The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

YEs the proper paperwork, a verified correct immigrant visa, a residency request, then eventually a request to get naturalized as a citizen..

You should look into just how slapstick "immigration" was before the 20th century, you would realise that trying to compare the two is laughable.

And who's getting to decide whether what i am saying is 'specifically designed to denigrate others'??

Surely you have the intelligence to work that out, or do I have to provide an example?

That's something i have tried asking some of my liberal acquaintances, and never have gotten a coherent answer..
Just like often when i ask some of those i know who are atheist "well if you don't believe in god, why then do a # of your ilk Try to stop OTHERS from revering him in a public setting? Why in many cases does merely seeing/hearing his name mentioned get those other athiest's panties in a bunch?"

Most atheists don't care, but just like any belief system, it has extremists.

GF, how then is that "Honoring MY right to speak freely if you are shouting me down to where no one hears me??"

That is a different issue.
Where does it say anyone has to "honour" your right to free speech?
The 1st amendment gives you the right to speak, not the right to be heard or have an audience.
It is a -very- important distinction.
Now, having said that, -should- people honour your right to free speech and be heard?
Sure, that's how you get dialogue like this, and a lack of coherent dialogue is what leads to such massive partisan splits, people concentrate on what they disagree on, rather than what they have in common.
I'm curious, -what- have you asked your liberal friends, and -how- did you ask them?

THen isn't That making THEIR right override her's?

Nope.

Especially when what they are doing is outright Threatening her and anyone else who shows up with PHYSICAL violence?
It almost sounds like you are saying "IF what you want to say we disagree with, WE have the right to shout you down so YOU can't even speak"..

Show me where I said threats are ok?
I specifically pointed out that they were not.

Sorry, but how is that in any way shape or form honoring OUR right to free speech? ITS as me and annoyed have been trying to get across, its almost like you say only you have the right to free speech..

I have no burden on me to honour what you say, or listen, or respect it, much as you have no burden to do so for me either. I don't really care either way, that's your choice. We have the right to speak, we do not have the right to demand people listen.

There's quite a few black people i would have had no problem with being in the white house, i just couldn't stand THAT black person! (obama that is)..

Why?

[Gatefan1976]

From the cited article:

I'm not sure that's an accurate quote; In attempting to verify I found it repeated only on two large media sites, the Guardian and the Washington post, both left-biased outlets. It seems that that quote is perhaps a mashup of various different sentences, with the bolded part being what was actually said.

Aside from those two sources, I found it mostly on far left/anti-Trump sites; just more of the "stepped on cockroach" behavior that is so rampant on the left these days.

So much for accuracy in reporting. Might as well get your news from the National Enquirer while you're standing in line at the supermarket.

Both of those sites also make disturbing accusations, such as Trump attempting to consolidate his power. But considering the source(s), I'm not inclined to place much faith in what they're claiming. Perhaps if it is reported on more legitimate outlets, it would be worth paying attention to.

How about you trust your beloved FOX, that's where he said it:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/858099153011744768

Is that good enough for you?

[Annoyed]

I have no burden on me to honour what you say, or listen, or respect it, much as you have no burden to do so for me either. I don't really care either way, that's your choice. We have the right to speak, we do not have the right to demand people listen.

No, but neither you or (or the left) have the right to prevent those who want to listen from doing so, which is a common tactic of the left, and apparently what you're defending here.

[Gatefan1976]

I've never gotten a satisfactory explanation either. Their silence only confirms my own conclusion that they know their arguments don't hold water, but they still want to advocate what they perceive as "fair". So they try to silence opposing views because they know the opposition's arguments are stronger than theirs. If they truly believed their ideas are better, they would stand behind them on their own merits and let the audience choose which is better, without trying to silence the opposition.

Ask a question.
I keep asking you to ask, you never respond, are you afraid of the answer?
Also, I have asked you several times over the past year on why either republican or conservative idea's are better, and all I have ever got is silence, so seriously, get of your horse and have the conversation.
You guys point to me or PH, or FH as the screaming liberals, but when -any- of us ask you, you never answer, but when you folks have asked, you get overrun with answers, but somehow you don't see them.
Ask a direct question.

Put another way, if YOU were a liberal, would you want the opposition to have the same freedom that you have to put forth better, more logical and more persuasive arguments than yours?

