There's something I want done, but I don't have any solutions as to ho

[chunkymonster]

An angry liberal reacts with emotionally charged hate filled words intended to distract from the real issues... an angry conservative [strike]tends to load up trucks with ANFO and look for targets[/strike] responds with factual information supported by 3rd party links.

Angry liberals [strike]can[/strike] can not be persuaded with logic and ignore facts that are inconvenient to their world view and ideology.

Angry conservatives [strike]are armed to the teeth and itching to shoot at something[/strike] believe the 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct and view the individual's right to keep and bear arms as essential to securing liberty and freedom.

There you go Nod-man...fixed that for ya!

 

[wanamingo]

I find Chunky's post incredibly hypocritical. Im not sure how else to respond, since everything listed applies as much to, if not more to, conservatives.

Tim McVeigh was a very conservative fellow...... So was the unibomber....And the following list of known conservative terrorists:

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/terror-from-the-right

Im not trying to say that all conservatives are terrorists, just as Im saying that not all liberals are as righteous as they make themselves out to be. You seem to be hung up on the whole liberal agenda thing Chunky, OMG, JDJ, et al.

You seem to think that any views different from your own should automatically be discarded, If you were a bit more civil you would find people would be less hostile to your ideas and the way you say certain things.

But on a lighter note.... Show me on the doll where the liberal hurt you.

 

[chunkymonster]

I find Chunky's post incredibly hypocritical. Im not sure how else to respond, since everything listed applies as much to, if not more to, conservatives.

Tim McVeigh was a very conservative fellow...... So was the unibomber....And the following list of known conservative terrorists:

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/terror-from-the-right

Im not trying to say that all conservatives are terrorists, just as Im saying that not all liberals are as righteous as they make themselves out to be. You seem to be hung up on the whole liberal agenda thing Chunky, OMG, JDJ, et al.

You seem to think that any views different from your own should automatically be discarded, If you were a bit more civil you would find people would be less hostile to your ideas and the way you say certain things.

But on a lighter note.... Show me on the doll where the liberal hurt you.

Seems I (we conservatives) may have crossed some line and offended Mingo's sensibilities. If so, no harm no foul, it's all good...

You might want to read up on the activities and history of the Southern Poverty Law Center and it's founder Morris Dees before citing them as any kind of unbiased or factual source. The obvious being the omission of any left wing domestic terrorist groups; which is just outright hypocritical from a group where there stated purpose is to "track the activities of...domestic terrorists across America". Regardless of this unabashed bias by the SPLC, I think we can both agree that anyone or group who would populate said list, right wing or left wing, does not represent the typical work-a-day middle American whether they lean liberal or conservative.

One thing that wrote that bears repeating is..."...Im saying that not all liberals are as righteous as they make themselves out to be. You seem to be hung up on the whole liberal agenda thing..."...what I am hung up on is anyone who purports to know what is better for me and my family. I am any hung up on any person, ideology, or political party that promotes the individual as subsequent to the good of society, that states wealth is to be coerced and redistributed, believes the role of government is to provide the People with purpose, and abuses a false sense of moral superiority to promote socialist agendas. It just so happens that what I get hung up on are the central tenets of liberal/progressive ideology.

I look forward to different perspectives that vary and/or challenge my own views as they can be a path to intellectual growth. But it is difficult to reply with anything other than derision when I read posts like this where firearms are blamed for the actions of an obviously deranged lunatic, where it seems that a tragedy is being used as a springboard to promote ideology that erodes all American's Constitutional rights, and where pseudo-intellectualism is accepted without little to no question.

 

[wanamingo]

Seems I (we conservatives) may have crossed some line and offended Mingo's sensibilities. If so, no harm no foul, it's all good...

You might want to read up on the activities and history of the Southern Poverty Law Center and it's founder Morris Dees before citing them as any kind of unbiased or factual source.

I think Ill let Oldman respond to that.

