Outlawing guns in the US ...

[Member2019]

Don't know ...

And this is to do with the 2'nd Amendment how?

Don't know because you keep brining all sorts of shit up in this thread, like others.
I want to talk civics, but apparently people want to talk about what's wrong.

I've run many associations in my life, and there are two types of people.
There are people who put forth time and effort and learn to compromise.
And then there are people who, no matter how many times you compromise, they don't like the result.

I don't know how many times we've "decided" how we will conduct business and vote on it.
But then people don't like the "result" so they say there was something "wrong" with 'the process."
And then they want to redefine "the process" in the hope they will get different, "less wrong" results.

And it never ends, because some people just won't agree until they "get what they want."
At some point, the "processes" don't matter, because they don't get the results select people want.

"Processes" aren't about some subjective bullshit like "fair" or "right" or "wrong."
"Processes" in an organization are about trying to do your best so most people think the group did something "right" and not "wrong" because it underwent a "due process."
And in the case of the group thinking they need to reverse a "wrong" into a "right," the discussion undergoes the exact same, repeatable "due process."

Civics is about everyone agreeing to a set of "processes," so we can resolve disagreements and reach compromises.
We set rules down on how things will be approved, revoked and otherwise enforced or not enforced.
We agree how we will conduct all business and move from there.

If we keep changing how we conduct business "on a whim," we will never agree!

I literally ran a group where we, unanimously, agreed to use parliamentary procedures, especially two people who insisted we do so.
Guess what? The second those two people "didn't get there way," they didn't want to use parliamentary procedures anymore.
We grunted, but agreed to change to another format for business.

And guess what? It wasn't too long before those two people didn't like that either.
At that point, we had a vote on whether to change again, they lost 13-2.
And guess what, they said it should be "unanimous" like before on parliamentary procedure in the first place.

And we got nothing done.

How convenient.
I sincerely hope that your definitions of what are sinful and what are not do not one day include hurting others who simply are not emotionally capable of uttering their objections to them.
People like your wife, for example.

It must suck being you.
All that hate of yourself for being a white male over-pouring into constant judgment of others.

You can't pass up an opportunity to judgment me using my poor, innocent wife in whatever fashion you want.
I pitty you, it must really suck having so much hate of yourself that you must constantly do this to "feel better."

The sad thing is that if you had the hottest woman on the planet give you a blow job, you couldn't even enjoy it.
You'd have to sit there and beat yourself up for getting it.

What a sad existence.
Meanwhile, I'll be "violating my wife's emotions" and "raping her" because she's incapable of telling me she doesn't consent.
Yes, I rape my wife.

Again, convenient. When the majority no longer approve of what you do, you shall make your own standards and deride those who do not allow you to act as you see fit.

No, that's what Fox and you are advocating on a group level.
Me? I just say I'm responsible for myself individually, and I choose what groups I associate with.

Again, you can't get a blowjob as a white male because you hate being a white male.
Man, I could only imagine how you'd feel getting a blowjob from someone like Queen Latifah, you'd probably be apologizing all throughout the middle of it for being a white male.

BTW, it is interesting how you demand and expect others to stay on the topic of this thread. But yet oh so quickly wander of that topic whenever it suits you.

Dude, you are so far off-topic that you can't even stand there.
My very on-topic point is that freedom of the individual starts with individual rights and choice.
And that includes an individual being able to use a due process to enact laws if a super-majority of others as individuals agree with him/her.

I suggest if you want to discuss this, you start yet another thread.

I suggest you and Fox get the fuck out of this thread if you cannot even remotely stay on-topic and recognize you're doing everything to be "argumentative."
Don't be "argumentative," actually and intelligently engage in the discussion on civics, not the foreign policy of the US, or socializing thing to "make things better."

And while you're at it, I'm going to bang the shit out of my wife and celebrate my manhood.
Sorry you can't enjoy it like I can, much less can't feel alive like I can.
Hate me for it, call me a rapist, call me selfish, I don't give a shit.

Because your lack of values for my rights and others with full and unrestricted judgment, just like Fox, is the root cause of all that is wrong in the world.

 

[Member2019]

Translations ...

Fox:

1 man, 1 vote ... except yours, yours and all those existing rules on how we vote. And don't debate me because I know more than you because I went to Oxford and George Mason and got a 3.9. You, you and you in the US are wrong, I'm here to fix things and make it right.

