notyou2 wrote:They can bear all the arms they can bear. They just can't shoot no one.
Git er done!!!!
People have the freedom of speech in politics........as long as they only say the things on the government-approved list.
Moderator: Community Team
notyou2 wrote:They can bear all the arms they can bear. They just can't shoot no one.
Git er done!!!!
Night Strike wrote:notyou2 wrote:They can bear all the arms they can bear. They just can't shoot no one.
Git er done!!!!
People have the freedom of speech in politics........as long as they only say the things on the government-approved list.
Juan_Bottom wrote:So when AT&T gives money to the Obama campaign, Obama is an evil puppet for the corporations, but when corporations do that with gun clubs that is just normal business.
Juan_Bottom wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:It's not even the NRA, per say, they're some kind of shell for the Gun Manufacturers. The NRA has only 4 million members, but American gun manufacturers donate millions of dollars to the NRA every year to keep it highly influential.
a silly and dreary, cookie-cutter bogeyman argument
Kidney Care Partners - the advocacy group for people with renal failure - is funded by AMGEN which gets rich off manufacturing SENSIPAR, a drug given to kidney patients. IIRC, Duramed, makers of the Plan B pill, funds NARAL. The head of Autism Speaks (celebrated group that organized the Michael Savage boycott in '07) is the former Marketing Manager for the division of J&J that sells anti-autism drug Risperdal (known - as of 2 months ago - as the drug that gives people who take it diabetes ... a fact he knew and helped cover-up even while he was being toasted by Hillary Clinton and Hollywood's A-list).The only things that are part of the popular narrative in U.S. are things placed on the agenda by issues management firms paid by competing Wall Street interests. If you suddenly want to dismiss any opinion reinforced by a corporate front group, the rabbit hole is going to take you a whole lot deeper than the NRA. Every position you've ever supported here in the Club, no matter how righteous it seems to you, is suddenly untenable.
The Democrats have their base convinced that everyone except them is being fooled by special interests, and they are part of some aristocracy of intellect. The Republicans have their base convinced that everyone except them is trying to introduce a regime of elites. Both are carefully crafted appeals to prey on the human individual's constant, instinctual, fear of rape ingrained in their psyche from 10,000 years living as feudal serfs.
So when AT&T gives money to the Obama campaign, Obama is an evil puppet for the corporations, but when corporations do that with gun clubs that is just normal business.
Mental health advocates say a landmark 2008 law meant to expand access to millions of Americans has gotten back-burner treatment by the Obama administration because of its relentless focus on the Affordable Care Act.
ā[W]hile this historic law was passed four years ago, the administration has yet to issue a final rule, potentially leaving many Americans who need and have a right to these services without access to them,ā the senators wrote.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/f ... 86185.html
Symmetry wrote:A TGD, Saxi, BBS combo.
thegreekdog wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:So when AT&T gives money to the Obama campaign, Obama is an evil puppet for the corporations, but when corporations do that with gun clubs that is just normal business.
I think Saxi's point is that you champion the cause of the Democratic party on issues where the Democrats aren't accepting corporate money (e.g. the NRA) while ignoring the Democratic party on issues where the Democrats are accepting corporate money. Therefore, denigrating the NRA as a corporate machine that influences Republicans with dollars seems rather hypocritical of you.
I would note, further, that it may be that the Democrats are enlisting the assistance of major (and evil) corporations, such as Walmart, an entity which you've lambasted, in the current gun control battle. How does that make you feel?
saxitoxin wrote:I have yet to hear you express any discontent - or, indeed, anything other than cheery resolve - that Obama authorized AT&T to wiretap your phone for $1 million.
Juan_Bottom wrote:Symmetry wrote:A TGD, Saxi, BBS combo.thegreekdog wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:So when AT&T gives money to the Obama campaign, Obama is an evil puppet for the corporations, but when corporations do that with gun clubs that is just normal business.
I think Saxi's point is that you champion the cause of the Democratic party on issues where the Democrats aren't accepting corporate money (e.g. the NRA) while ignoring the Democratic party on issues where the Democrats are accepting corporate money. Therefore, denigrating the NRA as a corporate machine that influences Republicans with dollars seems rather hypocritical of you.
I would note, further, that it may be that the Democrats are enlisting the assistance of major (and evil) corporations, such as Walmart, an entity which you've lambasted, in the current gun control battle. How does that make you feel?
I resent all of that.
They didn't enlist the help of Wal*Mart, they made Wal*mart come to the bargaining table. Wal*Mart wasn't even going to send a representative. It's just what I would have done if I were the VP. If I were the president/king, then I would do a lot worse to Wal*Mart's ability to conduct business as usual. I would wage an all-out Teddy X1million war... But true politicians are in the business of compromise, which appears to be something that everyone is missing in the current environment of vitriolic & virulent politics. So what if I decide to compromise on some things and support a Democrat? Or a Republican?
And I would note, further, the Democrats are also our best bet to repeal Citizen's United. That'll f*ck some sh*t up for some big-ass Corporations. There is nothing wrong with supporting the Democratic party when they need the support. What in the unholy flying f*ck has the Republican Party done lately that I could support? Have they done anything you support? I'm even getting frustrated with Jim Sacia, and that's sad.Legislate vaginas? I <3 Vaginas.
Block Gay Marraige? I <3 the gays.
Creationism in Schools? Am I retarded?
Block Raising taxes on the rich? f*ck the rich! They should pay their fair share.
Block paying America's Bills? Stamp the coin! I <3 good credit!
Block the Gun Discussion? I <3 Kids not being shot!
Blame Poor People for the Economy? I <3 me!
Stop black people from voting? I <3 Black People!
If that is Saxi's point, it's dumb, though that's ok because he's a character. When have I ever participated in a fight where Democrats where accepting money and doing evil with it? Maybe you could say I supported Obama in the election, and I say he's one of the best presidents we've ever had, and that's evil of me. But he was the best and even the most unifying of the candidates, and he is one of the top 20 presidents. That's not my fault, because I didn't live in 1851, and I didn't nominate Romney!
I never said a word about Republicans, that was you. I have used the term "gun enthusiasts" whenever I talk about the people blocking gun control legislation. If this was a red/blue argument then It would be a lot easier to be on the offensive. Unfortunately, the NRA and the Gun Manufacturers of America also donate money to and openly support Democratic Candidates. Harry Reid himself is personal friend with Wyane LaPierre.
I really wish all of CC could argue with the points instead of putting people into specific catagorys all the time and assuming that they must believe this or that. You're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with your vision of me when you do that. You don't ever see me arguing with stuff you never said. I might dissect your post, but at least I'm dissecting your words... how silly is this?
Except for BBS, because he's on Ignore. He can dissect himself.
I ain't even mad, I only wonder how long this kind of an environment can continue. I feel like I catch it because this site is conservative and they take their anger out on us liberals. Like "oh you're a Liberal d*ck, you want to take my guns away!" Uh, I never said that, and no Liberal does. It's like we've gone from using Ad-Hominen attacks to forming Ad-Hominen opinions when we think.
Juan_Bottom wrote:saxitoxin wrote:I have yet to hear you express any discontent - or, indeed, anything other than cheery resolve - that Obama authorized AT&T to wiretap your phone for $1 million.
I make no comment about something I know nothing about
Juan_Bottom wrote:and that means I'm somehow responsible.
saxitoxin wrote:never underestimate the importance of blind obedience
In any case, my original point is that it's laughably hypocritical for a corporate prop to accuse others of being corporate props. But it fits within the current Democrat frame of assuring their supporters that they are part of some aristocracy of intellect battling against their easily beguiled countrymen because they can recite the names of court decisions they've never read and barely understand beyond "iz bad"; Citizen's United, all that. Until the switch in '06 that was the Republican frame (and it probably will be again, one day).
saxitoxin wrote:Annnnywho ... now is probably the point you should send one of your Astronomer or Molecular Biologist friends to this thread to tag in for you.
Juan_Bottom wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:So when AT&T gives money to the Obama campaign, Obama is an evil puppet for the corporations, but when corporations do that with gun clubs that is just normal business.
I think Saxi's point is that you champion the cause of the Democratic party on issues where the Democrats aren't accepting corporate money (e.g. the NRA) while ignoring the Democratic party on issues where the Democrats are accepting corporate money. Therefore, denigrating the NRA as a corporate machine that influences Republicans with dollars seems rather hypocritical of you.
I would note, further, that it may be that the Democrats are enlisting the assistance of major (and evil) corporations, such as Walmart, an entity which you've lambasted, in the current gun control battle. How does that make you feel?
I resent all of that.
They didn't enlist the help of Wal*Mart, they made Wal*mart come to the bargaining table. Wal*Mart wasn't even going to send a representative. It's just what I would have done if I were the VP. If I were the president/king, then I would do a lot worse to Wal*Mart's ability to conduct business as usual. I would wage an all-out Teddy X1million war... But true politicians are in the business of compromise, which appears to be something that everyone is missing in the current environment of vitriolic & virulent politics. So what if I decide to compromise on some things and support a Democrat? Or a Republican?
Juan_Bottom wrote:And I would note, further, the Democrats are also our best bet to repeal Citizen's United. That'll f*ck some sh*t up for some big-ass Corporations. There is nothing wrong with supporting the Democratic party when they need the support. What in the unholy flying f*ck has the Republican Party done lately that I could support? Have they done anything you support? I'm even getting frustrated with Jim Sacia, and that's sad.
Juan_Bottom wrote:Legislate vaginas? I <3 Vaginas.
Block Gay Marraige? I <3 the gays.
Creationism in Schools? Am I retarded?
Block Raising taxes on the rich? f*ck the rich! They should pay their fair share.
Block paying America's Bills? Stamp the coin! I <3 good credit!
Block the Gun Discussion? I <3 Kids not being shot!
Blame Poor People for the Economy? I <3 me!
Stop black people from voting? I <3 Black People!
If that is Saxi's point, it's dumb, though that's ok because he's a character. When have I ever participated in a fight where Democrats where accepting money and doing evil with it? Maybe you could say I supported Obama in the election, and I say he's one of the best presidents we've ever had, and that's evil of me. But he was the best and even the most unifying of the candidates, and he is one of the top 20 presidents. That's not my fault, because I didn't live in 1851, and I didn't nominate Romney!
I never said a word about Republicans, that was you. I have used the term "gun enthusiasts" whenever I talk about the people blocking gun control legislation. If this was a red/blue argument then It would be a lot easier to be on the offensive. Unfortunately, the NRA and the Gun Manufacturers of America also donate money to and openly support Democratic Candidates. Harry Reid himself is personal friend with Wyane LaPierre.
I really wish all of CC could argue with the points instead of putting people into specific catagorys all the time and assuming that they must believe this or that. You're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with your vision of me when you do that. You don't ever see me arguing with stuff you never said. I might dissect your post, but at least I'm dissecting your words... how silly is this?
Except for BBS, because he's on Ignore. He can dissect himself.
I ain't even mad, I only wonder how long this kind of an environment can continue. I feel like I catch it because this site is conservative and they take their anger out on us liberals. Like "oh you're a Liberal d*ck, you want to take my guns away!" Uh, I never said that, and no Liberal does. It's like we've gone from using Ad-Hominen attacks to forming Ad-Hominen opinions when we think.
Juan_Bottom wrote:saxitoxin wrote:never underestimate the importance of blind obedience
In any case, my original point is that it's laughably hypocritical for a corporate prop to accuse others of being corporate props. But it fits within the current Democrat frame of assuring their supporters that they are part of some aristocracy of intellect battling against their easily beguiled countrymen because they can recite the names of court decisions they've never read and barely understand beyond "iz bad"; Citizen's United, all that. Until the switch in '06 that was the Republican frame (and it probably will be again, one day).
As opposed to what you do which is make a funny picture then ad hominen your opponent to death. You have no beliefs, you support nothing but yourself. It makes so much easier for you to attack other people on a personal level, but that doesn't make it ok. At least, even if everyone in the world thinks I'm stupid, at least I'm willing to lay the cards out on the table and say "I believe this is whats right, because of X, Y, and Z reasons."saxitoxin wrote:Annnnywho ... now is probably the point you should send one of your Astronomer or Molecular Biologist friends to this thread to tag in for you.
Did you fan me? 011045? Ari will do just as well with you calling her a dipshit stupid drone as I will. Seems dumb to waste anyone else's time when you don't debate any facts, you only debate people.
Juan_Bottom wrote:saxitoxin wrote:never underestimate the importance of blind obedience
In any case, my original point is that it's laughably hypocritical for a corporate prop to accuse others of being corporate props. But it fits within the current Democrat frame of assuring their supporters that they are part of some aristocracy of intellect battling against their easily beguiled countrymen because they can recite the names of court decisions they've never read and barely understand beyond "iz bad"; Citizen's United, all that. Until the switch in '06 that was the Republican frame (and it probably will be again, one day).
As opposed to what you do which is make a funny picture then ad hominen your opponent to death. You have no beliefs, you support nothing but yourself. It makes so much easier for you to attack other people on a personal level, but that doesn't make it ok. At least, even if everyone in the world thinks I'm stupid, at least I'm willing to lay the cards out on the table and say "I believe this is whats right, because of X, Y, and Z reasons."
Symmetry wrote:Ah another Saxitoxin, BBS, TGD trifecta attack.
saxitoxin wrote:Symmetry wrote:Ah another Saxitoxin, BBS, TGD trifecta attack.
this is how this thread went down ...
you can all fill in who is which character yourselves
thegreekdog wrote:The question with respect to Walmart is this - do gun control advocates need Walmart to advance their agenda? If the answer is yes, then Walmart will come to the table and receive something in return. This is how government works. Compromise is great. Dealing with Walmart is not compromise so much as "hey, we need Walmart on our side on this one, because we need their money and clout and in return we'll give them more money and clout, such as tax incentives and competition incentives."
thegreekdog wrote:A compromise would pit gun control advocates and anti-gun control advocates against each other to hammer out a sensible law that would deal with potential new Sandy Hook problems.
thegreekdog wrote:You seem to have a lot more pluses in your Democratic Party column and that's great, but please don't make the mistake of thinking that the Democratic Party, on an issue by issue basis, is not controlled by big companies and rich people in the same way the Republican Party is controlled by big companies and rich people.
thegreekdog wrote:The Democrats have no interest in overturning Citizen's United.
thegreekdog wrote:I am disagreeing with you. I'm disagreeing with your characterization of the issue. You characterize the NRA and gun supporters as being puppets of gun manufacturers. And that's fine to say that, but it's also hypocritical. Why do you not characterize the president as being a puppet of health insurance providers or Hollywood or Apple? The answer is because you agree with his stance on issues influenced by those groups (for the most part). Because you are a gun control supporter, you feel the need to denigrate the NRA and gun-supporters, who tend to be Republican, under a corporate cronyism argument. So, aren't you making the ad-hominem attack? If you wanted to talk about the issue of gun control, and not the issues of corporate croynism/rent-seeking/public choice theory, then you would post and continue to post stastics showing the Assault Weapons Ban, a similar proposal, or a new proposal, would work.
thegreekdog wrote:I'm undecided, for the most part, with respect to gun control. The reason I'm undecided is because there is a conflict in my mind between wanting to make the US safe and the facts of gun control. When the Assault Weapons Ban was passed, gun homicides were not reduced. Handguns are, by far, the most used weapon in homicides. The Assault Weapons Ban did not solve that problem. Furthermore, the Assault Weapons Ban would not have banned the AR-15 that was used in the Sandy Hook shootings, or, if it did, the gun manufacturers would have built a similar weapon that had a different look and name, and which was suddenly not banned. This is fairly simple factual stuff that I've yet to see you address. Intsead, you've concentrated on ad hominem attacks against gun owners, gun owner supporters, the NRA, and gun manufacturers. And that's fine if you want to do that, but then I should be free to label you a hypocrit for not making those same attacks on supporters of issues you are in favor of.
saxitoxin wrote:The fact you want to be part of a winning team so badly that you will support candidates, positions and groups that are working against your best interests doesn't define your beliefs. It defines your lack of self-esteem.
Juan_Bottom wrote:As opposed to what you do which is make a funny picture then ad hominen your opponent to death.
Juan_Bottom wrote:What did Biden offer Wal*Mart other than the chance to be heard? Do we know that he said anything to them except "come here or you'll regret it?"
chang50 wrote:Juan you are not an ultra far left person,as far as I can see if you lived in Europe you would be seen as a moderate Social Democrat.Don't allow yourself to be defined by a country that has lurched massively to the right from an already far right setting.
BigBallinStalin wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Symmetry wrote:Ah another Saxitoxin, BBS, TGD trifecta attack.
this is how this thread went down ...
you can all fill in who is which character yourselves
I chose one of the Baldwin brothers.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users