How very Saul Alinksy of you [strike]mingo[/strike] Chunky. Let's attack the messenger rather than consider the substance of the message. Such a elementary tactic, it really is.

The obvious being the omission of any left wing domestic terrorist groups; which is just outright hypocritical from a group where there stated purpose is to "track the activities of...domestic terrorists across America". Regardless of this unabashed bias by the SPLC, I think we can both agree that anyone or group who would populate said list, right wing or left wing, does not represent the typical work-a-day middle American whether they lean liberal or conservative.

I can agree with you there, the people who would commit violent acts like these arent your average citizen. It is worth noting that many domestic terrorists and hate groups (KKK, White Power) align themselves with conservatives causes. Morris Dees and the SPLC has done nothing but champion civil rights for decades, Ill support anyone who helps persecuted peoples.

One thing that wrote that bears repeating is..."...Im saying that not all liberals are as righteous as they make themselves out to be. You seem to be hung up on the whole liberal agenda thing..."...what I am hung up on is anyone who purports to know what is better for me and my family. I am any hung up on any person, ideology, or political party that promotes the individual as subsequent to the good of society, that states wealth is to be coerced and redistributed, believes the role of government is to provide the People with purpose, and abuses a false sense of moral superiority to promote socialist agendas. It just so happens that what I get hung up on are the central tenets of liberal/progressive ideology.

I was trying to throw you a bone there, to expect everyone of X group to be what they claim (Self righteous) would be naive. Not every person who identifies as a liberal is self righteous, but then again not every conservative is either. There are always bad eggs that stink up the whole carton. I agree with you on some points you raise that states that run a surplus every year shouldnt have to pay for welfare drains (Like most southern red states, see johnsons interesting thread). Again the people that take the largest advantage of these socialistic programs are conservatives, kinda hypocritical isnt it? I live in NH / VT (I identify as a Vermonter) and these two states have been making sound fiscal decisions for years why should I be punished for a state thousands of miles away because they didn't understand anything about economics?

I also have problems with people who believe the government should impose rules on marriage, deciding which two people cant be married, I have issues with conservatives telling me I cant buy alcohol on a Sunday, I have issues with conservatives telling me that stem cell research is immoral, I have issues with conservative moral superiority when it comes to telling people that corporations profits are more important than your happiness, I have issues with the republican party trying to do nothing because they believe success during this administration means failure for conservatives, I have issues with conservatives allowing corporations to spend as much money as they please on elections . Thats the type of "False sense of Moral Superiority" that I have issues with .

I look forward to different perspectives that vary and/or challenge my own views as they can be a path to intellectual growth. But it is difficult to reply with anything other than derision when I read posts like this where firearms are blamed for the actions of an obviously deranged lunatic, where it seems that a tragedy is being used as a springboard to promote ideology that erodes all American's Constitutional rights, and where pseudo-intellectualism is accepted without little to no question.

Stop hiding behind the second amendment. Have an actual conversation about gun rights, of course this tragedy is being used as a "Springboard" by both sides, because people need to talk about how guns affect our society after major cases of gun violence, to not talk about it would be counter productive. You dont want a conversation because you seem to believe the status quo with concerns to gun ownership is just fine, I disagree with you I dont think anyone has a solution but we sure as hell could come up with something better than the present situation.

 

[Reynod]

But on a lighter note.... Show me on the doll where the liberal hurt you.

Classic ... my tummy hurts from laughing.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Ask ELF, or PITA

 

[wanamingo]

Ask ELF, or PITA

Remind me what ELF's body count is?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/06/wade-michael-page-identified-sikh-temple-suspect_n_1746542.html

Another white supremacist opens fire at a Sikh mosque. I dont think he voted for Obama.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Yet another stumbling block against all peoples and a successfully adapted way of life.

As for ELF and PITA, thus far theyve been lucky, much like the abortion clinic bombers, but eventually your luck runs out

 

[wanamingo]

Interesting to note what his job in the Army was. He served in the psychological operations unit at Ft. Bragg. hmmmmm....