McRocket:

I feel bad because I inherited a silver spoon and I look at porn and talked to pornstars who have been hurt by men. And don't get on me when I judge others because you're wrong. It's wrong to look, lust and do other things, and even when you try to clarify, it doesn't matter what you said or meant, only what I say you said or meant.

ProfV:

If we don't realize that we have all agreed to a set of processes, and we don't use those same processes to try change what we don't like, then we won't have any processes that matter. I'm just an engineer that got B/C grades and someone who grew up in a somewhat poor family and married a woman from a dirt poor family.

The only thing I can say is that I pay 10x as much income tax as someone I only make 3x more income than, and that I'm a responsible, helpful tax payer who not merely gives his money, but time directly to charity, because I don't trust things to government, including helping others.

I'm just a dumb, poor fool. But I still think if Fox had to take my engineering microeconomics course, he would have cried (before we tackled the modern physics and electrical engineering portions). And McRocket, you really are not only in need of a serious blow job, but someone to teach you how to enjoy it.

 

[McRocket]

Re: Don't know ...

I suggest you and Fox get the fuck out of this thread if you cannot even remotely stay on-topic and recognize you're doing everything to be "argumentative."

No, I am doing everything in here bacause I wish to make points.

Don't be "argumentative," actually and intelligently engage in the discussion on civics, not the foreign policy of the US, or socializing thing to "make things better."

Maybe you could pm me a list of do's and don'ts in threads you start?

Because your lack of values for my rights and others with full and unrestricted judgment, just like Fox, is the root cause of all that is wrong in the world.

Funny. I thought the root cause of the World's problems was violence and repression and cruelty and starvation and enviornmental problems and war and disease.
Maybe you should contact the UN and have them pick fox and I up.

Have a nice day.

 

[Member2019]

Re: Translations (1/2)

The rules are decided not by me but by the UN (international laws) and the whole population (by vote).

The fact that you have refused to recognize actual UN resolutions because you "disagree" with the results of them is just more examples of your "selective" views.
You can constantly talk about what's "wrong" with "the system" and how it needs to change to something "better."
And then you throw up your academic credentials, so we shouldn't argue with them.

You know the problem with credentials is that someone always has more.

You're just like the guy who doesn't belong in the associations I help run, because you constantly disagree with the outcomes.
But instead of just leaving it at your disagreement, you complain about the whole association.
And no matter how many times we try to accommodate you, and even change, because the results don't change, you say it's the system.

So at some point we say, "hey, we're sorry, but we're just trying to enact a system of due process so all points will be heard, and we finally make a decision."

If you don't like it, not only should you leave, but at some point, we'll just ask you not to come back.
Not because we don't like you, but because you have no interest in sticking to a system of processes.
All you will do is equate what you don't like as a result of a system as a problem with the system itself.

That's why everything you say, especially that you don't need to read anything on the history of American civics, is a joke.
You want to be an American, but you want to disregard all of the processes that we have decided to follow to heed the views and votes of other individual Americans.
You want to bypass anything that doesn't give you a result you agree with, all in the name that "my system is 'more fair'."

And you give various examples, not in terms of the process that reached them, but in the result you disagree with.
You don't focus on the process, you only focus on the result you disagree with.
You just want a process that results in what you want, not a process that will actually exist and be used by anyone.

I help design the system that gives everyone absolutely equal power and nobody any more say in government than anyone else, so nobody is to blame if things go wrong except *everyone*.

Yes, because the thousands of representatives, elected officials, super-majority votes and even unanimous votes by the people that came before you were "wrong" in design.

I don't mind if people debate me - people mind that I debate them. They tell me shut up, get out of the country, go read x and y book.

Yes, because you're too ignorant of basic civics, because you don't care about the system that we all use.
You think the system is broken and needs to be replaced, yet you won't qualify and quantify things other than "simple majority."
And when it gets deeper, you say, "oh, a simple majority will decide what the percentage is for super majority."

You are having a meta-discussion with yourself, and no one else is invited.
Certainly no one else who actually asks you to be specific is invited, and no one else who says you should read the thousands of people who already had this self-debate should be considered.
Which is why you are, simply put, not merely just an ignorant fuckl, but an arrogant one as well.

