Re: Why we exist?

51
Inquisitor wrote:
GeorgiaRN wrote:Okay so in my attempts to stay "balanced," I have determined that I no longer read the Daily Kos... I know some of you are fans, but its just senseless as of late. Every Facebook entry is just about what some random Republican politician said. There is no longer even a logical political argument to work from. I live in Georgia, I have traditionally voted Republican. (Though Jason Carter is a Dem running for Gov. that is apparently very pro-gun.) These people are politicians, that makes them a scumbag by trade. Everyone knows this. When I read the Daily Kos, I have to ask is this the mainstream of the Democratic Party?
DKOS will lower your IQ more often than not.
It is the most orange echo chamber on the inner webs. ;)
In a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich the chicken and cow are involved while the pig is committed.

Re: Why we exist?

54
Inquisitor wrote:Its amusing (or sad) that all the incursions follow the same, predictable path.
That's because 'baggers have the collective intelligence of lint. They all sound like they're a bunch of pubescent boys, which, despite their age, they probably are. 'Baggers are a bunch of fucking idiots.

Re: Why we exist?

56
Fascinating reading those trolling threads on other forums.

I've never understood the anger that comes from hearing that ( :yikes: ) someone has a different opinion than you. Why it's such a personal affront that there are many individuals who believe in traditionally left-leaning principles and also enjoy collecting and shooting firearms is beyond me.

But, it's OK, because I'll not be visiting their forum, so they'll be safe.

Re: Why we exist?

57
pramjockey wrote:Fascinating reading those trolling threads on other forums.

I've never understood the anger that comes from hearing that ( :yikes: ) someone has a different opinion than you. Why it's such a personal affront that there are many individuals who believe in traditionally left-leaning principles and also enjoy collecting and shooting firearms is beyond me.

But, it's OK, because I'll not be visiting their forum, so they'll be safe.

I'm a new member, and not liberal (not conservative, either), but perhaps I can explain the frustration and resentment, though probably not the anger. I certainly don't have anger towards people who have a different opinion, and take no personal umbrage that people of all political stripes might enjoy collecting and shooting firearms. The more the merrier, IMO.

The resentment and frustration you see on the right is due to who liberals keep electing into office - people with no understanding of or respect for the second amendment. From the president to liberal senators and house members, they show no respect for gun rights. Furthermore, they insist on passing laws which not only make life harder for gun owners, they worsen the very problems they ostensibly are designed to improve. Look at which party's politicians create and promote ridiculous ideas such as waiting periods, bans on certain ammo, restrictions on carry and magazine restrictions and tell me again how you don't understand why conservative gun owners resent the liberals and democrats who elect these people.

Please note I intend all due respect. I have serious problems with many stances held by certain conservatives and republicans. But when it comes to guns and gun rights, it's hard to point fingers in any direction other than leftward.

Furthermore, reading some of the above posts reveals that hate, condescension and stereotyping goes both directions.
"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." - Pennsylvania Constitution Section 21

Re: Why we exist?

58
farmplinker wrote:
pramjockey wrote:Fascinating reading those trolling threads on other forums.

I've never understood the anger that comes from hearing that ( :yikes: ) someone has a different opinion than you. Why it's such a personal affront that there are many individuals who believe in traditionally left-leaning principles and also enjoy collecting and shooting firearms is beyond me.

But, it's OK, because I'll not be visiting their forum, so they'll be safe.

I'm a new member, and not liberal (not conservative, either), but perhaps I can explain the frustration and resentment, though probably not the anger. I certainly don't have anger towards people who have a different opinion, and take no personal umbrage that people of all political stripes might enjoy collecting and shooting firearms. The more the merrier, IMO.

The resentment and frustration you see on the right is due to who liberals keep electing into office - people with no understanding of or respect for the second amendment. From the president to liberal senators and house members, they show no respect for gun rights. Furthermore, they insist on passing laws which not only make life harder for gun owners, they worsen the very problems they ostensibly are designed to improve. Look at which party's politicians create and promote ridiculous ideas such as waiting periods, bans on certain ammo, restrictions on carry and magazine restrictions and tell me again how you don't understand why conservative gun owners resent the liberals and democrats who elect these people.

Please note I intend all due respect. I have serious problems with many stances held by certain conservatives and republicans. But when it comes to guns and gun rights, it's hard to point fingers in any direction other than leftward.

