vote your conscience not your wallet

[DeletedUser]

in 1945, the generals of the Japanese army and navy were interviewed by US officials. I won't be using the exact quotes more of what the general interview was about. "Instead of attack Pearl Harbor, why didn't you just invade the US from the Pacific Ocean?" "Because we knew every single American had a gun. We would have to fight the entire country, not just the army, navy, marines, air force and all the other enlisted men. The Americans would fight to the end. They wouldn't surrender. By then, almost every American would be dead. What good is a country with no people?" With the government taking away guns from people, our soil becomes more vulnerable that ever before in history.

That is a load of horse puckey. Post a link or actual quotes, none of this unsubstantiated crud. You are not adding to the conversation by this post. In addition to that, "every single American" did not have a gun in 1941.

I am pretty sure these geniuses don’t think that if they support the right to free speech, and don’t allow me to stand in their living room and say whatever I want, they are hypocrites.

It’s the firearms ... They hate firearms so bad, they will make up crap they don’t even believe to argue with you.

More evasion.

 

[DeletedUser36572]

Unless you’re shouting angrily at me, I wouldn’t feel endangered by the words coming out of your mouth. So, no, it’s not two peas in the same pod. I can also have people check their guns and their opinions at the door of my own private home. I never argued against you on that. I simply said the government can do the same by that regard.

Of course you can govern your private property as you see fit. I don’t know about your place, but my place isn’t a democracy nor a republic.

But ... Adaptation and innovation beats all ...

If you are Christian baker and don’t want to bake a same sex wedding cake ... Simply tell the couple it will be a custom cake, you will charge them whatever you see fit, and if they are stupid enough to pay it, you will donate any and all proceeds to some Fundemental Christian nut jobs who do conversion therapy.

If it is so important to them they get a cake from you, that they fund a group that goes completely against their own beliefs ... Well, donate the money to the religious charity of your choice.

You don’t have to violate anyone’s rights or even go to court in order to adapt to the situation and achieve a suitable outcome.

Edit:
Not to mention you can get a tax break for the money you donated to the religious charity and make the government pay for the cake because they decided to meddle in your business.

 

[DeletedUser36572]

More evasion.

I don’t have to evade your unfounded aimless shot in the dark ... You simply missed.

 

[Lannister the Rich]

Of course you can govern your private property as you see fit. I don’t know about your place, but my place isn’t a democracy nor

... don’t allow me to stand in their living room and say whatever I want, they are hypocrites.

you see where you contradict yourself?

You can also be Christian and pro-gay rights. Also, do you know many gay people? No one I know would buy that cake.

 

[Lannister the Rich]

in 1945, the generals of the Japanese army and navy were interviewed by US officials. I won't be using the exact quotes more of what the general interview was about. "Instead of attack Pearl Harbor, why didn't you just invade the US from the Pacific Ocean?" "Because we knew every single American had a gun. We would have to fight the entire country, not just the army, navy, marines, air force and all the other enlisted men. The Americans would fight to the end. They wouldn't surrender. By then, almost every American would be dead. What good is a country with no people?" With the government taking away guns from people, our soil becomes more vulnerable that ever before in history.

Sorry, but that quote isn’t true. Regardless of the guns, the Japanese leaders didn’t want to have any rule over the US. They wanted an empire of their own and thought if they attacked the US quickly, we would back away thinking they would be too tough to beat. Pearl Harbor was a show of force. It was demoralizing

 

[DeletedUser36572]

you see where you contradict yourself?

You can also be Christian and pro-gay rights. Also, do you know many gay people? No one I know would buy that cake.

You need to better follow the conversation in regards to the comments you make ... I didn’t contradict myself because my comments were directed at an earlier conversation in the thread.

Otherwise (the cake) ... Whether or not they buy the cake is the choice they are free to make, what the baker does with money is not their choice.

It doesn’t mean I support Christians or Gay Rights ... It means the government cannot make me do something I cannot figure out a way to defeat them ... Legally.

 

[Lannister the Rich]

You need to better follow the conversation in regards to the comments you make ... I didn’t contradict myself because my comments were directed at an earlier conversation in the thread.

