View Full Version : Our argument in a nutshell: Waking the dragon — How Feinstein fiddled while America burned
mikedubs
05-06-2013, 10:38
Great piece, although long
http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/article_1c144792-b36d-11e2-8ac6-001a4bcf887a.html?TNNoMobile
kawiracer14
05-06-2013, 11:06
A good, long read. Unfortunately - how many libs will actually read this and care?
Aloha_Shooter
05-06-2013, 11:11
Excellent essay but he'll lose the libs on paragraph 2 once it's clear he actually cares about Texas as much as Boston and isn't talking about gay marriage, legalizing pot, or free contraceptives.
CroiDhubh
05-06-2013, 11:12
A good, long read. Unfortunately - how many libs will actually read this and care?
Liberals only care when your heart can bleed from emotion instead of facts
Zundfolge
05-06-2013, 11:16
Its a good read, however "in a nutshell" implies brevity.
Its a good read, however "in a nutshell" implies brevity.That was brief, because he could have written an entire book on the subject.
Excellent read, and yet another one that should be a prerequisite for anyone wanting to argue gun control.
Good info and points, and agree it's an excellent read, but to the above posts as well, libs could care less and it's a rinse and repeat of the same info "our side," has been posting, preaching etc. Until there is something presented to help perusade the low information left side of center masses, it's all on deaf ears to those we wish would listen anyhow.
Great read... on thing did hit with me pretty hard, and it seems like we too (most of us anyway) are guilty of perpetuating this, although it kind of goes along with the idea that you can only get pushed so much before you push back:
"The rift is already beginning. We must mend fences...Now."
wctriumph
05-06-2013, 11:58
Fuckin' A right.
newracer
05-06-2013, 12:51
http://m.iowastatedaily.com/mobile/opinion/article_1c144792-b36d-11e2-8ac6-001a4bcf887a.html
It's a good read, a few excerpts.
I’ve come to realize after the Sandy Hook shooting that the reason we can’t have a rational gun debate is because the anti-gun side pre-supposes that their pro-gun opponents must first accept that guns are bad in order to have a discussion about guns in the first place. Before we even start the conversation, we’re the bad guys and we have to admit it. Without accepting that guns are bad and supplicating themselves to the anti-gunner, the pro-gunner can’t get a word in edgewise, and is quickly reduced to being called a murderer, or a low, immoral and horrible human being.
Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they keep saying they “respect the Second Amendment” and go on about how they respect the hunting traditions of America. We don’t trust you because you have to be a complete idiot to think the Second Amendment is about hunting. I wish people weren’t so stupid that I have to say this: The Second Amendment is about checking government tyranny. Period. End of story. The founders probably couldn’t have cared less about hunting since, you know, they just got done with that little tiff with England called the Revolutionary War right before they wrote that “little book” called the Constitution.
You anti-gunners out there will lead us down a path you do not want to go down. Your lack of care and understanding of those who abide by America’s oldest and deepest-rooted tradition will cause a social rift in this country of the likes we have never seen in America’s young history. Your lack of understanding chances causing a civil war — a civil war that will be far worse, more acrimonious, more prolonged and more deadly than the last one.
mikedubs
05-06-2013, 13:03
beat ya to it.
https://www.ar-15.co/threads/102209-Our-argument-in-a-nutshell
newracer
05-06-2013, 13:29
Well if you would have included anything (author, title, etc) in your post besides the link I would have been able to find it when I searched.
Aloha_Shooter
05-06-2013, 13:55
Bump to put this in front of the repost by newracer.
SuperiorDG
05-06-2013, 14:25
Libs don't want to "understand" because they my loose their friends in the process.
SideShow Bob
05-06-2013, 16:23
[handbags]
SuperiorDG
05-06-2013, 16:30
Well if you would have included anything (author, title, etc) in your post besides the link I would have been able to find it when I searched.
