Unsurprising.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm really skeptical upfront. Is everything about this informationally valid — is this an actual, legitimate and accurate description of an actual thing happening in Texas
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's Texas. The one state where I think something like this is far more likely to be true than false.
Posted by happymann (Member # 9559) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It's Texas. The one state where I think something like this is far more likely to be true than false.
I was thinking that this statement couldn't possibly be true. Surely there's gotta be another state that would pass (or try to pass) crazy legislation. But then I read the article. Seems like a pretty accurate statement.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
I could see my home state of Virginia trying to pull something like this but doubt it would ever pass. Now I'm in Florida. I don't know, they are a bit crazy down here but I don't think that crazy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah, I looked into this pretty hard. I have no reason yet to suspect that it's not exactly what it seems to be.
There's legitimately no real reason to need ID with your up-to-date name in a way which disqualifies you if you got married and changed your name. The common cover story of "it's to prevent voter fraud!" has already been torn to pieces here and elsewhere.
And, yes, this is Texas, the state that didn't even wait a day after section 4 of the VRA was struck down to enact a law targeting the ability of minorities to vote, since this keeps republicans in power.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Judge Posner, who wrote the original court decision upholding Voter ID laws issued an apology last week. NYT had an article on it. He said he never could have imagined this all would happen.
Better late than never I suppose.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Ridiculous.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Judge Posner, who wrote the original court decision upholding Voter ID laws issued an apology last week. NYT had an article on it. He said he never could have imagined this all would happen.
Better late than never I suppose.
This part honestly deserves its own thread.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Judge Posner, who wrote the original court decision upholding Voter ID laws issued an apology last week. NYT had an article on it. He said he never could have imagined this all would happen.
Better late than never I suppose.
My google-fu is weak this morning; I'm not having any luck finding the article. Could you link?
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
What a dishonest article. Not sure I expected anything different from a Huffington Post article though.
If a woman is changing her LEGAL name, she already has to get a new Social Security card, new drivers license, etc. Right on the Social Security Administrations website:
quote: Step 1: Gather documents proving your:
•Legal name change;
◦Marriage document; ◦Divorce decree; ◦Certificate of Naturalization showing a new name; or ◦Court-ordered name change. •Identity; and •U.S. citizenship (if you have not established your citizenship with us) or immigration status (including Department of Homeland Security permission to work in the United States. Step 2: Complete an Application for a Social Security card.
Step 3: Take or mail your completed application and documents to your local Social Security office.
If she doesn't go through the process to change her legal name, her legal name is the same as it used to be. She can show her existing ID with her old name and be just fine.
Voter registration forms ask for your legal name. If you haven't changed your legal name, you use the old one.
There are other problems with voter ID laws, but calling it a 19th amendment issue? That's grasping at straws.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
As the article pointed out, many women don't bother to get a new driver's license when changing their legal name. This was the case for my wife who waited until her next renewal date to get a new card.
Getting a new license requires a visit to the DMV and a monetary outlay. A SSN card would not suffice here.
As far as I can see the article is entirely correct on its substance. Do you disagree?
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Look on the bright side: the Millenials are not this stupid.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
Thanks Jon.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
This link has a slightly longer NYT story on it with longer quotes.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: What a dishonest article. Not sure I expected anything different from a Huffington Post article though.
If a woman is changing her LEGAL name, she already has to get a new Social Security card, new drivers license, etc. Right on the Social Security Administrations website:
quote: Step 1: Gather documents proving your:
•Legal name change;
◦Marriage document; ◦Divorce decree; ◦Certificate of Naturalization showing a new name; or ◦Court-ordered name change. •Identity; and •U.S. citizenship (if you have not established your citizenship with us) or immigration status (including Department of Homeland Security permission to work in the United States. Step 2: Complete an Application for a Social Security card.
Step 3: Take or mail your completed application and documents to your local Social Security office.
If she doesn't go through the process to change her legal name, her legal name is the same as it used to be. She can show her existing ID with her old name and be just fine.
Voter registration forms ask for your legal name. If you haven't changed your legal name, you use the old one.
There are other problems with voter ID laws, but calling it a 19th amendment issue? That's grasping at straws.
It's an effort to win an election not by persuasive changing the popular will, but by attempting to stop or make more difficult one's opponents from voting. It's not a legit technical 19th issue, but it sure as hell violates the spirit. With each passing month I'm less and less willing to entertain 'it's not that bad' discussions on voter ID laws. Republicans who get behind this could scarcely be more unAmerican than if they served in the Politburo.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah, if anyone seriously believes that this change is necessary or even productive for ANY reason that the GOP would offer as a means of passing judicial muster, they're complete fools. This is one of many rule changes designed wholeheartedly around keeping various minorities from being able to vote in order to minimize liberal voting competition.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
REALITY
DELIVERS
"After bragging in a TV interview that the state's Voter ID regulations would "kick the Democrats in the butt," and after making reference to "lazy blacks that want the government to give them everything," a North Carolina conservative activist has stepped down from his Republican Party post."
he's real nice to his black friend too
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: REALITY
DELIVERS
"After bragging in a TV interview that the state's Voter ID regulations would "kick the Democrats in the butt," and after making reference to "lazy blacks that want the government to give them everything," a North Carolina conservative activist has stepped down from his Republican Party post."
