|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 23 2016 11:10 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2016 11:08 Wegandi wrote:On June 23 2016 11:01 zlefin wrote:
It's the internet, and a lot of people in this thread are crazy; it's hard to tell what people actually mean or not; and at any rate, I'm free to push for less divisive rhetoric; which I did.
Nitpickiness matters, because definitions and meaning matter.
and if you don't believe their goal is to save lives (even if they're simply wrong about whether it would), then I question your understanding of the gun control advocates position. Good, good. First, hit the emotional note, then attack your opponents intelligence, while sitting atop the Moral Hill. Obviously, the issue is binary - you're either for saving lives, or you're for death! Nice Bushian tactics. The amount of hand-wringing this topic has had is amazing considering that there were only ~10,000 homicides via gun last year and the majority of those were gang on gang instigated by our inane "War on Drugs". Clearly, 20 year lows for violent crimes and gun-related crimes incite us to revoke 2 of the amendments in the Bill of Rights and use secret lists to determine our rights at the behest of our betters in the Government, because....the Children, or lives, or something else that no sane person could ever be against. Yeah, you're really pushing for less divisive rhetoric zlefin. as you are clearly not interested in actual, reasonable discussion, I will not respond to you other than this note.
Reasonable discussion obviously being to accept your position and to yield to the narrative you've presented. It's just those well-meaning people wanting to make your life better; why are you against making your life better and saving lives? Yeah, because the Democrats never use tragedies to paint their legislative opponents in less flattering light. I mean, look over this thread for many of the anti-2A advocates views of the pro-2A folks/organizations. The same shit the GOP does with stuff like "national security/war on terrorism/patriotism" non-sense, because if you were against the Iraq War after 9/11 you were a terrorist sympathizer...
Like I said, if it was about saving lives, there are a vast swath of more pressing issues that they could sit-in for, but never have. The FACT is that gun-related crimes are insanely low and have more to do with drug prohibition than the second amendment.
|
I watched the libertarian candidate town hall on cnn. They came off very reasonable; since it's just the two former governors, and not the crazier people from the libertarians. Fine answers on the whole.
|
On June 23 2016 11:17 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2016 11:10 zlefin wrote:On June 23 2016 11:08 Wegandi wrote:On June 23 2016 11:01 zlefin wrote:
It's the internet, and a lot of people in this thread are crazy; it's hard to tell what people actually mean or not; and at any rate, I'm free to push for less divisive rhetoric; which I did.
Nitpickiness matters, because definitions and meaning matter.
and if you don't believe their goal is to save lives (even if they're simply wrong about whether it would), then I question your understanding of the gun control advocates position. Good, good. First, hit the emotional note, then attack your opponents intelligence, while sitting atop the Moral Hill. Obviously, the issue is binary - you're either for saving lives, or you're for death! Nice Bushian tactics. The amount of hand-wringing this topic has had is amazing considering that there were only ~10,000 homicides via gun last year and the majority of those were gang on gang instigated by our inane "War on Drugs". Clearly, 20 year lows for violent crimes and gun-related crimes incite us to revoke 2 of the amendments in the Bill of Rights and use secret lists to determine our rights at the behest of our betters in the Government, because....the Children, or lives, or something else that no sane person could ever be against. Yeah, you're really pushing for less divisive rhetoric zlefin. as you are clearly not interested in actual, reasonable discussion, I will not respond to you other than this note. Reasonable discussion obviously being to accept your position and to yield to the narrative you've presented. It's just those well-meaning people wanting to make your life better; why are you against making your life better and saving lives? Yeah, because the Democrats never use tragedies to paint their legislative opponents in less flattering light. I mean, look over this thread for many of the anti-2A advocates views of the pro-2A folks/organizations. The same shit the GOP does with stuff like "national security/war on terrorism/patriotism" non-sense, because if you were against the Iraq War after 9/11 you were a terrorist sympathizer... Like I said, if it was about saving lives, there are a vast swath of more pressing issues that they could sit-in for, but never have. The FACT is that gun-related crimes are insanely low and have more to do with drug prohibition than the second amendment.
