Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY
Nolder

New Zealand Mosque Shooting

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

The guy doing the shooting, was Ex-Military.

Point?

 

2 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

But is it though?

The sources that fuel your opinion, have you ever wondered how many of those are funded by the NRA? 
Mainly what I was driving at, is that your opinion is not Unique.

Your opinion is shared by Many if not most Republicans and members of the NRA.

Many, Many articles, and bills in congress are funded or fueled by the NRA through Republicans.

Many, Many of these opinions are not based on fact. They are based on.

 

Emotion. Feelings. Fear.

All things that your standard Snowflake hatting Republican despises about those scummy Liberals.

My opinion on this is based on meeting people. Maybe I'm full of myself but I tend to think arguing with people online since I was ehhh 12? And playing Mafia for I don't even know how long anymore has trained me to suss out when someone is being dishonest through text. With only a few exceptions every person I've argued about guns with is being dishonest about how far they want to take things. Most would ban all guns if they could. Say what you want but I believe it and no statistic told me what to think.

 

2 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

Almost any = Pretty damned close to everyone. It implies not just a strong majority, it implies an overwhelming majority.

Yes.

 

2 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:


Useful idiot?

So you saw that facebook meme too.... The one that' is entirely wrong, doesn't even quote the guy it claims to, and ironically the list the guy actually made, is stuff Trump is actually doing in office... Not the Liberals in this nation that the conservatives in this country have created this false narrative that they are all Nazis... Yet somehow the conservatives are the ones saying it's wrong to punch a Nazi?... and the Left ( Antifa) are going around punching Nazis....

I don't have Facebook I have no idea what meme you're talking about.

 

 

2 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

 

Image result for useful idiot

 

The actual thing written by Alinsky is this. (Note, it's about Power, not Communism)

*: Republicans pressure Democrats into vilifying their own on the slightest misconduct, while allowing the Republicans to get away with any misconduct.

**: Mr. Trump's favorite tactic is Insults

***: And his Fanbois love his trolling.

****: Every day a new tweet.

*****: The Wall. Such a big threat. The threat your guns getting taken away. All more terrifying then it really is.

******:  The term Obamacare got pushed so hard, the Democrats now use that term. It's ACA people... and believe it or not, more people support the ACA than they support ObamaCare.

 

The rhetoric went both ways. And yes, it is irrational when the Right jump straight to slippery slope and 'conspiracy' intentions.

 

Fox News, Brietbart, and other right wing sites, were jumping the gun on shootings, and condeming Liberals for going for gun control, before any actually have.

 

The Left says "Lets have a talk about guns."

The right says "BUY GUNS NOW BEFORE THEY BAN THEM ALL AND KILL YOU ALL CAUSE THEY BE NAZIS".

I have no idea what prompted any of this.

 

2 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

There are a ton of non-authoritarian overreaching methods that can be done, to possibly help. 

Name one thing and name the problem it solves.

 

2 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

But the right fear monger their base into believing everything is a slippery slope.

I think we've been proven right over time.

 

2 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

Instead of making sensible laws, and blocking over-reaching ones, they go straight to blocking everything, because of the possibility of over-reaching laws.

 

Hell, even law enforcement is crippled when it comes to hunting down murders because of the NRA's influence in making it illegal to digitize any gun record in a searchable database.

Like I said the Left works incrementally. No concessions because they never appease the Left anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

If you're seeing a trend in my last posts, it's because the number of arguments I've seen elsewhere that basically equates All Liberals are Nazi's is getting old as hell, frustrating, and needs to be ranted about

Yeah Boomercons are retarded. You're not Nazis you're commies. If you're getting most of this from Facebook it makes a lot of sense. Young people are abandoning that site and leaving grandma to argue with Uncle Jim about taxes and retirement funds while they find sites away from the geriatric. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Nolder said:

I have no idea what prompted any of this.

Quote

I don't have Facebook I have no idea what meme you're talking about.

The term Useful Idiot. I should have posted this picture instead of the one I did. 

Basically, the below picture hit facebook and other social media... Again for the Nth time now. And the guy they cite (Saul Alinsky) didn't even say the things they say he did. Instead, he said the rules of power, that I quoted above.

Image result for useful idiot article

 

16 hours ago, Nolder said:

Name one thing and name the problem it solves.

We both know how that conversation will go.

"Slippery slope!"
"You're being dishonest and just want all guns banned!"

"That's too much government control!"

"What about ____".

 

But anyways, I must be a glutton for punishment, so here's one.
 

Simply remove the restrictions that prevents a Searchable/Centralized database of weapon sales.

As of right now when the FBI and local Law enforcement have the gun that committed the crime, they are arbitrarily slowed down when it comes to figuring out past and present ownership of said gun, and it's ultimate fate. (Stolen?) They literally have to go through crates of outdated paper files & computer images (in states that allow it) that aren't in anyway searchable. (no date/times/names/etc) So something as simple as looking up a serial number can take months.

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-sales/maintaining-records-of-gun-sales/

Quote

FIREARM SALES RECORDS

Federal law requires licensed firearms dealers to maintain records of gun sales indefinitely, including information about the firearm(s) being purchased, as well as the purchaser.2 Federal law prohibits the federal government from collecting firearm sales records in a central repository, however. Without a central repository of all firearm sales records, gun tracing is a slow, cumbersome process.

  • As described in a report from the Government Accountability Office, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF) “must take a number of steps to trace a crime gun, including, as applicable, contacting the importer, manufacturer, and wholesaler of the firearm in order to identify the … retailer who sold the firearm to the first retail purchaser.”3
  • A 2010 report by the Washington Post found that a gun tracing investigation by ATF often involves making phone calls and poring over handwritten paperwork.4
  • According to a 2013 report from the Center for American Progress, this “antiquated and inefficient system” means that “a firearms trace can take days, or even weeks, thereby frustrating criminal investigations.”5

 

Related to this.

Gun Sale Record Keeping

Right now, Gun retailers just have to maintain a bound' record Who they sold the gun to, and it's supposed to match their Inventory. 

They never have to send these in routinely to the Attorney General, or any law enforcement agency.
 

There is no over-sight in this record keeping.

 

There's literally nothing preventing (until an ATF investigation notices the discrepancy) them from selling guns privately, out of their gun shops inventory. Fudging the books, is part of the game, and it undermines the efficacy of the current laws on the books. It unnecessarily hampers Law Enforcement. (I thought we were all Blue Lives Matter?)

Quote

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL LAW

Licensed firearms dealers are required to maintain records of the acquisition and sale of firearms indefinitely.11 The dealer must record, “in bound form,” the purchase or other acquisition of a firearm no later than the close of the next business day following the purchase or acquisition.12 The dealer must similarly record the sale or other disposition of a firearm not later than seven days following the date of such transaction and retain Form 4473, the Firearms Transaction Record.13 When a firearms business is discontinued, these records are delivered to the successor or, if none exists, to the Attorney General.14

 

A federally licensed firearms dealer must provide information from its records no later than 24 hours after receipt of a request by ATF for use in a criminal investigation.15However, federal law explicitly prohibits federal law enforcement agencies from: (1) using dealers’ records of sales to establish a centralized system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions; or (2) requiring dealers’ records of sales to be recorded in, or transferred to a centralized facility.16 As a result, with very limited exceptions, records of firearm sales are not maintained at the federal level.17

 

But, To the Gun Lovin' NRA Conservative Right, tracking gun sales & any kind of database = Slippery Slope, dirty liberal scum are after your guns, and want to make a list to come take them away and murder you.

 

Quote

I think we've been proven right over time.

Not really.

Under Obama, gun ownership laws didn't really change. And believe it or not, he actually gave more rights to gun owners than took away.

https://www.businessinsider.com/gun-laws-obama-has-signed-2012-12

Quote

One of those pro-gun laws took effect in February 2010 and allows people to carry loaded firearms into the Grand Canyon and other national parks, according to the AP.

Quote

The other major pro-gun law Obama signed allows Amtrak passengers to carry guns in checked baggage, reversing a ban that was put in place after 9/11, according to USA Today.

And then there was the Executive Action whereby he told law Enforcement to enforce the law.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/01/16/here-are-the-23-executive-orders-on-gun-safety-signed-today-by-the-president/

 

Quote

It does not appear that any of the executive orders would have any impact on the guns people currently own-or would like to purchase- and that all proposals regarding limiting the availability of assault weapons or large ammunition magazines will be proposed for Congressional action. As such, any potential effort to create a constitutional crisis—or the leveling of charges that the White House has overstepped its executive authority—would hold no validity.

Re Bold: All of those got voted down in Congress.

Also

Law Enforcement often supports reducing the availability of large magazines, simply because reloading a gun takes time, enough time for someone to tackle a guy with a gun.

 

Quote

Like I said the Left works incrementally. No concessions because they never appease the Left anyway.

Think the Right is any better? Just look to Texas and their new Anti-abortion bill that would allow them to Execute anyone having or giving an Abortion.

 

Quote

Yeah Boomercons are retarded. You're not Nazis you're commies. If you're getting most of this from Facebook it makes a lot of sense. Young people are abandoning that site and leaving grandma to argue with Uncle Jim about taxes and retirement funds while they find sites away from the geriatric. 

Since you've not had to deal with family & friends via Facebook, here's the quick run down of boomercons.

 

Nazi = Socialist. Commies = Socialist. Liberals = Socialist, thus Liberals = Nazis. Abortion = Nazi genocide against black Babies.

Combine that with the above image, whereby they create this fear based ideology that all liberals are trying to turn america into Communist Nazi Russia, round up all cis gendered white people, black babies, and abort them all.

 

I really wish Facebook would go belly up and go dark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

The term Useful Idiot.

Oh, yeah I'm aware useful idiot predates rules for radicals.

 

Quote

 

We both know how that conversation will go.

"Slippery slope!"
"You're being dishonest and just want all guns banned!"

"That's too much government control!"

"What about ____".

Yeah probably. But that's almost every conversation on this forum.

An exercise in futility.

 

Quote

But anyways, I must be a glutton for punishment, so here's one.
 

That's the spirit.