Well, this comment

Of course you can govern your private property as you see fit. I don’t know about your place, but my place isn’t a democracy nor a republic.

was in direct response of this comment

Unless you’re shouting angrily at me, I wouldn’t feel endangered by the words coming out of your mouth. So, no, it’s not two peas in the same pod. I can also have people check their guns and their opinions at the door of my own private home. I never argued against you on that. I simply said the government can do the same by that regard.

which was a direct response of this comment

I am pretty sure these geniuses don’t think that if they support the right to free speech, and don’t allow me to stand in their living room and say whatever I want, they are hypocrites.

It’s the firearms ... They hate firearms so bad, they will make up crap they don’t even believe to argue with you.

Which was not in response to anything in particular.

So tell me again how I am the one that needs to follow the conversation better.

 

[DeletedUser36572]

Well, this comment


was in direct response of this comment


which was a direct response of this comment


Which was not in response to anything in particular.

So tell me again how I am the one that needs to follow the conversation better.

The initial response wasn’t directed at you or anything involved in the conversation between us.

I know what I wrote and what you wrote
But I was talking to Pirate about a conversation in this thread this Morning ... And you won’t understand the comment you responded to unless you go back and review those comments.

You can try and argue if you like, but you still won’t understand ...

All it means is that you can support the Constitutional right to bear arms, and deny the priviledge of someone to carry arms on your private property ... Exercising both your 2nd and 10th Amendment rights .... Without being a hypocrite.

 

[Lannister the Rich]

The initial response wasn’t directed at you or anything involved in the conversation between us.

I know what I wrote and what you wrote
But I was talking to Pirate about a conversation in this thread this Morning ... And you won’t understand the comment you responded to unless you go back and review those comments.

You can try and argue if you like, but you still won’t understand ...

It doesn't matter what that comment was in response to or whether you were calling me or Stephen a hypocrite. This is what you said: These geniuses are hypocrites who support the right to free speech and don’t allow me to stand in their living room and say whatever I want.

Was my mind able to effectively compile what you said in a more clear sentence that I can understand? Because that's how it read. So am I wrong here?

 

[DeletedUser36572]

It doesn't matter what that comment was in response to or whether you were calling me or Stephen a hypocrite. This is what you said: These geniuses are hypocrites who support the right to free speech and don’t allow me to stand in their living room and say whatever I want.

Was my mind able to effectively compile what you said in a more clear sentence that I can understand? Because that's how it read. So am I wrong here?

Read it again ... I wasn’t calling anyone a hypocrite and haven’t.

If you were aware of the earlier conversation ... Which you still have not reviewed ... You would actually know who was calling who a hypocrite ...

 

[Lannister the Rich]

Read it again ... I wasn’t calling anyone a hypocrite and haven’t.

If you were aware of the earlier conversation ... Which you still have not reviewed ... You would actually know who was calling who a hypocrite ...

Saying "they are hypocrites" alone is calling someone a hypocrite. I was also there for the conversation you're talking about and am well aware. Or do you not remember? Maybe you need to review those posts.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

Quit evading the question. Where does it say that owning a semi-automatic weapon is a "God given Right"? I'm still waiting on that...and on your proof that Hitler disarmed anyone but the Jews.

Got it, so Hitler disarming only those he went on to demonize and kill makes it ok. No. If anything, it proves my point. If they want to disarm you, you are in their cross hairs once they do. You know it's Christians as well as Jews they're going for the next time, don't you? Have you not read the book, or you just don't believe it?

That might be the few of a small minority, but not true of all those who want common sense gun control. Quit evading the topic with these far-right talking points. Apparently you are into the "baffle them with bull-pies" stage.

Karen Carter Peterson, Vice Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee and chair of the Louisiana Democratic Party, has distinguished herself as the highest-profile Democrat in the country to outright call for a repeal of the Second Amendment. Last week, Peterson sent out a tweet with the words, ‘Repeal the Second Amendment.’ The tweet also linked to a New York Times column by former U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, arguing for a repeal of the Second Amendment.”

Sorry, if this were a fringe position in the Democrat party, she would not be elevated to leadership in the DNC. Used to be anti-semetism was a fringe position within the Democrat party, but not so much anymore. Repeal the second amendment and become Socialists. That's the new face of the Democrat party. Again, why do you support this evil?

Name 5 Democrats who support full disarmament of the people in clear violation of the 2nd amendment.

See the above

I guarantee all you will find is automatic weaponry disarming, guns whose sole purpose is to destroy as many lives as possible. Why do you support the ability to have these weapons?