you continue to lie, and misrepresent my position. By repeated strawmanning, you prove that you have not read what I said, and have no interest in actual discussion. While you have some reasonable points, your continued hatred and lying means discussing with you is pointless. Please stop talking, you are not helping anyone learn anything.
|
The simple solution is just to let the bills come to a vote and put their votes on the record. That is half their job. Write laws and vote on them.
|
On June 23 2016 06:34 farvacola wrote:Folks say that there are no principled politicians in Washington. John Lewis is the sort of leader who serves as an excellent reminder that those folks are wrong 
why did he throw such shade on Bernie a few months ago then?
|
On June 23 2016 11:52 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2016 06:34 farvacola wrote:Folks say that there are no principled politicians in Washington. John Lewis is the sort of leader who serves as an excellent reminder that those folks are wrong why did he throw such shade on Bernie a few months ago then?
I don't see why those two things don't agree with each other?
|
On June 23 2016 11:52 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2016 11:52 IgnE wrote:On June 23 2016 06:34 farvacola wrote:Folks say that there are no principled politicians in Washington. John Lewis is the sort of leader who serves as an excellent reminder that those folks are wrong why did he throw such shade on Bernie a few months ago then? I don't see why those two things don't agree with each other?
Same here. Bernie's list of accomplishments by working with others is pretty slim.
|
On June 23 2016 11:01 zlefin wrote:
It's the internet, and a lot of people in this thread are crazy; it's hard to tell what people actually mean or not; and at any rate, I'm free to push for less divisive rhetoric; which I did.
Nitpickiness matters, because definitions and meaning matter.
and if you don't believe their goal is to save lives (even if they're simply wrong about whether it would), then I question your understanding of the gun control advocates position.
If you think a lot of people in this thread are crazy, the feeling is mutual. It'll sound elite and pompous, but when you cry out that somebody's being disingenuous in a very mild statement of the other side, other people might get a fair idea that you don't want to deal with the issues and only want to spout rhetoric.
When you try to rewrite the language of a tame response, saying how he could've phrased it different, it really paints you as a ideological zealot. I kid you not. We've said day in and day out that it's a second amendment issue and gun rights activists have a sincere belief that the government is trying to deprive them of their rights. A simple retelling of the position is not seeking division nor disingenuous. You have a position here and it shows.
Many gun owners sensibly believe their gun rights are being stripped from them. This can coexist with your belief that gun control advocates are getting a bad rap. Both sides having an empathetic look at the other side is valuable. I'm very willing to believe many do-gooders that think more gun control will be a net benefit for everyone, even gun owners, and would never intend disenfranchisement of citizen's guaranteed rights. Do-gooders coexist with agenda-driven and ideology-driven campaigns. I can agree with empathy. But don't for a second believe that in a debate thread your posting about "divisive rhetoric" and "you could have said .... something less obviously bad" does anything but muzzle debate at its infancy. You are being unreasonable, defensive without cause, and pedantic.
+ Show Spoiler [reference] +On June 23 2016 10:35 zlefin wrote:
It's too bad the republicans couldn't put up someone more reliable; it's annoying when people miss out on lots of their work.
i'd also say that phrasing is a very disingenuous and deceptive way to put the action by the Democratic representatives. On June 23 2016 10:22 Introvert wrote:
Rubio's been better since he left the race actually.
In terms of the Dems:
It's accurate. They are protesting someone's right to have some sort of due process before their gun rights are stripped from them. On June 23 2016 10:42 zlefin wrote:
please don't respond to something by editing in an answer in a prior statement; that's possible to miss, and disruptive to the flow of conversation. please keep conversation in order by using replies.
and it's quite obviously disingenuous phrasing on that other issue. On June 23 2016 10:47 Introvert wrote:Their own phrasing is disingenuous, I'm just getting to the heart of the matter. They believe, at a fundamental level, that a citizen's 2nd amendment rights are not worthy of due process. They even voted down the two compromise bills the GOP put up that contained some sort of check on the ability to prevent gun sales. I don't have to tow their line and adopt their language. Show nested quote +On June 23 2016 10:54 zlefin wrote:
I'm not sure how I'd describe it without doing a more in-depth analysis;
but I think you could have said something like they were "making foolish mistakes in an attempt to save lives"
or at any rate something less obviously bad than to imply their goal is to simply remove rights; \something that recognizes they do have a reasonable and understandable motive. How would you describe what they are doing? On June 23 2016 10:54 zlefin wrote:
I'm not sure how I'd describe it without doing a more in-depth analysis;
but I think you could have said something like they were "making foolish mistakes in an attempt to save lives"
or at any rate something less obviously bad than to imply their goal is to simply remove rights; \something that recognizes they do have a reasonable and understandable motive. On June 23 2016 10:59 Introvert wrote:
Now this is being nitpicky.