Furthermore, reading some of the above posts reveals that hate, condescension and stereotyping goes both directions.
No disrespect felt in the slightest.

I think the one of the problem is that we are faced with candidates that we can't really mold into a reasonable stance on much of anything. If you are socially liberal, including the right to bear arms (which I believe is really a liberal stance), the Republican candidates are generally unappealing on so many other points as to make them unsupportable. The Democratic candidates are slightly better, because they are at least agreeable on many points, with a few (like gun control) being mixed, depending on the candidate. I'd love for some real third party options to appear, but there's so much money invested in the two, that I don't hold much hope for that.

And, yeah, there are always angry and nasty people on any side of an argument. That I can't disagree with.

Re: Why we exist?

59
Looking back through our history, the last Liberal elected to POTUS was JFK. Ike was the second most recent.

If we'd stop having Authoritarian Lawyers shoved infront of us I think we as a country would be in a much better place.
In a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich the chicken and cow are involved while the pig is committed.

Re: Why we exist?

60
farmplinker wrote:
pramjockey wrote:Fascinating reading those trolling threads on other forums.

I've never understood the anger that comes from hearing that ( :yikes: ) someone has a different opinion than you. Why it's such a personal affront that there are many individuals who believe in traditionally left-leaning principles and also enjoy collecting and shooting firearms is beyond me.

But, it's OK, because I'll not be visiting their forum, so they'll be safe.

I'm a new member, and not liberal (not conservative, either), but perhaps I can explain the frustration and resentment, though probably not the anger. I certainly don't have anger towards people who have a different opinion, and take no personal umbrage that people of all political stripes might enjoy collecting and shooting firearms. The more the merrier, IMO.

The resentment and frustration you see on the right is due to who liberals keep electing into office - people with no understanding of or respect for the second amendment. From the president to liberal senators and house members, they show no respect for gun rights. Furthermore, they insist on passing laws which not only make life harder for gun owners, they worsen the very problems they ostensibly are designed to improve. Look at which party's politicians create and promote ridiculous ideas such as waiting periods, bans on certain ammo, restrictions on carry and magazine restrictions and tell me again how you don't understand why conservative gun owners resent the liberals and democrats who elect these people.

Please note I intend all due respect. I have serious problems with many stances held by certain conservatives and republicans. But when it comes to guns and gun rights, it's hard to point fingers in any direction other than leftward.

Furthermore, reading some of the above posts reveals that hate, condescension and stereotyping goes both directions.
Human nature, being the perceived minority tends to get a bit of a strong counter reaction once folks find us. Its not fair, its not right, and its not nice, but its unlikely to stop happening.

A recently banned member here just told me to "Do myself a favor and just die you fucking teabagger" so I guess we weren't liberal enough for him either.

Going into some of the cesspools is manifestly different for the vast majority of us than participating here. Obviously, we don;t please everyone on the left side either ;)

Re: Why we exist?

61
Inquisitor wrote: Obviously, we don;t please everyone on the left side either ;)
All too true. Of course, we tend to really torque off the Authoritarian set most of all. We with our silly Prole ideas and ability to largely defend ourselves. The nerve! :lol:
In a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich the chicken and cow are involved while the pig is committed.

Re: Why we exist?

62
pramjockey wrote: I think the one of the problem is that we are faced with candidates that we can't really mold into a reasonable stance on much of anything. If you are socially liberal, including the right to bear arms (which I believe is really a liberal stance), the Republican candidates are generally unappealing on so many other points as to make them unsupportable. The Democratic candidates are slightly better, because they are at least agreeable on many points, with a few (like gun control) being mixed, depending on the candidate. I'd love for some real third party options to appear, but there's so much money invested in the two, that I don't hold much hope for that.
Funny, I could have written the exact same thing from the "other" side. I have never even slightly identified as a Democrat, due to disagreeing with traditional stances regarding affirmative action, income redistribution, regulations, gun control, etc. On the other hand, I am disgusted with the Republican party regarding issues such as gay marriage, religious freedom, abortion and overseas defense spending. So, I'm left with holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils, which in my case usually means the Republican candidate, especially if I can find one that leans libertarian.

