The Insane Rationalizations, Bigotry And Hypocrisy Of The Right

[toysoldier]

 

I really do not get it why Europeans think they need to tell the US what to do when it comes to gun ownership.

I don't know about other Europeans, in my case it's unabashed envy.

Damn shame i cannot hug you right now

[lastdingo]

The purpose of owning a gun is to secure the right to vote. When its common for Antifa thugs or SEIU thugs to attack those who have differing opinions its time to consider whether you'll be allowed to vote in the future. When it's common for Bernie Sanders supporters to try to break up political rallies or shoot opposition lawmakers one should question whether they will be allowed to take part in political life.

 

When we voted in the last election we had paper ballots with our choices visible to the election workers who put them in the ballot box. I didn't think that would ever happen in the United States. I always thought it was a secret ballot. Things have gotten worse here than I could ever imagine.

 

That's ridiculous. Some right wing media outlets created the scarecrow antifa, unleashed a barrage of a few weeks of scaremongering propaganda even though previously practically nobody knew of them and you actually fell for it, gulped it whole? Ridiculous.

On the other hand, lots of white dudes still piss their pants looking at that photo of two black dudes standing next to each other peacefully. The right wing is very, very easily scared. That, BTW, appears to be an international phenomenon.

The German AfD is scared about its own fantasies. It's a shame, they had some legitimate topics and ideas when they were founded.

 

Paper ballots are used in my country as well. We know some exotic, ancient origami technique to keep the vote secret: We fold them twice. It's secret enough if everybody does it. We also put the folded paper in the box ourselves. The election workers only push it in if it's still stuck in the slit after the voter already withdrew the hand.

[Rick]

 

The purpose of owning a gun is to secure the right to vote. When its common for Antifa thugs or SEIU thugs to attack those who have differing opinions its time to consider whether you'll be allowed to vote in the future. When it's common for Bernie Sanders supporters to try to break up political rallies or shoot opposition lawmakers one should question whether they will be allowed to take part in political life.

 

When we voted in the last election we had paper ballots with our choices visible to the election workers who put them in the ballot box. I didn't think that would ever happen in the United States. I always thought it was a secret ballot. Things have gotten worse here than I could ever imagine.

 

That's ridiculous. Some right wing media outlets created the scarecrow antifa, unleashed a barrage of a few weeks of scaremongering propaganda even though previously practically nobody knew of them and you actually fell for it, gulped it whole? Ridiculous.

On the other hand, lots of white dudes still piss their pants looking at that photo of two black dudes standing next to each other peacefully. The right wing is very, very easily scared. That, BTW, appears to be an international phenomenon.

The German AfD is scared about its own fantasies. It's a shame, they had some legitimate topics and ideas when they were founded.

 

Paper ballots are used in my country as well. We know some exotic, ancient origami technique to keep the vote secret: We fold them twice. It's secret enough if everybody does it. We also put the folded paper in the box ourselves. The election workers only push it in if it's still stuck in the slit after the voter already withdrew the hand.

 

Last Dingo, out of honest curiosity, where do you get your information about the United States?

[seahawk]

 

The purpose of owning a gun is to secure the right to vote. When its common for Antifa thugs or SEIU thugs to attack those who have differing opinions its time to consider whether you'll be allowed to vote in the future. When it's common for Bernie Sanders supporters to try to break up political rallies or shoot opposition lawmakers one should question whether they will be allowed to take part in political life.

 

When we voted in the last election we had paper ballots with our choices visible to the election workers who put them in the ballot box. I didn't think that would ever happen in the United States. I always thought it was a secret ballot. Things have gotten worse here than I could ever imagine.

 

That's ridiculous. Some right wing media outlets created the scarecrow antifa, unleashed a barrage of a few weeks of scaremongering propaganda even though previously practically nobody knew of them and you actually fell for it, gulped it whole? Ridiculous.

On the other hand, lots of white dudes still piss their pants looking at that photo of two black dudes standing next to each other peacefully. The right wing is very, very easily scared. That, BTW, appears to be an international phenomenon.

The German AfD is scared about its own fantasies. It's a shame, they had some legitimate topics and ideas when they were founded.

 

Paper ballots are used in my country as well. We know some exotic, ancient origami technique to keep the vote secret: We fold them twice. It's secret enough if everybody does it. We also put the folded paper in the box ourselves. The election workers only push it in if it's still stuck in the slit after the voter already withdrew the hand.