 

Quote

Simply remove the restrictions that prevents a Searchable/Centralized database of weapon sales.

As of right now when the FBI and local Law enforcement have the gun that committed the crime, they are arbitrarily slowed down when it comes to figuring out past and present ownership of said gun, and it's ultimate fate. (Stolen?) They literally have to go through crates of outdated paper files & computer images (in states that allow it) that aren't in anyway searchable. (no date/times/names/etc) So something as simple as looking up a serial number can take months.

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-sales/maintaining-records-of-gun-sales/

 

Related to this.

Gun Sale Record Keeping

Right now, Gun retailers just have to maintain a bound' record Who they sold the gun to, and it's supposed to match their Inventory. 

They never have to send these in routinely to the Attorney General, or any law enforcement agency.
 

There is no over-sight in this record keeping.

 

There's literally nothing preventing (until an ATF investigation notices the discrepancy) them from selling guns privately, out of their gun shops inventory. Fudging the books, is part of the game, and it undermines the efficacy of the current laws on the books. It unnecessarily hampers Law Enforcement. (I thought we were all Blue Lives Matter?)

Extremely small potatoes. I see the potential for abuse but in all honesty I don't care much.

I would oppose it on principal because, yes, slippery slope and I don't trust the government.

The fact is the government just doesn't have a right to this information.

With that said if I could somehow know it would never go further I could sign off on this.

 

Quote

But, To the Gun Lovin' NRA Conservative Right, tracking gun sales & any kind of database = Slippery Slope, dirty liberal scum are after your guns, and want to make a list to come take them away and murder you.

Yeah eventually.

 

Quote

 

Not really.

I'm not talking about just guns.

 

Quote

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Nolder said:

Extremely small potatoes. I see the potential for abuse but in all honesty I don't care much.

I would oppose it on principal because, yes, slippery slope and I don't trust the government.

The fact is the government just doesn't have a right to this information.

With that said if I could somehow know it would never go further I could sign off on this.

And that's pretty much the standard Republican answer to anything gun control.

Many liberals, are also notoriously bad at using the correct terminology and definitions when it comes to guns, or being able to even tell the difference between certain guns... Much like many Republicans are just bad at anything related to women's health and abortion.

 

I'm of the mind that we make these small tweaks as they are needed. (You'd call them incremental changes)

We talk about them, and do the sensible ones that both sides agree with spirit of the bill, and not for any kind of slippery slope. When confronted with the slippery slope, we all vote no.

 

Example of this is Gay Marriage.

Many on the right said "Well this'll lead to sex with animals!".

So the single small change is just allowing men to marry men, and women to marry women.

When a bill proposes "sex with animals", everyone immediately votes no.

 

Todays politics is all "whataboutisms", and "Slippery slope!".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

And that's pretty much the standard Republican answer to anything gun control.

I mean, yeah. Shall not be infringed is pretty clear. Our right to own guns trumps any and all concerns you may have about guns.

 

19 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

Many liberals, are also notoriously bad at using the correct terminology and definitions when it comes to guns, or being able to even tell the difference between certain guns... Much like many Republicans are just bad at anything related to women's health and abortion.

 

I'm of the mind that we make these small tweaks as they are needed. (You'd call them incremental changes)

We talk about them, and do the sensible ones that both sides agree with spirit of the bill, and not for any kind of slippery slope. When confronted with the slippery slope, we all vote no.

I'm not sure what you mean exactly.

 

19 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

Example of this is Gay Marriage.

Many on the right said "Well this'll lead to sex with animals!".

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bestiality-legal-canada-supreme-court-a7073196.html

 

 

19 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

So the single small change is just allowing men to marry men, and women to marry women.

Which really doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

 

19 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

When a bill proposes "sex with animals", everyone immediately votes no.

As you can see from the Canadian example that's not quite how it works. The supreme court also plays a role. In fact, thinking about it, almost every major victory for the Left and defeat for the Right for a good 60-70 years if not more have come from the courts not congress.

 

 

19 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

Todays politics is all "whataboutisms", and "Slippery slope!".

Because generally speaking it's true. Both sides are guilty of selling out the American people in a variety of ways and almost all changes are sliding us towards tyranny and war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nolder said:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/canada-legalizes-beastiality/
 

Quote

What's True

Canada's Supreme Court ruled that the current definition of bestiality technically only included penetrative acts between humans and non-human animals.

What's False

Canada did not pass a new law legalizing oral sex with non-human animals.

https://torontosun.com/news/national/tougher-laws-introduced-against-bestiality-animal-fighting/wcm/c124681f-6cff-4dc8-9e0c-17d2b0687a3e
 

Quote

Legislation tabled today would add a definition to existing bestiality provisions to make it clear the offence prohibits any contact for a sexual purpose between a person and an animal.

Two years ago the Supreme Court of Canada ruled existing bestiality offences only prohibit sex acts with animals in cases where there is penetration — a loophole the new bill would address.

The bill also would ban a broader range of activities associated with animal fighting, such as promoting, arranging, and profiting off fights, as well as breeding, training or transporting an animal to fight.

In addition, the bill would forbid the keeping of an arena for the purpose of animal fighting, not just cockfighting as the law now stands.

The government says animal fighting has often been linked to organized crime, including illegal gambling and the illicit trafficking of drugs and weapons.


The example you presented is precisely why things have to be worded correctly when they are made law, and legislation is seeking to address those loopholes... Liberals at that.

 

Quote

I mean, yeah. Shall not be infringed is pretty clear. Our right to own guns trumps any and all concerns you may have about guns.

By interpreting it strictly that way, any laws pertaining to felons and gun ownership is illegal.
Any law that restricts any guns, meaning fully automatic and military grade armory is illegal.
Basically prior Law & Supreme Court Rulings (smarter people then any of us), generally agree that some control is needed.

 

Quote

I'm not sure what you mean exactly.

Many liberals don't know shit about guns.

They can't tell the difference between a Fully automatic military grade M4 & a Semi-Auto AR15.

Many associate the Assault Weapon Ban & the Machine Gun Ban as the same law, when they are two very different laws. (Assault Weapon = Liberal definition of a scary looking gun)

Inversely, many conservatives, don't know shit about reproductive health. They don't know the terminology, and routinely try to create laws about things they really don't know anything about.
http://time.com/3001785/todd-akin-legitimate-rape-msnbc-child-of-rape/

Quote

 much-maligned comments from 2012 in which he said abortions wouldn’t be necessary for rape victims. “If it’s legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down,” he told a St. Louis TV station in 2012.

That's just a memorable one, but there are a ton of examples out there if you look... Just like their are a ton of Liberals out there mistaking Semi-Automatic guns with Machine guns... Or that an AR-15 is really less dangerous than a Springfield M1A Scout Squad 308. (If only going by caliber/stopping power, Relatively same fire rate)

 

Quote

Which really doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Elaborate? What part doesn't make any sense?

 

Quote

As you can see from the Canadian example that's not quite how it works. The supreme court also plays a role. In fact, thinking about it, almost every major victory for the Left and defeat for the Right for a good 60-70 years if not more have come from the courts not congress.

Canadian example is what we call sensationalist news articles.

 

The supreme court gets called in, because bills are worded poorly. Loop holes are found. And a horrible guy unfortunately found a loophole, and they are working on rectifying that loophole.

 

The answer here, is to not write poorly written bills. The left couldn't defeat the right in the Supreme court, if they didn't write them so poorly. :wink:


Which is why it's doubly important to write any gun control legislature very, very well to leave no room for interpretation or loopholes.

 

Part of the problem with the 2nd amendment, is it is vague and ill worded.

The 1st Amendment is imo, far less vaguely written.


Yet no one cares (specially the Conservative Right) when the 1st is restricted, but even talking about the 2nd is a step to far.

Quote

Because generally speaking it's true. Both sides are guilty of selling out the American people in a variety of ways and almost all changes are sliding us towards tyranny and war.

I wouldn't say the slippery slopes are real. They are fear tactics, to bend people to their power tactics.

 

 

As an aside, I fully support a law like this coming to my state.

https://gearjunkie.com/minnesota-phys-ed-gun-safety-hunting?fbclid=IwAR3ePttgwAJBTT8QM5X_a70YjAQkVwhCEKHbyQQ2jfJqsXcKO_VYMjDKhrY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/canada-legalizes-beastiality/
 

https://torontosun.com/news/national/tougher-laws-introduced-against-bestiality-animal-fighting/wcm/c124681f-6cff-4dc8-9e0c-17d2b0687a3e
 


The example you presented is precisely why things have to be worded correctly when they are made law, and legislation is seeking to address those loopholes... Liberals at that.

I understand the context of the Canadian situation. 

 

10 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

By interpreting it strictly that way,

Why would you read it any other way? This is a law not poetry.

 

10 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

 

any laws pertaining to felons and gun ownership is illegal.

Yes.

 

10 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:


Any law that restricts any guns, meaning fully automatic and military grade armory is illegal.

Yes.

 

10 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:


Basically prior Law & Supreme Court Rulings (smarter people then any of us), generally agree that some control is needed.

Which is what most people are willing to concede. The left just keeps pushing further.

 

 

10 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:


 

Many liberals don't know shit about guns.

They can't tell the difference between a Fully automatic military grade M4 & a Semi-Auto AR15.

Many associate the Assault Weapon Ban & the Machine Gun Ban as the same law, when they are two very different laws. (Assault Weapon = Liberal definition of a scary looking gun)

Inversely, many conservatives, don't know shit about reproductive health. They don't know the terminology, and routinely try to create laws about things they really don't know anything about.
http://time.com/3001785/todd-akin-legitimate-rape-msnbc-child-of-rape/

That's just a memorable one, but there are a ton of examples out there if you look... Just like their are a ton of Liberals out there mistaking Semi-Automatic guns with Machine guns... Or that an AR-15 is really less dangerous than a Springfield M1A Scout Squad 308. (If only going by caliber/stopping power, Relatively same fire rate)

I remember that. To this day I still don't understand what he was trying to say.

 

10 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

Elaborate? What part doesn't make any sense?

All of it? Why would gays be allowed to get married?

