|
|
On September 11 2012 07:04 forgottendreams wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 06:57 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 06:53 KwarK wrote:On September 11 2012 06:49 NonCorporeal wrote:
I can just as easily point to the Democratic Party's anti-freedom stance on gun rights and use that to show that a Democrat is a terrible excuse for a human being. Gun rights are a far more important issue than whether or not you can marry someone; marriage is nothing more than a legal contract.
Note: I'm not saying that socialists are bad people or anything, I'm merely stating that I could use this as an example and it would be just as valid. Your right to a tool that allows you to more easily kill people is more important than your right for social acceptance of your sexuality and love? All of the evidence shows the opposite, KwarK. As we've covered countless times in this thread, gun control INCREASES crime. Guns save lives every single day and CCW has been hailed a massive success. My right to a tool that can be used to defend the lives of myself and the people I care about; as well as keep the government in check, provide sustenance, and provide countless hours of entertainment; is indeed more important than whether or not two males can enter into a legally-binding contract with one another. I fully support gay rights and abortion, but it is insulting and disturbing that anyone would dare compare marriage to a fundamental right like the right to bear arms or freedom of speech or any other fundamental right we have. I tried to wade through about 12 of your history posts to find your evidence for this statement but was discouraged and sunk into a deep depression from the extremely low level of every post you've made so far. After taking back a few drinks I'd like to ask you to support your evidence for this statement. * Disclaimer I support gun rights *
Here's a short-hand version since I'm about to log-out.
America
Every time gun control has been implemented, it has resulted in more crime. Every time gun control laws are struck down, it results in less crime. When concealed carry was implemented, crime dropped and CCW has been hailed as a success in terms of both expanding freedom and lowering crime rates. I've seen first-hand how concealed carry has saved lives, a friend of mine was attacked by a rapist in the city, but she was carrying and managed to hold her would-be rapist at gun point until police could arrive.
Europe
Most European countries have traditionally had very low violent crime rates. In the 1960s when European countries began implementing their gun control agendas, the gun control led to an increase in violent crime. Then in 1997 when handguns were completely banned, violent crime shot up again. Just like in America, every time gun control has been implemented, it has resulted in even more crime.
|
On September 11 2012 07:00 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 06:54 Derez wrote:On September 11 2012 06:49 NonCorporeal wrote:
I can just as easily point to the Democratic Party's anti-freedom stance on gun rights and use that to prove that a Democrat is a terrible excuse for a human being. Gun rights are a far more important issue than whether or not you can marry someone; marriage is nothing more than a legal contract. Not the point. You first make the claim that 'the vast majority of republicans' do not oppose gay marriage/abortion rights, which turns out not to be true. Then you claim most young republicans do support gay marriage, which is also not true (39% under 29), and then, you try and change the topic to something completely unrelated. If you care that much about your guns, by all means, vote republican. But don't create some imaginary idea of what republicans/dems/socialism/europe stand for. I suppose I was basing that assumption on the fact that Ron Paul had the vast majority of young voters behind him, and Ron Paul supports gay marriage; thus most young Republicans (who support Ron Paul), must also support gay marriage. I imagine it also differs between states, for instance, Republicans in the Missouri and New York probably support gay marriage more than Republicans in say, Louisiana or Mississippi.
No, Ron Paul supports states rights. He said it should be up to the states whether or not gay marriage is legal. He himself is actually opposed to it but he wouldn't do anything either way as president because he doesn't think it's the federal governments job to regulate marriage.
And I know states rights has kinda been a nice little mantra for people who like to pretend to be libertarian, but given how states have SUCKED at actually governing themselves historically, it kinda just sounds like code for "I wouldn't mind if Jim Crow laws came back."
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 11 2012 07:09 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 06:41 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2012 06:02 ImAbstracT wrote:Let's look at the extreme case, where taxes are say, 90%. I'm not recommending that, but just using that as an example. In that case, a business has a huge incentive to continue to invest in the business (which creates deductible expenses) instead of taking money out of the business.