I know the reasons they give, but I don't believe them. Only Feinstein's scary af bill might have had any impact on what happened in Florida. This is pure theater. I don't believe their intentions or motivations are to "save lives."
At any rate, everyone here knew what I meant. No one thought it was the democrats stated goal to protest two parts of our bill of rights.
Only the honest anti-gun democrats admit that. On June 23 2016 11:01 zlefin wrote:
It's the internet, and a lot of people in this thread are crazy; it's hard to tell what people actually mean or not; and at any rate, I'm free to push for less divisive rhetoric; which I did.
Nitpickiness matters, because definitions and meaning matter.
and if you don't believe their goal is to save lives (even if they're simply wrong about whether it would), then I question your understanding of the gun control advocates position. This is a real issue. Language and goals of legislation. Don't outright dismiss so prejudicially the topic as divisive rhetoric or unseemly behavior.
|
The GOP has the majority in the House. The bill will never pass. The GOP just doesn't want to vote on the subject because they only vote on bills that they 100% approve of as the majority. There is an easy way to solve the problem if they don't like the substance of the bills.
|
On June 23 2016 11:52 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2016 11:52 IgnE wrote:On June 23 2016 06:34 farvacola wrote:Folks say that there are no principled politicians in Washington. John Lewis is the sort of leader who serves as an excellent reminder that those folks are wrong why did he throw such shade on Bernie a few months ago then? I don't see why those two things don't agree with each other?
Are you saying it was a principled, not a political, maneuver?
|
On June 23 2016 12:15 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2016 11:52 farvacola wrote:On June 23 2016 11:52 IgnE wrote:On June 23 2016 06:34 farvacola wrote:Folks say that there are no principled politicians in Washington. John Lewis is the sort of leader who serves as an excellent reminder that those folks are wrong why did he throw such shade on Bernie a few months ago then? I don't see why those two things don't agree with each other? Are you saying it was a principled, not a political, maneuver?
Of course saying "I didn't see him" was a principled and dignified move, or you know, pure political calculation to undermine a man who chained himself to a woman of color and got arrested fighting for civil rights during the time Congressman Lewis seemed to have missed him.
On June 23 2016 10:59 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2016 10:54 zlefin wrote:On June 23 2016 10:47 Introvert wrote:On June 23 2016 10:42 zlefin wrote:
please don't respond to something by editing in an answer in a prior statement; that's possible to miss, and disruptive to the flow of conversation. please keep conversation in order by using replies.
and it's quite obviously disingenuous phrasing on that other issue. Their own phrasing is disingenuous, I'm just getting to the heart of the matter. They believe, at a fundamental level, that a citizen's 2nd amendment rights are not worthy of due process. They even voted down the two compromise bills the GOP put up that contained some sort of check on the ability to prevent gun sales. I don't have to tow their line and adopt their language. How would you describe what they are doing? I'm not sure how I'd describe it without doing a more in-depth analysis; but I think you could have said something like they were "making foolish mistakes in an attempt to save lives" or at any rate something less obviously bad than to imply their goal is to simply remove rights; something that recognizes they do have a reasonable and understandable motive. Now this is being nitpicky. I know the reasons they give, but I don't believe them. Only Feinstein's scary af bill might have had any impact on what happened in Florida. This is pure theater. I don't believe their intentions or motivations are to "save lives." At any rate, everyone here knew what I meant. No one thought it was the democrats stated goal to protest two parts of our bill of rights. Only the honest anti-gun democrats admit that.