 

10 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

Canadian example is what we call sensationalist news articles.

Didn't seem sensationalist to me. It was factually correct.

 

 

10 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

The supreme court gets called in, because bills are worded poorly. Loop holes are found. And a horrible guy unfortunately found a loophole, and they are working on rectifying that loophole.

 

The answer here, is to not write poorly written bills. The left couldn't defeat the right in the Supreme court, if they didn't write them so poorly. :wink:

I think there's more to it than that. Let's not kid ourselves the supreme court justices are politically motivated. Just as much as any politician.

 

10 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

Which is why it's doubly important to write any gun control legislature very, very well to leave no room for interpretation or loopholes.

 

Part of the problem with the 2nd amendment, is it is vague and ill worded.

The 1st Amendment is imo, far less vaguely written.

Which part is unclear in your opinion?

 

10 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

 


Yet no one cares (specially the Conservative Right) when the 1st is restricted, but even talking about the 2nd is a step to far.

That's because conservatives are losers who conserve nothing.

 

10 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

I wouldn't say the slippery slopes are real. They are fear tactics, to bend people to their power tactics.

I would.

 

10 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

I'd rather get rid of the department of education first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Nolder said:

All of it? Why would gays be allowed to get married?

Sure. Wasn't sure which way to take what you had typed.


1) Why not? Who does it hurt?

2) Why should anyone to get married? Why do we have state-recognition and benefits associated to marriage?

 

Quote

I would.

Of course you do.
I don't. I view them as emotional fear based tactics, that don't do anything to progress discussion. The only value a slippery slope has, is addressing potential loop holes. 
 

Quote

Which part is unclear in your opinion?

The parts that many argue over.

Quote

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

To keep and Bear Arms.
Who defines what are Arms?
Technically, Swords & Blades are Arms.

They were still active used during the Revolutionary War, and the time period in which the Constitution was written.

We currently have many laws, restricting the carrying and concealment of Blades above and below certain lengths/types in public, or as in California outright banning certain types of blades... Which are technically covered by the 2nd amendment.

If we take your definition of any law restricting = infringement, then any laws pertaining to any kind of armament should be illegal.

 

What/which well regulated Militia? Does creating a militia grant you access to Military grade hardware?

1st Amendment

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Yet, everyone agrees shouting fire in a movie theater = illegal.

inciting violence = Illegal.
All of which infringe your freedom of speech.

 

Thereby, restrictions/limits on the above freedoms are not inherently infringe upon by being restricted or limited.

Once you go down the path of Anarchy that you are proposing, pretty much every law in the US becomes null and void.

Edited by SinisterDeath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nolder said:

I understand the context of the Canadian situation. 

Didn't seem sensationalist to me. It was factually correct.

It's a sensationalist headline, that makes it sound like the Canadian government made Oral Sex with animals Legal when the reality of it is, that via the letter of the law, it's been Legal for over a Hundred years.

 

Quote

Which is what most people are willing to concede. The left just keeps pushing further.

There's more,even among Conservatives that people are willing to concede. We haven't quite reached my limit for how far I'll concede. 

IE Common Sense Laws.

Which is the opposite of the NRA and their shills, which seek to repeal all gun laws.

 

Quote

I remember that. To this day I still don't understand what he was trying to say.

He was basically claiming that in the case of rape, a women's body will shut down her reproductive system, and it's impossible to become pregnant. Thus he believes that any pregnancy from rape = consensual and not legitimate rape.

Which is absolutely retarded. How he passed High School and not understand that, is beyond me.

Quote


All of it? Why would gays be allowed to get married?

 

I wasn't sure which way you were going with that statement.

1) Why shouldn't gays be allowed to get married? Who does it hurt if they do?

2) Why should anyone get married? Why should the government recognize any marriage?

 

Quote

I think there's more to it than that. Let's not kid ourselves the supreme court justices are politically motivated. Just as much as any politician.

Everyone's politically biased.

A supreme court justice is supposed to make a judgement based on the letter of the law, case precedent and how it conflicts with the constitution. Generally they do a good job of sticking to constitutional law.

My question is this. If you care so much about activist judges, are you also against them when they align with your beliefs?

 

Quote

I'd rather get rid of the department of education first.

Given that Betsy DeVos is leading it, the Democrats may only be able to get rid of her, by removing it.

Though I suspect you'd rather get rid of it, to ensure only some people get education.

 

Quote


Why would you read it any other way? This is a law not poetry.

 

Do you interpret everything within the constitution 100% Literally?

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

If you take it literally, then you must interpret it as the US government cannot recognize any religion. It can not establish or create any religious based laws. (Thus things like the 10 commandments on court houses = illegal)

I've seen people argue based upon their own interpretation, that the constitution absolutely establishes a religion. Christianity. And that the 'establishment' clause is only in regards to other christian religions. 
 

These are arguments from other conservatives.

 

The problem with the 2nd amendment, is in how it is worded leaves room for multiple literal interpretations. The first does so with less room for interpretations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

It's a sensationalist headline, that makes it sound like the Canadian government made Oral Sex with animals Legal when the reality of it is, that via the letter of the law, it's been Legal for over a Hundred years.

"Most bestiality is legal, declares Canada's Supreme Court"

 

Most beastiality is legal. That is factually correct.

 

Declares Canada's Supreme Court. Not their government, their court.

 

No sensation, no fake news.

If anyone draws conclusions other than what is presented in this case it really is their own fault.

 

3 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

There's more,even among Conservatives that people are willing to concede.

Maybe. But we've also hit the point where there is significant pushback.

Outside liberal bubbles any change will be hotly contested and resented by many if passed.

Also, again as I've pointed out, most changes liberals want to make will not address the issue they want addressed.

 

3 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

We haven't quite reached my limit for how far I'll concede. 

You aren't on the right so it hardly matters in the context of this discussion.

 

3 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

IE Common Sense Laws.

Which is the opposite of the NRA and their shills, which seek to repeal all gun laws.

I don't know why that upsets you and other liberals so much.

It is literally what they are paid to do lol.

 

It would be as if you got mad at DARE for opposing drugs or something.

 

3 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

He was basically claiming that in the case of rape, a women's body will shut down her reproductive system, and it's impossible to become pregnant. Thus he believes that any pregnancy from rape = consensual and not legitimate rape.

Which is absolutely retarded. How he passed High School and not understand that, is beyond me.

Yeah again idk. Maybe he never paid attention in school.

 

 

3 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

I wasn't sure which way you were going with that statement.

1) Why shouldn't gays be allowed to get married? Who does it hurt if they do?

There are a myriad of reasons but let's start with the most obvious first just to get it out of the way.

There are two facets of marriage, one being religious. Basically all major religions in the United States say homosexuality is wrong (in essence). So churches don't want to host gay weddings, priests don't really want to preside over them (even though they're touching all the little boys while no ones looking apparently), and as we know at least some bakers don't want to bake the cakes. All on religious grounds. 

 

Civil Unions were a thing for awhile and while that still makes no sense either it was at least a compromise to appease all the Christians, Muslims, and Jews. 

 

3 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

2) Why should anyone get married?

It's the best way to raise kids.

 

3 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

Why should the government recognize any marriage?

Governments give incentive for people to get married so they'll have kids in stable homes which usually produce normal, happy, healthy kids which grow up to be productive members of society.

 

Homosexuals can't do that.

 

3 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

Everyone's politically biased.

A supreme court justice is supposed to make a judgement based on the letter of the law, case precedent and how it conflicts with the constitution. Generally they do a good job of sticking to constitutional law.

Yeah most of the time. With high profile cases though which fundamentally change our country they've been wildly unpopular decisions for almost the last century (maybe longer idk).

 

3 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

My question is this. If you care so much about activist judges, are you also against them when they align with your beliefs?

Let me put it this way.

Supreme court should have term limits.

 

3 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

Given that Betsy DeVos is leading it, the Democrats may only be able to get rid of her, by removing it.

I don't get why lefties hate her so much lol.

 

3 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

Though I suspect you'd rather get rid of it, to ensure only some people get education.

I don't really care who gets an education or doesn't. That's a weird thing to think. I just don't want the federal government to control education and generally speaking I think it's kind of a waste past 6th or 7th grade for the vast majority of people. Let them go to work earlier and get skills they'll actually need.

 

3 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

Do you interpret everything within the constitution 100% Literally?

I don't know offhand. Probably.

 

3 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

If you take it literally, then you must interpret it as the US government cannot recognize any religion. It can not establish or create any religious based laws. (Thus things like the 10 commandments on court houses = illegal)

I've seen people argue based upon their own interpretation, that the constitution absolutely establishes a religion. Christianity. And that the 'establishment' clause is only in regards to other christian religions. 
 

These are arguments from other conservatives.

Again, offhand, I'd say they're probably wrong.

I also think that doesn't mean what you think it means though.

While our government was not supposed to be adorned in religion that doesn't mean it is devoid of it either.

In god we trust, right?

 

3 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

The problem with the 2nd amendment, is in how it is worded leaves room for multiple literal interpretations. The first does so with less room for interpretations.

I still think the 2nd is pretty clear tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

Sure. Wasn't sure which way to take what you had typed.


1) Why not? Who does it hurt?

2) Why should anyone to get married? Why do we have state-recognition and benefits associated to marriage?

Oh, I didn't realize you posted twice.

Ummm I answered this one already.

 

5 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

Of course you do.
I don't. I view them as emotional fear based tactics, that don't do anything to progress discussion. The only value a slippery slope has, is addressing potential loop holes. 

Mmm.

 

5 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

The parts that many argue over.

????

 

5 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

To keep and Bear Arms.

Who defines what are Arms?

No one. Arms are weapons. It can mean daggers, swords, guns, cannons, grenades, yes we could even go as far as nuclear warheads. Do you have billions of dollars and access to missile technology as well as weapons grade nuclear material? Then, sure, you can have your own nuke as far as the constitution is concerned.

 

Again, even though the constitution pretty clearly allows for it, most people are willing to just shrug and concede it because we all realize that generally speaking that's kind of silly.

 

5 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:


Technically, Swords & Blades are Arms.

