You can't by-name attack the GOP like that and then criticize your party for not be left-wing enough and expect anyone not to view you as a democrat. Nobody agrees with their party down the line, except by freak coincidence.
View original post
View original postFor a politician, unless we're talking about an actual physical threat against them, cowardice only indicates an unwillingness to oppose the apparent majority view or endanger re-election when they believe doing so is
morally right. Since you keep arguing most people want gun control that's a pretty logically inconsistent view, especially since it is very unlikely most of the guys who voted with their party disagree. Now something like gay rights, believing gays should marry but saying other wise for fear of voter backlash, that's pretty cowardly, and we both know that's true of tons of democrat politicians including the president, but you would presumably view that as common sense then. Situational ethics, they don't do wonders for your credibility.
View original postwhen obama came out against gay marriage in 2007 i thought it was cowardly and i said so, although i wasn't on either this board or wotmania at the time. i could probably link you to statements i've made to that effect without using the word coward but i don't want to bring up stuff that is unrelated to this forum just to prove a point. and i will also fully admit that now that it's politically expedient, the dems all line up to be in favor of gay marriage. just like when the dems lined up in lockstep with the republicans to refuse to oppose the iraq invasion because it was politically expedient, i called that cowardly as well. i even participated in a protest at herb kohl's offices in wisconsin because instead of listening to his constituents -- 75% of whom did not want an invasion -- his response was "i'm going to see what the mood is in washington". coward.
You're accusing republicans of being cowards and that only applies in this context if they believe we need gun control and are afraid to vote for it. Possibly some do, not many. I could easily call Nancy Pelosi a coward for refusing to vote to ban abortion. I don't know Herb Kohl, but your justification is that 75% of his constituents didn't want to invade - I'd like to see that poll by the way, I don't believe that - but I have difficulty seeing it as cowardice when a man defies his employers to side with others. Congress can't fire him or expel him, his voters can, so how is that cowardice?
Also I'm pretty sure my loudly trumpeting gay rights, a leftist position, at GOP party meetings trumps your anti-war stance, a hard left position, to other leftists, on the whole courage of your convictions thing.
View original postwhen republicans would rather think about themselves and their lobbyist campaign donors than the constituents they represent,
You just keep saying that and it is total BS, you might as well say that about democrats and abortion or dems and Obamacare.
and then create lies about the legislation so they can justify opposition to it, yes i consider that cowardly. i don't doubt that many republicans come from states where their constituents don't want certain specific aspects of the legislation on guns, but it was pretty overwhelmingly obvious that, even by conservative estimates, 85% of people are in favor of expanded background checks and to say that 85% of the country is wrong because the NRA gives them a check i find to be cowardly. there is no cognitive dissonance here, and there is no inconsistency either. i've upset you by calling out your party, but if you wait long enough i'm sure i'll call out the dems for their role in something soon enough.
I've never seen you call out the dems on anything other than not being left enough for your tastes. What do the dems dislike and GOP like that you favor? That's the benchmark.
View original posti know it's easy to sit and say "this person opposes most of what i believe so he must be of the opposition party" but the truth is i am an activist, not a partisan. the only reason i agree with dems on a lot of issues is because the republicans are so far off the deep end to my world view that i have no choice. again, i know you're probably going to take that personally so i apologize directly to you for that, but you have to understand that it's not your party's delivery, it's the actual message that turns the majority of the country against them.
I don't think that's true, people are hindsight disaster controlling the 2012 but the 2010 says otherwise and 2014 might too. There aren't many issues the GOP can't summon at least 40% on, and the same is true of the Dems. I don't care if 51% are pro-choice anymore than you should if 51% are pro-life, and as long as more than a third of the voters agree it is silly to say the message doesn't resonate, unless maybe it was two-thirds who agreed ten years ago.
You, you are just a mess of contradictions. I think you're letting your letting your passion for these subjects blind you to the problems raised about them and the motives of the opposition. Of late you've been consistently using arguments that could apply equally well to the left. So far we've had tons of thread on guns and not one, not one on Gosnell, how is he different then Newtown?
View original postI believe you, I'd still advise not bringing fresh anger to the board tomorrow though. At least not on this issue, gun control is effectively dead for at least 8-12 years and stumping for it except through calm polite reasoning is going to be counter-productive.
View original postthe fresh anger comment was a joke, received poorly because of the textual communication limitations of the internet. calm and polite reasoning has gotten us nowhere, with the pro gun side seemingly more paranoid and unhinged than 20 years ago when it came up last. here is a calm and reasoned response to the whole issue: there is no such thing as a federal gun registry, and opposing legislation which specifically includes language re-affirming this is counter-productive for your side as well. if you are going to oppose a law, oppose it for what it actually contains, not the straw men that can be erected in order to generate fake outrage for justifications to filibuster it out of hand.
There's nothing calm and polite about throwing around words like paranoid, unhinged, and coward. The National Gun Registry concept is more about future fears, but also comes down to how these checks as suggested do nothing, I can still go buy a gun and sell it to a criminal and be totally safe from the law. So an NGR seems like a logical follow up to many because the current form is so neutered useless that it seems like it only exists to be a vessel for future expansion. Why on Earth would you expect people not to wonder what the game plan is when a group known to mostly 'not favor gun registry' in the same way they 'didn't favor gay marriage' until last year suddenly propose a useless feel good measure?
Look, you keep calling us paranoid but when we know damn well much of the left wants them banned entirely our 'paranoia' has justification, it's only been a few months since you were saying we should mirror the Australian policy of not treating self-defense as legit grounds to own a weapon.
View original postusing the language of the NRA: our goal should be in keeping the guns out of the "bad guys'" hands. but blocking any and all attempts to do so then telling us "hey, it won't work and we won't even give it a try" is demeaning to everyone involved on both sides of this issue.
everyone who disagrees with me is stupid and evil and a coward
- 18/04/2013 03:15:15 PM
521 Views
*NM*
*NM*
- 19/04/2013 11:01:31 PM
203 Views