As for a third party option, it's quite clear that the Libertarian Party most closely matches my views, and I certainly consider myself a libertarian - socially liberal, fiscally conservative and want a small federal government that abides by the constitution. In the minds of both liberals (including mainstream media) and conservatives (including the talk radio cabal), that makes me a crackpot. To the powers that be in the D and R parties, that means I am the enemy, and they do everything they can to keep power concentrated in the two major parties.
"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." - Pennsylvania Constitution Section 21

Re: Why we exist?

63
ErikO wrote:
Inquisitor wrote: Obviously, we don;t please everyone on the left side either ;)
All too true. Of course, we tend to really torque off the Authoritarian set most of all. We with our silly Prole ideas and ability to largely defend ourselves. The nerve! :lol:
I agree with this, of course. When I take one of those online political tests, I always end up Libertarian, which is the opposite corner from Authoritarian/Statist/Totalitarian.
"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." - Pennsylvania Constitution Section 21

Re: Why we exist?

64
farmplinker wrote:
ErikO wrote:
Inquisitor wrote: Obviously, we don;t please everyone on the left side either ;)
All too true. Of course, we tend to really torque off the Authoritarian set most of all. We with our silly Prole ideas and ability to largely defend ourselves. The nerve! :lol:
I agree with this, of course. When I take one of those online political tests, I always end up Libertarian, which is the opposite corner from Authoritarian/Statist/Totalitarian.
I'm not fiscally conservative enough to be Libertarian. I abhor Cartelism and see Corporate structures as unnecessary risk mitigation that precludes proper individual interactions in business dealings. I see the Commerce Clause as the part that grants Congress and thereby the Federal Government the ability to oversee business dealings for any risk-mitigation structure that is registered with the State. Don't like it? Don't incorporate.
In a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich the chicken and cow are involved while the pig is committed.

Re: Why we exist?

65
ErikO wrote: I'm not fiscally conservative enough to be Libertarian. I abhor Cartelism and see Corporate structures as unnecessary risk mitigation that precludes proper individual interactions in business dealings. I see the Commerce Clause as the part that grants Congress and thereby the Federal Government the ability to oversee business dealings for any risk-mitigation structure that is registered with the State. Don't like it? Don't incorporate.
I think the Commerce Clause is misapplied and tremendously overused in order to maintain and increase federal government power. It is misused as a tool to establish and maintain centralized authority, which is the exact opposite the Founding Fathers intended. Obviously, I disagree completely with you on this. Should I now call you a nasty, condescending name? ;)
"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." - Pennsylvania Constitution Section 21

Re: Why we exist?

66
farmplinker wrote:
ErikO wrote: I'm not fiscally conservative enough to be Libertarian. I abhor Cartelism and see Corporate structures as unnecessary risk mitigation that precludes proper individual interactions in business dealings. I see the Commerce Clause as the part that grants Congress and thereby the Federal Government the ability to oversee business dealings for any risk-mitigation structure that is registered with the State. Don't like it? Don't incorporate.
I think the Commerce Clause is misapplied and tremendously overused in order to maintain and increase federal government power. It is misused as a tool to establish and maintain centralized authority, which is the exact opposite the Founding Fathers intended. Obviously, I disagree completely with you on this. Should I now call you a nasty, condescending name? ;)
:lol: Nah. Even Jefferson and Hamilton ate together. It wasn't until Burr was pushed out of politics in NY that things got bad for Hamilton. ;)

TBH, I agree about the misuse of the CC, especially where it comes to commerce that only 'potentially' can leave the state but does not tend to do so. I am no Federalist, but if you seek the safety from risk under the wing of the State you get the bone with the steak. If you are willing to take the risks inherent in commerce upon yourself you should be able to reside outside of regulations but also are outside the protections afforded by the State as well. For example, if you deal with foreign entities who are forbidden to be dealt with due to sanctions, you deserve to lose out financially; dealing with such folks tends to be VERY lucrative but you should also be willing to accept the risks inherent such as being linked as a supporter of said group and having your finances frozen by court order.

Personally, I have little reason to not be reasonable when it comes to folks I disagree with. If they hold views that openly mean to cause harm to me or mine, well, that is different. For how I respond to that, I think I was clear in the 'why do we own guns' thread. ;)
In a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich the chicken and cow are involved while the pig is committed.

Re: Why we exist?