 

 

I think you got some serious anti-American feelings, or are just a European liberal who has as many fears as the right wingers he despises. It is a global world and America has a huge influence on the western culture since WW2 and they had those weapons laws ever since. They also had the same voting system ever since and it always had given the world presidents of different qualities. This time you had candidates that where both despised by large parts of the US society (different parts for each though) and so the result was a bit on the extreme side of things.

[rmgill]

Is LD from the DDR?

[lastdingo]

I love it when discussion opponents are waving the big white flag by going ad hominem.

People very rarely admit being wrong directly, so 'winning' in a debate is about provoking signals that the others are out of arguments.

[rmgill]

Being from the DDR is an ad homiem? Interesting.

It could explain your views, having grown up in a more controlled state environment and distrusting your fellow man so utterly.

On the internet, winning a debate isn't about persuading people like you. It's showing how your points are baseless and fail on their lack of merit. I'm sure there's probably Vox or Slate article that might cover that for ya.

[lastdingo]

Yes, a switch from message to messenger is ad hominem. Especially considering the reflexive anti-communism of almost everyone here.

That stupid question was asked many times on this forum before. People don't really want to know the answer (I'm from Northwest Germany). They seek an excuse to dismiss my points without the need to falsify them first, in order to quickly get rid of the cognitive dissonance caused by someone else bringing up dissenting points. Just look at how you asked others instead of me, as if they had means to know. Even Moderator can only look up my IP, not my origins. You were never interested in the real answer either.

 

There's no "explanation" needed for what points I bring forward. They speak for themselves because I stay on the message - not messenger - until someone hits me first. I'm not a "other cheek" kind of guy, and I'm not easily mobbed out of the forum like many others who don't share forum majority opinions. In fact, I've been here for longer than the vast majority.

 

 

BTW, it's outright ridiculous and hypocritical of you to talk about ME distrusting "fellow man". It's your kind who outright despise much of their own nation out of hyperpartisan hate, fear, and distrust.

[Mr King]

Lighten up Sparky.

[CT96]

Attempting to understand where someone is coming from is ad hominem now? Way to move the victim goalposts.

[Mikel2]

 

[lastdingo]

Lighten up Sparky.

 

Go home, troll.

[seahawk]

Yes, a switch from message to messenger is ad hominem. Especially considering the reflexive anti-communism of almost everyone here.

That stupid question was asked many times on this forum before. People don't really want to know the answer (I'm from Northwest Germany). They seek an excuse to dismiss my points without the need to falsify them first, in order to quickly get rid of the cognitive dissonance caused by someone else bringing up dissenting points. Just look at how you asked others instead of me, as if they had means to know. Even Moderator can only look up my IP, not my origins. You were never interested in the real answer either.

 

There's no "explanation" needed for what points I bring forward. They speak for themselves because I stay on the message - not messenger - until someone hits me first. I'm not a "other cheek" kind of guy, and I'm not easily mobbed out of the forum like many others who don't share forum majority opinions. In fact, I've been here for longer than the vast majority.

 

 

BTW, it's outright ridiculous and hypocritical of you to talk about ME distrusting "fellow man". It's your kind who outright despise much of their own nation out of hyperpartisan hate, fear, and distrust.

 

The points you bring up do not speak for themselves. Even though I can understand your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, which also does sound logical to me, the US supreme court came to another conclusion. That is the fact and I find it not only a bit arrogant but also quite pointless to explain the American members that their supreme court of justice is obviously wrong when it comes to the right to bear arms.

[Paul G.]

 

 

Yes, a switch from message to messenger is ad hominem. Especially considering the reflexive anti-communism of almost everyone here.

That stupid question was asked many times on this forum before. People don't really want to know the answer (I'm from Northwest Germany). They seek an excuse to dismiss my points without the need to falsify them first, in order to quickly get rid of the cognitive dissonance caused by someone else bringing up dissenting points. Just look at how you asked others instead of me, as if they had means to know. Even Moderator can only look up my IP, not my origins. You were never interested in the real answer either.

 

There's no "explanation" needed for what points I bring forward. They speak for themselves because I stay on the message - not messenger - until someone hits me first. I'm not a "other cheek" kind of guy, and I'm not easily mobbed out of the forum like many others who don't share forum majority opinions. In fact, I've been here for longer than the vast majority.