They are.

 

5 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

They were still active used during the Revolutionary War, and the time period in which the Constitution was written.

Yes.

 

5 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

We currently have many laws, restricting the carrying and concealment of Blades above and below certain lengths/types in public, or as in California outright banning certain types of blades... Which are technically covered by the 2nd amendment.

Yes. Most of them are unconstitutional imo.

We could probably let most of them slide though.

As long as someone is allowed to carry a pocket knife we shouldn't have much of a problem.

Very few people want to walk around with swords.

 

5 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

If we take your definition of any law restricting = infringement, then any laws pertaining to any kind of armament should be illegal.

Yes.

 

5 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

What/which well regulated Militia?

Most liberals like to get hung up on the "well regulated" part of that.

I just say it doesn't matter whatsoever. The first part of the second amendment could be baby talk for all that it matters because the part that is your right is the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Everything before that is just like their opinion man. It might as well say googoogaga.

 

5 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

Does creating a militia grant you access to Military grade hardware?

I think just being a united states citizen gives you the right to own it.

I'm not saying the military has to sell or give you any but if you somehow get some, say idk, from a weapons dealer in Iran let's say. It's yours. Should be perfectly legal.

 

5 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

1st Amendment

Yet, everyone agrees shouting fire in a movie theater = illegal.

inciting violence = Illegal.
All of which infringe your freedom of speech.

 

Thereby, restrictions/limits on the above freedoms are not inherently infringe upon by being restricted or limited.

I'm not an enlightenment scholar so I'm not sure how to word this but it makes more sense than you think it does. For example we also have the right to pursue happiness. That is, if for whatever reason I find happiness in being a drunk that's ok. Or if I find happiness in little wooden statues of corgis that's weird but fine. If I find happiness in murdering and eating people...that's not ok because I'm now infringing on their rights. Likewise inciting violence infringes on others rights, starting riots or panics infringes on others rights. You do not have unlimited free speech you have free speech to the point where it will start infringing on someone else's rights. That said, it is very nearly unlimited. There are a few very specific exceptions.

 

5 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

Once you go down the path of Anarchy that you are proposing, pretty much every law in the US becomes null and void.

I have no idea what you mean. I'm no anarchist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nolder said:

Maybe. But we've also hit the point where there is significant pushback.

Outside liberal bubbles any change will be hotly contested and resented by many if passed.

Also, again as I've pointed out, most changes liberals want to make will not address the issue they want addressed.

Sure it will/can. But conservatives are unwilling to even hear scientific evidence that shows it can/will/might.

 

2 hours ago, Nolder said:

I don't know why that upsets you and other liberals so much.

It is literally what they are paid to do lol.

 

It would be as if you got mad at DARE for opposing drugs or something.

DARE isn't run by pro-pharma and pharma industry owners. NRA is. The majority of their leadership is basically corporate sponsorship. 

To put it simply, follow the money. The NRA loves to stir the base with baseless fear. When liberals aren't stirring the pot about gun control, the NRA stirs it themselves by saying "liberals want to take your guns!". It's all about them gun sales.

 

2 hours ago, Nolder said:

Yeah again idk. Maybe he never paid attention in school.

 

Doesn't matter. The fact that someone got something so basic wrong, and was a member of Congress... an Elected official, making laws on subjects they know nothing about is a very real problem.

 

Quote

There are a myriad of reasons but let's start with the most obvious first just to get it out of the way.

There are two facets of marriage, one being religious. Basically all major religions in the United States say homosexuality is wrong (in essence). So churches don't want to host gay weddings, priests don't really want to preside over them (even though they're touching all the little boys while no ones looking apparently), and as we know at least some bakers don't want to bake the cakes. All on religious grounds. 

 

Civil Unions were a thing for awhile and while that still makes no sense either it was at least a compromise to appease all the Christians, Muslims, and Jews

Who said anything about ever forcing churches to perform marriages?

You can get married in a court of law, without all the religious bullshit.

Thus the argument of religion goes out the window.

You can have a religious marriage ceremony that isn't legally binding, and not be legally married.

 

Quote

It's the best way to raise kids.

How is being a legally married straight couple raising kids, any different than a straight couple raising kids? Is there some magic power granted via marriage that automatically make raising kids better? Are poverty level married couple better at raising kids, than a cohabitating straight couple raising their kid? What is this magic power your speak of?

 

Quote

Governments give incentive for people to get married so they'll have kids in stable homes which usually produce normal, happy, healthy kids which grow up to be productive members of society.

 

Homosexuals can't do that.

So, by that logic, sterile couples shouldn't be legally able to get married.

Men who have had their genitals removed through a variety of reasons (not excluding accidental) shouldn't be able to get married. That makes absolutely zero sense.

 

Infact, if you were really about freedom, and small government, perhaps the government should GTFO of our personal lives and let us marry/live with/screw whoever/however the hell we want? 

This talk of controlling our lives, is such a Communist idea! The government telling you who you can marry, who you can have kids with. I thought you were all about that Anarchism?

 

Quote

Yeah most of the time. With high profile cases though which fundamentally change our country they've been wildly unpopular decisions for almost the last century (maybe longer idk).

Wildly unpopular because people disagreed with them politically. But were those decisions legally sound?

This would be a question for @CUBAREY... who probably knows a little bit more about the LAW angle then either of us combined..

 

Quote

Let me put it this way.

Supreme court should have term limits.

Not saying I don't disagree. 

But if the founding father's original documents were so infallible, and should never be subject to any kind of change, and everything they wrote is to be taken literal. Then you can't want to impose a term limit. 

 

Quote

I don't get why lefties hate her so much lol.

It be the same reason you righties would hate it if they put David Hogg/Emma González as the leadership of the ATF.

Doesn't know shit about actual guns, and has a clear bias/misunderstanding of what needs to be done.

DeVos has clear corporate interests in private schools, and aims to take away/dismantle the Department of Education from the inside.

Most people appointed to a position something, aim to make it better, not destroy it..

 

Quote

I don't really care who gets an education or doesn't. That's a weird thing to think. I just don't want the federal government to control education and generally speaking I think it's kind of a waste past 6th or 7th grade for the vast majority of people. Let them go to work earlier and get skills they'll actually need.

Think of it this way.

The Federal Government sets a standard.

They want the states to Meet or Exceed that standard.

 

That way, when an American goes overseas, and find jobs, or attend foreign colleges, and they have a Diploma, it says "You are qualified in this level of knowledge, that exceeds 90% of the rest of the worlds education".

 

Btw, you can thank Dubba Bush for certain education acts that many on the Left hate, that has probably personally affected you, and the schools you attended toward the negative.. But ya know, It's all them damn liberals faults for the state of education.

 

Quote

Again, offhand, I'd say they're probably wrong.

I also think that doesn't mean what you think it means though.

While our government was not supposed to be adorned in religion that doesn't mean it is devoid of it either.

In god we trust, right?

Nope, because a lot of the in God we Trust was added during prohibition, WW2, and during the Cold War.

Here's the thing, if you allow any government institution to have religious shit, you have to allow all religious shit in.
I've said this a thousand times, but if you're afraid of Sharia Law, stop making Christian Laws. Because' that's how you set the precedent for Sharia Law.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/04/12/523603112/alabama-senate-says-church-can-start-its-own-police-force

 

Quote

I still think the 2nd is pretty clear tbh.

I know, but other's don't. And that's why it'll always be a vague wording, open to multiple interpretations.

 

Quote

Oh, I didn't realize you posted twice.

Ummm I answered this one already.

 

Sorry about that, my browser decided to post the first one early. Then half-way through the second set, it decided to refresh and LOSE the entire post. I was trying to avoid doubling up. Clearly I missed one.

 

Quote

No one. Arms are weapons. It can mean daggers, swords, guns, cannons, grenades, yes we could even go as far as nuclear warheads. Do you have billions of dollars and access to missile technology as well as weapons grade nuclear material? Then, sure, you can have your own nuke as far as the constitution is concerned.

 

Again, even though the constitution pretty clearly allows for it, most people are willing to just shrug and concede it because we all realize that generally speaking that's kind of silly.

We have tons of law precedence that says you are not allowed access to many of those types of weapons, including swords (in public).
You say we generally say it's kind of silly. But we need to take the 2nd amendment 100% literally. It's black and white, right? We can't infringe upon it for ANY reason.

 

Quote

Yes. Most of them are unconstitutional imo.

We could probably let most of them slide though.

If they are unconstitutional, then they all must go. Yet, why doesn't the Conservative Right, fight for those ARMS as well? Why just guns?
 

Quote

As long as someone is allowed to carry a pocket knife we shouldn't have much of a problem.

Very few people want to walk around with swords.

Any barrier or restriction is an infringement right? 
Guns are the alpha-weapon, so who cares about people carrying big knives?

Here's the reality.
You, and conservatives don't give two shits about the 2nd amendment and how literal it is.
Ya'll just have a gun fetish, and I don't mean that entirely in a sexual way. 

It's like Horse people. Some people really love the mystic and american culture of the horse.

I don't give two shits if people eat a horse. It's an animal. But to some, it's a sacred animal, that must never be eaten.

 

Quote

Most liberals like to get hung up on the "well regulated" part of that.

I just say it doesn't matter whatsoever. The first part of the second amendment could be baby talk for all that it matters because the part that is your right is the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Everything before that is just like their opinion man. It might as well say googoogaga.

But it all needs to be taken literally, within context, and interlinking.

Now you're just cherry picking which parts of it you agree with, and dismissing the rest as jibberish.

 

Quote

I think just being a united states citizen gives you the right to own it.

I'm not saying the military has to sell or give you any but if you somehow get some, say idk, from a weapons dealer in Iran let's say. It's yours. Should be perfectly legal.

Even your political allies would call that absolutely insane.

 

Quote

I'm not an enlightenment scholar so I'm not sure how to word this but it makes more sense than you think it does. For example we also have the right to pursue happiness. That is, if for whatever reason I find happiness in being a drunk that's ok. Or if I find happiness in little wooden statues of corgis that's weird but fine. If I find happiness in murdering and eating people...that's not ok because I'm now infringing on their rights. Likewise inciting violence infringes on others rights, starting riots or panics infringes on others rights. You do not have unlimited free speech you have free speech to the point where it will start infringing on someone else's rights. That said, it is very nearly unlimited. There are a few very specific exceptions.