Good point, we should have a rule about this.[pick-me]
I'm gonna copy/paste that article into Word and print that sumbitch! Copies will be delivered to every idiot anti I encounter.
The civil war garbage is ridiculous. We aren't even close to a civil war, to say so makes people look foolish. There is zero organization just a some pissed off people.
The civil war garbage is ridiculous. We aren't even close to a civil war, to say so makes people look foolish. There is zero organization just a some pissed off people.
How would your estimation of the situation change if someone openly stepped up to lead those who feel that a leader is just what they are waiting for. Hypothetically, if that person arose, would you feel like the "closeness" to civil war would move a perceptible amount?
Aloha_Shooter
05-06-2013, 19:14
Bumping the original thread on this again ... just because ... [mop]
johnyfive
05-06-2013, 20:06
A liberal will probably never come across the article, but that isn't the point, I think, the point is to help those of us who aren't wordsmiths of any kind make a compelling argument out loud for the things we know in our heart. If we're talking to someone who's listening and not just waiting for our mouth to close, they're probably not a liberal extremist, they're probably part of the majority who is currently being influenced by the biased news and made-up statistics that anti-(specific)freedom liberals are currently feeding them who need to hear the other side of the argument put concisely. The most compelling argument is the one to which the counter argument is never presented.
Bailey Guns
05-14-2013, 08:39
That was an expecially good article, irregardless of whether or not it was a repost. That's a mute point.
HoneyBadger
05-14-2013, 08:46
That was an expecially good article, irregardless of whether or not it was a repost. That's a mute point.
Oh Jee-zus!
Well played, sir... Well played.
Zundfolge
05-14-2013, 08:48
That was an expecially good article, irregardless of whether or not it was a repost. That's a mute point.
AAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!! [panic]
/Zundfolge is later found in the fetal position under his desk.
Merged my repost into this original thread. Great read, every gun owner should read this.
The civil war garbage is ridiculous. We aren't even close to a civil war, to say so makes people look foolish. There is zero organization just a some pissed off people.
I don't advocate a civil war and agree we are not near one now but.... At the end of the Bush years we were close to an economic cliff much as Greece is today. They are having a civil war and the government is afraid of losing power. Are we there, no, could we be.... It depends on how things go from year to year. What is to say that in 20 years the economy has broken from debt, a government overreaction has not lead to the populus being tired of it. Small things nobody saw lead to unrest boiling over. Rodney King and the LA riots, a taxi driver in Egypt, a monk self emolating, a man running into a bank and demanding all of his money causing a depression. It is not crazy or ridiculous, it is learning from history to be prepared because enough unrest leads to civil war. How you prepare is up to each family but should not be put down unless taken to an extreme that affects others. Right now it looks like the economy is turning around and we are less upset overall but who is to say what will happen tomorrow.
I don't think the average bovine voter out there has enough passion about anything beyond the latest offering from Apple, to get riled up and strike back at the oppression marching toward us from Washington. It's a nice thought, but a police state is coming. Aside from some small pockets of resistance which will spring up when the inevitable "it's not really martial law... it's just for your safety" restrictions hit, there won't be much fight-back. Unfortunately...
Aloha_Shooter
05-14-2013, 10:12
Merged my repost into this original thread. Great read, every gun owner should read this.
Agreed but if you were going to merge anything, you should have merged THIS repost with the ORIGINAL thread: https://www.ar-15.co/threads/102209-Our-argument-in-a-nutshell
[Coffee]
Agreed but if you were going to merge anything, you should have merged THIS repost with the ORIGINAL thread: https://www.ar-15.co/threads/102209-Our-argument-in-a-nutshell
[Coffee]um, that's what I did, then deleted the repost. Look at the date. Oi. :)
Singlestack
05-14-2013, 12:53
a monk self emolating, a man running into a bank and demanding all of his money causing a depression.
Do you seriously believe one guy asking for his money from a bank can cause a depression? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression
Not sure what "emolating" means, but guessing you are referring to immolation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-immolation
sellersm
05-14-2013, 12:59
AAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!! [panic]
/Zundfolge is later found in the fetal position under his desk.