High tax rates favor business investment. Lower tax rates encourage owners to not invest, not hire, and to take money out of the business as fast as they can.
I sure wish just once somebody would explain this basic business principle in the MSM. Whoever wrote this is just dumb. Calling someone dumb is a good argument... What he wrote is factually correct. When taxes are low, business hire less (in fact they lay off more), when taxes are high they invest in their company more and the economy of the country is much healthier because you have people actually spending their money instead of hoarding it off shore. Are you simply aware that businesses aren't competent and won't be able to invest their money appropriately, so you argue for these types of regressive policies? I really do want to know from where you get this distorted view of reality.
probably from some econ textbook that doesn't have the notion of an offshore account.
|
On September 11 2012 07:00 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 06:54 Derez wrote:On September 11 2012 06:49 NonCorporeal wrote:
I can just as easily point to the Democratic Party's anti-freedom stance on gun rights and use that to prove that a Democrat is a terrible excuse for a human being. Gun rights are a far more important issue than whether or not you can marry someone; marriage is nothing more than a legal contract. Not the point. You first make the claim that 'the vast majority of republicans' do not oppose gay marriage/abortion rights, which turns out not to be true. Then you claim most young republicans do support gay marriage, which is also not true (39% under 29), and then, you try and change the topic to something completely unrelated. If you care that much about your guns, by all means, vote republican. But don't create some imaginary idea of what republicans/dems/socialism/europe stand for. I suppose I was basing that assumption on the fact that Ron Paul had the vast majority of young voters behind him, and Ron Paul supports gay marriage; thus most young Republicans (who support Ron Paul), must also support gay marriage. I imagine it also differs between states, for instance, Republicans in the Missouri and New York probably support gay marriage more than Republicans in say, Louisiana or Mississippi.
The first part of this post is blatant ignorance and a lie, a clear violation of the mod note that requires evidence in this thread.
|
On September 11 2012 07:10 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 07:04 forgottendreams wrote:On September 11 2012 06:57 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 06:53 KwarK wrote:On September 11 2012 06:49 NonCorporeal wrote:
I can just as easily point to the Democratic Party's anti-freedom stance on gun rights and use that to show that a Democrat is a terrible excuse for a human being. Gun rights are a far more important issue than whether or not you can marry someone; marriage is nothing more than a legal contract.
Note: I'm not saying that socialists are bad people or anything, I'm merely stating that I could use this as an example and it would be just as valid. Your right to a tool that allows you to more easily kill people is more important than your right for social acceptance of your sexuality and love? All of the evidence shows the opposite, KwarK. As we've covered countless times in this thread, gun control INCREASES crime. Guns save lives every single day and CCW has been hailed a massive success. My right to a tool that can be used to defend the lives of myself and the people I care about; as well as keep the government in check, provide sustenance, and provide countless hours of entertainment; is indeed more important than whether or not two males can enter into a legally-binding contract with one another. I fully support gay rights and abortion, but it is insulting and disturbing that anyone would dare compare marriage to a fundamental right like the right to bear arms or freedom of speech or any other fundamental right we have. I tried to wade through about 12 of your history posts to find your evidence for this statement but was discouraged and sunk into a deep depression from the extremely low level of every post you've made so far. After taking back a few drinks I'd like to ask you to support your evidence for this statement. * Disclaimer I support gun rights * Here's a short-hand version since I'm about to log-out. AmericaEvery time gun control has been implemented, it has resulted in more crime. Every time gun control laws are struck down, it results in less crime. When concealed carry was implemented, crime dropped and CCW has been hailed as a success in terms of both expanding freedom and lowering crime rates. I've seen first-hand how concealed carry has saved lives, a friend of mine was attacked by a rapist in the city, but she was carrying and managed to hold her would-be rapist at gun point until police could arrive. EuropeMost European countries have traditionally had very low violent crime rates. In the 1960s when European countries began implementing their gun control agendas, the gun control led to an increase in violent crime. Then in 1997 when handguns were completely banned, violent crime shot up again. Just like in America, every time gun control has been implemented, it has resulted in even more crime.