I don't tell you "what to do" because "I'm right," I actually believe otherwise than what I say most of the time.
Unfortunately, as an American and -- one could argue -- a key and important business leader in my field, I don't have the luxury of that.
I have to respect that there are various processes that have been defined, and I follow those processes.

And if I disagree with those processes, my civic duty is to put forth a change to those processes, which must be done under those existing processes.
If processes are not set down, until they are changed under the same process, then processes don't matter -- no one follows them at all.
Which means any new, alleged processes in a system of "absolute equal power" and representation is open to change without any reuse of those new, alleged processes in a system of "absolute equal power."

The fact that you can't even put this together means you're know better than a child.
The same one when asked, "why did you do that" you go, "I don't know" or, more naive and ignorant yet, "oh, I thought it would be different."
Why do kids go to school? Not to be brainwashed, but so they read and are aware of discussions that came before them, even if they disagree.

Because when you are ignorant and think you are "the first person" to think of something, most people just laugh at you.

The world's greatest thinkers, scientists, engineers, leaders, etc... didn't come up with ideas because they were original in a vacuum.
They came up with ideas based on reading many, existing views, discussions, debates, theories and self-reflections.
From those they were able to realize things that others did not put together, but were often compatible.

As I always correct people, Einstein's Theories of Relativity didn't break Newton's Laws, they complemented them.
Einstein's Theories of Relativity didn't start with original equations, they were based on countless systems of equations, such as Maxell's.
And the equation is not E = mc^2, that's just one limit of the equation (greatly simplified).

Ignorance breeds ignorance, and all you do is condone ignorance with your utterly non-sense here.

I don't ever tell anyone to shut up, get out, or that their opinions should be silenced.

"Civics" aren't about "opinions," they are the rules people agree to so everyone has their "opinions" but there is an outcome and ruling, even if many "opinions" disagree with that outcome.
"Civics" are not things you change after they are made into civics "on a whim."
"Civics" are things you change only under the same processes they define.

I do tell them they are *wrong* if I believe it, but not to shut up. I think people should be encouraged not to shut up.

I think people who refuse to even read up on something they obviously don't know anything about are ignorant.
I've had debates with you, McRocket, etc... on things neither of you know anything about.
From Missile Defense to basic American Civics, you will have your "opinion" and I just have to laugh at that ignorance.

I'm no more important or less important than anyone else.

Bullshit.
You are saying you are "above" reading anything about all those that came before you.
You are saying you are "above" following the established processes of civics agreed to either by a super-majority or, in some cases, an unanimous vote by the people or their elected, local governments.

You are the ultimate form of "I'm more important" -- the person who doesn't understand anything but what you know.
The person who has no humility, no admission, total pride and total disregard that you are ignorant, on purpose!

 

[Member2019]

Re: Translations (2/2)

I just, like many, want to live in a system which also shares that value - that we are all equally valuable and should all have an equal voice.

Everyone wants that, everyone does!
The problem is that many people disagree how to reach that.
But while we all disagree in many ways, many of us have read why and how our system of civics came about.
That people had debates over centuries, people read the views of others over centuries, people stopped to look at viewpoints other than their own.

You, Fox, demonize anyone you disagree with, judge and devalue everything, even things you yourself would agree to.
McRocket just decides to hate himself, and then that extends to judgment of others who won't despise themselves as much as he does himself.
Both are completely destructive to not just yourselves, but everyone around you.

And when I ask you to reflect on those facts, you say I'm a hate monger, a xenophobe, a person trying to censor you.

Get the fuck out, honestly, you don't belong here, you don't respect anyone but yourself.
I trust the collective arguments, discussions, lawsuits, super-majority votes and countless other, collaborative, compromising judgment of hundreds of years before I would trust you in the least bit!

You don't like the results of the US? I don't either. Trust me, on more conservative boards, I hate Bush.
But it doesn't mean I disagree with the civics at work, because it's those civics I rely on that will get domestic spying curtailed, will finally see torture "defined" and many acts repealed, etc...
It's also the same civics that keep countries in check from invading others, and define why Iraq was not a soverign nation anymore the second it invaded another and lost that war.
Civics the UN agreed to when it was created, and thesuper-majority that agreed to stop Iraq, and then spend a decade trying to get it to fully disclose all of its programs which are still not documented well.