Nice rhetoric, but you're wrong. Automatic weapons are already illegal in the US. So if that's what they''re looking to get rid of, and they've already done so, what are we talking about? Why the call to repeal the 2nd amendment?

It doesn’t. I was providing a counter-argument against your absolute truths. You have been given an “inalienable” right by the Creator to defend yourself. However, this woman who is merely in an unfortunate situation who by this situation is endangering your life also has an inalienable right to life. So, what do you do? You did not answer that.

I did not answer because the hypothetical has nothing to do with the argument at hand and I won't entertain an irrelevant hypothetical.

Why do you support the ability to have these weapons?

Because Government agencies have much more deadly versions of these weapons, the fully automatic versions.

See, here’s the thing about those guys: they were communist dictators. Socialism is not, not, a political standpoint. It has only to do with economy. It’s a big, scary 4 syllable word that the fat cat capitalists would have you associate it with communism because that is generally what it is attributed to. There is a thing called a Socialist Democracy. And no, while it hasn’t worked out for Venezuela that was just coming out of being a dictatorship, it could very easily happen where a well established democracy has been for decades, like Germany.

See here's the thing, Socialism, according to it's own definition, is: "The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved." Socialism can never work and will never work, no many how many adjectives you put on it. Socialism, government theft at the point of a gun. Democratic Socialism, voting to steal other peoples stuff at the point of a Government gun. Seems you want disarmament because you want Socialism and, proving my point, you know you can't have that as long as I'm armed. Curious, can Venezuelans own guns?

Armed robbery is evil. If you personally wouldn't go in and take a person's stuff yourself at the point of a gun, you should not be voting for the government to do it on your behalf.

 

[Lannister the Rich]

I did not answer because the hypothetical has nothing to do with the argument at hand and I won't entertain an irrelevant hypothetical.

We had literally just argued about right and wrong where your stance was that there was only absolutes of right and wrong, so I'm pretty sure it's relevant.

See here's the thing, Socialism, according to it's own definition, is: "The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved." Socialism can never work and will never work, no many how many adjectives you put on it. Socialism, government theft at the point of a gun. Democratic Socialism, voting to steal other peoples stuff at the point of a Government gun. Seems you want disarmament because you want Socialism and, proving my point, you know you can't have that as long as I'm armed. Curious, can Venezuelans own guns?.

Socialisms own definition is as followed.
Socialism: an economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. It has nothing to do with communism. Marx just used it for Communism, which wasn't even implemented in the USSR as he had written.

If you want to talk about communism, fine. But socialism is not and will not be the same thing.

 

[Lannister the Rich]

Also @RazorbackPirate, the common Democrats and Republicans do not choose their chairs of committees. Money talks with those which is why I don’t support them. No Democratic candidate for president has called for the repeal of the 2nd amendment. In fact, nothing in the bill of rights can be repealed, so it’s a lost cause anyway.

And automatic rifles are legal with a class 3 license

 

[DeletedUser36572]

Saying "they are hypocrites" alone is calling someone a hypocrite. I was also there for the conversation you're talking about and am well aware. Or do you not remember? Maybe you need to review those posts.

Read the whole sentence you are referring to silly ...

“I am pretty sure these geniuses don’t think that if they support the right to free speech, and don’t allow me to stand in their living room and say whatever I want, they are hypocrites.“

I clearly stated that “geniuses (they) don’t think” ... “they are hypocrites”.

At no point did I say they were hypocrites.

Because you don’t understand the context of my statement ... In regards to the earlier conversation ... You made the stupid mistake of thinking I thought they would be hypocrites ... When I don’t and never did.

The funny part is that you agree with my positions in regards to governing your private property and are silly enough to try and argue with a comment ... I know you don’t understand, know why you don’t understand it, and have told you how you could come to a better understanding.

Stephen cheering you along because he is usually about as clueless as you currently are ... So eager to be offended.

Funny Part II:
It was Stephen calling me a hypocrite for supporting gun rights while denying some people the priviledge to carry on my private property (a position you supported) ... That the comment was directed towards addressing in the first place (something you would know if you had reviewed the earlier conversation).

 

[RazorbackPirate]

That is a load of horse puckey. Post a link or actual quotes, none of this unsubstantiated crud. You are not adding to the conversation by this post. In addition to that, "every single American" did not have a gun in 1941.

https://napavalleyregister.com/news...cle_0ebd672c-739c-562c-bb3f-8bb4e7ac9218.html

I'm sure you'll find some reason to dismiss this. Prove the document in question that contains the actual quote does not exist.