Go for it. Pick a topic, and stick to the topic.

[Gatefan1976]

No, but neither you or (or the left) have the right to prevent those who want to listen from doing so, which is a common tactic of the left, and apparently what you're defending here.

Hang on, do you want a safe space?
Also, why only quote half of what I said and cut out the bit that says "having said that............."?

[Gatefan1976]

Maybe it's not fear (as in being afraid), but brazenly proud of their own versions of what they perceive to think and believe as being the truth / reality of the various situations they stubbornly support. They also perceive that same viewpoint of anyone who thinks opposite of them, as well.

Are you not brazenly proud of your viewpoints?

Yep. Blue highlighted portion (for POV emphasis) especially true (IMHO).

I try not to engage in conversations at work any more from opposing personas during lunch/snack break times, and the other person thinks they have won the argument and feel/act so superior to anyone they disagree with. It's pointless, and usually never gets anywhere positive (meaning, finding some sort of central agreement foundation level between both opposing sides).

Make a basic case that does not come from the supposition of being correct. You are asking "the other side" to accept your viewpoint as the basis for the argument, and being upset for them doing the same thing.

[garhkal]

You should look into just how slapstick "immigration" was before the 20th century, you would realise that trying to compare the two is laughable.

And is that more cause of conflicting rules/regs, OR cause of improper or even worse NO enforcement of those laws/regs??

Surely you have the intelligence to work that out, or do I have to provide an example?

Yes. Cause if the left is deciding it, they would ban damn near anything conservative based, on the basis that "it might deginerate the left or some minority"..

I'm curious, -what- have you asked your liberal friends, and -how- did you ask them?

One of the questions way back, was during a break from a longish battletech game session (7 players, 200 tons each side, just a good ole free for all).. While on the break, we just saw a local news report about someone 'finally being killed' after sitting on death row for 23 years, after exhausting his 9th straight appeal.. Of the 3 guys i knew were liberal (2 others i had no idea, the last was like me, conservative), 2 of them kind of guffawed about "how he hates the whole idea of the death penalty. And we got into it for a little, and eventually i asked him Why he feels abortion is ok, but not the death sentence? He just said "murder's wrong, no matter who does it". BUT when asked "Ok, but isn't abortion murder?" he just shut down..
That's the only one coming to memory right now.. IF i remember any more i will post them..

Show me where I said threats are ok?

You may not have (and i will admit you are good about smacking down on that), but looking at the weight of evidence me and annoyed have shown over the past 3-4 years, it DOES (especially on liberal colleges) seem like the left DOES not have a problem using threats of violence or violence itself to silence the opposition..

I have no burden on me to honour what you say, or listen, or respect it, much as you have no burden to do so for me either. I don't really care either way, that's your choice. We have the right to speak, we do not have the right to demand people listen.

Not demand they listen no. BUT when someone's invited you to speak there, so they CAN hear you, and others SHOUT YOU down, shut you up or otherwise make it so you CAN'T speak (BE heard) is that NOT Doing a disservice to those who ASKED for you to come to speak?

Why?

For a few reasons..
1) he gave several red lines but never honored any of them when the person the line was given to, broke it.
2) he screwed the pooch on the mideast BADLY, by willfully ingoring the advice of his advisors
And 3) on several instances KNOWINGLY said "i would like to do X, but the law won't allow me. THEN BLOODY well did it anyway..

[SGalisa]

Are you not brazenly proud of your viewpoints?

No. Brazen pride is more of an "IN YOUR face" attitude, from what I've observed.

My own viewpoints tend to reside in the unpopular category, because my POV on many items/issues is often the least favored in the mainstream popular world. I was raised from a conservative perspective and have watched too many liberals (in my neighborhood) make a mess of not only their life, but of the lives of others around them. That never sat well with me. They've lied, stolen, and wrecked havoc into other people who didn't do anything to provoke it, except be alive and in the other person's time-line path of living existence.

So, as a result of seeing the above in action, I tend to approach things in humbleness (cautiously meek heart) and if something I've said or done has become praised or welcomed from another person, I sometimes get ecstatic and happy (filled with joy that is lasting), but not proud. The old saying that "Pride comes before the fall" does happen, and if not, then Murphy's Law goes into action -- at least it does in *my* life..! Get too proud and that higher level one goes, the harder the fall and more intensive is the pain as a result. So, no, I've learned to be happy and be lifted up by the whirlwinds of joy, rather than lift myself up from my own merits.