It's far from perfect and every day I am reminded of all of the wrongs that come about.
But at the same time, things are repealed, wrongs are righted, and most importantly, people learn to disagree but not kill or otherwise violate and trample on the rights of others.
Because they have read the dangers of taking what was civics yesterday, and throwing it aside because they don't like the result.

Because by saying you're system is "fair" and it needs to be adopted by "bypassing" the existing system, you're only setting the precedent that your new, "fair" system would be bypassed as well.

There are lots of people in the US who are right. Just not you (on most things). I think we should all work together to make things right.

I personally think you're the type of person who keeps anyone from doing anything right.
You're the type that constantly wants to change the by-laws governing my professional organization because it "doesn't represent well" or "is not fair" or whatever you want to subjectively state today.
You don't respect the fact that we want by-laws that not only govern the organization, but define how the by-laws will be changed.

You want to change the governing by-laws on a whim.
If that means requiring a super-majority on things so a simple majority can't over-ride what you want, you will make that case.
And that also means, quite subjectively, requiring a simple majority to over-turn something you don't like that required a super-majority to enact.

You change things on-a-whim as you see fit, even after agreeing to do otherwise prior.
You just want to change how we do things, not because the processes are flawed, but you want to bypass the processes to get what you want.

But since few are standing up to our masters these days, it looks like I'm a lone soldier and a madman. But once people see that we can rule ourselves, I will just be one of a sea of millions, and I can't wait for that day.

I can't wait for the day you are publicly rediculed.
I'll be there, and I won't even have to say, "I told you so."

I don't know of a single US leader who wouldn't roll their eyes at you if you honestly tried to debate them.
Why? Because you are absolutely ignorant of not only US civics, but you utterly don't comprehend that what you suggest is an utter lack of any civics.
You only want what you want, and the way you think is "fair" and that will not be limited by anything that doesn't fit that agenda.

Especially not any "current processes" that "get in the way" of your "dream."

 

[McRocket]

The following are all from Prof Voluptuary in this thread:

I started this thread. While I'm not going to state opinions here, just some considerations.

1. The poll is open to everyone

If you really want to "change the world," you don't do it by bashing anyone and everyone.
You start by relating to people and understanding how and why they think the way you do.

and then later...

Then get the fuck out.

I suggest you and Fox get the fuck out of this thread if you cannot even remotely stay on-topic and recognize you're doing everything to be "argumentative."

Get the fuck out, honestly, you don't belong here, you don't respect anyone but yourself.

I can't wait for the day you are publicly rediculed.

And on a different note. I have asked you Prof Voluptuary in pm's and you won't respond or stop. So I am going to ask you again in public;

Please stop typing lies about me in public. I have never done that to you (to my knowledge).

I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth. My late mother never abused me. I was never hurt by men (my father never laid a hand on me and he treated me like gold). I don't hate myself and I DEFINITELY don't want others to hate themselves either.

If you want to call me names and disagree with me and insult me? Fine. Just please stop typing things about me as facts that you have no proof are. Or if you must, at least present them as guesses on your part and not as facts.

Please.

Sorry mods, but I wanted to clear the air on untruths that were typed about me or how I was presented to feel.

 

[pathfinder]

And let's say you make a "new law," how do you prevent people from over-riding it in the future and bypassing it?
How do you prevent people from changing the law, without using the existing laws?

I mean, if the people decided what are the "super-rules" voted on by a "super-majority," how do you prevent them from "changing it on a whim?"
Oh, "I think this is an important issue, so the 75% of people who agreed it is right before, they are wrong, so we'll only require 50% of the people to change it today."

That sounds a lot like democracy.... or mob rule.... which is why we don't have a full democracy, we have a democratic republic.

Originally Posted by pathfinder74 View Post
Yep, the white man is to blame for all the problems on this planet.

Where did I type that?

Right here...

Ohh...and that most (if not all of you) are white men - the group more then any other that is responsible for most of the problems in the world today (and especially yesterday). And the group that (outside of possible military service) knows less about hardship and adversity and discrimination then any other major 'group' on the planet; but consistently believes that they have 'had it tough'.