That's exactly what that amendment and the other corresponding laws are generally getting at.
How does two gay guys having sex, infringe upon your rights?
How do two lesbians getting married, infringe upon your rights?
How is a homosexual couple raising a kid, infringe upon your rights?

How is a Trans person existence, infringe upon your rights?
How does someone saying "call me by female pronouns" infringe upon your rights?

(Answer to all of these. It doesn't. Being offended is the price of the first amendment.)

Inversely, how does someone buying military grade hardware with the intent to use it on you, infringe upon your rights?

 

Quote

I have no idea what you mean. I'm no anarchist.

I thought you were all for total Anarchy in the US?
Either way, the way you interpret what should and shouldn't be legal, leads to full on anarchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

Sure it will/can.

Not usually no.

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

But conservatives are unwilling to even hear scientific evidence that shows it can/will/might.

It's usually the other way around in my experience.

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

DARE isn't run by pro-pharma and pharma industry owners. NRA is. The majority of their leadership is basically corporate sponsorship. 

Yeah and?

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

To put it simply, follow the money. The NRA loves to stir the base with baseless fear. When liberals aren't stirring the pot about gun control, the NRA stirs it themselves by saying "liberals want to take your guns!". It's all about them gun sales.

They do though, the NRA isn't lying.

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

You can get married in a court of law, without all the religious bullshit.

Why even call it marriage then?

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

Thus the argument of religion goes out the window.

And yet they insist on calling it marriage.

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

You can have a religious marriage ceremony that isn't legally binding, and not be legally married.

Which is all the more evidence that marriage is a religious thing that the state tacked incentives onto and not something that the state is in charge of.

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

How is being a legally married straight couple raising kids, any different than a straight couple raising kids?

Couples break up. Marriage is for life.

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

Is there some magic power granted via marriage that automatically make raising kids better?

A lot of things yes. Monogamy for one. It builds trust and love with your partner which is then extended to the children.

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

Are poverty level married couple better at raising kids, than a cohabitating straight couple raising their kid?

I don't know, it becomes hard to quantify when you start inserting so many variables.

I would almost always bet on the married couple having better kids than the non married couple though.

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

What is this magic power your speak of?

Marriage.

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

So, by that logic, sterile couples shouldn't be legally able to get married.

Men who have had their genitals removed through a variety of reasons (not excluding accidental) shouldn't be able to get married. That makes absolutely zero sense.

I invite you to watch the entire clip (or even the entire debate really) as it's very interesting but please pay attention to 3:08 to 5:10. This man has a more factual and eloquent answer than I could ever dream of on my own.

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

Infact, if you were really about freedom, and small government, perhaps the government should GTFO of our personal lives and let us marry/live with/screw whoever/however the hell we want? 

This talk of controlling our lives, is such a Communist idea! The government telling you who you can marry, who you can have kids with. I thought you were all about that Anarchism?

This is gibberish. It's not an argument and I don't find it amusing.

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

Wildly unpopular because people disagreed with them politically. But were those decisions legally sound?

This would be a question for @CUBAREY... who probably knows a little bit more about the LAW angle then either of us combined..

I would guess not. The one I'm most familiar with is Obamacare. It would be (and is) unconstitutional...unless you consider it a tax which is what Roberts did.

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

Not saying I don't disagree. 

But if the founding father's original documents were so infallible, and should never be subject to any kind of change, and everything they wrote is to be taken literal. Then you can't want to impose a term limit. 

If we had adhered to them unwaveringly for 200 years then that might make sense but because so many things have changed you have to take that into account.

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

It be the same reason you righties would hate it if they put David Hogg/Emma González as the leadership of the ATF.

Doesn't know shit about actual guns, and has a clear bias/misunderstanding of what needs to be done.

 

We can get rid of the ATF too while we're on the subject.

Anyhow, that hasn't been my experience with the little I've seen from Devos.

Looks like fear mongering primarily.

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

DeVos has clear corporate interests in private schools,

Granted.

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

and aims to take away/dismantle the Department of Education from the inside.

And I support that. Just because she has an interest in doing it doesn't make a lick of difference to me.

Would you rather get someone without an incentive to dismantle the DOE? would that make it better for you?

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

Most people appointed to a position something, aim to make it better, not destroy it..

Depends what your goals are I suppose. IIRC Rick Perry and Rex Tillerson were both supposed to gut their respective departments as much as they could when they were appointed.

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

Think of it this way.

The Federal Government sets a standard.

They want the states to Meet or Exceed that standard.

 

That way, when an American goes overseas, and find jobs, or attend foreign colleges, and they have a Diploma, it says "You are qualified in this level of knowledge, that exceeds 90% of the rest of the worlds education".

I don't want their standards. I don't care about Americans going overseas.

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

Btw, you can thank Dubba Bush for certain education acts that many on the Left hate, that has probably personally affected you, and the schools you attended toward the negative.. But ya know, It's all them damn liberals faults for the state of education.

You really have a chip on your shoulder. Bush was shit, you think I don't know that or something?

Does it make you feel better that I said that? The state of education is by a large margin a problem created by liberals.

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

Nope, because a lot of the in God we Trust was added during prohibition, WW2, and during the Cold War.

Regardless I think you missed my point.

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

Here's the thing, if you allow any government institution to have religious shit, you have to allow all religious shit in.

That's not true at all.

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

I've said this a thousand times, but if you're afraid of Sharia Law, stop making Christian Laws. Because' that's how you set the precedent for Sharia Law.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/04/12/523603112/alabama-senate-says-church-can-start-its-own-police-force

 

How about we just declare Sharia Law illegal (which it would be anyway but reaffirmation is always nice) and stop Muslim immigration?

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

I know, but other's don't. And that's why it'll always be a vague wording, open to multiple interpretations.

I guess this is where we go back to whether they're being honest or not.

I don't think that most of them are.

I think they understand they just don't care.

 

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

Sorry about that, my browser decided to post the first one early. Then half-way through the second set, it decided to refresh and LOSE the entire post. I was trying to avoid doubling up. Clearly I missed one.

 

No prob.

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

We have tons of law precedence that says you are not allowed access to many of those types of weapons, including swords (in public).

We also have civilians who owned warships either during or immediately following the revolution so I think precedent is stronger on the side of gun ownership.

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

You say we generally say it's kind of silly. But we need to take the 2nd amendment 100% literally. It's black and white, right? We can't infringe upon it for ANY reason.

 

Fine by me.

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

If they are unconstitutional, then they all must go. Yet, why doesn't the Conservative Right, fight for those ARMS as well? Why just guns?
 

Don't tempt them lol.

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

Any barrier or restriction is an infringement right? 
Guns are the alpha-weapon, so who cares about people carrying big knives?

I don't see any point in making a distinction between weapons. Arms are arms. Let them all be legal.

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

Here's the reality.
You, and conservatives don't give two shits about the 2nd amendment and how literal it is.
Ya'll just have a gun fetish, and I don't mean that entirely in a sexual way. 

It's like Horse people. Some people really love the mystic and american culture of the horse.

I don't give two shits if people eat a horse. It's an animal. But to some, it's a sacred animal, that must never be eaten.

Do you think I have a gun fetish or that I'm a "gun nut"?

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

But it all needs to be taken literally, within context, and interlinking.

Now you're just cherry picking which parts of it you agree with, and dismissing the rest as jibberish.

 

It's not about context or cherry picking. It doesn't say anything about your rights. A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state (ok?) THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The first part is just like a statement. I understand why it's there, it's trying to explain the justification for the right within the right which was a bad decision but it's very obvious that's all it is. The right is as it says. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Why? Because regular people with guns (a "well regulated militia") is necessary for a free state.

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

Even your political allies would call that absolutely insane.

My allies would agree with me. I don't think you know who my allies are.

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

That's exactly what that amendment and the other corresponding laws are generally getting at.
How does two gay guys having sex, infringe upon your rights?

We're talking about marriage not sex.

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

How do two lesbians getting married, infringe upon your rights?

You're looking at it the wrong way. Why do homosexuals have the right to get married? They did not have this right at first, it's a new thing. So you need to justify it. 

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

How is a homosexual couple raising a kid, infringe upon your rights?

This is a separate issue.

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

How is a Trans person existence, infringe upon your rights?

This is why I don't like talking to you. You start going off on these rants and go so far off subject.

Stick to the subject. We can talk about trans later if you want.

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:


How does someone saying "call me by female pronouns" infringe upon your rights?

(Answer to all of these. It doesn't. Being offended is the price of the first amendment.)

Why do you ask me if you have your own answers?

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

Inversely, how does someone buying military grade hardware with the intent to use it on you, infringe upon your rights?

Hardware...you mean like weapons? I have a right to life.

 

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

I thought you were all for total Anarchy in the US?
Either way, the way you interpret what should and shouldn't be legal, leads to full on anarchy.

No and no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Nolder said:

Not usually no.

It can yes.

 

Quote

It's usually the other way around in my experience.

Conservatives are denying reproductive health (see the example above).

They ignore any thing climate based science. They are the party that routinely cuts funding towards scientific parties and research. 

So no, you are unequivocally wrong here.

 

Quote

Yeah and?

 

They do though, the NRA isn't lying.

Of course they are lying. They routinely stir the pot when the pot isn't being stirred... to generate sales.

 

Quote

Why even call it marriage then?

 

And yet they insist on calling it marriage.


Which is all the more evidence that marriage is a religious thing that the state tacked incentives onto and not something that the state is in charge of.

Okay, then why have any state incentives towards marriage if it's a religious institution only?

Remember that ol' separation of church and state?

 

Quote

 Couples break up. Marriage is for life.

And marriage doesn't? Really Nolder? 

 

Quote

A lot of things yes. Monogamy for one. It builds trust and love with your partner which is then extended to the children.

And when that couple should divorce cause they hate each other, but can't because their Catholic. That doesn't extend to the children?