Alright well since you're leaving I'll still post this anyway even though if you weren't leaving you would selectively read it and ignore parts of it anyway
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr
tl;dr if you don't have time to control FBI's UCR time release data there is no substantial correlative effect between gun control laws and crime. Crime has continued to trend down regardless of gun control laws for IMO sociological reasons. If you want to support gun rights don't be a moron and base it on data that says nothing. Just say you support it because it makes no difference and I side with liberalization of gun rights.
|
On September 11 2012 07:10 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 07:04 forgottendreams wrote:On September 11 2012 06:57 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 06:53 KwarK wrote:On September 11 2012 06:49 NonCorporeal wrote:
I can just as easily point to the Democratic Party's anti-freedom stance on gun rights and use that to show that a Democrat is a terrible excuse for a human being. Gun rights are a far more important issue than whether or not you can marry someone; marriage is nothing more than a legal contract.
Note: I'm not saying that socialists are bad people or anything, I'm merely stating that I could use this as an example and it would be just as valid. Your right to a tool that allows you to more easily kill people is more important than your right for social acceptance of your sexuality and love? All of the evidence shows the opposite, KwarK. As we've covered countless times in this thread, gun control INCREASES crime. Guns save lives every single day and CCW has been hailed a massive success. My right to a tool that can be used to defend the lives of myself and the people I care about; as well as keep the government in check, provide sustenance, and provide countless hours of entertainment; is indeed more important than whether or not two males can enter into a legally-binding contract with one another. I fully support gay rights and abortion, but it is insulting and disturbing that anyone would dare compare marriage to a fundamental right like the right to bear arms or freedom of speech or any other fundamental right we have. I tried to wade through about 12 of your history posts to find your evidence for this statement but was discouraged and sunk into a deep depression from the extremely low level of every post you've made so far. After taking back a few drinks I'd like to ask you to support your evidence for this statement. * Disclaimer I support gun rights * Here's a short-hand version since I'm about to log-out. AmericaEvery time gun control has been implemented, it has resulted in more crime. Every time gun control laws are struck down, it results in less crime. When concealed carry was implemented, crime dropped and CCW has been hailed as a success in terms of both expanding freedom and lowering crime rates. I've seen first-hand how concealed carry has saved lives, a friend of mine was attacked by a rapist in the city, but she was carrying and managed to hold her would-be rapist at gun point until police could arrive. EuropeMost European countries have traditionally had very low violent crime rates. In the 1960s when European countries began implementing their gun control agendas, the gun control led to an increase in violent crime. Then in 1997 when handguns were completely banned, violent crime shot up again. Just like in America, every time gun control has been implemented, it has resulted in even more crime.
Actually the data is completely haywire on what causes violent crime. Unless some new end all be all study came out in the past 5 years, there is NO direct correlation between gun laws and violent crime. For every example of a state that saw a positive relationship, you can find a state that saw a negative one. We actually still have no idea what really causes violent crime.
|
On September 11 2012 07:09 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 06:41 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2012 06:02 ImAbstracT wrote:Let's look at the extreme case, where taxes are say, 90%. I'm not recommending that, but just using that as an example. In that case, a business has a huge incentive to continue to invest in the business (which creates deductible expenses) instead of taking money out of the business.
High tax rates favor business investment. Lower tax rates encourage owners to not invest, not hire, and to take money out of the business as fast as they can.
I sure wish just once somebody would explain this basic business principle in the MSM. Whoever wrote this is just dumb. Calling someone dumb is a good argument... What he wrote is factually correct. When taxes are low, business hire less (in fact they lay off more), when taxes are high they invest in their company more and the economy of the country is much healthier because you have people actually spending their money instead of hoarding it off shore. Are you simply aware that businesses aren't competent and won't be able to invest their money appropriately, so you argue for these types of regressive policies? I really do want to know from where you get this distorted view of reality.
