Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sebster wrote:

Bromsy wrote:Obviously once someone starts quoting statistics and facts, logic has found a way to sneak in here, at least partially


Automatically Appended Next Post:
.... more "I Feel" statements and accusations, please.

Good thought, but putting 'I feel' at the start of a sentence can reduce it's power, make it seem as though someone is simply expressing themselves, instead of dictating to others. What we need are more 'I feel' statements but without the 'I feel' at the beginning.

So less 'I feel that Obama is to blame and this is all due to evil Democrats' and more 'Obama is to blame and this is all due to evil Democrats'...

Oh and look, Connor McKane has come in and done just that. Good work, now we're bound to get a productive thread.

Oh I am sorry, I must have missed the part were I said that Obama & Democrats were to blame.... silly republicans, always NOT saying things, but lucky for us we have you Democrats to tell us the things we didn't say but really said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

Connor McKane wrote:Give me a gakking break... are you seriouslytrying to take the stance that him liking other books overcomes the fact that he prescribes to the most poisonous piece of Nazi Propagandaesque so poisonous in fact that by simply having read it, you are branded a Nazi Skin head?

Books do not work that way.

Really? Seriously? Then next time you are in church, take a copy of "The Satanic Verses" and hold it infront of you. "Books do not work that way." What a maroon!!! LOL

All Democrats can do now that they have lost, in the most spectacular fashion in 75 years, is cry and complain and lie, as they have always done, and you talk about the "Gold Standard"

No, the crazy was talking about the gold standard. You need to read more closely.

Oh no, you missed my witty play on words. Will you please re-read what I said concerning your statment of the Gold standard...lol... it's funny cause you see what I did there? No?

Democrats only know one standard and that is the double standard.

Yeah, everyone read the above and think for a second. This guy actually believes good and evil can be determined by political affiliation. This is exactly the kind of ridiculous place that identity politics will lead to.

Yes, because I said Democrats are Evil... wait, no I didn't . Please learn to read, or at least work on comprehension. I said Democrats are LIARS. It's not the same thing. But still true.

You have been brainwashed my friend. Liberalsim is truly a metal disorder. You need to listen less to the Leftwing talking heads on CNN and MSNBC and do you own research. Foolish indeed.

Umm, I haven't actually watched CNN or MSNBC since the event happened. Nor do I watch them very often anyway, because they're not very good. Nor am I a liberal, at least not anything you'd recognise as a liberal.

First thing a Liberal does when trying to establish credibility is say they aren't a liberal. Because it's easier to appear logical to the masses (and we both know that you what you are doing is grandstanding, putting on a show for the people you so desperatley need to like you) You won't say you have a stake in anything because if you ACTUALLY took a stance, you might be wrong.

I've been right alot, wrong alot. The difference between you and I is that I stood for SOMETHING.

But it's interesting you'd just go off on that rant, rather than consider the fairly plain information I gave you - liberals do not list We The Living among their favourite books, as this guy did it's fairly clear he's not a liberal. But you just accused me of being brainwashed, because that's easier than thinking about the fact that you came here and embarressed yourself by giving a very obviously silly position.

Think about that, because it should embarress you quite a bit. Surely enough that you'd want to reconsider how you approach your politics.

I am embarassed only to have entered into an idiotic he said/she said argument on the friggin internet. I regret nothing. Especially my vote in the November election.

I lol'd - I truly did, as a matter of fact I can barley see the screen through the tears of laughter in my eyes...

Bromsy wrote:Okay, now my serious hand is raised. Anyone from either of the major political parties throwing around accusations whilst claiming they are better than "the other side" can go suck on a lemon, cause that is a bunch of crap. Human beings are terrible creatures, and pretending like this is a struggle between the normal people on either side of the political gulf instead of our collective struggle to outgrow our animal instincts is just playing into the hands of career politicians. The only reason I don't say "everyone" is because there has to be at least a few decent, reasonable people out there, right?......... right?

There are loads of decent people all over the place. And there are decent people in politics. A lot of them, even. Despite this, politics remains an ugly game.