Also, Sikhs are not muslim, they don't go to a mosque. They call it a temple.

Oops they do in fact go to a temple, lets just start calling all religious sites "Gods House"

 

[chunkymonster]

I was trying to throw you a bone there, to expect everyone of X group to be what they claim (Self righteous) would be naive. Not every person who identifies as a liberal is self righteous, but then again not every conservative is either. There are always bad eggs that stink up the whole carton. I agree with you on some points you raise that states that run a surplus every year shouldnt have to pay for welfare drains (Like most southern red states, see johnsons interesting thread). Again the people that take the largest advantage of these socialistic programs are conservatives, kinda hypocritical isnt it? I live in NH / VT (I identify as a Vermonter) and these two states have been making sound fiscal decisions for years why should I be punished for a state thousands of miles away because they didn't understand anything about economics?

Agreed, there are zealots on both sides, liberal and conservative. Citing the NYT article in the jonsonma's thread as some proof that conservatives "take the largest advantage of these socialistic programs" is disingenuous and misrepresents the information and personal stories in the article. The stories and people represented in the NYT article are reliant on government as a result of the failure and lie that government can maintain a middle class in America. The NYT article is proof that central economic planning is a failure.

The fact that you "as a Vermonter" are being punished and taxed by the Federal Government for being a fiscally responsible State is just proof of the social programs implemented by democrats/progressives over the past 90 years and proof of the resulting over reach of the Federal government.

I also have problems with people who believe the government should impose rules on marriage, deciding which two people cant be married, I have issues with conservatives telling me I cant buy alcohol on a Sunday, I have issues with conservatives telling me that stem cell research is immoral, I have issues with conservative moral superiority when it comes to telling people that corporations profits are more important than your happiness, I have issues with the republican party trying to do nothing because they believe success during this administration means failure for conservatives, I have issues with conservatives allowing corporations to spend as much money as they please on elections . Thats the type of "False sense of Moral Superiority" that I have issues with.

I totally agree, the Federal government has no place in defining marriage and it should not be part of the national political conversation. But outside of that, I'm confused about your issues with conservatives...not being able to buy booze on Sunday is most likely a Vermont State/County/Town issue and an inconvenience, not really worth indignation towards conservatives, it's not like conservatives in Vermont outright banned booze altogether...conservatives saying that using freshly aborted babies for embryonic stem cell research is immoral is contrasted by the fact that there are no Federal laws banning stem cell research...blaming conservatives for the past two years of deadlock in Congress is completely justified when you recognize that Obama never signed Federal budget in the first two years with a democrat controlled congress and recognize that the Harry Reid democrat controlled Senate has not lived up to the legal and Constitutional responsibility to bring a budget up for vote in over 3 years, only an insane person continues to spend money if they do not have a budget to go by...recognize that companies making political donations is an unintended consequence of corporate person-hood and I'd much rather have laws permitting corporate person-hood than the alternative...

Stop hiding behind the second amendment. Have an actual conversation about gun rights, of course this tragedy is being used as a "Springboard" by both sides, because people need to talk about how guns affect our society after major cases of gun violence, to not talk about it would be counter productive. You dont want a conversation because you seem to believe the status quo with concerns to gun ownership is just fine, I disagree with you I dont think anyone has a solution but we sure as hell could come up with something better than the present situation.

You're right, I believe the status quo of gun ownership to be just fine. Discussing gun laws are a pointless simply because gun laws DO NOT address the underlying social and societal causes of poverty, crime, and mental health. Whether we agree or not, hopefully you realize that there are no laws that could have prevented the tragedy in Aurora, CO without violating our constitutional or civil rights.

 

[wanamingo]

So let me see if Ive got it... dont blame conservatives for running their state economies into the ground, blame democratic administrations..... Great way to absolve responsibility.....

