[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
^smh23’s “two Pauls” test: if both Paul Ryan and Paul Krugman are opposed to something, chances are great that it’s exactly what needs to be done.[/quote]
haha. This made me laugh pretty hard.
[/quote]
lol, I’m glad because I was pretty proud of that one.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Fein-bag is safe in her district, she can do whatever she wants because she knows she cannot be voted out. [/quote]
Max- Tell Cali to stop trying to spread their garbage idea will ya?
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
I am learning very fast.
I am also noticing that using free speech to express one’s mind freely gets a person to be judged and labeled immediately.
This is very predictable.
Also there is a difference between being concerned for yourself in not wanting your rights taken away versus being concerned for yourself in wanting the government to take things from people to give to you - and to take away rights from other people because you consider your agenda superior.
Not all self interest is equal.
We all have equity.
[/quote]
I’ll go in order since some of this likely is a response to me.
Of course expressing what one thinks gets judged as it should. Being able to say largely whatever you like doesn’t mean you are in a judgment free zone. Predictable and as it should be. After all opinions are like assholes we all have them and most of them stink.
I would only agree with the rest of the post in that certainly all self interest is not created equal the self interest that benefits me and mine is more valuable than that which benefits you if you subscribe to that ethics. We take rights away from people all the time that don’t subscribe to our agenda.
This is why I say your post is racist.
You set up both Hispanics and Blacks as monolithic voting blocks in which one clearly votes against what you see to be America’s best interest in favor of their own personal interest as well as one being the pets of another block of voters that vote against America’s best interest in your opinion. In opposition to the other group of voters which I can only take to be conservative whites which you believe have votes that equal to America’s best interests.
So it for one insults both blacks and Hispanics by saying in both cases they vote against America’s best interests and in the case of blacks says you think liberals treat them as some kind of pet.
Also it sets up a dichotomy where these minorities which you separate by race defacto don’t know or don’t care about America’s best interest.
[/quote]
You continue to demonstrate what I was saying: that all too often the immediate response to not liking what someone says is to label them and claim they are REALLY saying… whatever words you put into their mouth.
You will find it an impossible challenge to find a single word I wrote about conservatives or about how whites may vote… not one word. But in your labeling response you call my post “racist” and put words in my mouth about things I never said.
I want to understand how someone like Feinstein can be voted in. Is it a fact, or isn’t it, that there are groups which vote overwhelmingly Democrat, even if let us say very many in the group are opposed to many liberal positions? Don’t put words into my mouth like “monolithic” and “bloc”… we’re talking about elections with millions of votes, not what any individual person does. What, we are not allowed to discuss whether getting very high percentage of Hispanic, black, and gay votes is relevant to someone like Feinstein getting elected, without you and other screaming “racist” ?
As to my being offended at treating human beings like pets according to my perception of what they are doing, that is offense at the people doing it. Which I made quite clear… but given that you “find” that I wrote about conservatives or about whites etc which utterly and absolutely isn’t there very clearly you don’t respond to what is actually written.
Besides, when the adult that said something questionable to you is present, a mature way of using free speech is to simply ask them directly : “Alpha F, why did you single out the minorities? Did you mean conservative whites when you said “x”? You seem to be favoring this group over that other - do you believe in racism? Ect…”
Instead of jumping to your own conclusions about that person which in the end reveals more about you than it does about them.
Using free speech as an instrument to return injury, specially immediately, for perceived injury is immature, in my opinion.
And to be quite honest I have not found much to say at all about republicans because conservatism seems to be either dead or sleeping.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
I am learning very fast.
I am also noticing that using free speech to express one’s mind freely gets a person to be judged and labeled immediately.
This is very predictable.
Also there is a difference between being concerned for yourself in not wanting your rights taken away versus being concerned for yourself in wanting the government to take things from people to give to you - and to take away rights from other people because you consider your agenda superior.
Not all self interest is equal.
We all have equity.
[/quote]
I’ll go in order since some of this likely is a response to me.