I agree that neither side is perfect, they can both improve in all kinds of ways. But here is the thing, the crazy fringe of the left wing remains the crazy fringe. The crazy talk about being overtaken by corporations who will own us remains on the fringe. On the other hand, in the last decade the crazy fringe of the right wing that talks about government take over and FEMA detention centres has moved into the centre, led by Glenn Beck. This does not condemn the entirety of the right wing, but it is something that is going wrong with them right now, and the situation would improve if the crazy voices were returned to the fringes.

Do you agree?

You're both making yourselves look a bit silly by referencing individual entries on that enormous list of his favorite books.

The kind of list which a kid with pretentions of being philosophical writes out, often having never actually read any of the books in question.

Connor McKane wrote:Oh I am sorry, I must have missed the part were I said that Obama & Democrats were to blame.... silly republicans, always NOT saying things, but lucky for us we have you Democrats to tell us the things we didn't say but really said.

You said the shooter was a left winger, you called the first person to disagree with you a Democrat, you then called liberalism a mental disorder. Are you going to split hairs and claim that you don't think of Democrats and the left wing as interchangeable?

I lol'd

I'm not joking. You've embarressed yourself badly in this thread, with an initial argument that was obviously wrong, and followed it up with broad attacks on your political opposition, which most of us (none of us?) even belong to. It's been a dire effort, and you should feel shame. Do you have any self pride, respect for your own honesty, that might tell you that what you're doing is lame?

Connor McKane wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:What is left wing about ranting about unconstitutional and "treasonous" laws, and the gold standard?

Did you see his massive list of "favorite books"? Please go back and read the rest of the thread.

Give me a gakking break... are you seriouslytrying to take the stance that him liking other books overcomes the fact that he prescribes to the most poisonous piece of Nazi Propagandaesque so poisonous in fact that by simply having read it, you are branded a Nazi Skin head?

Only idiots do such branding. People read that book (or parts of it) all the time if they're studying WWII, or Nazi Germany, or Political Theory.

Connor McKane wrote:All Democrats can do now that they have lost, in the most spectacular fashion in 75 years, is cry and complain and lie, as they have always done, and you talk about the "Gold Standard"

What exactly do you think you're achieving with this rant, other than making yourself look like a silly troll?

The guy was neither liberal, nor conservative. He's crazy.

If you go far enough left or right, you end up in the same place. It's that "9-11 truther," "one global currency," "it's all the Illuminati" place, that is populated by retardeds, but isn't a real or relevant political space.

This kid had a lot of libertarian in him. That's generally conservative. He was strongly athiest. That's generally liberal.

He's a mixed bag of nuts.

It's depressing that it's become politicized, it shows how petty, clawing and lowbrow the American political debate is.

Mannahnin wrote:You're both making yourselves look a bit silly by referencing individual entries on that enormous list of his favorite books.

The kind of list which a kid with pretentions of being philosophical writes out, often having never actually read any of the books in question.

You'd want to read my posts more carefully if you think I was listing individual entries to try and describe the guy's politics. I never did anything of the sort, and I'm pretty annoyed you'd think I did.

I think the guy listed a grab bag of the most famous political tracts in an effort to appear learned, seemingly indifferent or unaware that the books in the list are contradictory.

As such, claiming one book of the list, like Mein Kampf, and declaring he must be a leftwing (which is a whole other kind of stupid, of course) is ridiculous, when the guy also lists a book like We The Living. Similarly, claiming the guy is a libertarian makes no sense, when he lists a book like The Communist Manifesto.

sebster wrote:... liberals do not list We The Living among their favourite books, as this guy did it's fairly clear he's not a liberal.

You picked one out, and used it as evidence. Thus making largely the same error Connor did, although that was your only error that I really noticed.

Your more recent post has got it. He listed a grab bag.

Connor McKane wrote:Really? Seriously? Then next time you are in church, take a copy of "The Satanic Verses" and hold it infront of you. "Books do not work that way." What a maroon!!! LOL

You're attempting to counter my statement that reading one book doesn't define your entire political and moral character, especially when you've read other opposing and equally contraversial books... with the idea that a certain book might cause offence in church. That makes no sense.

Oh no, you missed my witty play on words. Will you please re-read what I said concerning your statment of the Gold standard...lol... it's funny cause you see what I did there? No?

I don't think you understand what a play on words is.