Are you implying gay couples can't actually love or trust each other?

Are you even trying? Or just lazily arguing against it because as a conservative you need to be against it?

 

Quote

I don't know, it becomes hard to quantify when you start inserting so many variables.

I would almost always bet on the married couple having better kids than the non married couple though.

Remember this case?

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/12/12/the-affluenza-defense-judge-rules-rich-kids-rich-kid-ness-makes-him-not-liable-for-deadly-drunk-driving-accident/

That kid comes from a married family.

 

Kids, Nature/Nuture, relationships. there are a lot of variables that go beyond having the legal and religious status as married.

Quote

Marriage.

Yea, it's not a magic power. It doesn't automatically grant you +2 on all stats, and +5 to all skills.

 

Quote

I invite you to watch the entire clip (or even the entire debate really) as it's very interesting but please pay attention to 3:08 to 5:10. This man has a more factual and eloquent answer than I could ever dream of on my own.

What clip are you talking about?

 

Quote

This is gibberish. It's not an argument and I don't find it amusing.

Its not gibberish at all. 

You probably just don't find it amusing, because a libtard like me, is more about freedom and getting the government out of mine, and others' lives then a conservative like you. :wink:

 

Quote

I would guess not. The one I'm most familiar with is Obamacare. It would be (and is) unconstitutional...unless you consider it a tax which is what Roberts did.

How about the Patriot Act? Ya know the act Conservatives on your side have a boner for. 
But back to Obamacare. Is it really unconstitutional? Or is that Texas Judge just an activist republican? hmmm

 

Quote

If we had adhered to them unwaveringly for 200 years then that might make sense but because so many things have changed you have to take that into account.

But, we have to take everything they wrote as literal. We can't ever interpret them differently as things change! Specially #2. /s

 

Quote

We can get rid of the ATF too while we're on the subject.

Anyhow, that hasn't been my experience with the little I've seen from Devos.

Looks like fear mongering primarily.

Quote

Granted

 

That's because the things she's doing, are all things you agree with. If you don't agree with what she's doing, then it's dismantling a program in favor of private schools.

 

Did you miss that whole thing a week ago where she attempted to slash the Special Olympics budget?

 

 

Quote

And I support that. Just because she has an interest in doing it doesn't make a lick of difference to me.

Would you rather get someone without an incentive to dismantle the DOE? would that make it better for you?

I'd rather someone attempt to make the DOE better. I'd rather someone with a clear intent at making every school in the US, better than any school in the rest of the world.

 

Quote

Depends what your goals are I suppose. IIRC Rick Perry and Rex Tillerson were both supposed to gut their respective departments as much as they could when they were appointed.

And ya'll call Liberal Democrats obstructionists fighting Trump. 

 

Quote

I don't want their standards. I don't care about Americans going overseas.

I didn't say anything about international standards, I was talking about our standards being better then everyone elses.

And guess what. Many Americans want to go overseas, visit, vacation, do business, get educated, get high in Amsterdam, than there are 'you'. Ensuring that every American with a high quality basic education puts us above all the other nations. It means if we want to go overseas, we are almost guaranteed a job if we pursue one.

 

Quote

You really have a chip on your shoulder. Bush was shit, you think I don't know that or something?

Does it make you feel better that I said that? The state of education is by a large margin a problem created by liberals.

Have any proof to back that up?
From what I recall, the majority of the policies that have made you hate the DOE come from Bush Era policies.

 

Quote

Regardless I think you missed my point.

Nope. The in god we trust, and various other religious things were added to our coinage, our national anthem, to the boy scouts all between the 1920s and 1970s. There were a couple of earlier examples, and people blatantly ignoring it in the earliest years. But I'll just leave this here.

 

From 1797

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli#Article_11

Quote

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Quote

Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed, and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof.

 

 

Quote

That's not true at all.

It is actually.

Have you not heard about any of the Church of Satan Stunts with putting up statues of Satan on freedom of speech zones next to the 10 commandments? 

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/04/673422143/satanic-sculpture-installed-at-illinois-statehouse-just-in-time-for-the-holidays

 

Quote

How about we just declare Sharia Law illegal (which it would be anyway but reaffirmation is always nice) and stop Muslim immigration?

We wouldn't need to declare it, or christian law illegal... if you know, we followed the laws on the books and the constitution.

 

Quote

I guess this is where we go back to whether they're being honest or not.

I don't think that most of them are.

I think they understand they just don't care.

That's your opinion, and I disagree.

 

Quote

We also have civilians who owned warships either during or immediately following the revolution so I think precedent is stronger on the side of gun ownership.

I'm not familiar with the particular civilians/situation you're talking about.

 

My guess though, is that many ships in that time period had arms to thwart Pirates & Raiders. Many could have also have been Retrofitted to fight the British.

 

Quote

Don't tempt them lol.

I have. They don't care. They scoff at any arms that aren't guns.

 

Quote

I don't see any point in making a distinction between weapons. Arms are arms. Let them all be legal.

I make the distinction, because we already have more laws limiting other forms of arms far more than Firearms ever were/currently are. But those laws are fine with every conservative out there... Several were instituted by Conservatives!

 

I'm calling them hypocrites for calling the 2nd amendment sacred and cannot ever be touched, or changed, but they are actually failing to actually adhere to the literal interpretation. That they are picking and choosing what they want not out of love of the constitution, but love of guns.

 

Quote

Do you think I have a gun fetish or that I'm a "gun nut"?

I dunno, but many people who share your opinion I'd say are.

 

You don't have any pictures of yourself hugging or making out with guns on social media right?

 

Quote

It's not about context or cherry picking. It doesn't say anything about your rights. A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state (ok?) THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The first part is just like a statement. I understand why it's there, it's trying to explain the justification for the right within the right which was a bad decision but it's very obvious that's all it is. The right is as it says. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Why? Because regular people with guns (a "well regulated militia") is necessary for a free state.

 

My allies would agree with me. I don't think you know who my allies are.

Prior rulings/interpretations, interconnect the two. 

There are many that interpret it to say that they can limit arms to the general people, but they cannot limit arms to the people who are part of the Militia.

 

But what is the Militia? Which well regulated Militia are we talking about here?

 

 

Quote

We're talking about marriage not sex.

Marriage and sex are intertwined.

 

Quote

You're looking at it the wrong way. Why do homosexuals have the right to get married? They did not have this right at first, it's a new thing. So you need to justify it. 

I don't need to justify anything.

How does them getting married, impact you, or anyone else's right to get married? 

How does it impact your quality of life?
 

The point is, I'm not the one trying to limit peoples pursuit of happiness because the idea hurts my feelings. (Which it apparently hurts many conservatives feelings on the concept of marriage).

 

Quote

This is a separate issue.

We've gone down several tangents.. clearly. But that's why that whole marriage argument is just dumb. It's a bag of worms, and ultimately for me, we should either Allow it for everyone, or remove the government acknowledging it exists, and any rights extended through marriage.

 

Quote

This is why I don't like talking to you. You start going off on these rants and go so far off subject.

Stick to the subject. We can talk about trans later if you want.

I wasn't going to start arguing trans rights. 

 

My argument is, that if you are all about Freedom (of Speech) and getting the government out of our lives in every capacity, Why would you be against things like Gays getting Married? Or a number of other things?

 

Quote

Why do you ask me if you have your own answers?

My answer is it doesn't infringe upon your rights. Do you agree with that answer?

 

Quote

Hardware...you mean like weapons? I have a right to life.

Sure. But at what point does it just get stupid by allowing all that hardware out willy nilly? 
What if we just opened up a Military-Depot open to the public in LA, Chicago, and New York City?

 

Quote

No and no.

I apologize, I could have swore you said you were one at one point...

I dunno if I'm mistaking you with someone else on that, or if it's just equating some of the changes you want as anarchist.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey cut that sarcastic shit out.

I didn't call you a libtard so don't act like I did.

Keep it up and I'll just drop the conversation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2019 at 4:51 AM, SinisterDeath said:

It can yes.

Not usually. 

 

Quote

Conservatives are denying reproductive health (see the example above).

They ignore any thing climate based science. They are the party that routinely cuts funding towards scientific parties and research. 

So no, you are unequivocally wrong here.

Let's not turn this into the usual war of left vs right on every single issue ever, ok?

We're already talking guns and gay marriage can we please just stick to those two topics without running to something else?

 

Quote

Of course they are lying. They routinely stir the pot when the pot isn't being stirred... to generate sales.

Except that they aren't. I literally had some guy flip out on me a couple months ago and tell me he WAS going to take my guns and that he hates the NRA and blahblahblah. I'm not a member of the NRA nor do I own a gun (at the moment) so I thought it was pretty funny but that's besides the point. If you want to make the argument that he's in the minority and that is a one off thing fine, I don't believe it but that's fine, but you can't tell me there aren't people out there who want to ban all guns.

 

Quote

Okay, then why have any state incentives towards marriage if it's a religious institution only?

Because kids.

In case you haven't noticed we have had a massive drop in fertility rate in the United States.

You know how you get kids? Marriage.

 

Quote

Remember that ol' separation of church and state?

This is what I was trying to tell you earlier. Separation of church and state isn't really what you think it is. It is not the total absence or denial of religion it's more like the church isn't going to dictate what the government does more or less.

 

Quote

And marriage doesn't? Really Nolder? 

It's not supposed to. Prior to no fault divorce which is a very new construct and the so called "sexual revolution" most people didn't get divorced (look at the divorce rates).

 

Quote

And when that couple should divorce cause they hate each other, but can't because their Catholic. That doesn't extend to the children?

I have two answers to this, neither of which will likely satisfy you.

The first is that those two people chose their partners wrong.

Whatever is causing the hate is something that should have been apparent (hopefully) before marriage.

Sometimes you just can't anticipate though and in that case...you both need to suck it up for the sake of the children.

Hate each other in private or after the children are out of the house but while they are kids living under your roof you must be cordial at the very least.

Parents too often indulge in their feelings, whether they be love or hate, and forget about their childrens well being it's far past time that stopped.