Originally Posted by pathfinder74:
And what hardships have you endured personally that make you such an expert?

So I have to be black to judge that racism was wrong?

Are you suggesting that there are "non-whites" in this world that have not and are not enduring great hardships? Many of which are directly or indirectly the result of the white male?
Is that what you are suggesting?

No, you don't have to be black or whatever other color is discriminated against to judge racism... I didn't say you did. I'm white and I see racism as a bad thing. To me that's pretty much common sense.

And no... I didn't suggest that there aren't "non-whites" enduring hardships... again, to me that's common sense. I've been around enough of the world to see proof of that. Although how you gage hardship might be different than someone in say Nigeria. Just because someone doesn't have television, or air conditioning, or a fast food joint and a Wal-Mart on every block doesn't mean they live in hardship. And a lot of the hardship I have seen is the result of corruption and greed... neither of which have a color. Example... all the "aid" we send to places like Nigeria... that aid gets hoarded and/or squandered by the people in power... who happen to be "non-white". And that's by no means an isolated case. Food for Oil seems to come to mind as well.

As for all the other hardship the white-man has caused... yeah, you're right. Like all the plane crashes that have killed so many "non-whites"... because whitey pioneered air travel manufacture the majority of the planes in the sky... all their fault.
Or all the deaths from automobiles... or electrocution... or whatever.
How about giving ol' whitey some credit for also contributing to a lot of the advancements in the world.

 

[Member2019]

It's as simple as this ...

The following are all from Prof Voluptuary in this thread:

I have yet to state an "opinion."
I have repeated stated the law, the actual civics you must abide by.

Fox has openly admitted he is purposely ignorant, and used his "value judgment" on US leadership to say "the system is wrong."
You have gone off on your guilty trips repeatedly, and brought even more tangents.

Like constantly insinuating that I abuse my wife, violate the rights of others, etc...
You have repeatedly stated this, then turn around and say I'm judging you.

Hence why both of you should get the fuck out of this thread if you can't even focus on the civics of the matter.
I have received a lot of kudos and PMs on how you two can't even remotely realize I am not spewing "opinions" like you two.

And on a different note. I have asked you Prof Voluptuary in pm's and you won't respond or stop.

And on a different note, I will not talk to you in PMs because you have habit of lying about what you do in them.
You want to constantly debate off-topic and you will judge anyone who won't well off-topic.

So I am going to ask you again in public;
Please stop typing lies about me in public. I have never done that to you (to my knowledge).

Then stop commenting on how I abuse my wife, violate the rights of others, and all of your insinuations against many of us.

I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth.

Yes you were, you have repeatedly told me of your inherited wealth and how you squandered it.

My late mother never abused me.

But your mother told you that women don't enjoy sex like men, and women can't enjoy sex like men.
And you have repeatedly stated that to myself and others, among other things.

I was never hurt by men (my father never laid a hand on me and he treated me like gold).
I don't hate myself and I DEFINITELY don't want others to hate themselves either.

Dude, I'm not the only one seeing this, you make every thread into a guilt trip for people.

If you want to call me names and disagree with me and insult me?

I'm pointing out how and why you find yourself insulting many of us over and over.
The most I'm guilty of is using the word "ignorant," but it applies int he case of Missile Defense and Civics and select others.

Furthermore, I have been ignorant a couple of times myself, and I admitted it and moved on.
I've also admitted I was wrong for commenting on non-American civics in the past, like when Poggy pointed it out.

My posted in this thread have continued to be devoid of opinions, but only the law, and how you can change the law.
Fox has thrown out a set of opinions that he will never be able to implement, let alone he can't even realize he has no system to offer, because it doesn't even lay down rules that anyone can follow.
You have used this thread to fly all over tangents, including the continued and repeat use of my wife's name in an attempt to inflame me.

Fine. Just please stop typing things about me as facts that you have no proof are.
Or if you must, at least present them as guesses on your part and not as facts.

Your personality is obvious and it's getting really tiresome to have every thread boil down to you blasting me for how I must treat my wife.
At least Fox only did that a few times in a PM, not on the board.

Sorry mods, but I wanted to clear the air on untruths that were typed about me or how I was presented to feel.