Yes, because I said Democrats are Evil... wait, no I didn't . Please learn to read, or at least work on comprehension. I said Democrats are LIARS. It's not the same thing. But still true

No, it's nonsense. Democrats aren't all an anything. They're a whole bunch of different people with a wide range of believes and personal stories, same a Republicans. What you're arguing is just silliiness.

First thing a Liberal does when trying to establish credibility is say they aren't a liberal. Because it's easier to appear logical to the masses (and we both know that you what you are doing is grandstanding, putting on a show for the people you so desperatley need to like you) You won't say you have a stake in anything because if you ACTUALLY took a stance, you might be wrong.

What masses? Do you think that anyone is reading this other than you and me?

I have stances. I have lots of stances. But they're just based on the facts of individual issues, and not out of a need to belong to one political faction or another.

I've been right alot, wrong alot. The difference between you and I is that I stood for SOMETHING.

You stand for trumpeting for one political party and booing the other. Which isn't actually a stance, as much as a desperate need to belong to something. Which is understandable, but in terms of politics and improving the state of the nation, it's value is somewhere between harmless and actively harmful.

I am embarassed only to have entered into an idiotic he said/she said argument on the friggin internet. I regret nothing. Especially my vote in the November election

No, seriously, you've spouted nonsense and made sweeping claims with little or nothing to support them. It was an embaressing display. You should feel shame.

It doesn't matter how you voted, what matters is the reasoning you've used to reach your political opinions, which, as demonstrated in this thread, have been dreaadful, entirely lacking in critical thought. As an adult in the 21st century you only have yourself to blame for such nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:The guy was neither liberal, nor conservative. He's crazy.

If you go far enough left or right, you end up in the same place. It's that "9-11 truther," "one global currency," "it's all the Illuminati" place, that is populated by retardeds, but isn't a real or relevant political space.

Pretty much.

It's depressing that it's become politicized, it shows how petty, clawing and lowbrow the American political debate is.

Thing is, there really are right wingers calling Democrats enemies of the state, and it is a bad, bad thing. Glenn Beck really is talking about how Obama is going to take away all their freedoms. This in absolute lunacy, and it is in the mainstream of Republican debate. Things would be much better if the GOP forced those loons back out to the fringes where they belong.

None of which has anything to do with the shooting of the congresswoman and the unfortunate bystanders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:You picked one out, and used it as evidence. Thus making largely the same error Connor did, although that was your only error that I really noticed.

Your more recent post has got it. He listed a grab bag.

Yeah, but I only pointed it out to show he wasn't a leftwinger. I never tried to claim that he was a rightwinger.

Phryxis wrote:The guy was neither liberal, nor conservative. He's crazy.

You can easily be liberal and crazy or conservative and crazy.

Phryxis wrote:This kid had a lot of libertarian in him. That's generally conservative. He was strongly athiest. That's generally liberal.

Do you consider Objectivists liberal? Not that I think he's an Objectivist, but I don't think I can agree that athiesm is generally liberal.

I was raised Libertarian, and while it's very compatible with classical conservatism, it has very little common ground with social conservatism. Which is one of the big contradictions in the Tea Party, that you have both of these crammed in under that very broad label, among others, when they're really nothing alike.

The video Loughner posted on Youtube, which I quoted earlier, references some political concepts which fall on one end of the spectrum. I don't think this necessarily means he really is what we would think of as Conservative; if he is, it's the militia crazy types, but nobody claimed that Tim McVeigh was a liberal.

That being said, one of his friends says Loughner's grudge against Gifford originally sprang from a minor incident at another Congress in Your Corner event back in 2007, a crazy resentment about her not giving him a satisfying answer to the question "'What is government if words have no meaning?", which seems to demonstrate that he was mostly a crazy schizophrenic going back at least that far.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/jared-lee-loughner-friend-voicemail-phone-message#

Of course, Tierney also says that...

"Loughner would occasionally mention Giffords, according to Tierney: "It wasn't a day-in, day-out thing, but maybe once in a while, if Giffords did something that was ridiculous or passed some stupid law or did something stupid, he related that to people."

...which seems to imply that he was also politically opposed to her.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

Your more recent post has got it. He listed a grab bag.