What was written was factually incorrect. Taxes are based off income, not revenue so the whole premise was wrong-headed.
|
On September 11 2012 05:15 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 04:56 Tula wrote:On September 11 2012 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On September 11 2012 03:23 frogrubdown wrote:On September 11 2012 02:54 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 02:42 KwarK wrote:On September 11 2012 02:27 NonCorporeal wrote:
Wow KwarK, what a rant, wow. With all due respect, I think that using the recent election of right-wing (EU defition) parties across Europe as an example of how Europe is moving towards American capitalism is ridiculous. There have been "conservative" (EU definition) elected in Europe before, and they haven't done anything meaningful to end the welfare state; and likewise, neither have the parties that have recently been elected in UK, Germany, Italy, and other EU countries. By that same definition, one could argue that they are also moving towards socialism again, with the Socialist Party forming a government in France and winning the presidential election a few months ago, with part of their platform claling for over 70% income tax.
These so-called "right-wing" parties in Europe are so far-left by normal standards, that they haven't done anything to end the welfare state, they haven't done anything to promote gun rights, they haven't done anything to stop multiculturalism, and they haven't done anything to re-instate freedom of speech and other freedoms that Europeans have lost under socialism. The people of Europe may very well want to move towards American-style capitalism and freedom, but they apparently have no outlet to make that happen, since the people they repeatedly elect into office are nowhere near radical enough to return capitalism to the people of Europe; possibly because politicians and bureaucrats often benefit from having a socialist welfare state and a big government.
Also, America is rapidly moving towards Europe, despite the fact that European leaders and politicians have been trying to warn America not to go down their path for at least a decade now. We've seen America moving further and further towards a big government welfare state and a nanny state that will strip people of their freedom and of their 'pursuit of happiness' (right to keep the fruits of their labor). There are factions in this country, mostly Democrats who want nothing more than to create a socialist welfare state, to nationalize healthcare, to nationalize various industries (we already nationalized the auto industry, and recently Obama said that he wants to nationalize "all other industries" as well), we've seen the lefties pushing towards more draconian gun control laws, we've seen the lefties trying to ban "fatty foods," we've seen the lefties pushing their multicultural agenda, and we've seen the lefties pushing a European-style "North American Union," and we've seen the lefties repeatedly side with Palestine instead of Israel.
Edit: Sorry, double posted on mistake.
It just baffles me how can anyone honestly say with a straight face that the American left isn't trying to turn America into Europe 2.0? "far-left by normal standards" Are you serious? By the standards of pretty much every single liberal democracy in the world America is far, far right. The fact that you're like "we're normal, it's all the other countries who are all abnormal" just shows the depths of ignorance enjoyed by those who still believe in American exceptionalism. You also in no way refuted the fact that Europe used to be socialist and that any claim that they're heading towards socialism based upon the legacy of socialist policies is factually untrue. Okay, imagine you saw a guy swimming in the sea, then loudly say "I don't want to swim anymore", then get out of the water, then say "I'm now no longer going to swim" and then walk away from the beach with wet hair. Would you conclude from this that because water is wet and he is wet he is clearly going for a swim or would you instead look at the direction he was walking in and conclude that he's perhaps just gone for a swim. I know it's a fairly silly example but I just cannot understand how to make the idiocy of what you're saying any clearer to you. I have outlined the history of socialism in the UK to you and explained that we have in fact already been socialist and that all of our major parties have rejected socialism openly and that the new consensus is far, far to the right of the previous consensus in the 50s and 60s. I don't know how to make this any clearer to you. The things that you are saying are not the things that are true. This is not an opinion or something that you can argue. These are things that you can look up. I know you heard on whatever right wing fear media you subscribe to that the rest of the world is falling to the forces of socialism but it's factually incorrect. Not true. Wrong. Read a book for once. Do some independent research. Open your damn eyes. Where is the evidence that Europe is moving away from socialism towards the free-market? Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but your entire argument seems to be based on "we're not as socialist as we used to be, so clearly we love capitalism now." If you're going to claim that someone's argument is factually untrue, then you should at least provide legitimate reasons as to you feel that way. Edit: Sorry, I seem to have double posted. You seem confused. You made a claim about things changing, getting more socialist and less capitalist. For it to be the case that "we're not as socialist as we used to be" just is for it to be the case that we're "moving away from socialism and toward a free market" (unless of course they were going even further left, which they aren't). Whether or not anyone "loves capitalism now" has nothing to do with it. A change is a change. You claimed, based on nothing, that the change was in one direction. Kwark pointed out that it's been in the other. Be glad you've learned something today. Ah, here's the thread at its worst: not seeing the forest for the trees. Noncorporeal is exactly right in that democrats are pushing the US to be more like Europe in terms of government policy. I don't even think that this is fairly debatable. He's also right in pointing out that Europe is having a lot of difficulty managing its more socialist/liberal policies. That's the "forest." With regards to whether Europe is becoming more socialist or more capitalist, that's a rather difficult question to answer. You have to consider time frames and you also have to consider each country on an individual basis. I don't think anyone can argue that France is on a decidedly socialist trend (and quite frankly, I can't wait for this little experiment to blow up spectacularly in their faces). Regardless, this issue would be the "trees." Bottom line: stick to the larger point rather than giving Noncorporeal a shitty time about the more irrelevant stuff. What you're doing is inane. EDIT: And to be clear, this applies to the half-dozen other posters who have jumped on Noncorporeal. To be very clear as well, Noncorporeal is about as wrong as he could possibly be and the ignorance reflected in his posts so far (as well as his staggering ability to ignore counterpoints or demands for sources) is pissing people off quite badly. Now to be even more precise, by the ludicrous standard of "gun-control" or "right to bear arms" (both things which are culturally VERY different in Europe) we do not have ANY division among our parties, so everyone including the most radically right parties must be socialists! Do you realise how silly that sounds? Not a single party in Austria is advocating looser gun control. There is no demand for it. Considering your previously well defined Republican bias, I'll ignore your statement about Obamas intentions, wether he truly wants that or not, is not something I'm willing to judge, but implying that Europe is moving towards socialism shows hilarious ignorance at best if it isn't a cheap troll. Regarding Freedom of speech, we (as in Austria and Germany) have by consensus restricted ourselves in regards to Nazis and Neo-Nazis, that might be an infringement of this article, but considering what happened half a century ago, I can happily live with that restriction. As a point of note, when your personal Freedom of speech infringes on hate-crimes and racism (as was the case with Herr Küssler) you should be facing trial in any democracy. Looks like you were wrong about Austria. Freedom isn't a "cultural" thing, gun rights are a fundamental right that all free humans have, our rights come from nature, not from the government. An important aspect of democracy is the protection of minority rights, that includes people who have unpopular opinions. What is a "hate crime?" Seriously, why should "hate crimes" even exist? If you're doing something that is already illegal, then why do you need to make it a "hate crime?" If someone slits a black person's throat, why should it matter if said person did it because he was black or not? Why should that have any impact whatsoever on the law?
The LIF has not been in Parliament for my entire adult life (that being 9 years now), pardon me if i have no clue what a completly clueless fringe party which doesn't even manage to get 1% of the votes says.
gun rights have nothing to do with nature.... Seriously man, what are you talking about? What is nature? Biology? If so what does that have to do with guns? The right to bear arms is NOT included in the UN charter of rights, which is probably the most basic charter of rights I can think of.
Hate crimes in the sense you mean do not exist in the Austrian Legal system, I tried to use a similar term because the concept we use in German isn't reflected in any English Law i know off. Basically what i meant is that in regards to crimes which are similar to what the Nazis commited we use different standards, basically any minority has a right to voice their opinion protected by the state, with the express restriction of Neo-Nazi thoughts and actions ("Wiederbetätigung"). You can say that is wrong, I'll not argue about it, but it is what it is and it was implemented for a reason.
