just for the government to function.  Unless, of course, he were to receive some huge mandate, which is highly unlikely.  And even then, with state and federal governments so intertwined, so interconnected, it's hard to imagine him being able to strike off on his own path, holding true to his ideology while dealing with everyday governance.  

Politics has often been described as the art of compromise.  Democrats and Republicans do it because they actually govern.  And I suspect that if Libertarians were actually faced with the task of governing, they too would compromise.  I think, Liberty, that if Libertarians were actually elected and then had to run on actual records, you'd be forced to hold your nose and vote for them, just as most of America holds their noses when voting for Democrats and Republicans.    
 
Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.  
Reply
#29
Generally speaking, I don't "trust" any politicians.  That's completely besides the point for me.

And, you're now changing the topic - horse trading and compromises are different issues.  I don't love either one of those.  But, we need to work together if we want to accomplish anything.

For me, that means finding the good ideas wherever they may originate, and combining them.

So, if R propose raising the minimum wage, I'd support that, since I believe it should be done.  That doesn't mean I'm "for sale" or any other nonsense like that.

And, if D propose ideas I find to be bad ones, I oppose those.

Politics has become some sort of bizarre competitive sport, where the goal seems to be to defeat the other "team" - that's not what our system with it's checks and balances is supposed to be, in my opinion.


 
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Our Amazon Picks


Donate With PayPal