Yeah, but I only pointed it out to show he wasn't a leftwinger. I never tried to claim that he was a rightwinger.

I know you weren't using it as positive evidence. I just don't think you can really use that list as evidence either way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another good news article, about the bystanders who subdued Loughner:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/01/09/20110109gabrielle-giffords-arizona-shooting-morning.html

Mannahnin wrote:Do you consider Objectivists liberal? Not that I think he's an Objectivist, but I don't think I can agree that athiesm is generally liberal.

True. I'd disagree largely because it means Christianity would be generally conservative, which I really don't like.

I know you weren't using it as positive evidence. I just don't think you can really use that list as evidence either way.

And I'm saying I didn't attempt to use it as evidence either way. So, I wasn't foolish, yeah?

sebster wrote:... liberals do not list We The Living among their favourite books, as this guy did it's fairly clear he's not a liberal.

We all make mistakes. I didn't say you were foolish. I said you looked a bit silly, which is still probably wrong on my part, but I was trying to defuse things a little. More just that you were mistaken.

sebster wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Do you consider Objectivists liberal? Not that I think he's an Objectivist, but I don't think I can agree that athiesm is generally liberal.

True. I'd disagree largely because it means Christianity would be generally conservative, which I really don't like.

Christianity has (to my mind) a lot more in common with Liberal ideals than with Conservative ones.

Mannahnin wrote:We all make mistakes. I didn't say you were foolish. I said you looked a bit silly, which is still probably wrong on my part, but I was trying to defuse things a little. More just that you were mistaken.

I said it was clear he wasn't a liberal. Which is nothing at all like claiming he was a conservative, which you said I did. As such, in this instance I was not mistaken.

Christianity has (to my mind) a lot more in common with Liberal ideals than with Conservative ones.

Yeah, the ability of the rightwing in the US to lay claim to the Christian vote is a very odd thing, to my mind.

More than anything else, it's been quite unhealthy for Christianity, as the Republicans have given them little on issues like abortion and prayer in school, while many Christian groups have lost much of the charity and social justice from their central teachings, and replaced it with the prosperity doctrine and the like.

Yeah, I feel rather bad for the nice Christians I know, to have the lovely parts of their religion, like charity and caring for the poor and downtrodden totally ignored for the most part, in favor of wedge issues like abortion.

sebster wrote:... liberals do not list We The Living among their favourite books, as this guy did it's fairly clear he's not a liberal.

I must be reading this quote wrong. It appears to me, to be you drawing a conclusion about something this person isn't, based on a book on his list. I don't think that list can reasonably be used as evidence of his NOT being something, any more than it can be used as evidence of his BEING something. But I must be reading it wrong, as I'm used to you being right a lot, and you're very insistent on this point. So I must be overtired and reading it wrong.

sebster wrote:Which is nothing at all like claiming he was a conservative, which you said I did.

No, I honestly didn't. Go ahead and check.

On a side note, I am more than happy to be branded a 'maroon'!

In other news I'm angry at Obama again..

I can see why my missus voted for an independent.

Mannahnin wrote:Yeah, I feel rather bad for the nice Christians I know, to have the lovely parts of their religion, like charity and caring for the poor and downtrodden totally ignored for the most part, in favor of wedge issues like abortion.

Yeah, very much so.

I must be reading this quote wrong. It appears to me, to be you drawing a conclusion about something this person isn't, based on a book on his list. I don't think that list can reasonably be used as evidence of his NOT being something, any more than it can be used as evidence of his BEING something. But I must be reading it wrong, as I'm used to you being right a lot, and you're very insistent on this point. So I must be overtired and reading it wrong.

Oh, I just had a total lightbulb moment! I see how you were reading my initial statement, compared to how I intended it to be read. I meant that there was no proof he was much of anything, but didn't spell that out and just said he wasn't liberal. Poor phrasing on my part.

See? Now THAT's discourse.

Bodacious2182 wrote:All politicians are guilty of violent rhetoric: Here is one from Barry Obama, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,”

You aren't seriously comparing quoting the movie The Untouchables in reference to a hard-fought election campaign to people threatening armed resistance or "second amendment remedies" to laws they dislike, are you? That's a dishonest argument.