 

Quote

Are you implying gay couples can't actually love or trust each other?

I am saying that the nature of homosexual relationships is intrinsically sexual and hedonistic.

Whatever else happens, that's the foundation it's built on.

 

Quote

So?

 

Quote

Kids, Nature/Nuture, relationships. there are a lot of variables that go beyond having the legal and religious status as married.

Yea, it's not a magic power. It doesn't automatically grant you +2 on all stats, and +5 to all skills.

It kind of does though. Look at the statistics.

 

Quote

What clip are you talking about?

LOL I forgot to post it. My bad. This clip.

 

 

Quote

 

Its not gibberish at all. 

You probably just don't find it amusing, because a libtard like me, is more about freedom and getting the government out of mine, and others' lives then a conservative like you. :wink:

I'm not a conservative anymore. 

 

Quote

How about the Patriot Act? Ya know the act Conservatives on your side have a boner for. 
But back to Obamacare. Is it really unconstitutional? Or is that Texas Judge just an activist republican? hmmm

They're both unconstitutional. 

 

Quote

But, we have to take everything they wrote as literal. We can't ever interpret them differently as things change! Specially #2. /s

It's not about interpreting what's already there differently it's addressing a change in the nature of the position.

 

Quote

That's because the things she's doing, are all things you agree with. If you don't agree with what she's doing, then it's dismantling a program in favor of private schools.

I don't know what she's doing like I said so how can I agree or disagree? lol

 

Quote

Did you miss that whole thing a week ago where she attempted to slash the Special Olympics budget?

Oh no I did hear about that actually. To use a relevant term the whole thing was more retarded than the participants.

 

Quote

I'd rather someone attempt to make the DOE better. I'd rather someone with a clear intent at making every school in the US, better than any school in the rest of the world.

I think you're missing my point which is that I don't want the federal government telling everyone how to do school. Making that "better" goes against my goals it doesn't further them.

 

Quote

And ya'll call Liberal Democrats obstructionists fighting Trump. 

I don't see how that's obstructionist.

 

Quote

I didn't say anything about international standards, I was talking about our standards being better then everyone elses.

I meant the federal governments standards.

 

Quote

And guess what. Many Americans want to go overseas, visit, vacation, do business, get educated, get high in Amsterdam, than there are 'you'. Ensuring that every American with a high quality basic education puts us above all the other nations. It means if we want to go overseas, we are almost guaranteed a job if we pursue one.

 

Expats are irrelevant to me.

 

Quote

Have any proof to back that up?

Majority of professors are liberal.

 

Quote

From what I recall, the majority of the policies that have made you hate the DOE come from Bush Era policies.

I hate the DOE because of what it is and because of what they do.

 

Quote

Nope. The in god we trust, and various other religious things were added to our coinage, our national anthem, to the boy scouts all between the 1920s and 1970s. There were a couple of earlier examples, and people blatantly ignoring it in the earliest years. But I'll just leave this here.

 

From 1797

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli#Article_11

 

Still missing the point. I guess it was my fault for making a joking comment about in god we trust but if you stop focusing on that for a minute maybe you'll see what I was saying.

 

 

Quote

It is actually.

Have you not heard about any of the Church of Satan Stunts with putting up statues of Satan on freedom of speech zones next to the 10 commandments? 

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/04/673422143/satanic-sculpture-installed-at-illinois-statehouse-just-in-time-for-the-holidays

I'm confused as to why you think this proves your point.

 

 

Quote

We wouldn't need to declare it, or christian law illegal... if you know, we followed the laws on the books and the constitution.

Just stop Muslim. The rest will fall into place.

 

Quote

That's your opinion, and I disagree.

Ok.

 

Quote

I'm not familiar with the particular civilians/situation you're talking about.

 

My guess though, is that many ships in that time period had arms to thwart Pirates & Raiders. Many could have also have been Retrofitted to fight the British.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4oh8ft/were_americans_allowed_to_own_cannons_under_the/

 

Quote

I have. They don't care. They scoff at any arms that aren't guns.

 

I make the distinction, because we already have more laws limiting other forms of arms far more than Firearms ever were/currently are. But those laws are fine with every conservative out there... Several were instituted by Conservatives!

Just legalize all weapons and be done with it imo.

 

Quote

 

I'm calling them hypocrites for calling the 2nd amendment sacred and cannot ever be touched, or changed, but they are actually failing to actually adhere to the literal interpretation. That they are picking and choosing what they want not out of love of the constitution, but love of guns.

 

I dunno, but many people who share your opinion I'd say are.

 

You don't have any pictures of yourself hugging or making out with guns on social media right?

I'm not. I don't currently own a gun.

 

I'll finish the rest later taking a break. Will edit this post when I'm done so as not to spam.

 

Quote

Prior rulings/interpretations, interconnect the two. 

There are many that interpret it to say that they can limit arms to the general people, but they cannot limit arms to the people who are part of the Militia.

 

But what is the Militia? Which well regulated Militia are we talking about here?

It doesn't matter. A militia isn't possible without a civilians right to keep and bear arms.

the militia thing is a total distraction from the issue.

 

Quote

 

Marriage and sex are intertwined.

I would say marriage and procreation are intertwined.

 

 

Quote

I don't need to justify anything.

Well we're kind of rethinking the issue here so I would say yes you do. Marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman so you need to justify why that shouldn't be the case.

 

Quote

How does them getting married, impact you, or anyone else's right to get married? 

How does it impact your quality of life?
 

It's not about impact it's about the definition. What is marriage?

allowing homosexuals to marry changes what it is and why it is.

 

Quote

The point is, I'm not the one trying to limit peoples pursuit of happiness because the idea hurts my feelings. (Which it apparently hurts many conservatives feelings on the concept of marriage).

Like most on the Left you appear to be reacting to issues with emotion and assume others are as well. My feelings are not hurt. This is about the definition of marriage. If anything the idea that some victim group might be excluded from something seems to hurt your feelings.

 

Quote

We've gone down several tangents.. clearly. But that's why that whole marriage argument is just dumb. It's a bag of worms, and ultimately for me, we should either Allow it for everyone, or remove the government acknowledging it exists, and any rights extended through marriage.

So either share the ball or you want to pop it so no one can play. Childish.

 

Quote

I wasn't going to start arguing trans rights. 

Then don't bring them up.

 

Quote

My argument is, that if you are all about Freedom (of Speech) and getting the government out of our lives in every capacity, Why would you be against things like Gays getting Married? Or a number of other things?

I am not a libertarian.

 

 

Quote

My answer is it doesn't infringe upon your rights. Do you agree with that answer?

Ok but  i still don't get why you asked me at all and then preemptively answered your own question. If you just wanna have a conversation with yourself that's fine by me.

 

Quote

Sure. But at what point does it just get stupid by allowing all that hardware out willy nilly? 
What if we just opened up a Military-Depot open to the public in LA, Chicago, and New York City?

It's fine by me.

 

Quote

I apologize, I could have swore you said you were one at one point...

I dunno if I'm mistaking you with someone else on that, or if it's just equating some of the changes you want as anarchist.

 

 

Not me

Edited by Nolder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nolder said:

Let's not turn this into the usual war of left vs right on every single issue ever, ok?

We're already talking guns and gay marriage can we please just stick to those two topics without running to something else?

Quote

Hey cut that sarcastic shit out.

Just to be clear, I'm not the one that started this all of with the "The left want to ban guns, and any that say otherwise are all liars" argument.

 

Quote

I didn't call you a libtard so don't act like I did.

I didn't actually say, that you called me a libtard. I was responding flippantly to your comment about it what I said being gibberish when it was anything but. 

image.png.d1d47fea0b8192819cd2ef252be96f85.png

 

Quote

Except that they aren't. I literally had some guy flip out on me a couple months ago and tell me he WAS going to take my guns and that he hates the NRA and blahblahblah. I'm not a member of the NRA nor do I own a gun (at the moment) so I thought it was pretty funny but that's besides the point. If you want to make the argument that he's in the minority and that is a one off thing fine, I don't believe it but that's fine, but you can't tell me there aren't people out there who want to ban all guns.

Anecdotal, irrelevant.

 

I didn't say that there isn't anyone who wants to ban all guns.

I'm dismissing your opinion from earlier that anyone who talks gun control secretly wants to ban all guns is bs.

Quote

Almost any American who says they just want to ban idk high capacity magazines or AR15s or w/e is probably a liar. They want to ban it all and they hide their true position because they know it's unfavorable.

 

 

Quote

Because kids.

In case you haven't noticed we have had a massive drop in fertility rate in the United States.

You know how you get kids? Marriage.

Seriously dude? 

No.

You get kids from Intercourse. Colloquially known as Sex, and in the case of medical intervention, from In vitro Fertilization which.

Marriage doesn't magically produce children.

 

Quote

This is what I was trying to tell you earlier. Separation of church and state isn't really what you think it is. It is not the total absence or denial of religion it's more like the church isn't going to dictate what the government does more or less.

It's a two way street. 

Religion doesn't interfere with government, and Government doesn't interfere with Religion. It's pretty much that simple. Government doesn't recognize any one religion, so everyone is rightfully able to practice any religion they want. Having things like 10 commandments at Court houses, breaches that trust of not recognizing any one religion. The example of gay marriage is the easiest/best argument when it comes to obvious religious laws becoming government laws.

 

Quote

It's not supposed to. Prior to no fault divorce which is a very new construct and the so called "sexual revolution" most people didn't get divorced (look at the divorce rates).

Divorce isn't nearly as new of a concept as you make it out to be.

Did you know, that Fargo, ND used to be the divorce capital of the USA, because it was one of the easiest places to get one?

Why on earth would you believe Divorce is a bad thing? There's entirely valid reasons to get them. Getting them, can even help prevent domestic violence.
 

Also, Divorce Rates are going down.
Cause Millennial's are more likely live with their future spouse before marrying, have premarital sex, and less likely to get married just so they can have sex, which doesn't lead to effectively hating each other over the next 30 years.

 

https://divorce.lovetoknow.com/Historical_Divorce_Rate_Statistics

 

Quote

I have two answers to this, neither of which will likely satisfy you.