"we found him laying prostate on the floor".. [Coffee]
Hey, self-immolation is the ultimate "emo" thing to do - I totally get it. :-)
I was self-emulating, just earlier today.
Aloha_Shooter
05-14-2013, 13:39
I don't advocate a civil war and agree we are not near one now but.... At the end of the Bush years we were close to an economic cliff much as Greece is today. They are having a civil war and the government is afraid of losing power. Are we there, no, could we be.... It depends on how things go from year to year. What is to say that in 20 years the economy has broken from debt, a government overreaction has not lead to the populus being tired of it. Small things nobody saw lead to unrest boiling over. Rodney King and the LA riots, a taxi driver in Egypt, a monk self emolating, a man running into a bank and demanding all of his money causing a depression. It is not crazy or ridiculous, it is learning from history to be prepared because enough unrest leads to civil war. How you prepare is up to each family but should not be put down unless taken to an extreme that affects others. Right now it looks like the economy is turning around and we are less upset overall but who is to say what will happen tomorrow.
Wow, where the hell are you getting this crap from? We were NOT anywhere NEAR a cliff as bad as Greece in 2007 or 2008. Much of what was wrong was concentrated in a few sick areas which were being overblown by the media in order to make a bad situation look even worse for the 2008 elections. They kept repeating this "worst economy in 60 years" BS despite the very recent very apparent example worse economy: the Carter malaise. Interestingly, some of those sectors have recovered while the decay has spread wider across the general economy but we're still not even close to Greece's level yet (until Obama's markers come due).
Aloha_Shooter
05-14-2013, 13:41
um, that's what I did, then deleted the repost. Look at the date. Oi. :)
No you didn't -- newracer's thread was a repost itself. Look at the time. Oi yourself. [Beer] [Flower]
Wow, where the hell are you getting this crap from? We were NOT anywhere NEAR a cliff as bad as Greece in 2007 or 2008. Much of what was wrong was concentrated in a few sick areas which were being overblown by the media in order to make a bad situation look even worse for the 2008 elections. They kept repeating this "worst economy in 60 years" BS despite the very recent very apparent example worse economy: the Carter malaise. Interestingly, some of those sectors have recovered while the decay has spread wider across the general economy but we're still not even close to Greece's level yet (until Obama's markers come due).
May I add...
This is implying that the economic woes of '08 were the fault of Bush and his administration. This simply is not the case as that's just, conveniently, when the bubble (originating with the Clinton Administration) burst. Now our future, thanks to an election last November, has the potential to make '08 look like a bad day for the DOW.
Do you seriously believe one guy asking for his money from a bank can cause a depression? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression
Not sure what "emolating" means, but guessing you are referring to immolation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-immolation
Do I think that was the spark of the great depression, yes. Do I think that was the cause, no. There were a lot of things building up to it, over many years but there is a tipping point with all rebellions. You never know what it is going to be. We just got through seeing how even in a modern stock market, fear kept driving us down, past were logical reason would have stopped. A guy saying the bank is out of money in the 20's and everybody running in to grab their money, not being able to get it, when banks were not trusted to begin with... That is where the term "A Run on the banks" comes from. Where I put the statements in was meant to show this.
Ya, been playing too much D2 and spell check missed it. I suck at spelling, enough said.
Self Immolation in the case of Thich Quang Duc was seen by many as the start of the Vietnam war and also the more recent 'Arab Spring' in some countries. Again, the point is that 'stable' societies can suddenly become unstable when it is least expected.
BTW: I don't generally take Wiki as a good source in debates ;)
May I add...
This is implying that the economic woes of '08 were the fault of Bush and his administration. This simply is not the case as that's just, conveniently, when the bubble (originating with the Clinton Administration) burst. Now our future, thanks to an election last November, has the potential to make '08 look like a bad day for the DOW.