And again just because the group of people who are most interested in limiting personal freedoms, and personal morality (Gay Marriage, Stem Cells, Drug laws, Corporate person hood) just so happen to be conservatively aligned isn't relevant until a budget is passed. Pass the buck on that one....

And no talking about guns....Shhhhhhhh......

 

[chunkymonster]

So let me see if Ive got it... dont blame conservatives for running their state economies into the ground, blame democratic administrations..... Great way to absolve responsibility.....

You assume I don't blame conservatives for their poor spending habits. Conservatives are just as guilty as progressives when it comes to deficit spending and mortgaging our futures and our children's future. But there is no way you can be so blind as to not acknowledge the fact that State's like Vermont are coerced and forced to pay taxes, in part, to make up for other States budget shortcomings as a result of Federal programs that usurp State sovereignty. So, you can blame conservatives for a particular State's budget short falls but do not be ignorant of the fact that the State and People of Vermont, who are fiscally responsible, are having their money taken from them in the form of taxes due to over reaching Federal social engineering. And, agree with it or not, history shows there was no legislation or laws coercing States to pay for Federal social engineering until the early 1900's when the liberal/progressive movement gained a foothold in American politics.

And again just because the group of people who are most interested in limiting personal freedoms, and personal morality (Gay Marriage, Stem Cells, Drug laws, Corporate person hood) just so happen to be conservatively aligned isn't relevant until a budget is passed. Pass the buck on that one....

Again, when it comes to gay marriage, stem cell research, and drug laws, there is nothing in the enumerated powers of the Constitution that permits the President or Congress to pass laws banning or prohibiting any of them. Any laws or regulations inhibiting gays to marry, stopping stem cell research, and banning drugs are inherently unconstitutional and never should have been issues at the Federal level. Regardless of any conservative OPINION, the fact remains there are NO Federal laws banning stem cell research. DOMA is legislation that Clinton never should have signed into law. And California is well within its rights as a sovereign State to pass its own marijuana drug laws. Again, these issues are ONLY points of contention between liberals and conservatives because they are all examples of over reaching Federal social engineering programs that usurp State sovereignty and circumvent the Constitution.

I can appreciate anger towards corporations being allowed to make political donations, but what would you propose to stop both conservative and progressive politicians from passing legislation that favors their political donors? What would propose in place of corporate person-hood to hold corporations responsible for cases of defective products or manufacturer negligence?

C'mon mingo, regardless of how hard you hold onto your argument, you can not be so seriously blind or ignorant to the fact that Obama has not signed and Congress has not passed a Federal budget in almost 4 years. How can anyone, liberal or conservative, support deficit spending and continued passing of legislation WITHOUT a federal budget? How can anyone, liberal or conservative, with a basic understanding of economics justify $6Trillion in 3.5 years added to the Federal deficit WITHOUT a Federal budget? How can anyone, liberal or conservative, agree that more government spending (corporate bail out, quantitative easing, the stimulus package) will keep America financially solvent WITHOUT a Federal budget? I don't know about you mingo, but I wish I could tell my mortgage company that even though I do not have a budget to determine my assets and expenditures, that I want to borrow more money to pay for my mortgage, and then I want to borrow more money to take my vacation, buy a new car, and purchase an LCD TV; and on top of that they should give me that money solely based on good faith and the strength of my credit rating.

And no talking about guns....Shhhhhhhh......

Okay, in light of the tragedy in Wisconsin at the Sikh Temple and given the article, "Handgun type used on Sikhs is mass shooting weapon of choice", what gun laws would you propose to make America safer and prevent this type of tragedy from happening? Can the laws you propose be passed without violating our Constitutional or civil rights?

 

[Reynod]

Sihk's are pretty decent people and don't deserve to be labelled as extremist ... I know a few.

If you remember back to the London riots it was a group of Sihk's who maintained order around an entire block to prevent looters and rioters from wrecking Asian, Jewish, Muslim and Christian shops and stores for a couple of days during the worst of it.