Also let me set you straight on something else, without the goverment to protect your individual rights the only law from nature we could use would be survival of the fittest or might makes right. Does that sound anything like freedom of speech to you?
|
On September 11 2012 07:10 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 07:04 forgottendreams wrote:On September 11 2012 06:57 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 06:53 KwarK wrote:On September 11 2012 06:49 NonCorporeal wrote:
I can just as easily point to the Democratic Party's anti-freedom stance on gun rights and use that to show that a Democrat is a terrible excuse for a human being. Gun rights are a far more important issue than whether or not you can marry someone; marriage is nothing more than a legal contract.
Note: I'm not saying that socialists are bad people or anything, I'm merely stating that I could use this as an example and it would be just as valid. Your right to a tool that allows you to more easily kill people is more important than your right for social acceptance of your sexuality and love? All of the evidence shows the opposite, KwarK. As we've covered countless times in this thread, gun control INCREASES crime. Guns save lives every single day and CCW has been hailed a massive success. My right to a tool that can be used to defend the lives of myself and the people I care about; as well as keep the government in check, provide sustenance, and provide countless hours of entertainment; is indeed more important than whether or not two males can enter into a legally-binding contract with one another. I fully support gay rights and abortion, but it is insulting and disturbing that anyone would dare compare marriage to a fundamental right like the right to bear arms or freedom of speech or any other fundamental right we have. I tried to wade through about 12 of your history posts to find your evidence for this statement but was discouraged and sunk into a deep depression from the extremely low level of every post you've made so far. After taking back a few drinks I'd like to ask you to support your evidence for this statement. * Disclaimer I support gun rights * Here's a short-hand version since I'm about to log-out. AmericaEvery time gun control has been implemented, it has resulted in more crime. Every time gun control laws are struck down, it results in less crime. When concealed carry was implemented, crime dropped and CCW has been hailed as a success in terms of both expanding freedom and lowering crime rates. I've seen first-hand how concealed carry has saved lives, a friend of mine was attacked by a rapist in the city, but she was carrying and managed to hold her would-be rapist at gun point until police could arrive. EuropeMost European countries have traditionally had very low violent crime rates. In the 1960s when European countries began implementing their gun control agendas, the gun control led to an increase in violent crime. Then in 1997 when handguns were completely banned, violent crime shot up again. Just like in America, every time gun control has been implemented, it has resulted in even more crime.
Where the hell do you get that non-sense from ?
Hell i'm not against owning guns or anything even though i never saw a gun in my life never felt the urge to see or use one or whatever. BUT it's important that they're registered and there should be a license that you need to take tests psychological , theoretical and practical . So you can sort out a few crazies and also have people learn proper use of the deadly weapon they want to own. I mean you do need a drivers license why not one for guns ? Also outlandish non-sense like big assault rifles def. is reasonable to be banned . You don't need that for protection and if you think you could hold the goverment in check with a few automatic rifles you're kidding yourself if you think you could go up against a well trained and armed force with modern equipment.
|
Hyrule18968 Posts
I apologize to the world for NonCorporeal.
|
On September 11 2012 07:41 tofucake wrote:
I apologize to the world for NonCorporeal.
I read a couple of his posts and knew that his account would not last another ten minutes. Turns out I was right 
|
On September 11 2012 07:41 tofucake wrote:
I apologize to the world for NonCorporeal.
I guess he's now...
noncorporeal.
YEAAAAAAAAAAH.
In other news, my favorite election tracker has Obama's chances of re-election at over 80%. Generally I'd dismiss it as a convention bounce that isn't very important, but given the lack of bounce for Romney, well, I think its much more significant.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
|
On September 11 2012 08:02 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 07:41 tofucake wrote:
I apologize to the world for NonCorporeal. I guess he's now... noncorporeal. YEAAAAAAAAAAH. In other news, my favorite election tracker has Obama's chances of re-election at over 80%. Generally I'd dismiss it as a convention bounce that isn't very important, but given the lack of bounce for Romney, well, I think its much more significant. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
Historically isn't the re-election rate of on encumbent president like 75%? I mean it's no surprise that his chances are so high. You're right that it is very significant but it's not really anything Obama or Romney are doing.
|
Gun Control only makes it harder for law-abiding citizens to get guns which leads to a rise in crime in some places. I'd say the drop in crime in other areas is just a coincidence.
|
On September 11 2012 08:16 Darknat wrote:
Gun Control only makes it harder for law-abiding citizens to get guns which leads to a rise in crime in some places. I'd say the drop in crime in other areas is just a coincidence.
Getting a gun shouldn't be easy though. Guns are not toys and not everyone is fit to own and carry a gun . Also people should get educated on how to properly use a gun before beeing able to buy/own/use one . Do you want people driving around in cars without drivers licenses and having no idea how a car works ? Surely not.
|
On September 11 2012 08:02 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 07:41 tofucake wrote:
I apologize to the world for NonCorporeal. I guess he's now... noncorporeal. YEAAAAAAAAAAH. In other news, my favorite election tracker has Obama's chances of re-election at over 80%. Generally I'd dismiss it as a convention bounce that isn't very important, but given the lack of bounce for Romney, well, I think its much more significant. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
Wow, September polls must be SO ACCURATE huh?
|
On September 11 2012 06:53 KwarK wrote:
Your right to a tool that allows you to more easily kill people is far more important than your right for social acceptance of your love?
How can you possibly have a "right to social acceptance"? Wouldn't that basically mean that you have a right to have others agree with your views?
Conservatives generally don't agree with these "rights" that require others to do something for you. So a "right" to get health care, or a "right" to an education are not consistent with typical conservative values.
|
On September 11 2012 08:14 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 08:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 11 2012 07:41 tofucake wrote:
I apologize to the world for NonCorporeal. I guess he's now... noncorporeal. YEAAAAAAAAAAH. In other news, my favorite election tracker has Obama's chances of re-election at over 80%. Generally I'd dismiss it as a convention bounce that isn't very important, but given the lack of bounce for Romney, well, I think its much more significant. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/ Historically isn't the re-election rate of on encumbent president like 75%? I mean it's no surprise that his chances are so high. You're right that it is very significant but it's not really anything Obama or Romney are doing.
The RNC's inability to generate any blip on the radar in favor of Romney is a real failure.
I have a whole list of reasons why, but I'm at work right now  . But for Romney to do this poorly given the state of the economy is truly embarrassing for the GOP establishment.
They have the wrong strategy, the wrong agenda, and the wrong candidate. I can't help but wonder how much better McCain, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio -- hell, even Mitt Romney -- would be doing with more centrist, less schizophrenic campaign.
|
On September 11 2012 08:24 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 06:53 KwarK wrote:
Your right to a tool that allows you to more easily kill people is far more important than your right for social acceptance of your love? How can you possibly have a "right to social acceptance"? Wouldn't that basically mean that you have a right to have others agree with your views? Conservatives generally don't agree with these "rights" that require others to do something for you. So a "right" to get health care, or a "right" to an education are not consistent with typical conservative values.
Calling those things "rights" really cheapens the concept of a right until it finally just means "something good that I want". I would prefer that we keep the 2 separate.
|
On September 11 2012 08:21 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 08:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 11 2012 07:41 tofucake wrote:
I apologize to the world for NonCorporeal. I guess he's now... noncorporeal. YEAAAAAAAAAAH. In other news, my favorite election tracker has Obama's chances of re-election at over 80%. Generally I'd dismiss it as a convention bounce that isn't very important, but given the lack of bounce for Romney, well, I think its much more significant. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/ Wow, September polls must be SO ACCURATE huh?
Not just this poll. Four separate polls point to a trend of Obama gaining favor. I'll try to find links later.
It doesn't mean that Obama will ultimately win, but considering that Romney has spent the past 5 years and hundreds of millions of dollars trying to be president he should be polling better by now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