Maybe some folks are destined never to experience Murphy's Law in action in their own life, but it tends to pull (generic) you down, if you don't do it willingly thru your own behavior.

Besides, I have been informed that being artistically inclined, an artist is often more critical of their own work and achievements than the observer. Maybe that falls under a different category, but that is how I see "brazen pride". The few times I did get brazenly proud, I got knocked down every time, and not from something I said, but something I achieved. It was the *success* factor that the other person(s) didn't like, so they did everything possible to make my moment turn into the most negative, depressing experience I ever felt. So, I stopped pushing for success and just let it happen on its own merit, instead. There's less stress when that happens too.

Make a basic case that does not come from the supposition of being correct. You are asking "the other side" to accept your viewpoint as the basis for the argument, and being upset for them doing the same thing.

Okay -- basic case, which I've seen happen over and over --
Seeking (calm and reasonable) respect from a simple -- please find a way to fix a complex problem. Don't get antsy in the pantsy because (generic) your timeline and sacred territorial space is being invaded by being inquired to help out in the solution. If someone comes to the other person, it's usually because the other person potentially has better knowledge on how to resolve something than (generic) *you* do. If there is more than one way to fix a problem, please at least listen to each method before tossing out the impatience factor and lashing out at someone who might also be dyslexic in speaking --i.e., needing to go back to a few steps that were forgotten to also be mentioned during the process of this entire investigation, that is. (yes, that does adds a new factor into this equation being requested for a happy middle-ground resolution.)

hmmmm.. When I see someone else getting a scolding reaction for a simple --needs to be resolved inquiry-- by the same problematic persona (who I previously approached with similar issues that required an immediate resolution), I knew when I saw that situation occurring, that I was *not* the problem, but something residing within the other person *was* (causing) the problem. Yet, it seems to always be my responsibility to make sure that the problematic person walks away happy each and every time they approach me with an inquiry that is in need of being resolved.

[Gatefan1976]

No. Brazen pride is more of an "IN YOUR face" attitude, from what I've observed.

SG, your pride in your faith is pretty front and centre. If I were to pick a word that come to mind for you, it would be "churchy"
Trust me, it's "in your face".

My own viewpoints tend to reside in the unpopular category, because my POV on many items/issues is often the least favored in the mainstream popular world. I was raised from a conservative perspective and have watched too many liberals (in my neighborhood) make a mess of not only their life, but of the lives of others around them. That never sat well with me. They've lied, stolen, and wrecked havoc into other people who didn't do anything to provoke it, except be alive and in the other person's time-line path of living existence.

What is this "conservative perspective"?
I can list places and people claiming to be conservative lie, steal and wreak havoc on others till the cows come home.
What is conservative, to -you-?

So, as a result of seeing the above in action, I tend to approach things in humbleness (cautiously meek heart) and if something I've said or done has become praised or welcomed from another person, I sometimes get ecstatic and happy (filled with joy that is lasting), but not proud. The old saying that "Pride comes before the fall" does happen, and if not, then Murphy's Law goes into action -- at least it does in *my* life..! Get too proud and that higher level one goes, the harder the fall and more intensive is the pain as a result. So, no, I've learned to be happy and be lifted up by the whirlwinds of joy, rather than lift myself up from my own merits.

There is nothing inherently wrong with pride in your own abilities, unchecked pride however, sure, that comes before the fall. Lifting yourself up on your own merits -should- be inherently human, you work, you achieve, you get the rewards, be they money, or even simple thanks.

Maybe some folks are destined never to experience Murphy's Law in action in their own life, but it tends to pull (generic) you down, if you don't do it willingly thru your own behavior.

Why would you do it -willingly-?
If you willingly look for the worst, why expect anything else?

Besides, I have been informed that being artistically inclined, an artist is often more critical of their own work and achievements than the observer. Maybe that falls under a different category, but that is how I see "brazen pride". The few times I did get brazenly proud, I got knocked down every time, and not from something I said, but something I achieved. It was the *success* factor that the other person(s) didn't like, so they did everything possible to make my moment turn into the most negative, depressing experience I ever felt. So, I stopped pushing for success and just let it happen on its own merit, instead. There's less stress when that happens too.