Ya, two wars, tax cuts for the rich and finally a give away at the teasury (Corporate welfare)... Rewritting history does not make it so. And ya we were on the cliff unless the simple math is too hard. Using the S&P adjusted for inflation we lost 80% of GDP at the lowest point of the Great Depression. We lost almost 60% in 2008. Folks, that's a cliff, pure and simple. If we had kept on with the current policies of the time it would have been much worse and Bush after 8 years gets FULL ownership. 4 years might have a weak case... 8 years she is all yours.
Ya, two wars, tax cuts for the rich and finally a give away at the teasury (Corporate welfare)... Rewritting history does not make it so. And ya we were on the cliff unless the simple math is too hard. Using the S&P adjusted for inflation we lost 80% of GDP at the lowest point of the Great Depression. We lost almost 60% in 2008. Folks, that's a cliff, pure and simple. If we had kept on with the current policies of the time it would have been much worse and Bush after 8 years gets FULL ownership. 4 years might have a weak case... 8 years she is all yours.
Psst... you've got some Michelle Obama brand lipstick on your lips... Kissing the same ass as Carney?
I wasn't saying Bush gets no blame, but not 100% of it. Your talking points, while valid, do have a smarmy, Liberal tinge to them.
Bailey Guns
05-14-2013, 16:25
Psst... you've got some Michelle Obama brand lipstick on your lips... Kissing the same ass as Carney?
I wasn't saying Bush gets no blame, but not 100% of it. Your talking points, while valid, do have a smarmy, Liberal tinge to them.
Remember...that's coming from someone who said Louisiana was a republican state during Katrina and there wasn't a democrat in sight (paraphrased). Except for the governor (Blanco), the mayor of NO, the management of the city, numerous democrats in both houses of the state legislature, etc... Pretty much the entire top leadership of the state and city of NO.
And Hound's talking points are straight out of the democrat playbook. Let's not mince words and call them "tinged" with liberalism. FFS...tax cuts for the rich? Zero credibility if you can't even understand the differences between simple concepts: like tax cuts and not raising tax rates.
Zundfolge
05-14-2013, 16:55
...tax cuts for the rich...
Ah, I see who you are now. Never mind the reasoned response I had typed up, I'm not getting into another pointless argument with another nynco.
Just because I don't feel like going back to the "Robber Baron" age does not mean I am all Socialist/Marxist or whatever BS you want to lable it. As with most all of my posts I look for moderation and try to learn from history. I have agreed with both Ronin and Bailey on occasion and not on others. I don't believe in an Aristocracy wither it be by blood or money, that is kinda what got the Constitution written in the first place, remember that? The times of the "Company Store" did nothing but squash the dreams of the common man creating indentured servitude for many Americans. That was a time when Capitalism was unregulated. Mean while one of the greatest times for America was when the returning WWII GI's had the GI Bill and top tax rate 90%. This is a time when Capitalism was regulated. This did not stop John Wayne from owning a mansion or going on trips. We still had very wealthy people like Hughes running around building companies and creating jobs. It was just a more fair time. No I don't support billionaires like Romney or Gates getting tax breaks. I don't support GE not paying taxes. No regulations, we get the 20's and Depression or 2008 Great Recession. Moderate regulation such as the 50's and 60's, not so bad. Over regulation like the 70's not good either. Again, I think there is a happy medium. I don't think either side has all of the answers. Another good time economically... Clinton... Why..... Split government. Both sides had to / and did work with each other.
Bailey Guns
05-14-2013, 20:01
Yeah. It's all about being fair. Got it.
Yeah. It's all about being fair. Got it.
Great to know "Fairness" is not an American ideal anymore.... That might be part of whats wrong with todays America.
Aloha_Shooter
05-15-2013, 09:30
Great to know "Fairness" is not an American ideal anymore.... That might be part of whats wrong with todays America.
