A Question Of Those On The Left...

[Anna Perenna]

Wow. Someone needs to settle down and take a chill pill on the acusations. Defensive much.

I'm not in need of a chill pill - I was asking a question. If you see that as overly reactionary, then ...... that's your presumption.

No. I just like to point out irony where I see it. I kept saying it had nothing to do with morals, just reason.

Just like I don't understand how people on the right can be pro-life but pro-capitlal punishment. How people can argue that abortion is fine since the embryo isn't a life yet will back charging someone with two counts of murder if they kill a pregnant woman.

My point is, either a right is a right, or it isn't. One issue is specifically spelled out in the founding documents and the other isn't. either neither should be limited or both can be. To argue that the 2A shouldn't be limited but abortion should, until ruled otherwise, is just as bad as wanting to limit the 2A and not abortion.

They are all contradictive.

Which brings me back to my question - why did you ask this question on a debate forum in the first place? You probably should have just said "isn't it ironic that ....." and then perhaps called for discussion.

Otherwise, you know it's just going to end in a bunch of pointless and ugly liberal bashing, much like what happens in most other threads on this site.

 

[snafu]

He was trying to put another spin on the issues by questioning the constitutionality of the subjects. But you keep going back to the morality of it. I think he explained this a few times to you. But if you want to consider it liberal bashing thats fine. Liberals are wrong on both subjects as far as he and I go so I can see why you would think we were bashing libs.

 

[Anna Perenna]

He was trying to put another spin on the issues by questioning the constitutionality of the subjects. But you keep going back to the morality of it.

Where have I done this?

 

[ImWithStupid]

I'm not in need of a chill pill - I was asking a question. If you see that as overly reactionary, then ...... that's your presumption.



Which brings me back to my question - why did you ask this question on a debate forum in the first place? You probably should have just said "isn't it ironic that ....." and then perhaps called for discussion.

Otherwise, you know it's just going to end in a bunch of pointless and ugly liberal bashing, much like what happens in most other threads on this site.

The title was just to get attention, just like any headline. If you look at the body of the first post, nothing in there is political, nor do I even say liberal or conservative. Just the question of the irony of the views.

I even quantified that with this note at the end...

Just a reminder. Federal laws are based on the Constitution of the United States, not personal opinion or politics..

 

[Anna Perenna]

I just find it funny how, left thinking people, are not capable of answering this question, because they even know that it defies all logic and reason, and to answer it, honestly, would make them look foolish.

You can spin the situation as much as you like but the above post, and your opportunity to post it, was clearly the point of your thread.

 

[ImWithStupid]

You can spin the situation as much as you like but the above post, and your opportunity to post it, was clearly the point of your thread.

It's not a spin. Based on pure law, no opinion, morals or bias, it's impossible to logically answer this.

 

[timesjoke]

1,2,3,..... Follow the liberal guide to 'NOT' answer any liberal possition by the numbers, repeat each step as much as neccessary but never, never answer the question.


Right now we are back at calling your motives into question again, it is a repeating cycle.

 

[Anna Perenna]

It's not a spin. Based on pure law, no opinion, morals or bias, it's impossible to logically answer this.

So the right can't answer it either?

Cool.

 

[ImWithStupid]

So the right can't answer it either?

Cool.

I guess I should have said, nobody can justify it.

It's against logic to say that a right that is spelled out in a document could be limited where one that isn't can't. Regardless of the rights.

You keep making this political where it's logical.

 

[Anna Perenna]

I guess I should have said, nobody can justify it.

It's against logic to say that a right that is spelled out in a document could be limited where one that isn't can't. Regardless of the rights.

You keep making this political where it's logical.

Actually, you made it political when you kept trying to pin this on the left. I was just responding to your politicality.

Plus I'm utterly sick and tired of the over abundance of liberal bashing on this board. It would be nice to have one thread (or even a whole section) where it simply wasn't allowed.

 

[ImWithStupid]

Actually, you made it political when you kept trying to pin this on the left. I was just responding to your politicality.

Plus I'm utterly sick and tired of the over abundance of liberal bashing on this board. It would be nice to have one thread (or even a whole section) where it simply wasn't allowed.