So, you found it easier to give in to the will of others?
I'm not saying this to be nasty, I am asking WHY would you do that?
Such a thought is antithetical to my whole being (I am talking personally here). Every job, every task I apply myself to, I try to be the best I can be, and If I fail, I learn from it, but just -accepting- someone else's grading of me without proof is just self defeating, it lacks spirit, honour, and self worth.
Are you the sum of your experience, or the sum of -others- experience?

Okay -- basic case, which I've seen happen over and over --
Seeking (calm and reasonable) respect from a simple -- please find a way to fix a complex problem. Don't get antsy in the pantsy because (generic) your timeline and sacred territorial space is being invaded by being inquired to help out in the solution. If someone comes to the other person, it's usually because the other person potentially has better knowledge on how to resolve something than (generic) *you* do. If there is more than one way to fix a problem, please at least listen to each method before tossing out the impatience factor and lashing out at someone who might also be dyslexic in speaking --i.e., needing to go back to a few steps that were forgotten to also be mentioned during the process of this entire investigation, that is. (yes, that does adds a new factor into this equation being requested for a happy middle-ground resolution.)

This is "what if's" and "what about's" and "maybe's"
What are you actually talking about?
"Your timeline and sacred territorial space"?
What the hell is that supposed to be?
"I'm American and I'm Christian and this is a Christian nation"?
I think you will find the few remaining natives and tribes asking YOU the same question. What gave you the right to get on your ships, flee religious persecution, find a new land and religiously persecute them?

hmmmm.. When I see someone else getting a scolding reaction for a simple --needs to be resolved inquiry-- by the same problematic persona (who I previously approached with similar issues that required an immediate resolution), I knew when I saw that situation occurring, that I was *not* the problem, but something residing within the other person *was* (causing) the problem. Yet, it seems to always be my responsibility to make sure that the problematic person walks away happy each and every time they approach me with an inquiry that is in need of being resolved.

What problem?

You couch everything in "maybe's" and "problems", but refuse to answer the simple question.
What is your specific problem?
Guns?
Abortion?
Religion?
Free expression?
Free Speech?

Just pick one and ask a bloody question.

[Gatefan1976]

And is that more cause of conflicting rules/regs, OR cause of improper or even worse NO enforcement of those laws/regs??

No, there WERE no rules and regs, it was simply "you white, you in"
THAT was the extent of the immigration laws at the time.

Story time:
My dad grew up in Papua New Guinia, and at the age of 11, he was driving a car, not because he was "legally allowed to", but because -no one- would question a white kid driving a car. At 16, a local cop (a white one) pulled him up, asked if he had his licence, and my dad said "nope", The cop had seen my dad drive for almost 2 years. He did not bust my dad, he just wrote out a licence, and that's how my dad got his licence, and at 70 years old, he still gets his licence.

That was the rules back then, same as back in the 19th/20th century, getting in to the US was just a scrawl by a cop. There were no "supporting papers" for passports, you just bought it if you could because it made immigration easier.
Post 1930's and the depression, you get a different story.

Yes. Cause if the left is deciding it, they would ban damn near anything conservative based, on the basis that "it might deginerate the left or some minority"..

What is "conservative based"?
Going back to how it used to be?
Used to be when?
The 50's? The 60's? the 70's?
In those times you had high tax, government oversight over the financial sector, the introduction of SOCIAL PROGRAMS like medicare/Medicaid, a wage tied to inflation, support of education, science and technology, and more leftie things I have possibly forgotten (ignoring social equality for a moment). Back then, I would have been a REPUBLICAN, because they were the party that fought for such things.
The republican party of the pre-Reagan era is not the same as the post Reagan era.

One of the questions way back, was during a break from a longish battletech game session (7 players, 200 tons each side, just a good ole free for all).. While on the break, we just saw a local news report about someone 'finally being killed' after sitting on death row for 23 years, after exhausting his 9th straight appeal.. Of the 3 guys i knew were liberal (2 others i had no idea, the last was like me, conservative), 2 of them kind of guffawed about "how he hates the whole idea of the death penalty. And we got into it for a little, and eventually i asked him Why he feels abortion is ok, but not the death sentence? He just said "murder's wrong, no matter who does it". BUT when asked "Ok, but isn't abortion murder?" he just shut down..
That's the only one coming to memory right now.. IF i remember any more i will post them..