They got all of the young guys to barrackade the area so families were safe and businesses didn't get damaged.

They made sure the kids and elderly didn't get hurt.

The ones I know are very law abiding citizens.

Anyone who would attack one of their temples deserves to be strung up by the ballz ... these people ar not on any radar ... they are like Buddists ... harmless.

Their warrior code is also decent and honourable.

Sihk's abhorr getting into trouble with the law ... in principle.

Those here in Perth are decent folk.

 

[wanamingo]

You assume I don't blame conservatives for their poor spending habits. Conservatives are just as guilty as progressives when it comes to deficit spending and mortgaging our futures and our children's future. But there is no way you can be so blind as to not acknowledge the fact that State's like Vermont are coerced and forced to pay taxes, in part, to make up for other States budget shortcomings as a result of Federal programs that usurp State sovereignty. So, you can blame conservatives for a particular State's budget short falls but do not be ignorant of the fact that the State and People of Vermont, who are fiscally responsible, are having their money taken from them in the form of taxes due to over reaching Federal social engineering. And, agree with it or not, history shows there was no legislation or laws coercing States to pay for Federal social engineering until the early 1900's when the liberal/progressive movement gained a foothold in American politics.

These huge replies are getting taxing so ill keep it short as I can. We all live in the same country, we reap the benefits when things are good and tighten our belts when things are bad, unless VT leaves the union we are all going to have to make sacrifices. I dont blame liberal administrations for "Social Engineering" because its more complicated than that. One could argue that our constant 10 year war(s) have had more of an impact on the deficit than food stamps, liberals might be feeding the poor but republican hawks have been killing the poor for almost a decade now. Blaming liberals and progressives for all the woes of fiscal collapse is retarded, If only it were so simple as to say it was all the liberals fault, that makes personal blame sting much less for all parties involved. Its common sense to look at a household budget and say "What are our big expenses?" You know whats at the top? War and healthcare. What you would consider welfare programs makes up maybe 10% of every tax dollar you give to the gov, and that number might even be lower. But Defense and Healthcare make up more than 50% of your taxes. How is it a bad idea to tackle the biggest drains on our budget first? End the war and do something with healthcare, and at least the current administration is doing something for healthcare whether you agree with the fine points or not.

Again, when it comes to gay marriage, stem cell research, and drug laws, there is nothing in the enumerated powers of the Constitution that permits the President or Congress to pass laws banning or prohibiting any of them. Any laws or regulations inhibiting gays to marry, stopping stem cell research, and banning drugs are inherently unconstitutional and never should have been issues at the Federal level. Regardless of any conservative OPINION, the fact remains there are NO Federal laws banning stem cell research. DOMA is legislation that Clinton never should have signed into law. And California is well within its rights as a sovereign State to pass its own marijuana drug laws. Again, these issues are ONLY points of contention between liberals and conservatives because they are all examples of over reaching Federal social engineering programs that usurp State sovereignty and circumvent the Constitution.

Its hypocritical for conservative legislatures to rally against Gay marriage and then vote for warrant less wire taps. And thats great there are no federal but it still didnt keep Bush Jr. from vetoing legislature that would have expanded funding for stem cell research. But I guess that's not a federal law just one mans conservative views.


I can appreciate anger towards corporations being allowed to make political donations, but what would you propose to stop both conservative and progressive politicians from passing legislation that favors their political donors? What would propose in place of corporate person-hood to hold corporations responsible for cases of defective products or manufacturer negligence?

Well at least we agree that its wrong that corporations can back a dump truck full of money to Romneys house..... If a corporation is a person that it should be jailed for crimes normal citizens commit. I would have loved to see BP do a few years for dumping a billion tons of oil into the ocean, because if I had done the same thing I would be the worlds greatest eco-terrorist and would spend the rest of my life in jail until someone made a movie of me starring Channing Tatum (Ive been told we both have similar builds.....) as myself.