 

 

BTW, it's outright ridiculous and hypocritical of you to talk about ME distrusting "fellow man". It's your kind who outright despise much of their own nation out of hyperpartisan hate, fear, and distrust.

The points you bring up do not speak for themselves. Even though I can understand your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, which also does sound logical to me, the US supreme court came to another conclusion. That is the fact and I find it not only a bit arrogant but also quite pointless to explain the American members that their supreme court of justice is obviously wrong when it comes to the right to bear arms.

I would argue not wrong...but evolved away from original intent...which IMO is obsolete and irrelevent.

[seahawk]

I would not call it obsolete, more like newly interpreted. A lot happened in the time between today and the second amendment. It made sense to have a military force in the early days, it made sense as a general right to bear arms when the Wild West was developed and one can have different opinions on the sense of it today, but in the end the supreme court has made a decision. Everybody can disagree with it or can show reasons for his different opinion, but nobody can claim that a different position is the only position backed by facts.

[lastdingo]

(...) I find it not only a bit arrogant but also quite pointless to explain the American members that their supreme court of justice is obviously wrong when it comes to the right to bear arms.

 

Is it too much to ask for a quote of mine and a conflicting SCOTUS ruling quote as evidence for this?

[rmgill]

Which conflicting SCOTUS ruling? Miller? Cruikshank.

Edited November 1, 2017 by rmgill

[Mr King]

 

 

Yes, a switch from message to messenger is ad hominem. Especially considering the reflexive anti-communism of almost everyone here.

That stupid question was asked many times on this forum before. People don't really want to know the answer (I'm from Northwest Germany). They seek an excuse to dismiss my points without the need to falsify them first, in order to quickly get rid of the cognitive dissonance caused by someone else bringing up dissenting points. Just look at how you asked others instead of me, as if they had means to know. Even Moderator can only look up my IP, not my origins. You were never interested in the real answer either.

 

There's no "explanation" needed for what points I bring forward. They speak for themselves because I stay on the message - not messenger - until someone hits me first. I'm not a "other cheek" kind of guy, and I'm not easily mobbed out of the forum like many others who don't share forum majority opinions. In fact, I've been here for longer than the vast majority.

 

 

BTW, it's outright ridiculous and hypocritical of you to talk about ME distrusting "fellow man". It's your kind who outright despise much of their own nation out of hyperpartisan hate, fear, and distrust.

The points you bring up do not speak for themselves. Even though I can understand your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, which also does sound logical to me, the US supreme court came to another conclusion. That is the fact and I find it not only a bit arrogant but also quite pointless to explain the American members that their supreme court of justice is obviously wrong when it comes to the right to bear arms.

I would argue not wrong...but evolved away from original intent...which IMO is obsolete and irrelevent.

 

 

You're right Paul we should take a good hard look at what amendments and rights which are granted those amendments are outdated. We can start with the 13th, 14th, and 19th.

[Rick]

 

[NickM]

 

 

My my...she doth look prim & proper-and mighty pale too. She should get more sun;

[lastdingo]

ROFL, this is amusing.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/11/22/gary-cohn-trump-tax-reform-bad-phone-connection-carper-sot-nr.cnn

[lastdingo]

Which conflicting SCOTUS ruling? Miller? Cruikshank.

 

I'm really not motivated to explain to him what "quote" means, any volunteers?

[rmgill]

Well, your quotes on the issue don't mean anything. A quote from a specific ruling, the opinions for example carry weight of law. However there are some rulings which have issues so quoting from them is fraught with problems. But I guess you don't really care.

[lastdingo]

Well, your quotes on the issue don't mean anything. A quote from a specific ruling, the opinions for example carry weight of law. However there are some rulings which have issues so quoting from them is fraught with problems. But I guess you don't really care.

 

Seahawk claimed that I did something (a claim that was borderline strawman), I challenged him to prove it.

 

YOU just happen to not understand that discussion enough to make a meaningful contribution. Feel free to meet the challenge. I suppose nobody's interested in your thought-free display of hostility.

[rmgill]

Ahh. So you don't think there are any issues with Heller v DC or MacDonald V Chicago?

I guess we're done then. Do stop telling us what our laws ought to be please.

Edited November 23, 2017 by rmgill