No the problem is that the language has been redefined so "fairness" means you or the guy down the street gets to reach into my pocket and take what King Obama thinks I don't deserve. REAL fairness is still an American ideal but redistributive "fairness" has never been an American value until recently. TR's Square Deal didn't mean a 40% tax rate and he didn't say he'd "let them keep a fair share" (statement from his FIRST YEAR in office -- WTF, Bozo actually thinks money belongs to the public and we should be grateful he lets us keep some of what we work for).
American ideals historically were that we work hard or smart and the government stays out of the way -- and keeps others from interfering unfairly -- and we get to keep the fruits of our labor. Anyone subscribing to the European socialist ideal ought to migrate to Sweden or France and make room for some of those immigrants who are willing to work for the fruits of their labor.
Bailey Guns
05-15-2013, 09:31
"Fairness" never was an American ideal in terms of anything other than opportunity. "Fairness" is a liberal buzzword that's code for redistribution.
ETA: Appears Aloha beat me to it.
Rucker61
05-15-2013, 09:56
"Fairness" never was an American ideal in terms of anything other than opportunity. "Fairness" is a liberal buzzword that's code for redistribution.
Is fairness of opportunity still an American ideal?
Bailey Guns
05-15-2013, 09:59
Is fairness of opportunity still an American ideal?
Not if you're a leftist. Then it's all about fairness of outcome.
No you didn't -- newracer's thread was a repost itself. Look at the time. Oi yourself. [Beer] [Flower]No shit sherlock, ya think? My thread was after that one, and there was one before that, which we found and also merged. How many threads do you think we merge daily due to reposts? Congratulations, you're right, I should have taken the extra time to research the first thread, and revised my thread and the link I was given to reflect the first thread. Yup, that would have been well worth it. You get a cookie, and to get to feel way better about yourself for discovering and repeatedly pointing out my error.
Rucker61
05-15-2013, 10:11
Not if you're a leftist. Then it's all about fairness of outcome.
So for a conservative, fairness of opportunity is still an ideal? How about fairness of treatment by the .gov? Was the treatment of conservative groups by the IRS fair? I see a lot of Humpty Dumpty word defining going on in these types of threads, and that makes it difficult to present a cogent argument in a civil discussion.
Bailey Guns
05-15-2013, 10:18
Rucker, that's a ridiculous question. Have you seen anyone here defending the IRS actions as "fair" or appropriate? Have you heard anyone even from the gov't defending what happened? I haven't. I've heard a lot of backpedaling and passing the buck. The Obama administration can't condemn it in harsh enough terms. No. It wasn't "fair". It was probably criminal and should be treated as such.
Another good time economically... Clinton... Why..... Split government. Both sides had to / and did work with each other.
Bullshit. [bs] I have to pull out that flag right here right now... Did you learn that in a public school (age dependent)? Because it's a lie. Clinton presided over a good economy because of a few factors no one gives any credence to because that's the way the liberal MSM and school system plays the game. Factor 1- Reagan. Clinton rode those coat tails after the full effect of Reaganomics and the Reagan era tax cuts and spending cuts settled in. Factor 2- Congress. Clinton wanted to send spending through the roof (like our current guy), but due to a mostly Republican and very fiscally conservative Congress, he was held at bay and the economy was able to go up, up and away. Of course, this led to lax banking regulations, Fannie and Freddie and that led to a huge problem later down the road (around 7-9 years down the road no less- and look who gets the blame, Mr. Bush).
In terms of fairness, to answer your other point:
There are only a few things you're guaranteed as an American- Life, liberty, PURSUIT of happiness. You aren't promised happiness, just the pursuit of it. You get fair and equal treatment under the law. That's it. You are not promised a "fair" or even equal wage, but that's the double edged sword of freedom. Not getting paid the same as your neighbor? You're free to quit your job and get a better paying one, you're free to work harder and get a raise, but you're not entitled to the same pay just because you live in the same neighborhood and live in comparable houses. Don't like it? Want fairness like that? Cuba, China, there are some Communist nations out there where they operate like that, but here, we have a- mostly- free market, capitalist society. Now, I better not see Hound at an Occupy Denver rally with a sign that says "Capitalism=Bad."