No he actually said that. Maybe you should take up these threatening inciteful comments with the head of the Democratic party?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:The guy was neither liberal, nor conservative. He's crazy.

If you go far enough left or right, you end up in the same place. It's that "9-11 truther," "one global currency," "it's all the Illuminati" place, that is populated by retardeds, but isn't a real or relevant political space.

This kid had a lot of libertarian in him. That's generally conservative. He was strongly athiest. That's generally liberal.

He's a mixed bag of nuts.

It's depressing that it's become politicized, it shows how petty, clawing and lowbrow the American political debate is.

Connor McKane wrote:I am embarassed only to have entered into an idiotic he said/she said argument on the friggin internet. I regret nothing. Especially my vote in the November election.

I lol'd - I truly did, as a matter of fact I can barley see the screen through the tears of laughter in my eyes...

Connor, I'm about as conservative as they come and let me say, you represent everything wrong with politics in this country.

Connor McKane wrote:I said Democrats are LIARS. It's not the same thing. But still true

No, that's not what you said. You said that Democrats only know double standards, double standards are not based on lying.

Please make at least an ephemeral attempt to recall your own words.

That, or stop trolling.

Connor McKane wrote:
First thing a Liberal does when trying to establish credibility is say they aren't a liberal. Because it's easier to appear logical to the masses...

The masses don't know what logic is, and I suspect that to be inclusive of you.

For example, you've just committed an existential fallacy.

Connor McKane wrote:
I've been right alot, wrong alot. The difference between you and I is that I stood for SOMETHING.

Why is that important?

All righty two more people have been given suspensions or warned. Again. Politeness is being enforced on this thread.

Hey a mod called me a self confessed loudmouth who frequently posts drunk, and I didnt get upset.

Well... maybe because I am and I do. But thats not the point.

It wasnt a rebuttal of what i think is a demonstrably good point, nations with better gun controls wind up with less people getting shot!

I think for the sake of sanity this thread needs a good closure cause I've seen more moderator warnings on a non-locked thread than any in recent memory.

Even veteran posters are getting dragged into a war of words, semantics, and defensive arguements that is not resolving any of the debates going on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:All righty two more people have been given suspensions or warned. Again. Politeness is being enforced on this thread.

That looks less threatening without red color tags around the announcement.

And no one has said "Blame the Victim" yet.

Frazzled wrote:All righty two more people have been given suspensions or warned. Again. Politeness is being enforced on this thread.

Holy F@#%! This thread is riskier than a dangerous terrain test!

olympia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:All righty two more people have been given suspensions or warned. Again. Politeness is being enforced on this thread.

Holy F@#%! This thread is riskier than a dangerous terrain test!

Obligatory dangerous terrain picture:

mattyrm wrote:Hey a mod called me a self confessed loudmouth who frequently posts drunk, and I didnt get upset.

Well... maybe because I am and I do. But thats not the point.

It wasnt a rebuttal of what i think is a demonstrably good point, nations with better gun controls wind up with less people getting shot!

Why would you get upset, sounds like a complement to me!

Again, the easy rebuttal is Mexico. Strong gun controls = 30,000 people murdered last year.
US crime rates have been going down at the same time gun law restrictions are being reduced...

Frazzled wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Hey a mod called me a self confessed loudmouth who frequently posts drunk, and I didnt get upset.

Well... maybe because I am and I do. But thats not the point.

It wasnt a rebuttal of what i think is a demonstrably good point, nations with better gun controls wind up with less people getting shot!

Why would you get upset, sounds like a complement to me!

Again, the easy rebuttal is Mexico. Strong gun controls = 30,000 people murdered last year.
US crime rates have been going down at the same time gun law restrictions are being reduced...

To be fair Frazzled, Mexico is not an island of stability. Keep in mind that Mexico's government also decided to declare war on drugs, which has caused those numbers to rise dramatically as well as the proportion of bodies with heads to bodies without heads ratio.

Good points WarOne (and your avatar freaks me out)

Additioinally, yes I think it might be prudent to shut down. We have the usual ancillary topics of gun control, lefty/righty EEEVIL! and of course Weiner Dogs Are Bestest Dogs! posts so it will be a good time to shut down.

In summation:

*Our prayers to the victims and their families in this time.