I love it. We need some more to defend the left.

My intention wasn't to make this political. Like I said it was mainly a headline to peak interest in the topic.

The topic was meant to be purely legal/logical.

 

[timesjoke]

Actually, you made it political when you kept trying to pin this on the left. I was just responding to your politicality.

Plus I'm utterly sick and tired of the over abundance of liberal bashing on this board. It would be nice to have one thread (or even a whole section) where it simply wasn't allowed.

Many whites like having their own water fountains and even seperate places to sit at a dinner. They desired to be kept seperate from that they hated/feared.


The liberals desire their politics to be kept seperate from them the same way and for similar reasons. Why own up to your mistakes and abuses as long as you have the ability to play these games, to duck and dodge and even attack those who are asking the direct questions.


Play it by the numbers 1,2,3,.......but never answer the question.

 

[phreakwars]

Plus I'm utterly sick and tired of the over abundance of liberal bashing on this board. It would be nice to have one thread (or even a whole section) where it simply wasn't allowed.

You noticed that too.. Yeah, it does tend to make the site quite boring when 2 people are going all over the board complaining "LIBERALS THIS, LIBERALS THAT".
.
.

 

[timesjoke]

Play the numbers 1,2,3,.....

Now we are back to trying to attack the motivation of the question asker.
Complaining about being labeled.
Crying about the amount of questions being asked of liberals, claiming it is unfair to even ask the questions.


Here is what I find interesting about this latest line of "your not fair" to us bull......

I am a hard line conservative, I am secure in my views and can easily accept the burdon of being put down by everyone on this forum (like now) without even blinking. I stick to my guns and keep to the topic no matter how much I am attacked. If you feel in your heart your right, it does not matter how many are against you.

But Liberals require greater numbers, they need to drown out the opposition or even silence it because they know they are doing the wrong thing and understand that if too much light is placed on their actions/beliefs, people may start getting wise to their games.

Call me a coinservative and I am proud, call a Liberal what they are and they say it is an insult.

One of those things that make you go hmmmmmm.

 

[jokersarewild]

Here's an answer as to why they try to limit 2A and not abortion:

Who can own a gun? Anybody of legal age who can pass a safety course, background check, etc, etc. And buy one. Ok...

Who can get an abortion? This one is limited to only females. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html

If you scroll down a wee bit, you notice that about half the population in the US is females. Now, it seems these days that even a 7 year old who doesn't like a 4 year old happens to have direct access to his grandfather's WW2 arsenal. So really, it's pretty much the whole damn population on that board. Sure, they can't own it, but they can use it. So really...

You have about 102 million (or more) who can have an abortion...

Vs Slightly less than 303 million who could actually kill someone with a gun.

With that previous 102 million included, mind you.

So why do we want to limit the second amendment? So that fewer people have access to weapons to kill people with.

So here's to your liberal bashing, IWS and TJ:

I've presented facts. I've answered the question.

And to especially TJ:

If you think bashing liberals and saying that they don't answer questions and that you're a proud conservative somehow lends credence to your ability to present a rational argument, you're sorely mistaken. I've honestly yet to see you try answering the question, whether it was directed to the "left" or not. Oh, but wait, you don't think you have to, right? Classic conservative. Blame the left for everything to avoid having to answer for your own accountability. It's cute that you're trying so hard to discredit liberals by generalizing them, but we all know it's the same bull that comes from conservatives in every debate involving politics.

<==Is his own "No Spin Zone"

 

[timesjoke]

I have never dodged a single question, I may miss one every now and then when several are asked at the same time but just remind me and I will always answer to the best of my ability.


I can point to several direct questions I have asked liberals that they refuse to answer, such as what in Obama's past qualifies him to be an executive of the largest economy in the nation in relationship to proven skill as someone who has championed reforms to prove he can follow through with his promises of reform and executive skill in changing Washington?


Well you certainly danced all around the question but in my opinion, you still dodged it. First of all your 303 million number is a completely made up number, you cannot have all people having access if all do not have guns. A very small percentage of homes have "legal" guns in them so in order to make a reasonable comparison with numbers you have to use "real" numbers, not fantacy numbers.