Rarely get to agree with Intro so, I agree this is pure political theater and not even that good. They remind me of a bunch of Bernie supporters at a convention, except less effective.
|
I don't really care about "Rights" or anything. But the whole talk of gun owners just seems disingenuous to me.
There's only one response to the question "Why do you need a gun?" that is valid. That answer is "Fuck off. I like guns"
Any other response is bullshit
|
Bisutopia19371 Posts
On June 23 2016 11:22 zlefin wrote:
I watched the libertarian candidate town hall on cnn. They came off very reasonable; since it's just the two former governors, and not the crazier people from the libertarians. Fine answers on the whole.
I'll be watching tomorrow. Here's the video for anyone else interested.
https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=LZAa2lXwIU4
|
On June 23 2016 12:07 Plansix wrote:
The GOP has the majority in the House. The bill will never pass. The GOP just doesn't want to vote on the subject because they only vote on bills that they 100% approve of as the majority. There is an easy way to solve the problem if they don't like the substance of the bills.
ad thus the hastert rule rears its ugly head
|
I don't think the GOP really understand how this political threat is playing out.
I think they might be confused. The first rule about the sit in is to not attempt to prevent people from seeing the sit in. And the best part is the Dems know the bill will fail, but it doesn't matter.
|
If the GOP really wanted people not to watch the sit in they'd just cut the wifi. Like hell a politician would use their own data to stream this
|
On June 23 2016 13:05 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2016 11:22 zlefin wrote:
I watched the libertarian candidate town hall on cnn. They came off very reasonable; since it's just the two former governors, and not the crazier people from the libertarians. Fine answers on the whole. I'll be watching tomorrow. Here's the video for anyone else interested. https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=LZAa2lXwIU4
link doesn't work on desktop
for the non mobile people
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I don't get it. Why would they come back to vote to adjourn the house for 1 hour? Are they going to move police in to get the Dems out or something?
|
A Reuters analysis suggests Donald Trump’s golf courses are worth less than he’s spent on them. Trump disagrees. He says they’re worth “many times” what he paid.
TURNBERRY, Scotland – When Donald Trump officially re-opens his Turnberry golf resort this week, he will be unveiling his most prestigious golf project yet. The seaside course has hosted The Open – Europe’s only golf major – four times and is regularly listed as one of the world’s top courses. It’s also one of the biggest golf investments by the Republican party’s presumptive presidential nominee.
The Edwardian hotel has been stripped and refitted with Italian marble, parquet floors, 315 chandeliers and gilt-edged furniture. Outside, the famous Ailsa course has been redesigned and extended. Trump says he is spending 200 million pounds ($290 million) on Turnberry, including the 34 million pounds he spent buying the property in 2014.
“I paid all cash. I then spent a tremendous amount of money on renovating the hotel and the golf courses,” he told Reuters in a telephone interview. “It’s incredible.”
Turnberry is one of 12 courses Trump has bought in Britain, the United States, and Ireland over the past 19 years. He says they are successful investments, bought cheaply when other developers fell into trouble or the market was weak.
The former reality TV star says his kind of business acumen is what the United States needs. “Just like I have no debt (on the courses), just like all these things ... we’re going to reduce the debt of the country, we’re going to increase jobs,” he told Reuters. “We’re going to make America great again.”
How great his golf course investments have been is debatable. A Reuters examination of them shows that Trump has likely lost millions of dollars on his golf projects. The analysis shows high costs and modest current valuations. Using conservative estimates of the amount Trump has spent, he may be breaking even or making modest gains; on higher estimates – based on what Trump has said he is spending – he’s losing money.
Trump disputes the analysis. He said Reuters’ calculations overestimated what he had spent and underestimated the value of his investments. He declined to provide figures for his expenditure on courses or their current or future market values.
“The golf courses are doing very well. Every one of them makes a lot of money,” said the author of the “Art of the Deal.” “They are not really golf investments, they’re development deals.”
He added: “I have the right to build thousands of homes on the various properties I own, and I haven’t wanted to build them (yet) because frankly I’ve been busy doing other things, like running for president.”
www.reuters.com
|
A sit in.
What is this,the sixties?
The spirit of Bernie is strong in the democratic party.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