Aloha_Shooter
05-15-2013, 10:58
No shit sherlock, ya think? My thread was after that one, and there was one before that, which we found and also merged. How many threads do you think we merge daily due to reposts? Congratulations, you're right, I should have taken the extra time to research the first thread, and revised my thread and the link I was given to reflect the first thread. Yup, that would have been well worth it. You get a cookie, and to get to feel way better about yourself for discovering and repeatedly pointing out my error.
Let me apologize for giving you the impression that I was really criticizing your merger, saying you made a mistake or trying annoy a moderator. My original intent was really to poke fun at the hypersensitivity I've seen lately on "reposts" -- just reacted too fast to the "look at the date" comment.
Again, my apologies.
Rucker61
05-15-2013, 12:33
Rucker, that's a ridiculous question. Have you seen anyone here defending the IRS actions as "fair" or appropriate? Have you heard anyone even from the gov't defending what happened? I haven't. I've heard a lot of backpedaling and passing the buck. The Obama administration can't condemn it in harsh enough terms. No. It wasn't "fair". It was probably criminal and should be treated as such.
I'd love to agree with you, but I can't figure out if you like fair or not.
Bailey Guns
05-15-2013, 12:38
Well you define "fair" for me and I'll tell you if you like it or not.
Rucker61
05-15-2013, 12:56
Well you define "fair" for me and I'll tell you if you like it or not.
It's not a word that's easily defined, but you've hit on the missing ingredient of every back-and-forth discussion here: accepted definition of terms. In my mathematics studies, when creating a cogent, logical argument, the first step is to define all terms that will be used, so that the reader can't understand how they are used in the basis of your argument. It's accepted that the denitions so presented may be only accepted in the context of the argument and are not necessarily universal. Let's take the words "fair" and "fairness" used here, and because you're thick skinned, I'll pick on you. First you sarvastically answer Hound with "It's all about fair", presumably implying that you think that "fair", not yet defined by explanation or context, is not a desirable trait. You follow with a paraphrased statement that "fairness of opportunity is good" but "fairness of outcome" is bad, and then (again paraphrasing) "...not fair, and likely should be criminally prosecuted". In a few short posts you've gone from Fair: bad, good, bad, good.
Just look at the trouble we had defining conservative/liberal. I'd say that the statement "Being a Liberal is bad" would have near 100% acceptance here. The statement "Having any Liberal positions is bad" would be less likely to have the same level of acclaim, given the opinions posted here on gay marriage and legalized marijuana. I'm not sure what percentage acceptance we'd get on "having x percent Liberal opinions makes you a Liberal". I don't think it's definable in general, but only in context. Anyone here may certainly agree or disagree with that statement, should we populate the variable, and no one would be right or wrong.
Bailey Guns
05-15-2013, 13:04
And I think you probably know me well enough from other conversations to know which definitions of "fair" I'd probably be OK with and which I wouldn't.
Rucker61
05-15-2013, 13:05
And I think you probably know me well enough from other conversations to know which definitions of "fair" I'd probably be OK with and which I wouldn't.
Indeed I do, but does Hound?
Indeed I do, but does Hound?
[pick-me]
It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or in your case a world-class mathematician) to figure out:
I'll break it down, Barney style for ya-
1) "fairness of opportunity is good" everyone gets a fair shot at opportunity, meaning we all have the same opportunities, ground down to the skin and bones of it- you're in America, you have the chance to do just about whatever you want... next point though,
2) "fairness of outcome" - to mean that while we have a shot at it, we're not guaranteed success with that opportunity. Some win, some lose, the only guarantee is your attempt, not the outcome of that attempt.