Out of the "legal" guns owned, what number are used in criminal activities? Do you even know?

Your claim of limiting gun ownership is possible harm, my possition against abortion is the actual abortions. If we compare the number of legally owned guns that are used in a criminal act to the number of children killed in the womb each year, what do you think we will come up with?

About 1.2 to 1.4 million children are killed in the womb each year, just one year. About 6,000 legally owned guns are used in the commission of a crime each year, the numbers are not even comparable if we stay in the realm of reality.

Now, at the same time let's look at how many times legally owned guns are used for protection or to "stop" crime:

The World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock

You may want to get educated on the issues so you do not look so bad.


So, the number of abortions greatly outnumbers the possible illegal gun use, hundreds of times to one when put into factual context.


So while you attempted to offer a 'partial' answer to the question, your facts were all wrong and you were relying on 100% assumption as the basis of your arguement.

I will let IWS field this because it was his question, not mine so maybe he will think you gave a real answer but I do not believe you did.

 

[wez]

Many whites like having their own water fountains and even seperate places to sit at a dinner. They desired to be kept seperate from that they hated/feared.

Just like your buddy, fellacio?

The liberals desire their politics to be kept seperate from them the same way and for similar reasons. Why own up to your mistakes and abuses as long as you have the ability to play these games, to duck and dodge and even attack those who are asking the direct questions.


Play it by the numbers 1,2,3,.......but never answer the question.

Mirror mirror on the wall, who's the biggest hypocrite of them all?

I have never dodged a single question, I may miss one every now and then when several are asked at the same time but just remind me and I will always answer to the best of my ability..

Hahahahahaha...

TJ .. not only do you dodge nearly every direct question asked to you, but all you do is accuse "liberals" of being you as you dodge them...

Let the Sun shine in..


Everyone who disagrees with me, is me, and a liberal. ~ timesjoke is right, or else

 

[Fullauto]

But Liberals require greater numbers, they need to drown out the opposition or even silence it because they know they are doing the wrong thing and understand that if too much light is placed on their actions/beliefs, people may start getting wise to their games.

View attachment 2089

 

[hugo]

Thanks Hugo. These calm, reasonable and utterly emotionless posts are why you're my favourite conservative. As always, I heart you.

I heart you, too.

Today in the US a person with my political ideology is most frequently labeled a libertarian, in 1968 I would have been labeled a Goldwater conservative, in 1928 I would have been labeled a liberal.

Sadly, most political debate today, is little more than name calling and personal attacks. To paraphrase Goldwater we should be able to disagree without being disagreeable.

 

[RoyalOrleans]

Here's an answer as to why they try to limit 2A and not abortion:

Who can own a gun? Anybody of legal age who can pass a safety course, background check, etc, etc. And buy one. Ok...

Who can get an abortion? This one is limited to only females. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html

If you scroll down a wee bit, you notice that about half the population in the US is females. Now, it seems these days that even a 7 year old who doesn't like a 4 year old happens to have direct access to his grandfather's WW2 arsenal. So really, it's pretty much the whole damn population on that board. Sure, they can't own it, but they can use it. So really...

You have about 102 million (or more) who can have an abortion...

Vs Slightly less than 303 million who could actually kill someone with a gun.

With that previous 102 million included, mind you.

So why do we want to limit the second amendment? So that fewer people have access to weapons to kill people with.

So here's to your liberal bashing, IWS and TJ:

I've presented facts. I've answered the question.

And to especially TJ:

If you think bashing liberals and saying that they don't answer questions and that you're a proud conservative somehow lends credence to your ability to present a rational argument, you're sorely mistaken. I've honestly yet to see you try answering the question, whether it was directed to the "left" or not. Oh, but wait, you don't think you have to, right? Classic conservative. Blame the left for everything to avoid having to answer for your own accountability. It's cute that you're trying so hard to discredit liberals by generalizing them, but we all know it's the same bull that comes from conservatives in every debate involving politics.

<==Is his own "No Spin Zone"

What university do you attend?