Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 194
Like Tree2Likes
  1. #141  
    [QUOTE=davidra;2830084]You just don't get it, do you?[QUOTE]

    And you don't get it either. Good grief.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  2. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #142  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I understand that very well. I have lived in areas during part of my life where everyone had a gun and used them, including for shooting each other. An urban area? Nope, not close. Having said I understand the population, you have to understand that for a very large percentage of the population guns mean violence and have no part whatsoever in reasoned discourse. Calling somebody a jerk, a fascist or a socialist is not the same as calling to take someone out, or showing up at a political rally for the president with a semiautomatic on your hip. That has never happened before the past few years, as best I know, and anyone who thinks the purpose isn't to intimidate is kidding themselves. It is pandering to a very low denominator...regardless of party.

    As one conservative noted today:
    First, if, for the next ten years, there was not a single political ad featuring any gun imagery the Republicans would still get blamed for acts of gun violence. I hope Scarborough is not stupid enough to think differently. Second, reasoned and "nuanced" political debate doesn't get out the vote. Politicians pander to the ideas their constituency holds dear. I don't like it. I would love for the politicians to be able to lay out their plans in more than just 60 second sound bites. But they won't. That fact has more to do with the nature of society, of mass media, and of it's effect on society than anything else.
  3. #143  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    First, if, for the next ten years, there was not a single political ad featuring any gun imagery the Republicans would still get blamed for acts of gun violence. I hope Scarborough is not stupid enough to think differently. Second, reasoned and "nuanced" political debate doesn't get out the vote. Politicians pander to the ideas their constituency holds dear. I don't like it. I would love for the politicians to be able to lay out their plans in more than just 60 second sound bites. But they won't. That fact has more to do with the nature of society, of mass media, and of it's effect on society than anything else.
    First, excellent comment and we agree on everything you said, which is indeed scary. But I'm not positive about the first part. I believe if those that support maintaining gun laws as they are simply state over and over that that's what they favor, and at the same time state they are not going to use guns as a wedge issue or in inflammatory ads, I suspect that would make a big difference in how independents view them. The republican base is more than a one-trick pony. They have their antiabortion ads, their raising taxes ads, their socialism ads...they can get by without guns. And I'm not being sarcastic. We would all be better off without guns in political ads.
  4. #144  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    First, excellent comment and we agree on everything you said, which is indeed scary. But I'm not positive about the first part. I believe if those that support maintaining gun laws as they are simply state over and over that that's what they favor, and at the same time state they are not going to use guns as a wedge issue or in inflammatory ads, I suspect that would make a big difference in how independents view them. The republican base is more than a one-trick pony. They have their antiabortion ads, their raising taxes ads, their socialism ads...they can get by without guns. And I'm not being sarcastic. We would all be better off without guns in political ads.
    The funny....or is it sad?....thing is that you seem to act as if this is our biggest problem in this country. I don't know where on the list I would put it, but there are easily 20 or 25 things that are FAR MORE IMPORTANT than getting rid of guns in political ads. Good grief. And let me again say, this is not coming from some gun nut that shoots on a regular basis (been well over a year since I last shot a gun). While you're singing kumbayah and screaming about gun ads, our country goes further and further into debt and politicians (note I said politicians, no reference to party, I'm getting tired of all politicians because they don't have any balls to make tough decisions) keep spending money that we simply don't have. Really? We're worried about dang guns in political ads? "We would all be better off without guns in political ads"? Really? This would solve our problems? Oh, and let's all sit democrat/Republican/democrat/Republican/democrat/Republican when obama gives his State of the Union speech, that will certainly help things as well. Good grief.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  5. #145  
    Quote Originally Posted by ••dbdoinit View Post
    Not ONE of these 134 replies should be in this thread except for the non-political ones.

    I really can't fathom how or why this is considered a political issue.

    Everyone will use any tragedy possible to further their political agenda, no matter what wing they're on.

    This thread is a microscopic version of the outside world and its embarrassing rhetoric.

    I do admit, there are some very intelligent people participating. But just like beauty and brains; intelligence and common sense are very rarely in the same container.
    I don't see a problem with it myself. After acknowledging the tragedy for what it is, and wishing the families and survivors the best, its only natural to consider what could be done so that it does not happen again. Talking about lapses in gun control that led to a nut getting a concealed weapons permit, or how easy it is to get an extended cartridge glock that was banned as an assault weapon a few years ago. Talking about people carrying guns to political rallys, or prior statements by Giffords saying there will be consequences for violent imagery in politics, all of this I believe reflects a desire to try to flesh out what may have contributed and how can we make it so it might not happen again.