3) then there's fair treatment under the law- we all have these things called "rights", we're born with them. We have a right to face our accuser, we have a right to trial by a jury of our peers, and we have a right to not receive strange and unusual punishment. Thus it's only "fair" that we are all subject to the same justice system (now this is a little cloudy since there are several cases where this is not quite accurate, but on paper that's how it's supposed to work).
I had no problem understanding Bailey, and I think it's not too presumptuous to give Hound the benefit of the doubt and assume that he understands the point as well. Fair opportunity and fair, in the Obama sense of the word, are two very different things.
Rucker61
05-15-2013, 14:54
[pick-me]
It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or in your case a world-class mathematician) to figure out:
I'll break it down, Barney style for ya- 1) "fairness of opportunity is good" everyone gets a fair shot at opportunity, meaning we all have the same opportunities, ground down to the skin and bones of it- you're in America, you have the chance to do just about whatever you want... next point though,
2) "fairness of outcome" - to mean that while we have a shot at it, we're not guaranteed success with that opportunity. Some win, some lose, the only guarantee is your attempt, not the outcome of that attempt.
3) then there's fair treatment under the law- we all have these things called "rights", we're born with them. We have a right to face our accuser, we have a right to trial by a jury of our peers, and we have a right to not receive strange and unusual punishment. Thus it's only "fair" that we are all subject to the same justice system (now this is a little cloudy since there are several cases where this is not quite accurate, but on paper that's how it's supposed to work).
I had no problem understanding Bailey, and I think it's not too presumptuous to give Hound the benefit of the doubt and assume that he understands the point as well. Fair opportunity and fair, in the Obama sense of the word, are two very different things.
When I say "fair", what do you think I mean?
Bailey Guns
05-15-2013, 14:57
Indeed I do, but does Hound?
I don't care if Hound does. Since his "no democrats in sight during Katrina" comment he has zero credibility as far as I'm concerned.
Rucker61
05-15-2013, 15:02
I don't care if Hound does. Since his "no democrats in sight during Katrina" comment he has zero credibility as far as I'm concerned.
Then why waste your time responding to him?
Bailey Guns
05-15-2013, 15:05
For the same reason I respond to you. For the same reason I want my voice heard by politicians with whom I disagree and don't respect. By speaking my mind I'm letting others with a differing viewpoint know there is opposition to their views. They may not care but at least they'll know.
When I say "fair", what do you think I mean?
Depends on the context. Bailey provided different context- but when someone starts pushing for "fairness" my ears perk up and I try and catch their context of "fair."
If you mean we're all entitled to fair treatment under the law- I'm cool with that.
If you mean we're all entitled to a fair shot at opportunity- Great!
But if you mean everyone (ie: the rich) need to pay their "fair share", GFY... that's socialism.
Let me apologize for giving you the impression that I was really criticizing your merger, saying you made a mistake or trying annoy a moderator. My original intent was really to poke fun at the hypersensitivity I've seen lately on "reposts" -- just reacted too fast to the "look at the date" comment.
Again, my apologies.No sweat, all good man. :) [Flower]
Rucker61
05-15-2013, 16:18
Depends on the context. Bailey provided different context- but when someone starts pushing for "fairness" my ears perk up and I try and catch their context of "fair."
To be accurate, Bailey introduced the word into the discussion with no context.
If you mean we're all entitled to fair treatment under the law- I'm cool with that.
If you mean we're all entitled to a fair shot at opportunity- Great!
But if you mean everyone (ie: the rich) need to pay their "fair share", GFY... that's socialism.
Regarding the last, you haven't defined "fair share", so I don't know if it's socialism or not. If you believe a flat tax system is fair, then a fair share is the result. Likewise, if a moderate or severe progressive tax system is your idea of fair, then what is a fair share is greatly different. Regardless of whatever system, if any system, you endorse, the results of that system end up with everyone paying their "fair share". See why agreed upon definitions are important.
And without context, you had no idea that by "fair" I meant "ball in play, runners may try to advance".
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.