The first is that those two people chose their partners wrong.

Whatever is causing the hate is something that should have been apparent (hopefully) before marriage.

Sometimes you just can't anticipate though and in that case...you both need to suck it up for the sake of the children.

Hate each other in private or after the children are out of the house but while they are kids living under your roof you must be cordial at the very least.

Parents too often indulge in their feelings, whether they be love or hate, and forget about their childrens well being it's far past time that stopped.

Yea, that answer isn't going to satisfy pretty much anyone.

What you're preaching, leads to Alcoholism. Adultry, Depression, Physical and Mental abuse.

Ever stop and think that maybe people are getting divorced, For there children?

 

Quote

I am saying that the nature of homosexual relationships is intrinsically sexual and hedonistic.

Whatever else happens, that's the foundation it's built on.

That defines pretty much 95% of all relationships out there.

You don't think that young catholic couple, waiting to have sex until they are married, aren't constantly thinking about sex? Jesus man, I dunno where you got these beliefs from, but the 1920s called...

 

Quote

So?

Stable family environment, married parents.

Kid literally can't tell right from wrong because of afluenza.

Single stories like that, completely ruin this imaginary magical realm of marriage bringing the ultimate stability to children.

 

Quote

it kind of does though. Look at the statistics.

Let's say you're right. Let's say the statistics back up your point. (Which they barely do, because reasons I'm not going to go into here)

Why would you deny the billions of statistics that support climate change, or support gun control? Or Abortion, or, or, or.

Cherry Picking.

 

Statistics do not tell the whole story. They tell a story based upon those polled, and it's extrapolated.


Statistics say I should be an Alcoholic drug addicted Smoker high school drop out.. I graduated college, I neither do drugs, smoke, and I have a drink once or twice a year. Statistically, I shouldn't exist.

 

Quote

LOL I forgot to post it. My bad. This clip.

Shit happens.

I'll watch it later. But I'm guessing based on the picture, it's aged like milk.

 

Quote

I'm not a conservative anymore. 

Image result for not sure meme

What the hell are ya then? lol
Cause between Conservative and Liberal, you're not a Liberal, and probably not even close to a Libertarian.

 

Quote

They're both unconstitutional. 

Well it's good to know that we both dislike that shittastic law.

 

Quote

It's not about interpreting what's already there differently it's addressing a change in the nature of the position.

Potato, potatoe?
 

Quote

I don't know what she's doing like I said so how can I agree or disagree? lol

*Shrugs*

Let's just say there's definite reason why the left dislikes her.

 

Quote

Oh no I did hear about that actually. To use a relevant term the whole thing was more retarded than the participants.

If you mean to say her cutting it was, then yea, pretty much.  
If you mean to say the whole thing was, and people getting mad at it.. Then.. yea. no.

 

Quote

I think you're missing my point which is that I don't want the federal government telling everyone how to do school. Making that "better" goes against my goals it doesn't further them.

How to do school, is different than setting up a minimum level of knowledge/standards.

Changing the DOE, Making better policies, bettering education is all possible.

 

Here's an honest question for you.

How many standardized tests did you have to take every semester?

 

Quote

I don't see how that's obstructionist.

image.png.b4254336a85357c78bf5a9896fb8aa31.png

Basically dismantling programs creates obstruction. It doesn't necessarily reduce red-tape, and bureaucratic obstruction.
This all goes back to the Tea-Party methodology of blocking everything in congress, and then getting positions within government agencies and slowly dismantling them from the inside out. This often has the unintended consequence of actually slowing government down... which in it's very nature is obstructionism.

 

Quote

Expats are irrelevant to me.

Again, you're not the only person in the USA. 

 

Quote

Majority of professors are liberal.

Maybe Professors, but they aren't the only teachers.

Most studies don't include Tech/Trade Colleges, let alone k-12 Teachers.

And none of that takes into consideration the federal guidelines put in place that they have to abide by, whether they are Liberal or Conservative.

(as an Aside. I've never had a liberal professor or teacher. I'm almost 100% certain they were all Conservative and Republican. This is purely anecdotal. But if Professors are a clear majority... Then how did I get the conservative jackpot?)

 

Quote

I hate the DOE because of what it is and because of what they do.

What do they do that you hate so much?

Image result for show me on the doll(he = DOE)

 

Quote

Still missing the point. I guess it was my fault for making a joking comment about in god we trust but if you stop focusing on that for a minute maybe you'll see what I was saying.

Doesn't matter.

If we follow the constitution and prior rulings (even by conservative judges!), they all agree with my version over yours.

Quote

I'm confused as to why you think this proves your point.

Because they keep winning there cases. Look it up. They are winning in some of the most conservative districts in America.

 

Quote

Just stop Muslim. The rest will fall into place.

Not really. Because we still have to deal with Christian Sharia Law.

 

Quote

Just legalize all weapons and be done with it imo.

Okay. That's your opinion. And pretty much 99% of America disagrees with that.

 

Quote

I'm not. I don't currently own a gun.

 

I'll finish the rest later taking a break. Will edit this post when I'm done so as not to spam.

Sounds good. 
Getting late here anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the stupidest conversation I have read in months. Your both going in circles. Carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Lenlo said:

This is the stupidest conversation I have read in months. Your both going in circles. Carry on.

So say something intelligent.

 

1 minute ago, Cory Caboose said:

but trying to fight strawmans is way easier than tackling actual positions len

 

this is america bub

Because it's sooo hard trying to be the guy who pretends to Be Above It All.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nolder said:

Because it's sooo hard trying to be the guy who pretends to Be Above It All.

 

so when's the ethnostate revolution / "peaceful resettlement" happening? need to get my properties in order and all the RRs won't talk to me anymore, be a friend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Cory Caboose said:

 

so when's the ethnostate revolution / "peaceful resettlement" happening? need to get my properties in order and all the RRs won't talk to me anymore, be a friend

Before 2035 is the best I got for ya. Prepare accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Lenlo said:

This is the stupidest conversation I have read in months. Your both going in circles. Carry on.

You're free to join the fray... 
What was soooo stupid?

What smart retort do you actually have to offer to the conversation?

What's your ace in the hole that shuts down all arguments?

 

Also any Veteran of these D&D forums, would obviously know that the natural conversation around here is that of a circle.

That's simply the way of things.

We play Ring around the Rosie, constantly refining our arguments, because you're a fool if you think you're actually going to convince someone who fundamentally disagrees with you on every level that they were wrong, and you were right on any core issue or stance.

Edited by SinisterDeath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Nolder said:

So say something intelligent.

 

Ive tried. Any intelligent discussion inevitably boils down to "Thats not a right" or "Its our right", regardless of any argument posed against it. There comes a point where its just not worth it.

 

 

10 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

You're free to join the fray... 
What was soooo stupid?

What smart retort do you actually have to offer to the conversation?

What's your ace in the hole that shuts down all arguments?

That neither of you are actually caring about each others arguments and are just repeating the same points, which are founded in opinion, ad nauseum. I'm not any smarter, I have done it to, I don't know why you and Nolder immediately jump to me somehow having a high horse here. Its just you two have played ring around the rosey for days now.

10 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

 

We play Ring around the Rosie, constantly refining our arguments, because you're a fool if you think you're actually going to convince someone who fundamentally disagrees with you on every level that they were wrong, and you were right on any core issue or stance.

Oh look, at least you're aware of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Posts

    • I agree. WoT needs to be set apart from GoT so people don't think it's playing to GoT popularity.
    • This is how I always imagined them handling the use of the OP. And with CGI, I think it can be done well. I've always envisioned it like ribbons of light, a different color for each part of the OP, being actually woven in different patterns for different weaves.   Yes, learning the truth caused many of the Aiel to go crazy, like Sevanna's first lover, and many others to totally abandon the Aiel way of life (forget what they call it). And I think they need to show the Emonds Fielders' each having a couple stops along their way to Baerlon and Tar Valon, to give us a good sense of how long of a journey it is.     Well, if they're gonna have "pillow friends out the wazoo", they'll have nudity. It's unfortunate that they will have to pander to the PC crowd and it really is a sad commentary on modern society that we can't enjoy a tv show/movie without nudity. But I think they need to choose the scenes carefully. Like it's one thing to see Aviendha running off nude to Rhuidean, but not dignified Moiraine. Just showing her bare shoulders will be enough to know that she too, has to go nude. I will be very upset if they mix in real world cursing with WoT style cursing. It is a big part of RJ's world building and helps to set it apart as alternative world. (I believe "bloody" is actually a curse word in the UK.)     Not saying I agree with polygamy, but if you can have homosexuality, why not polygamy? Besides the fact that it is totally accepted in Aiel culture. But I think they can do as independent trysts, with Min being the one he finally stays with. I don't think they should cut any of the 3 relationships because they are important in the development of the characters, and where Elayne is concerned, Rand's feelings for her impact his decision in dealing with Rahvin because he knows if he allows his feelings for her to become public, she will become a target. (Personally, I would really like to keep Elayne's pregnancy because there was a lot about it I found amusing.) I would really miss the scene when they all bond Rand and become fully aware of his love for them. I thought it was a beautiful scene, but I know we can't have it all.   The use of the Bowl of Winds is what finally checked the Dark One's control of the weather. It was a major victory for the Aes Sedai and Wind Finders, so I think it needs to stay in. Shadar Logoth and it's consequences (Mat accepting the dagger) is already pretty important, I think. Fain will probably be important for the first season or so, but then I say kill him off.   I hope they don't sacrifice the development of the main characters for the sake of time or big action/battle scenes. The growth of our main characters and their friendship bonds are one of the things that sets WoT apart from most other fantasy books I've read. It's actually what I love so much about Harry Potter and why I can watch those movies over and over and have read the books twice. I just fell in love the with the characters and their devotion to each other.  
    • Oh I didn't know those weren't all the titles
    • now remember author's name; P L Travers, pseudonym of Helen Golf.     as far as I recall, Compulsion was never done through any indirect means anytime in this series.   my impression of Mary Poppins was that she tried to make the children ethical; not necessarily try to control them.  
×
×
  • Create New...