While you're at it, might be fun to read this as well, the original letter that the writer above wrote.

https://napavalleyregister.com/news...cle_ff5f87df-3764-599c-9554-783b54097bce.html

 

[Lannister the Rich]

https://napavalleyregister.com/news...cle_0ebd672c-739c-562c-bb3f-8bb4e7ac9218.html

I'm sure you'll find some reason to dismiss this. Prove the document in question that contains the actual quote does not exist.

While you're at it, might be fun to read this as well, the original letter that the writer above wrote.

https://napavalleyregister.com/news...cle_ff5f87df-3764-599c-9554-783b54097bce.html

The author has never seen the letter, he just believes it exists. I don’t see anything in this article that proves the quote was actually said. I take on faith only with God, not man.

Burden of proof is a logical fallacy: I don’t have to prove something that you are arguing for.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

The author has never seen the letter, he just believes it exists. I don’t see anything in this article that proves the quote was actually said. I take on faith only with God, not man.

Burden of proof is a logical fallacy: I don’t have to prove something that you are arguing for.

As you've shown, logic is not your strong suit. I expected you to dismiss it anyway, all the sticky bits as always.

Retweeted by POTUS. I'm sure you'll dismiss the actual positions stated by your candidates simply because of the network it's being reported on.

https://twitter.com/Varneyco/status/1160972036182855683

Why do you support disarming law abiding citizens? How can you support candidates who do? What is your end game?

 

[DeletedUser]

Relevance? 7500 pages is an example of too much governance. It's soooo long and convoluted that it is difficult to understand.

Okay, okay you got me on 1927. But you have to appreciate that we've gone from a codified set of laws that fit into one book to a state that we have no clue just how many laws there are today (seriously, google it).

Modern life is complex. Some seem to be mixing up bureaucratic and inefficient bloat (which is a common fault of any large organization, whether the government, Enron, GM, or the Red Cross), with institutional arrangements that must take into account millions of combinations of individual rights and responsibilities, across a huge variety of economic and social sectors and a multitude of technologies, and numerous contesting centers of power (churches, local governments, citizen groups, School Boards, Company Boards, etc., etc.) .

The past, with a simpler set of technologies and economic institutions, needed fewer complex codes. As times become more complex, so do the regulations needed to keep a level playing field. If a quote is needed, Einstein remarked: “Everything should be as simple as it can be, but not simpler”

I agree there is a huge amount of waste in our western governments, but there is also massive fraud and inefficiency in the private sector. At least we get some ability to choose political representatives, when was the last time you voted for the CEO of Shell Oil?

While not perfect, governments help keep a level playing field, strong courts give some protection for the poor against the rich, and laws provide some safety and security when you are in your home, because they do deter criminal activities by trying to ensure that crimes get punished and folks are aware of the consequences of breaking laws.

Many countries, sadly, remain places where laws, courts and government are routinely bought, where there is no free press, and where a rich person can make you disappear without trace, and with no recourse for your family.

As I said before, North Americans and Europeans have access to freedoms and safety most of the world can only dream about, and yet seem unaware of the horror that would occur if those strong institutions were to fail.

There is no such thing as having unfetter rights. Each exercise of a right has its flip side: that an individual is equally responsible to not infringe upon the rights of others. It is the role of governments to ensure everyone’s rights are protected, regardless if they are poor, of a different ethnicity or religion, or a different political party.

Yes, we are far from that, but much, much closer than the situation in Yemen, Somalia, North Korea, and a range of other horrible countries. And no, North Korea (nor China nor Russia) do NOT have strong governmental institutions. They are dictatorships propped up by armies and corrupt officials and corrupt businesses. If they HAD strong, independent courts, and truly representative assemblies, there would be some checks and balances on executive power.

With weak government, the most vile, violent and ruthless are the ones who seize control. Of course, with an apathetic population to focused on pleasure instead of social responsibility and public service, even the strongest institutions can wither away, free press disappear, and ‘might is all that makes right’ will stage a comeback.

Sorry for rant. Being at this end of life, having seen what my parents fled from in WWII, and what I have seen in 30 years of international work, i constantly think of another quote: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

 

[plinker2]

Either act civil to each other or this thread closes.