    As I recall, you have started several threads on 911, and while you have very appropriately acknowledged and sympathized with those affected, (you had some personal friends didn't you?) you also did not hesitate to spend a lot of time and discussion about the hows and whys of not letting it happen again.
  6. #146  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    As I recall, you have started several threads on 911, and while you have very appropriately acknowledged and sympathized with those affected, (you had some personal friends didn't you?) you also did not hesitate to spend a lot of time and discussion about the hows and whys of not letting it happen again.
    To be honest, i can't remember making it political. I DO remember pleading with people to leave politics out of it.

    One of those threads even had a tag saying 'no politics'.
  7. #147  
    And yes, i lost almost a dozen.
  8. #148  
    I did make a thread asking "How can we diminish the threat of terrorism", yes, but that's a far cry from right-wing left-wing political rhetoric, isn't it?
  9. #149  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    First, if, for the next ten years, there was not a single political ad featuring any gun imagery the Republicans would still get blamed for acts of gun violence. I hope Scarborough is not stupid enough to think differently. Second, reasoned and "nuanced" political debate doesn't get out the vote. Politicians pander to the ideas their constituency holds dear. I don't like it. I would love for the politicians to be able to lay out their plans in more than just 60 second sound bites. But they won't. That fact has more to do with the nature of society, of mass media, and of it's effect on society than anything else.
    Good answer - being mayor of Carmel must have taught you something about politics.
  10. #150  
    Quote Originally Posted by ••dbdoinit View Post
    I did make a thread asking "How can we diminish the threat of terrorism", yes, but that's a far cry from right-wing left-wing political rhetoric, isn't it?
    my very sincere sympathies dbd for those you lost.

    you definitely had good intentions about the threads, but how we diminish the threat of terrorism boils down to a bunch of political decisions, and its kind of hard to expect everyone to agree on them without any discussion.

    In the same way I see this thread is both about mourning/condemning this shooting and about how we can avoid having this happen again. Its hard to expect that everyone will agree in unison about the causes or the solutions to this problem of politically associated violence.

    One thing I hope we can all agree on though, especially this month and next, when we remember Martin Luther King and Lincoln, is that misguided people have been gunning down important leaders of our country for far far too long.

    Thats why I think, as long as we can be civil to one another, its better to discuss this problem and how to deal with it, rather than sweeping it under the rug.
  11. #151  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    I don't see a problem with it myself. After acknowledging the tragedy for what it is, and wishing the families and survivors the best, its only natural to consider what could be done so that it does not happen again. Talking about lapses in gun control that led to a nut getting a concealed weapons permit, or how easy it is to get an extended cartridge glock that was banned as an assault weapon a few years ago. Talking about people carrying guns to political rallys, or prior statements by Giffords saying there will be consequences for violent imagery in politics, all of this I believe reflects a desire to try to flesh out what may have contributed and how can we make it so it might not happen again.
    But...but...you MUST be wrong, because Clemson Graduate doesn't feel this is an important issue. It's way way down on the list, dontcha know? Reasoned discourse is just a distraction. Kumbaya or working together is a joke, or maybe a curse word.

    Of course, the fact is that without reasoned discourse and working together, we will never get out of any hole we're in. And that's the truth.
  12. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #152  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    First, excellent comment and we agree on everything you said, which is indeed scary.
    I wrote that just after a martini lunch so, I don't know, maybe that gets us both off the hook.

    But I'm not positive about the first part. I believe if those that support maintaining gun laws as they are simply state over and over that that's what they favor, and at the same time state they are not going to use guns as a wedge issue or in inflammatory ads, I suspect that would make a big difference in how independents view them.
    I think that depends on the area of the country. Most Independents in West Virginia, for example, probably aren't offended by such imagery. Heck, most Democrats probably aren't.

    The republican base is more than a one-trick pony. They have their antiabortion ads, their raising taxes ads, their socialism ads...they can get by without guns. And I'm not being sarcastic. We would all be better off without guns in political ads.
    If you changed that to "gratuitous" or "violent gun imagery" then we're probably closer to agreement. Just as Democrats can get by without comparing Republicans to Taliban or using similar dishonest hyperbole.
  13. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #153  
    Quote Originally Posted by ••dbdoinit View Post
    I did make a thread asking "How can we diminish the threat of terrorism", yes, but that's a far cry from right-wing left-wing political rhetoric, isn't it?
    Maybe, but it sure spurred plenty of each
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  14. #154  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    I wrote that just after a martini lunch so, I don't know, maybe that gets us both off the hook.



    I think that depends on the area of the country. Most Independents in West Virginia, for example, probably aren't offended by such imagery. Heck, most Democrats probably aren't.
    I wish I had that excuse. No martini lunches for me.
    Unfortunately for the republicans, they can't win a general election if the only independents they get are from West Virginia. Look at all the tea partiers that lost. The far right can't even win in their own states in many cases. Nobody can win without independents, and brandishing guns and making threats is not the way to win their vote.