Frankly, I don't give a fuck because you've been spewing untruths about how I must treat my wife and others.
You have applied your value judgments against others to purposely inflame them not in any sort of rationale, but just to piss people off.
Why? Because you have so much hate of yourself it flies off and onto others.

Jack off and feel guilty by yourself dude, don't drag us into it.

 

[Member2019]

A Democracy with no rules ...

That sounds a lot like democracy.... or mob rule.... which is why we don't have a full democracy, we have a democratic republic.

It's actually a Democracy with no rules.
No rules established before are ever followed afterwards.
Any established Constitution is utterly useless overnight and disregarded.

Just like the guy who agreed to parliamentary procedure, but he's not liking the outcome.
It doesn't matter how we change the bylaws, anytime he doesn't like the outcome, the "system is broken."
And we sit there and establish bylaws on just how we can change the bylaws, and nothing gets done.
Or the next time we try to get something done he doesn't like, he wants to change the bylaws once again, to make them "more fair."
The bylaws are useless because a few people constantly disagree, based on the results, not the process.

Eventually he either leaves or we just kick him the fuck out because he's hurting everyone from moving forward.

No, you don't have to be black or whatever other color is discriminated against to judge racism... I didn't say you did. I'm white and I see racism as a bad thing. To me that's pretty much common sense.

I am white and I see racism as a pathetic existence that hurts yourself as much as others.
Which is why I don't just call it "bad," I actually try to get people to understand why it's "bad" to judge others.
Just calling it "bad" and making it "taboo" does nothing to solve the problem.

But I'm an engineer, I'm into solutions, not problems -- problems are just what other people create, I solve them.

And no... I didn't suggest that there aren't "non-whites" enduring hardships... again, to me that's common sense. I've been around enough of the world to see proof of that. Although how you gage hardship might be different than someone in say Nigeria. Just because someone doesn't have television, or air conditioning, or a fast food joint and a Wal-Mart on every block doesn't mean they live in hardship. And a lot of the hardship I have seen is the result of corruption and greed... neither of which have a color. Example... all the "aid" we send to places like Nigeria... that aid gets hoarded and/or squandered by the people in power... who happen to be "non-white". And that's by no means an isolated case. Food for Oil seems to come to mind as well.

And Ironically that despite some of the big American businesses that were abusers of that program, it was broken by Fox News.
I can't stand to watch Fox News analysts, but they do serve their purpose 2% of the time.

As for all the other hardship the white-man has caused... yeah, you're right. Like all the plane crashes that have killed so many "non-whites"... because whitey pioneered air travel manufacture the majority of the planes in the sky... all their fault.
Or all the deaths from automobiles... or electrocution... or whatever.

Now you're talking my language!
It's us stupid engineers who kill people, fuck up the planet, destroy animals and everything else.
Why? Because we're engineers, we are purposely greedy, won't use "renewable energies," (duh you stupid engineer!), etc...

How about giving ol' whitey some credit for also contributing to a lot of the advancements in the world.

Because value judgments are opinions, and people who solve problems are in the minority, while people complaining about problems are in the majority.
Fortunately civics isn't about value judgments, they are just how people have decided to evaluate their judgment as a people in a way that can be qualified and quantified.

Unfortunately some people believe they don't need to study how people decided to work together and handle representation if they want to change it, they just want to "change it now" because they disagree with the results.
All while not stopping to remotely understand the process, which is why their entire views are laughable because they will never convince anyone -- except the uneducated and ignorant -- to agree with them.

Their only recourse is insurrection, which some have used in the past in various countries.
But those countries didn't typically have a strong civics foundation the super-majority of the people agreed to already.

I have many, many, many problems with the result of politicians and laws and what not in this country, and most Americans do.
But virtually a super-majority of Americans not only know and understand their civics, they appreciate how they protect them from the "mob today, rights gone tomorrow" crowd.

 

[pathfinder]

Re: A Democracy with no rules ...

Which is why I don't just call it "bad," I actually try to get people to understand why it's "bad" to judge others.
Just calling it "bad" and making it "taboo" does nothing to solve the problem.

Judging others and racism are, IMHO, vastly different. I don't think I'm racist, because in my mind racists hate and they hate everyone of a specific race regardless. But I am prejudice and I'm not afraid to admit that... which most people are afraid to admit even though most people pre-judge on a regular basis... they just won't admit it because they think pre-judging and racism are the same and most people don't want to think of themselves as racist. I think a lot of people confuse the two. And although I'm prejudice I'm still open minded enough to look past that and allow the person to prove me wrong. Sometimes they do... sometimes they don't.

Unfortunately some people believe they don't need to study how people decided to work together and handle representation if they want to change it, they just want to "change it now" because they disagree with the results.
All while not stopping to remotely understand the process, which is why their entire views are laughable because they will never convince anyone -- except the uneducated and ignorant -- to agree with them.

But are the uneducated and the ignorant the majority of the minority? That's where you might run into a problem. IMHO there are a lot of sheep walking around in this country who will follow the flock right off a cliff.

 

[Facetious]

Its amazing how the nays use other methods to try to get around their prejudices. i.e. -

"Where did I say I was against guns"

What they really wish is that the Constitution of The United States ultimately be remastered by the progressives of . . say Brussels (?) :1orglaugh

Everybody discriminates. From the time we get out of bed in the AM 'till we wake up the next, we're allowed to make choices & judgments.
The others i.e. - (subjects), I get the feeling, simply cannot deal with facts that contradict their preconceived opinions. They maintain that they're for diversity and free expression . . . pro choice to boot ! It's all selective, however.

 

[BlueBalls]

Guys come on you know how dull this is getting, were just going round in circles no one is going to change anyones mind, so just let it die!

 

[georges]

Guys come on you know how dull this is getting, were just going round in circles no one is going to change anyones mind, so just let it die!

The threads during the presidential elections and other things were harsher and perhaps funnier with Brino and Nightfly. That was way before ********** was a member here. You will always find some people backing leftism and its irrealistic ideas in any political debate. Which is why in debates like this one, you will always find people adding fuel to the fire.

 

[BlueBalls]

I'm a lefty but i cant be bothered to keep reading the same posts by different people, there are two sides and no one is going to cross over, let it die

 

[georges]

I'm a lefty but i cant be bothered to keep reading the same posts by different people, there are two sides and no one is going to cross over, let it die

You know when I dislike a thread's title or know that the thread is not my cup of tea, I avoid it, it is called selective reading. It is something useful so you don't waste your time on a thread you dislike or which you don't like anymore.

 

[BlueBalls]

''Just when i thought i was out, they pull me back in''

 

[pathfinder]

Unsubscribe from the thread if you don't want to take part in the discussion. nobody is forcing you to read it anymore. Go play and let the grown-ups talk.

 

[ninetysixcavy]

I'm a lefty but i cant be bothered to keep reading the same posts by different people, there are two sides and no one is going to cross over, let it die

Left, right....whatever. All you have to do is look at the facts/statistics and other truth that was spoken by those of us who believe in the right to own a gun. Then look at the propaganda that was put forth from those that don't believe in this right. I'm a rather happy individual with this board knowing that most people are rational and are well aware of why it is a right to live the way we please if we don't harm others. There's not much to it really. People that continually argue that America should be disarmed -- particularly on this board -- have absolutely no basis for this argument. I have yet to hear one reason why that would be a good thing.

 

[pathfinder]

People that continually argue that America should be disarmed -- particularly on this board -- have absolutely no basis for this argument. I have yet to hear one reason why that would be a good thing.

Because they think by banning guns, it'll somehow reduce crime involving guns.
It might be partly responsible for reducing accidental injuries/deaths (which I'm guessing are lumped into crimes) but real actual crimes, I am confident it would have no effect. Empowering criminals by disarming citizens is not the answer.

 

[ninetysixcavy]

Because they think by banning guns, it'll somehow reduce crime involving guns.
It might be partly responsible for reducing accidental injuries/deaths (which I'm guessing are lumped into crimes) but real actual crimes, I am confident it would have no effect. Empowering criminals by disarming citizens is not the answer.

Oh, I know how and what they think. I've said this time and again: I grew up in a shaky neighborhood and I knew criminals, had friends that knew criminals, and I can tell you first hand that every criminal I ever knew either had a gun or could get a gun if they wanted. No matter how many times I say it though, it falls on deaf ears when it comes to bleeding hearts. More than anything though, I hope what we are doing is waking the fence-sitters up and making a valid case as why banning guns would be a bad thing.