C'mon mingo, regardless of how hard you hold onto your argument, you can not be so seriously blind or ignorant to the fact that Obama has not signed and Congress has not passed a Federal budget in almost 4 years. How can anyone, liberal or conservative, support deficit spending and continued passing of legislation WITHOUT a federal budget? How can anyone, liberal or conservative, with a basic understanding of economics justify $6Trillion in 3.5 years added to the Federal deficit WITHOUT a Federal budget? How can anyone, liberal or conservative, agree that more government spending (corporate bail out, quantitative easing, the stimulus package) will keep America financially solvent WITHOUT a Federal budget? I don't know about you mingo, but I wish I could tell my mortgage company that even though I do not have a budget to determine my assets and expenditures, that I want to borrow more money to pay for my mortgage, and then I want to borrow more money to take my vacation, buy a new car, and purchase an LCD TV; and on top of that they should give me that money solely based on good faith and the strength of my credit rating.

Obama has in fact submitted a budget for the last three years. While its true that dems failed to pass a budget in 09 and 10 which is shitty but at the same time in 1999 2005 and 2007 republicans failed to resolve a budget plan of their own and no budget was ran for those years. So yeah it sucks but again its not exactly as you painted it.
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2012/apr/26/john-boehner/john-boehner-says-senate-dems-havent-passed-budget/


Okay, in light of the tragedy in Wisconsin at the Sikh Temple and given the article, "Handgun type used on Sikhs is mass shooting weapon of choice", what gun laws would you propose to make America safer and prevent this type of tragedy from happening? Can the laws you propose be passed without violating our Constitutional or civil rights?

Ill give you points for sticking with your guns here (Pun very much intended) even after saying regular citizens should be able to own nuclear bombs (Which again is retarded)..... I dont want that dudes handgun, but maybe someone should put their hands up and say "Does he really need an extended banana clip for his 9mm?" without having the radical right throw a big fuss and refuse to sit at the table.

That my last long post, mah finners hurt.

 

[chunkymonster]

Mingo, I give you credit and props for your continued replies but I have come to the conclusion that something is missing. I believe what is missing is a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and the principles of a republican form of government. Your lack of understanding is most obvious when it comes to enumerated powers of the President and Congress as well as early American history and the importance of the 2nd Amendment in today's society.

Given you have eluded to being born sometime in the late 1980's or early 1990's I suppose I can understand your lack of onus.

 

[wanamingo]

Who knows maybe Ill be posting on the internet in 40 years complaining about a lack of "concealed carry blaster" laws, and whether or not our founding fathers intended for citizens to have light sabers.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

What once was black and white became gray areas simply by some who demand they be so.
The ideals, ways still remain, while in some areas, the gray areas have taken hold by slipping into things that dont fit, and has created a cascade of changes or attempts, and now we are being told the way back is wrong.
The foundation has a design with which one must follow, its not faulty, just not followed, by placing things in front of the foundation, and not upon it

 

[Reynod]

Mingo, you certainly have formed some very important and profound opinions; that is obvious from reading your last post. The problem is you have formed these opinions on really bad information, and leftist talking points.

It's not that you're stupid, just that so much of what you know just isn't so.

Attack the person's views but not their character please.

I have it on good authority (baby Jesus) that mingo is an intellectual giant like myself ... and he is just toying with you mere mortals.

I'll have to cut this post short as the men in white lab coats are talking me for a tour of this new treatment centre.

 

[wanamingo]

On the contrary, I think mingo has excellent character. I only believe his opinions have been formed based on bad information.

And I think some information you've presented is outdated, and the stances some present here force me to take a position.



But ill agree to agree that we disagree about a grue (Bring your torch).

 

[Pyree]

Some oil for the dying flame:

http://dcist.com/2012/08/dc_resident_orders_tv_amazon_delive.php