    I wouldn't be surprised if they try, but I'd be disappointed.
    Last edited by davidra; 01/19/2011 at 02:43 PM.
  15. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #155  
    Let's hope the holocaust analogies are just as (in)effective. Looks like Steve Cohen dropped out of the kumbaya chorus.
  16. #156  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Let's hope the holocaust analogies are just as (in)effective. Looks like Steve Cohen dropped out of the kumbaya chorus.
    Yeah...unfortunate choice of words. He could have just let it go at "big lie". I actually went to college with Steve, but haven't seen him in a number of years. I can understand him being ****ed, but not good imagery, in spite of his own background.
  17. #157  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Let's hope the holocaust analogies are just as (in)effective. Looks like Steve Cohen dropped out of the kumbaya chorus.
    Sorry but why would you be surprised by this? I'm glad it was a democrat to get back to business first just so the media won't target (oops) the Republicans over it, but Americans have short memories. We were all together after 9/11 and before you know it, everyone went on attack mode and blamed Bush for everything. So much for coming together. If that was only temporary, the shooting of a member of Congress and the deaths of 6 others won't come close. Republicans and democrats simply have different views and I for one have little patience for the views of many liberals, and don't want Republicans to negotiate. I think their views are stupid and they think Republican views are stupid.....it's just that simple. Time for attack mode!

    Off the subject here, but just heard Donald Trump interviewed and he said it like it is.....obama is kissing China's and feeding them tonight while they are laughing at us. Trump says he wouldn't be feeding the enemy....and they are the enemy....and unless both parties figure this out we will be working for the Chinese in 20 years. WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  18. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #158  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Sorry but why would you be surprised by this? I'm glad it was a democrat to get back to business first just so the media won't target (oops) the Republicans over it, but Americans have short memories. We were all together after 9/11 and before you know it, everyone went on attack mode and blamed Bush for everything. So much for coming together. If that was only temporary, the shooting of a member of Congress and the deaths of 6 others won't come close. Republicans and democrats simply have different views and I for one have little patience for the views of many liberals, and don't want Republicans to negotiate. I think their views are stupid and they think Republican views are stupid.....it's just that simple. Time for attack mode!
    If only it were that simple, it would be bad enough. Worse, still, is that there are a large number of liberals who don't think Republicans and/or conservatives are stupid, but actually evil. I think Cohen's statements echo this sentiment. Of course, the more "enlightened" among them (i.e., people less inclined to think "evil" is a real phenomenon) imply mental disorder as the cause of Conservatism--especially religiously motivated Conservatism. Whether or not they truly believe it, the claims are seriously damaging. To be fair, there are a fair number of conservatives who believe liberals are evil, which is just as wrong.
  19. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #159  
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  20. #160  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    If only it were that simple, it would be bad enough. Worse, still, is that there are a large number of liberals who don't think Republicans and/or conservatives are stupid, but actually evil. I think Cohen's statements echo this sentiment. Of course, the more "enlightened" among them (i.e., people less inclined to think "evil" is a real phenomenon) imply mental disorder as the cause of Conservatism--especially religiously motivated Conservatism. Whether or not they truly believe it, the claims are seriously damaging. To be fair, there are a fair number of conservatives who believe liberals are evil, which is just as wrong.
    Liberals aren't evil.....they are just misguided...God bless 'em. They live in a land in their head that just simply doesn't exist....where everyone should have what everyone else has. I think for some people, especially the wealthy liberals, they have some guilt about how much they have...what I call "the oprah syndrome". I think that anyone that has any type of assets sometimes has to think "there but for the grace of God, go I" (I guess atheists wouldn't think that, of course, lol), but liberals just take it a step further and think that perhaps everyone should share via the government's wise allocation methods (cough, cough). The thing that I simply don't understand, is why don't the liberals who have big money simply increase their own taxes voluntarily? For instance, rather than Buffet put his vast wealth in a charitable trust (which ironically excapes taxation, which he thinks should be increased for others, what?), why not just give it to the government at his death? Funny, he believes the government will do right with our money, but apparently doesn't trust the government with his own money. I guess that is why he is the wealthiest person...wait...2nd wealthiest, right?....in the world. By the way, not opposed to the very, very good things that Buffet, Gates and others do with their money via charities, just funny how they avoid taxes but encourage the increase in taxes of others.

    Some like to point out that "what would Jesus do? Wouldn't he think we should give to others?" Well, he said to give to others, but...and correct me if I'm wrong...he didn't say give to Caesar so Caesar could do what is best for others (yes, yes....he did say give to Caesar what is Caesars....but he didn't say give to Caesar for Caesar to hand out to the needy....I don't think Caesar was known for that, was he?).
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 LastLast

Posting Permissions