67
I'm not even sure what people mean when they say fiscal conservative, since every single politician who's claimed to be one since I was old enough to vote has contributed to increasing both government spending *and* the deficit.

Jerry Brown is the closest I think we've got right now, and not a single person claiming to be fiscal conservative would agree with him.
Image


.22LR - .380ACP - 9mm - .38Spl/.357Mag - .45ACP - 5.56NATO - .308Win - .45-70Gov - 12Ga
Join!

Re: Why we exist?

68
In the .gov today, a fiscal conservative does not exist. They don't actually care one bit about deficits or spending. If they did, then they'd propose massive reductions in the military and a tax increase on the wealthy who can afford it to bring the deficit down. Instead we see swipes at the poor and decreasing the top marginal tax rate as being touted as "fiscally conservative" messaging.
“Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”
- Maya Angelou

Image

Re: Why we exist?

69
shinzen wrote:In the .gov today, a fiscal conservative does not exist. They don't actually care one bit about deficits or spending. If they did, then they'd propose massive reductions in the military and a tax increase on the wealthy who can afford it to bring the deficit down. Instead we see swipes at the poor and decreasing the top marginal tax rate as being touted as "fiscally conservative" messaging.
Yep! :clap2:
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Why we exist?

70
ErikO wrote:Even Jefferson and Hamilton ate together. I
I think that pretty much sums it up.

Today, how many of us (us being Americans) would honestly be able to sit down and break bread with someone from the other side of the political spectrum? It seems that we have been pushed to such polar extremes that anger and hatred are more important than the fact that we all share in the fate of our nation, and we'll drive each other into the ground before yielding a point or giving an inch. The country suffers for it.

Not all of us, of course. Just enough to matter.

Re: Why we exist?

71
farmplinker wrote: I have never even slightly identified as a Democrat, due to disagreeing with traditional stances regarding affirmative action, income redistribution, regulations, gun control, etc. On the other hand, I am disgusted with the Republican party regarding issues such as gay marriage, religious freedom, abortion and overseas defense spending. So, I'm left with holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils, which in my case usually means the Republican candidate, especially if I can find one that leans libertarian.

As for a third party option, it's quite clear that the Libertarian Party most closely matches my views, and I certainly consider myself a libertarian - socially liberal, fiscally conservative and want a small federal government that abides by the constitution. In the minds of both liberals (including mainstream media) and conservatives (including the talk radio cabal), that makes me a crackpot. To the powers that be in the D and R parties, that means I am the enemy, and they do everything they can to keep power concentrated in the two major parties.
How do you reconcile libertarianism with being socially liberal (gay rights and religious freedoms)? Protecting the rights of minority groups requires authority to enforce trespasses against the minority? If the majority can exercise it's rights counter to the minority, that minority does not have rights. Jim Crow.

Allowing people "rights" and providing no means to protect those rights, in my opinion, requires a degree of cognitive dissonance.

If someone calls me a big nose sheister, should I shoot them? or should they pay a fine to the local magistrate?

Affirmative action, income redistribution, and regulations on business are things that make it possible to be black, middle class, and healthy. Without those authoritative structures, you have Jim Crow, factory stores, and lead flavored water (et al).

Assuming Randian Libertarian Utopia, If it's proved that a black person was overlooked for a job, does the black person have the right to go back and shoot the employer?

Strength is not always the solution, and Randian Libertairan Utopias rarely take into consideration that gray areas exist, and do so to mitigate the needless violence caused by binary reaction to mistreatment. Think about it, if there was not a protection for your right to free religion, but you had that right, and someone came along and said, hey, you gotta renounce jesus and pray to Allah, and know that muhamed is his profit, would you want to shoot the imam? Or just have someone remove him so you could go into your church? Gray areas.
E pluribus unum

Re: Why we exist?

75
Chainfire wrote:I am not sure why. For me the forum is a place of refuge that I come to to confirm that I am not alone.
I come here to realize that not all gun owners are complete and absolute self hating idiots.

I also come here to remind myself that there is something in this country worth giving a crap about, even though I don't have the time to let on. This place has become a little bit of a place to lurk and get a touch of solid anchoring.

whiskey tango foxtrot, out.
HAHAHAHA
Yee received 287,590 votes.
http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/20 ... eland-yee/

Yee/Shrimpboy 2016!
Hip Hop To that.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests