|
|
Gov. Rick Perry indicted on felony charges
VIP
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-08-19 13:33:03
I really don't give a rats *** what the SCOTUS ruled, they weren't given the power to rule on such a thing.
The fact that "times have changed" is also irrelevant. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect the people from the government, the people have the right, if not the duty to have the same weapons if not better than those the government has.
Regulation of guns is unconstitutional according to the constitution.
All rights have limits, why should firearms be any different? None of that changes the fact that assault weapons are the only type that are specifically designed to kill large amounts of people. I am not going to get into the same stupid discussion about whether the supreme court has the power to rule on the constitution or whether gun rights have limits, I refuted the moronic idea that guns are just tools, obviously, some aren't.
Because it's guaranteed, in writing.
Guns are designed to efficiently fire projectiles, not kill people.
I've owned a gun for over 2 years, it hasn't killed anyone yet.
You haven't refuted ***, as they are just tools. You cannot prove otherwise.
So are all the other rights that have limits based on negative impact. Free speech is limited when it causes undue hardship or malice. But it's guaranteed in writing so I should be able to yell fire in a crowded theatre then laugh when a kid gets trampled. Only the right to bear arms is defended without rationale.
It's really not irrationally defended. The country was founded on the idea that oppressed people could rise up and overthrow their government. Why on earth would people think the founders wouldn't want future generations to capable of doing the same thing? Do you think that we states or people could group together today and establish their own freedom?
Because your average gun owner is a well trained and disciplined rifleman capable of wielding a dozen machine pistols like Neo... So only people who are officially trained like NEO should be allowed to own guns? The whole point of a gun is that it levels the playing field so that some working stiff such as myself is on equal ground with neo from the matrix.
What sense does that make? "some working stiff" with no formal training or discipline is so far from an equal playing field they might as well have a super soaker. That's why I say that it isn't a legitimate argument, no matter how many weapons you have, you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of doing anything. Your foes possess tactical drones, bombs, tear gas, body armor, friggin TANKS.
 Ragnarok.Nausi
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-08-19 13:38:05
I really don't give a rats *** what the SCOTUS ruled, they weren't given the power to rule on such a thing.
The fact that "times have changed" is also irrelevant. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect the people from the government, the people have the right, if not the duty to have the same weapons if not better than those the government has.
Regulation of guns is unconstitutional according to the constitution.
All rights have limits, why should firearms be any different? None of that changes the fact that assault weapons are the only type that are specifically designed to kill large amounts of people. I am not going to get into the same stupid discussion about whether the supreme court has the power to rule on the constitution or whether gun rights have limits, I refuted the moronic idea that guns are just tools, obviously, some aren't.
Because it's guaranteed, in writing.
Guns are designed to efficiently fire projectiles, not kill people.
I've owned a gun for over 2 years, it hasn't killed anyone yet.
You haven't refuted ***, as they are just tools. You cannot prove otherwise.
So are all the other rights that have limits based on negative impact. Free speech is limited when it causes undue hardship or malice. But it's guaranteed in writing so I should be able to yell fire in a crowded theatre then laugh when a kid gets trampled. Only the right to bear arms is defended without rationale.
It's really not irrationally defended. The country was founded on the idea that oppressed people could rise up and overthrow their government. Why on earth would people think the founders wouldn't want future generations to capable of doing the same thing? Do you think that we states or people could group together today and establish their own freedom?
Because your average gun owner is a well trained and disciplined rifleman capable of wielding a dozen machine pistols like Neo... And you think that they will still be untrained if they were serious enough to stage a revolution against their own country?
The level of training and discipline required to stage anything more than another Waco is a lifelong commitment. Some people are serious about maintaining militia, but the state of the modern military completely invalidates current militia and gun enthusiasts as revolutionaries. The time for training is BEFORE an attack. I still don't understand this romance with revolution. If you could organize enough people to pose any kind of threat to the union, you'd have all the necessary power to change the government without force, that's the purpose of "democracy". The right to settle grievances is also a protected right. It calls to question the stability of people who threaten revolution before attempting peaceable solutions.
Right, unless the government sics the great regulatory authority known as the IRS to stall and cripple your organizing efforts. Your blind faith in the system is really nauseating sometimes.
What sense does that make? "some working stiff" with no formal training or discipline is so far from an equal playing field they might as well have a super soaker. That's why I say that it isn't a legitimate argument, no matter how many weapons you have, you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of doing anything. Your foes possess tactical drones, bombs, tear gas, body armor, friggin TANKS.
There's a first. Guns are about as useful as a butter knife but we need to take em away anyways cause they're so dangerous.
#Liberallogic
[+]
VIP
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-08-19 13:43:10
I really don't give a rats *** what the SCOTUS ruled, they weren't given the power to rule on such a thing.
The fact that "times have changed" is also irrelevant. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect the people from the government, the people have the right, if not the duty to have the same weapons if not better than those the government has.
Regulation of guns is unconstitutional according to the constitution.
All rights have limits, why should firearms be any different? None of that changes the fact that assault weapons are the only type that are specifically designed to kill large amounts of people. I am not going to get into the same stupid discussion about whether the supreme court has the power to rule on the constitution or whether gun rights have limits, I refuted the moronic idea that guns are just tools, obviously, some aren't.
Because it's guaranteed, in writing.
Guns are designed to efficiently fire projectiles, not kill people.
I've owned a gun for over 2 years, it hasn't killed anyone yet.
You haven't refuted ***, as they are just tools. You cannot prove otherwise.
So are all the other rights that have limits based on negative impact. Free speech is limited when it causes undue hardship or malice. But it's guaranteed in writing so I should be able to yell fire in a crowded theatre then laugh when a kid gets trampled. Only the right to bear arms is defended without rationale.
It's really not irrationally defended. The country was founded on the idea that oppressed people could rise up and overthrow their government. Why on earth would people think the founders wouldn't want future generations to capable of doing the same thing? Do you think that we states or people could group together today and establish their own freedom?
Because your average gun owner is a well trained and disciplined rifleman capable of wielding a dozen machine pistols like Neo... And you think that they will still be untrained if they were serious enough to stage a revolution against their own country?
The level of training and discipline required to stage anything more than another Waco is a lifelong commitment. Some people are serious about maintaining militia, but the state of the modern military completely invalidates current militia and gun enthusiasts as revolutionaries. The time for training is BEFORE an attack. I still don't understand this romance with revolution. If you could organize enough people to pose any kind of threat to the union, you'd have all the necessary power to change the government without force, that's the purpose of "democracy". The right to settle grievances is also a protected right. It calls to question the stability of people who threaten revolution before attempting peaceable solutions.
Right, unless the government sics the great regulatory authority known as the IRS to stall and cripple your organizing efforts. Your blind faith in the system is really nauseating sometimes.
You're trying to draw parallels to the faux IRS scandal? Tax exempt status is irrelevant to any group capable of actual change. I have no more faith in the system than the people who designed it, but what you're talking about is nothing more than retribution, there is no real endgame. It's just a lot of unfocused anger and vitriol.
There's a first. Guns are about as useful as a butter knife but we need to take em away anyways cause they're so dangerous.
#Liberallogic
I've never advocated taking guns away. It goes to the heart of the issue, if guns as a means to fight a tyrannical government is off the table, what other purpose do they serve?
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-08-19 13:48:04
I really don't give a rats *** what the SCOTUS ruled, they weren't given the power to rule on such a thing.
The fact that "times have changed" is also irrelevant. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect the people from the government, the people have the right, if not the duty to have the same weapons if not better than those the government has.
Regulation of guns is unconstitutional according to the constitution.
All rights have limits, why should firearms be any different? None of that changes the fact that assault weapons are the only type that are specifically designed to kill large amounts of people. I am not going to get into the same stupid discussion about whether the supreme court has the power to rule on the constitution or whether gun rights have limits, I refuted the moronic idea that guns are just tools, obviously, some aren't.
Because it's guaranteed, in writing.
Guns are designed to efficiently fire projectiles, not kill people.
I've owned a gun for over 2 years, it hasn't killed anyone yet.
You haven't refuted ***, as they are just tools. You cannot prove otherwise.
So are all the other rights that have limits based on negative impact. Free speech is limited when it causes undue hardship or malice. But it's guaranteed in writing so I should be able to yell fire in a crowded theatre then laugh when a kid gets trampled. Only the right to bear arms is defended without rationale.
It's really not irrationally defended. The country was founded on the idea that oppressed people could rise up and overthrow their government. Why on earth would people think the founders wouldn't want future generations to capable of doing the same thing? Do you think that we states or people could group together today and establish their own freedom?
Because your average gun owner is a well trained and disciplined rifleman capable of wielding a dozen machine pistols like Neo... And you think that they will still be untrained if they were serious enough to stage a revolution against their own country?
The level of training and discipline required to stage anything more than another Waco is a lifelong commitment. Some people are serious about maintaining militia, but the state of the modern military completely invalidates current militia and gun enthusiasts as revolutionaries. The time for training is BEFORE an attack. I still don't understand this romance with revolution. If you could organize enough people to pose any kind of threat to the union, you'd have all the necessary power to change the government without force, that's the purpose of "democracy". The right to settle grievances is also a protected right. It calls to question the stability of people who threaten revolution before attempting peaceable solutions.
Right, unless the government sics the great regulatory authority known as the IRS to stall and cripple your organizing efforts. Your blind faith in the system is really nauseating sometimes.
You're trying to draw parallels to the faux IRS scandal? Tax exempt status is irrelevant to any group capable of actual change. I have no more faith in the system than the people who designed it, but what you're talking about is nothing more than retribution, there is no real endgame. It's just a lot of unfocused anger and vitriol.
There's a first. Guns are about as useful as a butter knife but we need to take em away anyways cause they're so dangerous.
#Liberallogic
I've never advocated taking guns away. It goes to the heart of the issue, if guns as a means to fight a tyrannical government is off the table, what other purpose do they serve? But they aren't. That's why you're so insufferable sometimes. You'd honestly have us believe that a person with a gun couldn't kill a president. Even when we have numerous examples in recent history to cite
Bismarck.Ramyrez
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-08-19 13:49:05
Oooh, rights are absolute now? Brb, ritual human sacrifice.
Rights are given to us by our creator, not our government. That's pretty much why the constitution is so important. It was the first founding of a government based on such principles. 
But really.
[+]
VIP
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-08-19 13:52:28
I really don't give a rats *** what the SCOTUS ruled, they weren't given the power to rule on such a thing.
The fact that "times have changed" is also irrelevant. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect the people from the government, the people have the right, if not the duty to have the same weapons if not better than those the government has.
Regulation of guns is unconstitutional according to the constitution.
All rights have limits, why should firearms be any different? None of that changes the fact that assault weapons are the only type that are specifically designed to kill large amounts of people. I am not going to get into the same stupid discussion about whether the supreme court has the power to rule on the constitution or whether gun rights have limits, I refuted the moronic idea that guns are just tools, obviously, some aren't.
Because it's guaranteed, in writing.
Guns are designed to efficiently fire projectiles, not kill people.
I've owned a gun for over 2 years, it hasn't killed anyone yet.
You haven't refuted ***, as they are just tools. You cannot prove otherwise.
So are all the other rights that have limits based on negative impact. Free speech is limited when it causes undue hardship or malice. But it's guaranteed in writing so I should be able to yell fire in a crowded theatre then laugh when a kid gets trampled. Only the right to bear arms is defended without rationale.
It's really not irrationally defended. The country was founded on the idea that oppressed people could rise up and overthrow their government. Why on earth would people think the founders wouldn't want future generations to capable of doing the same thing? Do you think that we states or people could group together today and establish their own freedom?
Because your average gun owner is a well trained and disciplined rifleman capable of wielding a dozen machine pistols like Neo... And you think that they will still be untrained if they were serious enough to stage a revolution against their own country?
The level of training and discipline required to stage anything more than another Waco is a lifelong commitment. Some people are serious about maintaining militia, but the state of the modern military completely invalidates current militia and gun enthusiasts as revolutionaries. The time for training is BEFORE an attack. I still don't understand this romance with revolution. If you could organize enough people to pose any kind of threat to the union, you'd have all the necessary power to change the government without force, that's the purpose of "democracy". The right to settle grievances is also a protected right. It calls to question the stability of people who threaten revolution before attempting peaceable solutions.
Right, unless the government sics the great regulatory authority known as the IRS to stall and cripple your organizing efforts. Your blind faith in the system is really nauseating sometimes.
You're trying to draw parallels to the faux IRS scandal? Tax exempt status is irrelevant to any group capable of actual change. I have no more faith in the system than the people who designed it, but what you're talking about is nothing more than retribution, there is no real endgame. It's just a lot of unfocused anger and vitriol.
There's a first. Guns are about as useful as a butter knife but we need to take em away anyways cause they're so dangerous.
#Liberallogic
I've never advocated taking guns away. It goes to the heart of the issue, if guns as a means to fight a tyrannical government is off the table, what other purpose do they serve? But they aren't. That's why you're so insufferable sometimes. You'd honestly have us believe that a person with a gun couldn't kill a president. Even when we have numerous examples in recent history to cite
Are you suggesting that killing a president has the power to change the course of government? Cause it didn't work with Lincoln and that was an era when the central government faced far more opposition from a far more capable challenger. Sure, a person could assassinate a president, would it actually change anything? Not in the slightest, if anything it would empower the real anti-gun people and shift public opinion. Revolution is a fantasy.
[+]
 Bahamut.Milamber
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3692
By Bahamut.Milamber 2014-08-19 13:58:22
If you wish to prevent any individual person possessing biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons, ICBMs, rocket launchers, tanks, mortars, artillery, etc. then you are violating their absolute right to bear arms.
Most rational people recognize that there should be some limits on what arms individuals are allowed to possess.
If you agree that some are allowed to be prevented, then all you are doing is trying to define the scope of encroachment on the right to bear arms.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-08-19 13:59:58
Oooh, rights are absolute now? Brb, ritual human sacrifice.
Rights are given to us by our creator, not our government. That's pretty much why the constitution is so important. It was the first founding of a government based on such principles.
But really. 
Also:
Bahamut.Milamber
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3692
By Bahamut.Milamber 2014-08-19 14:07:38
Oooh, rights are absolute now? Brb, ritual human sacrifice.
Rights are given to us by our creator, not our government. That's pretty much why the constitution is so important. It was the first founding of a government based on such principles.
But really. Googling "invisible spaghetti monster with gun"
Bahamut.Milamber
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3692
By Bahamut.Milamber 2014-08-19 14:11:15
Oooh, rights are absolute now? Brb, ritual human sacrifice.
Rights are given to us by our creator, not our government. That's pretty much why the constitution is so important. It was the first founding of a government based on such principles.
But really. Also:
You know what works even better than good guys with guns?
Not having such a crappy wage disparity between having a blue-collar job, and criminal pursuits.
[+]
Lakshmi.Flavin
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 18466
By Lakshmi.Flavin 2014-08-19 14:12:17
It's already a crime to purchase a gun for anyone but yourself without taking the person with you getting them registered and all that fun stuff... At least where I live.
As for the second one... I could believe illegaly obtained maybe but not unregistered.
By fonewear 2014-08-19 14:13:19
Ragnarok.Nausi
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-08-19 14:14:31
I really don't give a rats *** what the SCOTUS ruled, they weren't given the power to rule on such a thing.
The fact that "times have changed" is also irrelevant. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect the people from the government, the people have the right, if not the duty to have the same weapons if not better than those the government has.
Regulation of guns is unconstitutional according to the constitution.
All rights have limits, why should firearms be any different? None of that changes the fact that assault weapons are the only type that are specifically designed to kill large amounts of people. I am not going to get into the same stupid discussion about whether the supreme court has the power to rule on the constitution or whether gun rights have limits, I refuted the moronic idea that guns are just tools, obviously, some aren't.
Because it's guaranteed, in writing.
Guns are designed to efficiently fire projectiles, not kill people.
I've owned a gun for over 2 years, it hasn't killed anyone yet.
You haven't refuted ***, as they are just tools. You cannot prove otherwise.
So are all the other rights that have limits based on negative impact. Free speech is limited when it causes undue hardship or malice. But it's guaranteed in writing so I should be able to yell fire in a crowded theatre then laugh when a kid gets trampled. Only the right to bear arms is defended without rationale.
It's really not irrationally defended. The country was founded on the idea that oppressed people could rise up and overthrow their government. Why on earth would people think the founders wouldn't want future generations to capable of doing the same thing? Do you think that we states or people could group together today and establish their own freedom?
Because your average gun owner is a well trained and disciplined rifleman capable of wielding a dozen machine pistols like Neo... And you think that they will still be untrained if they were serious enough to stage a revolution against their own country?
The level of training and discipline required to stage anything more than another Waco is a lifelong commitment. Some people are serious about maintaining militia, but the state of the modern military completely invalidates current militia and gun enthusiasts as revolutionaries. The time for training is BEFORE an attack. I still don't understand this romance with revolution. If you could organize enough people to pose any kind of threat to the union, you'd have all the necessary power to change the government without force, that's the purpose of "democracy". The right to settle grievances is also a protected right. It calls to question the stability of people who threaten revolution before attempting peaceable solutions.
Right, unless the government sics the great regulatory authority known as the IRS to stall and cripple your organizing efforts. Your blind faith in the system is really nauseating sometimes.
You're trying to draw parallels to the faux IRS scandal? Tax exempt status is irrelevant to any group capable of actual change. I have no more faith in the system than the people who designed it, but what you're talking about is nothing more than retribution, there is no real endgame. It's just a lot of unfocused anger and vitriol.
There's a first. Guns are about as useful as a butter knife but we need to take em away anyways cause they're so dangerous.
#Liberallogic
I've never advocated taking guns away. It goes to the heart of the issue, if guns as a means to fight a tyrannical government is off the table, what other purpose do they serve? But they aren't. That's why you're so insufferable sometimes. You'd honestly have us believe that a person with a gun couldn't kill a president. Even when we have numerous examples in recent history to cite
Are you suggesting that killing a president has the power to change the course of government? Cause it didn't work with Lincoln and that was an era when the central government faced far more opposition from a far more capable challenger. Sure, a person could assassinate a president, would it actually change anything? Not in the slightest, if anything it would empower the real anti-gun people and shift public opinion. Revolution is a fantasy. As if Lincoln would have had no further effect if he hadn't been assassinated. What kind of fool are you?
By fonewear 2014-08-19 14:15:45
Dat quote train though...
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-08-19 14:22:46
Not having such a crappy wage disparity between having a blue-collar job, and criminal pursuits. You know what's better than the so-called crappy wage disparity?
Not expecting to have a CEO wage while only having a GED and/or Liberal Arts degree.
Bismarck.Ramyrez
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-08-19 14:22:47
Dat quote train though...
Nausi can't be bothered to add some spoiler tags because he's too busy snidely typing the phrase "Gentle Giant" for the umpteenth time in the other thread.
I don't know what Jassik's excuse is. Locusts or something.
Bismarck.Ramyrez
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-08-19 14:25:00
Not having such a crappy wage disparity between having a blue-collar job, and criminal pursuits. You know what's better than the so-called crappy wage disparity?
Not expecting to have a CEO wage while only having a GED and/or Liberal Arts degree.
Man this thread is just all over the place.
No one is expecting a CEO wage for having a GED.
In fact, some aren't even getting GEDs and being dregs of society. Not that they have much of an example for anything else these days where they grow up.
But many folks just want a comfortable living wage for an honest job. And even that can be pretty hard to find these days.
 Leviathan.Chaosx
Server: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2014-08-19 14:26:55
This is what you get when you veto funding for the integrity unit.
Quote: Texas Governor Rick Perry plans to turn himself in to authorities for fingerprinting and a mug shot on Tuesday after he was indicted by a jury in the state last week on two felony charges of abusing power, local news reports said.
Neither the offices for Perry or his attorneys were immediately available for comment. Perry is due to be arraigned on Friday.
The indictment has cast a shadow over Perry's possible bid for the Republican presidential nomination, with experts predicting that legal wrangling in the case is likely to stretch into the 2016 election cycle.
Perry was indicted on Friday by a grand jury in Travis County, a Democratic stronghold in the heavily Republican state, over his veto of funding for a state ethics watchdog that has investigated prominent Texas Republicans.
He has called the indictment politically motivated and pledged to fight the charges.
Perry became the target of an ethics probe last year after he vetoed $7.5 million in funding for the state public integrity unit run from the Travis County district attorney's office.
Cerberus.Pleebo
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2014-08-19 14:38:04
You see, we're not allowed to discuss the underlying causes of violence, which is ultimately the discussion that needs to be had when it comes to gun control. The poor are just lazy, income disparity is supply and demand, minorities are only holding themselves back, mental illness is imaginary, and most rape victims are making it up. There's a conservative cop-out answer for anything because actually addressing the real issues might accidentally involve some deep introspection and acknowledgement that American Exceptionalism™ is a load of ***.
Ragnarok.Nausi
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-08-19 14:39:57
Spoken like a true America hater. Liberalism at it's finest. You preach the pursuit of introspection, but lets be honest. You're not content with introspection, really you just feel entitled to other people's money simply because you don't have any yourself.
VIP
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-08-19 14:40:19
As if Lincoln would have had no further effect if he hadn't been assassinated. What kind of fool are you?
Lincoln? The guy Republican champion on inalienable rights? Let's say, hypothetically, that any further effect he had would be "bad", what would have been the result? So, your justification for supporting assassination of a president revolves around quantum theory?
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2014-08-19 14:41:34
Not having such a crappy wage disparity between having a blue-collar job, and criminal pursuits. You know what's better than the so-called crappy wage disparity?
Not expecting to have a CEO wage while only having a GED and/or Liberal Arts degree.
Man this thread is just all over the place.
No one is expecting a CEO wage for having a GED.
In fact, some aren't even getting GEDs and being dregs of society. Not that they have much of an example for anything else these days where they grow up.
But many folks just want a comfortable living wage for an honest job. And even that can be pretty hard to find these days.
You expected a reasonable argument from teh strawman factory?
People need to look up "generational poverty" which is the main crisis that deeply affects the black community and where that is rooted - in antiquated, racist ideology. Starve a people of opportunity and don't be surprised when the result is a culture in ruins especially considering the incarceration rates thanks to laws created to shuffle off a group of people America wishes would have vanished like the Native Americans.
Nothing pops up overnight. These communities and the desperation, poverty and hopelessness are the result of actions made decades ago. In New York, it was pushing people into neighborhoods passed over by freeways and outright racist thinking. We can thank the 'hero' Robert Moses for that.
People who like to throw out civil rights as solving all these problems are blind fools who can't be bothered to look at the segregated neighborhood maps, gentrification, public service sinkholes or anything beyond their narrow perspective.
[+]
Bismarck.Ramyrez
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-08-19 14:42:09
You see, we're not allowed to discuss the underlying causes of violence, which is ultimately the discussion that needs to be had when it comes to gun control. The poor are just lazy, income disparity is supply and demand, minorities are only holding themselves back, mental illness is imaginary, and most rape victims are making it up. There's a conservative cop-out answer for anything because actually addressing the real issues might accidentally involve some deep introspection and acknowledgement that American Exceptionalism™ is a load of ***.
Eh. Liberals cop out about a lot of the negatives of their ideals, too. Particularly the "who pays" portion of a lot of the federal assistance programs. Or the readily-abusable nature of many of those programs.
Once you seperate out the extreme right/left wing zealotry, basically "liberal" and "conservative" just means "optimist" and "pessimist".
And it turns out that either way, you're always disappointed. It's just that when you're a conservative, you expect it.
They like to call that "being realistic" and pretend it makes them mature, but it's just a different form of self-pity than what the other side practices.
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2014-08-19 14:43:03
Spoken like a true America hater. Liberalism at it's finest.
Yup, I hate America for criticizing her. More people should 'hate' America rather than buy into the 'we're #1, we're #1' nonsense sold to you by your leaders.
Like any country we've got work to do in getting better and that doesn't happen unless we admit we got problems.
[+]
By fonewear 2014-08-19 14:44:41
You see, kids these days are full of ***.
Cerberus.Pleebo
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2014-08-19 14:46:17
Spoken like a true America hater. Liberalism at it's finest. You preach the pursuit of introspection, but lets be honest. You're not content with introspection, really you just feel entitled to other people's money simply because you don't have any yourself. If you wanted to "be honest", you wouldn't pretend to know anything about my financial situation. That's not honesty. That's making ***up for lack of a real answer.
[+]
Bismarck.Ramyrez
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-08-19 14:46:52
Spoken like a true America hater. Liberalism at it's finest. You preach the pursuit of introspection, but lets be honest. You're not content with introspection, really you just feel entitled to other people's money simply because you don't have any yourself.
See? Conservative pessimism.
Can't grasp that someone might have empathy for another human being, so you jump right to suspecting an underlying motive.
By fonewear 2014-08-19 14:47:41
We are discussing politics in the p and r section what is the occasion ?
I've heard about donuts gun nuts liberal nuts. But the greatest nut of them all is still the peanut.
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2014-08-19 14:48:20
It's just his excuse to provide nothing to the discourse other than labeling everyone a part of his outside group. Small minded thinking coated in a shell of ignorance.
Continue to nail every talking point though.
If you're of the mind that America is the best thing ever right now considering the income disparity that affects EVERY American in this country right now, you're delusional. I love how the same free market evangelists get up in arms about businsesses outsourcing, free trade agreements, driving down wages and generally doing what capitalism is supposed to do.
Sad your town has become a wasteland? That's capitalism. Money goes where it's cheapest to produce and thats China. Business has no patriotism, business doesn't give a ***about your family being the best blacksmiths in some podunk 80 years ago.
[+]
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20130
By Shiva.Nikolce 2014-08-19 14:48:38
You see, we're not allowed to discuss the underlying causes of violence, which is ultimately the discussion that needs to be had when it comes to gun control. The poor are just lazy, income disparity is supply and demand, minorities are only holding themselves back, mental illness is imaginary, and most rape victims are making it up. There's a conservative cop-out answer for anything because actually addressing the real issues might accidentally involve some deep introspection and acknowledgement that American Exceptionalism™ is a load of ***.
I'm interested in what you think the underlying causes of violence is.
Grand Jury indicts Rick Perry
Quote: (CNN) -- A grand jury has indicted Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, saying he abused his power by trying to pressure a district attorney to resign.
The two felony counts against Perry, a Republican, stem from his threat to veto funding for a statewide public integrity unit run by Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg unless she stepped down, the special prosecutor in the case, Michael McCrum, said.
Perry attorney David L. Botsford called the indictment a "political abuse of the court system." He said the action "violated the separation of powers" and "sets a dangerous precedent by allowing a grand jury to punish the exercise of a lawful and constitutional authority afforded to the Texas governor."
CNN affiliate KVUE reported that Perry will have to report to the Travis County Jail in the capital of Austin to be booked, fingerprinted and have his photo made for a mugshot.
Perry can continue to serve as governor while under indictment, KVUE reported. His attorneys could seek to have the charges thrown out, a motion that would delay the case, at the very least.
The grand jury in Travis County indicted the governor on charges of coercion of a public servant and abuse of his official capacity.
I actually didn't believe the headline when I first saw it, but its on every website, even the beloved Fox News. So this is real, its not some doomed publicity stunt *looking at you and your little lawsuit Boehner*
The failed Presidential candidate and pathetic governor of Texas is facing two felony counts of abusing power and coercion. He is going to be arrested, booked, fingerprinted, and a mugshot taken. Can't wait to see that.
Apparently he thought he could use his power to pressure an attorney to resign. I'm not surprised that he would attempt something like that due to his huge ego and lack of intellect, and living in Illinois, used to seeing governors go to jail. He is facing 99 years if convicted.
|
|