Of course expressing what one thinks gets judged as it should. Being able to say largely whatever you like doesn’t mean you are in a judgment free zone. Predictable and as it should be. After all opinions are like assholes we all have them and most of them stink.
I would only agree with the rest of the post in that certainly all self interest is not created equal the self interest that benefits me and mine is more valuable than that which benefits you if you subscribe to that ethics. We take rights away from people all the time that don’t subscribe to our agenda.
This is why I say your post is racist.
You set up both Hispanics and Blacks as monolithic voting blocks in which one clearly votes against what you see to be America’s best interest in favor of their own personal interest as well as one being the pets of another block of voters that vote against America’s best interest in your opinion. In opposition to the other group of voters which I can only take to be conservative whites which you believe have votes that equal to America’s best interests.
So it for one insults both blacks and Hispanics by saying in both cases they vote against America’s best interests and in the case of blacks says you think liberals treat them as some kind of pet.
Also it sets up a dichotomy where these minorities which you separate by race defacto don’t know or don’t care about America’s best interest.
[/quote]
You continue to demonstrate what I was saying: that all too often the immediate response to not liking what someone says is to label them and claim they are REALLY saying… whatever words you put into their mouth.
You will find it an impossible challenge to find a single word I wrote about conservatives or about how whites may vote… not one word. But in your labeling response you call my post “racist” and put words in my mouth about things I never said.
I want to understand how someone like Feinstein can be voted in. Is it a fact, or isn’t it, that there are groups which vote overwhelmingly Democrat, even if let us say very many in the group are opposed to many liberal positions? Don’t put words into my mouth like “monolithic” and “bloc”… we’re talking about elections with millions of votes, not what any individual person does. What, we are not allowed to discuss whether getting very high percentage of Hispanic, black, and gay votes is relevant to someone like Feinstein getting elected, without you and other screaming “racist” ?
As to my being offended at treating human beings like pets according to my perception of what they are doing, that is offense at the people doing it. Which I made quite clear… but given that you “find” that I wrote about conservatives or about whites etc which utterly and absolutely isn’t there very clearly you don’t respond to what is actually written.
Besides, when the adult that said something questionable to you is present, a mature way of using free speech is to simply ask them directly : “Alpha F, why did you single out the minorities? Did you mean conservative whites when you said “x”? You seem to be favoring this group over that other - do you believe in racism? Ect…”
Instead of jumping to your own conclusions about that person which in the end reveals more about you than it does about them.
Using free speech as an instrument to return injury, specially immediately, for perceived injury is immature, in my opinion.[/quote]
I’m not returning injury. I am white. I am slightly racist its unfortunate but I recognize it in myself and I have seen it progress in me while living in large urban areas.
So that being said I said your post was insultingly racist. And I’ll stand by that. Not that you are yourself racist.
Something like this
"Then you get the feminists and the gays and the lesbians that I understand are also primarily liberal voters, is that right?
So I suspect they, too, like the Hispanics, vote not necessarily with America’s best interest at heart but with their personal identity and agendas at heart - my hunch. "
I take as you equating feminists, gays and lesbians with liberals…and that they along with the Hispanics (who in this comparison is your default group used as a monolithic block voting for their own personal identity and agendas) Your question to me makes the assumption that Hispanics vote this way and you are questioning(though to be honest I read it is stating but I won’t quibble) if not only Hispanics do this but do feminists, gays and lesbians do this as well.
"I don’t know enough about the black Americans to make a fair comment but so far I perceive and dislike liberals using them as pets - which psychologically gives the impression that a being is like a family member and loved but still inferior ( a valued and important member of the family but not as valuable as the real children ) - that will not heal the slavery wound of the past and can only backfire in the long run. "
Ok you start off be saying you don’t really know anything about black america but you assume that liberals use them as pets in your perception. A perception that is based largely on what I see to be a couple premises. Again that black America is monolithic and votes one way only and the premise that in this case they are treated as pets. This troubles me since it one takes a lot of culpability away from any black person in that they aren’t being treated as a real person. As well the argument itself presumes that black Americans as a group are able to be taken advantage of and treated as pets.
So vis a vis either only whites that are conservative vote in the national interest or no one does. I am sorry if I misconstrued you saying blacks, hispanics, gays, lesbians, liberals and democrats don’t vote in the national interest by naming them all and thought it could be assumed that the other groups…that being largely white conservatives don’t vote in the national interest as well.
Which one is your position?
No one votes in the national interest?
or
Only liberals, blacks, hispanics, feminists, gays and lesbians and democrats vote against the national interest?
Or did I read your post completely wrong.
If you are going to say that blacks, hispanics, liberals, feminists, gays, lesbians, and democrats vote against the national interest and don’t expect to be called on it…C’mon son.
If you want to make a bold assertion like that be ready.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
And to be quite honest I have not found much to say at all about republicans because conservatism seems to be either dead or sleeping.[/quote]
We are finally waking from our hibernation. Watch out.
[quote]groo wrote:
I’m not returning injury. I am white. I am slightly racist its unfortunate but I recognize it in myself and I have seen it progress in me while living in large urban areas.
So that being said I said your post was insultingly racist. And I’ll stand by that. Not that you are yourself racist. [/quote]
So as I suspected you were projecting.
Because I am not white, I am not male and I am not racist. [quote]
Or did I read your post completely wrong.
If you are going to say that blacks, hispanics, liberals, feminists, gays, lesbians, and democrats vote against the national interest and don’t expect to be called on it…C’mon son.
[/quote]
You read my post completely wrong.
I was actually reflecting what I hear often from other liberals that said they did not agree Obama was good for America but they were too “insert personal identification here” to vote otherwise.
So perhaps you can ask them why is it that in spite of agreeing radical liberalism is not good for America as a whole they still vote for them.
I have literally heard an immigrant say he was not happy with the democratic party but voted democratic anyway because he has identified himself as a democrat since he arrived in America.
And my point was : America is losing her national identity.
Why do all of you think that is?
Does anybody care to offer any other insights at the risk of being accused of being “chauvinist”, “racist”, “sexist”, “whitist”, “conspiracy theorist” or any other “ist”?
England has almost completely lost its identity in the name of “equality” and “diversity”.
Is America going the same way?
Where is the honor and respect for the national heritage of the country that opened their borders to you?
Are those that fly big flags of another country on their houses all over the streets of San Jose, and refuse to speak English and do business in English when the language in America is English, really aligned with America or do they have interest that really is not related so much to America and the culture and rights here?
I suppose we cannot give an example of where this occurs lest my post is deemed as racist.
Or can the example not even be brought up without accusation of racism?
Yet it may be very relevant to why politicians like Feinstein can be elected.
Or can one only expect a hostile response if one is not being politically correct in America?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
I am learning very fast.
I am also noticing that using free speech to express one’s mind freely gets a person to be judged and labeled immediately.
This is very predictable.
Also there is a difference between being concerned for yourself in not wanting your rights taken away versus being concerned for yourself in wanting the government to take things from people to give to you - and to take away rights from other people because you consider your agenda superior.
Not all self interest is equal.
We all have equity.
[/quote]
Speech is free, but not free from consequence. [/quote]
Correct.
I must clarify I was referring to the mature enjoyment of free speech where you do not interpret somebody else’s free speech as an insult and therefore use your freedom of speech to insult in return.
Best usage of free speech could be in an open curious inquiry, for example.
Easier said than done, I admit - words have always been used as weapons.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
I’m not returning injury. I am white. I am slightly racist its unfortunate but I recognize it in myself and I have seen it progress in me while living in large urban areas.
So that being said I said your post was insultingly racist. And I’ll stand by that. Not that you are yourself racist. [/quote]
So as I suspected you were projecting.
Because I am not white, I am not male and I am not racist. [quote]
Or did I read your post completely wrong.
If you are going to say that blacks, hispanics, liberals, feminists, gays, lesbians, and democrats vote against the national interest and don’t expect to be called on it…C’mon son.
[/quote]
You read my post completely wrong.
I was actually reflecting what I hear often from other liberals that said they did not agree Obama was good for America but they were too “insert personal identification here” to vote otherwise.
So perhaps you can ask them why is it that in spite of agreeing radical liberalism is not good for America as a whole they still vote for them.
I have literally heard an immigrant say he was not happy with the democratic party but voted democratic anyway because he has identified himself as a democrat since he arrived in America.
And my point was : America is losing her national identity.
Why do all of you think that is?
Does anybody care to offer any other insights at the risk of being accused of being “chauvinist”, “racist”, “sexist”, “whitist”, “conspiracy theorist” or any other “ist”?
England has almost completely lost its identity in the name of “equality” and “diversity”.
Is America going the same way?
Where is the honor and respect for the national heritage of the country that opened their borders to you?
Are those that fly big flags of another country on their houses all over the streets of San Jose, and refuse to speak English and do business in English when the language in America is English, really aligned with America or do they have interest that really is not related so much to America and the culture and rights here?
I suppose we cannot give an example of where this occurs lest my post is deemed as racist.
Or can the example not even be brought up without accusation of racism?
Yet it may be very relevant to why politicians like Feinstein can be elected.
Or can one only expect a hostile response if one is not being politically correct in America?
[/quote]
I like how you responded to the one nonsubstantive point that didn’t address your quotes in particular. I explained why your post was racist in my opinion using your own quotes which in the end you didn’t attempt to explain so I’ll go ahead an give them a literal reading.
The rest of this post is anecdotal says nothing substantive and I’d rather not respond to any of your individual points lest it be seen as a personal attack.
Projecting eh? Physician heal thyself first.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Of course implausibility and doubt do not render evidence null and void. Evidence is evidence.[/quote]
I posted clear evidence. You interpreted it as evidence of a conspiracy.
Those who have been paying attention can decide for themselves. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, as is everyone else.
Of course, that is the big difference between you and me. I am happy to just lay it out and let people think about it, drawing their own conclusions. You seem intent on dictating people’s thoughts to them.
Alabama State motto: “We Dare Defend Our Rights”
http://alhousegop.com/2013/01/23/we-dare-defend-our-right-to-bear-arms/
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Of course implausibility and doubt do not render evidence null and void. Evidence is evidence.[/quote]
I posted clear evidence. You interpreted it as evidence of a conspiracy.
Those who have been paying attention can decide for themselves. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, as is everyone else.
Of course, that is the big difference between you and me. I am happy to just lay it out and let people think about it, drawing their own conclusions. You seem intent on dictating people’s thoughts to them.[/quote]
You may believe what you’d like, of course. And I may criticize it.
By the way, “just lay[ing] it out” is called making an argument. When you present that evidence, you’re making an argument. A specific one. That you are reluctant to come right out and say it does not mean that the members of this board can’t tell what it is.
Anyway, I think we’ve both expressed our thoughts on the matter. There is little use in further hijacking this thread. It has been interesting.
[quote]groo wrote:
Projecting eh? Physician heal thyself first.
[/quote]
Who told you I was minority?
How do you know what I am perceived as in my country of birth?
All I gathered from our interaction was that through your judgmental interpretations of my posts I can learn so much about you.
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]
You don’t think it offends me?
Do you think for one second that I am OK with the idea that governments throughout history have done things like this to incite and justify war?
Do you think it’s OK that we have been fighting wars on foreign soil for almost ten years, when we didn’t even have enough evidence to put the most heinous crime the U.S. has ever seen next to the guy’s name on a wanted poster?[/quote]
For the record, “you” have been fighting dozens of war on foreign soil since 1945.
“You” never had to do much, if anything, to “incite and justify” them.
My own country is currently at war in Mali.
What do you think they did to “justify it” in the public’s eyes ?
Litteraly nothing.
They just started it.
Most people don’t know why we are there.
And they don’t care.
Even among my malian students…
Next week they will have forgotten we are there.
You don’t need to manipulate people. Apathy is so widespread they won’t move anyway.[/quote]
Bingo.
The people that are so up in arms about the government taking control don’t realize they already have. By and large members of a class of people that largely could give a shit about most people operate the government and they have convinced the vast majority of people that policies that clearly are contrary to their interests are in fact good for them. Its amazing that the same group can convince people that being an intellectual is bad and learning things other than for direct economic gain is a waste and also convince these people that they can move upward through pure effort into the higher group. Give us our fights in the coliseum and we are good.
As to the conspiracy thing, why is it always big things that would be so difficult to manipulate that gain the most traction. It would be near impossible to carry off a hoax like a mass shooting in this day and age not because of the government being moral just because of it not being capable. However easily I could see…though not agree…that a government operative killed the reddit guy to keep it from a public trial and to serve warning to other people that have the skill to free information. One involves hundreds if not thousands of people and the other could involve a handful. But a grand conspiracy is more interesting. It gives spice to life…which for many people is grinding away at a job they hate with a spouse they despise and kids that are ungrateful at best. Then you die. No conspiracy. Fin.
That isn’t a fun narrative and its more interesting to think there is a secret world and you are doing your best to fight back.[/quote]
I did agree with Kamui
You sound confused however
Your second and fourth segments don’t line up well. I like your angle of pointing towards emotional drivers as the motives for your opposition.
The dislogical nature of your post suggests to me that this is actually your problem
(bonus points: are you projecting here?)
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]
You don’t think it offends me?
Do you think for one second that I am OK with the idea that governments throughout history have done things like this to incite and justify war?
Do you think it’s OK that we have been fighting wars on foreign soil for almost ten years, when we didn’t even have enough evidence to put the most heinous crime the U.S. has ever seen next to the guy’s name on a wanted poster?[/quote]
For the record, “you” have been fighting dozens of war on foreign soil since 1945.
“You” never had to do much, if anything, to “incite and justify” them.
My own country is currently at war in Mali.
What do you think they did to “justify it” in the public’s eyes ?
Litteraly nothing.
They just started it.
Most people don’t know why we are there.
And they don’t care.
Even among my malian students…
Next week they will have forgotten we are there.
You don’t need to manipulate people. Apathy is so widespread they won’t move anyway.[/quote]
Bingo.
The people that are so up in arms about the government taking control don’t realize they already have. By and large members of a class of people that largely could give a shit about most people operate the government and they have convinced the vast majority of people that policies that clearly are contrary to their interests are in fact good for them. Its amazing that the same group can convince people that being an intellectual is bad and learning things other than for direct economic gain is a waste and also convince these people that they can move upward through pure effort into the higher group. Give us our fights in the coliseum and we are good.
As to the conspiracy thing, why is it always big things that would be so difficult to manipulate that gain the most traction. It would be near impossible to carry off a hoax like a mass shooting in this day and age not because of the government being moral just because of it not being capable. However easily I could see…though not agree…that a government operative killed the reddit guy to keep it from a public trial and to serve warning to other people that have the skill to free information. One involves hundreds if not thousands of people and the other could involve a handful. But a grand conspiracy is more interesting. It gives spice to life…which for many people is grinding away at a job they hate with a spouse they despise and kids that are ungrateful at best. Then you die. No conspiracy. Fin.
That isn’t a fun narrative and its more interesting to think there is a secret world and you are doing your best to fight back.[/quote]
I did agree with Kamui
You sound confused however
Your second and fourth segments don’t line up well. I like your angle of pointing towards emotional drivers as the motives for your opposition.
The dislogical nature of your post suggests to me that this is actually your problem
(bonus points: are you projecting here?)[/quote]
LOL
The People of New York have begun to stand:
Deer Park, NY issues gun-protection resolution:
http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130123/NEWS/301230343
[quote]pushharder wrote:
^ Mass civil disobedience works.
Although it wouldn’t actually be “disobedient” not to give up your guns. The disobedience comes from the lawmakers who pass such legislation in direct defiance of federal and state constitutions.[/quote]
No law requiring people to turn in the guns they already have is getting through Congress anyway.