Ok.
What your problem is, is balancing a -potential life- Vs an -actual life-.
I cannot hug a collection of cells that might one day become a human, But I can hug a human of any age.
Next time you eat an egg, think of the chick it could be, or the beef steak, or the yearling lamb, or the turkey, and how they could be examples of their species.
Past a certain point in human gestation, a person can be born, fully independent of it's mother, and when that point hits, MOST "liberals", certainly all the ones here, recognize that fact and say "at that point, barring anything that directly threatens the life of the mother, the pregnancy should go ahead"
All the "liberals" here are asking is that -before- that point, it is up to them to decide.

You may not have (and i will admit you are good about smacking down on that), but looking at the weight of evidence me and annoyed have shown over the past 3-4 years, it DOES (especially on liberal colleges) seem like the left DOES not have a problem using threats of violence or violence itself to silence the opposition..

I told both of you before, you would not like it if the "left" acted like the "right", or if the left's desire for "PC bulldust" went away.
What you are complaining about -now- is what the "right" has done for centuries. Now, I don't mean Democrat Vs Republican here, I mean the -RIGHT-. Look at history, forget the "parties" and look, really LOOK at the oppression of people in history. It's not "leftie ideals" that support it, it's "righty ones". You -could- try to claim Stalinism, or Chairman Mao as "leftie", but they really were not. They favoured replacing a monarch based system with......... a monarch based system with a different name, which is conservative, preserving the Status Quo.

Not demand they listen no. BUT when someone's invited you to speak there, so they CAN hear you, and others SHOUT YOU down, shut you up or otherwise make it so you CAN'T speak (BE heard) is that NOT Doing a disservice to those who ASKED for you to come to speak?

Yes, it is, but you have no grounds to demand a captive audience!!
A comic goes on stage, tells bad jokes, they get heckled.
Again, you need to separate the RIGHT to speak, from the REQUEST to be heard, because they are not the same thing.

For a few reasons..
1) he gave several red lines but never honored any of them when the person the line was given to, broke it.
2) he screwed the pooch on the mideast BADLY, by willfully ingoring the advice of his advisors
And 3) on several instances KNOWINGLY said "i would like to do X, but the law won't allow me. THEN BLOODY well did it anyway..

Dude, these are broad strokes, I could just reply with trumps "contract with the American voter" which he promised to do stuff in the first 100 days, and has failed on pretty much everything.
Give me SPECIFICS to work with. For example, Obama's "red line" on chemical weapons by Assad. Obama -failed- to respond on that based on his rhetoric, and you can flame him all you want on that and I won't argue against it. I might point out he went to congress to get approval to do something and was denied, but that still does not absolve him of backing off his position.
I have no issue with flaming Obama.

[Annoyed]

Not -every- idea.
-------
Why "just let her speak"?
Because of what grounds should anyone "just let her speak" in a public forum?
It's not free speech, that's for damn sure.

Who decides? me or you?
----------
It sure the hell is "Free Speech". Except that you don't seem to have the same definition of free speech that I have. Yours appears to mean "my side gets to be heard but we get to decide what your side can say"

[SoulReaver]

And we got into it for a little, and eventually i asked him Why he feels abortion is ok, but not the death sentence? He just said "murder's wrong, no matter who does it". BUT when asked "Ok, but isn't abortion murder?" he just shut down..

was he religious?
the real odd ones are those who oppose abortion but support the death sentence though

[Annoyed]

was he religious?
the real odd ones are those who oppose abortion but support the death sentence though

A death sentence carried out by the order of a court in response to criminal behavior (and it has to be pretty heinous to draw the DP these days) is a completely different situation than the murder of an innocent unborn.

[Coco Pops]

And another day another lunatic with a gun.

He had a beer in one hand and a gun in the other hand and shot dead 7 people Charming.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/...source=copyurl

[SoulReaver]

A death sentence carried out by the order of a court in response to criminal behavior (and it has to be pretty heinous to draw the DP these days) is a completely different situation than the murder of an innocent unborn.

yeah I know government is god
hey guess what: those criminals were also unborn