Oh, so we are cherry picking quotes by unknown conservatives now to try and prove that the entire GOP establishment is out to disenfranchise minority voters through voter ID laws huh?
Right, and Democrats just want to fund Planned Parenthood to keep the black population under control.
Am I doing it right?
On subject, if identifications are free, there is no Jim Crow argument. Really the only argument left, and something Republicans haven't really been able to argue effectively, is the reason WHY something like this is really necessary. There isn't an epidemic of voter fraud, though it does exist on a small scale.
Also, has anyone heard of the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform ? In 2005 they released some recommendations on how to build integrity in federal elections. There were five "pillars" to do this, and Voter ID laws were one of them. Of 21 members, only 3 disagreed with this recommendation. Then again, the leader of the Commission is nothing but a right wing hack by the name of Jimmy Carter.
Not to mention that polls show the vast majority of people agree that voter ID laws should be in place.
Just for reference, here's a list of things you need ID for:
1.Buying alcohol 2.Buying cigarettes 3.Opening a bank account 4.Cashing a check 5.Applying for food stamps 6.Applying for welfare 7.Applying for Medicare & Social Security 8.Applying for employment 9.Applying for unemployment 10.Applying for a mortgage 11.Renting a house or apartment 12.Drive or buy a car 13.Get on an airplane 14.Get married 15.Buy a gun 16.Adopt a pet 17.Apply for a hunting license 18.Apply for a fishing license 19.Buy a cell phone 20.Visit a casino 21.Pick-up a prescription 22.Hold a rally or protest 23.Donate blood 24.Buy an “M” rated movie 25.Purchase nail polish at CVS 26.Purchase certain cold medicines
[ October 25, 2013, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: Geraine ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Well, the GOP establishment is trying to disenfranchise minority voters through voter ID laws, after all, but I wouldn't use that video as Exhibit A. I would just use it as a hilarious video where an idiot reinforces the fact that, yes, the GOP has people like this as chairs of the party.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
yes, geraine, you need ID's to do a lot of things, and there are generally very pressing reasons or discretion to have ID's for them.
there is not a pressing need at this point in time to require ID's to vote, because there's no significant concern about voter fraud in pretty much any of the places where these laws are being enacted. there's another extremely clear agenda behind them. it's not about preventing voter fraud.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:On subject, if identifications are free, there is no Jim Crow argument.
This isn't necessarily true. Here in Wisconsin, Republicans have been closing DMV offices even as they're requiring photo IDs. Which means that for many people, getting a photo ID also requires a car and four hours off work during the business week.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Geraine,
quote:On subject, if identifications are free, there is no Jim Crow argument. Really the only argument left, and something Republicans haven't really been able to argue effectively, is the reason WHY something like this is really necessary. There isn't an epidemic of voter fraud, though it does exist on a small scale.
I think the word you ought to use is 'tiny' or 'infinitesimal' and perhaps 'irrelevant' to the integrity of our elections. Or is there a reason why the push now, these past decade and less? Did our elections become abruptly more fraudulent? If the answer is 'not at all'-and it is-then I simply have a very hard time crediting the notion that this is being done for the cause of keeping elections clean rather than some other motive.
And what other motive is there? Are Republicans more likely, as likely, or less likely to suffer a decrease in turnout as a result of these efforts? Again there's only one real answer, I think you'll have to agree. So when you factor in that it's highly unlikely this is being done to clean up elections, and that it's highly likely Republicans will see some political benefit, my question is simply this: why is it so absurd to claim that this is simply a political gambit to harm opposition turnout?
Or are there matching programs to these campaigns making it easier-and free, everywhere-to obtain the kind of ID necessary? If so I've missed them.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Not to mention that polls show the vast majority of people agree that voter ID laws should be in place.
The vast majority of people agree that minorities should be disproportionately penalised? I'm shocked!
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: As the article pointed out, many women don't bother to get a new driver's license when changing their legal name. This was the case for my wife who waited until her next renewal date to get a new card.
Getting a new license requires a visit to the DMV and a monetary outlay. A SSN card would not suffice here.
As far as I can see the article is entirely correct on its substance. Do you disagree?
Geraine, I'd like to know if you understand and agree or disagree with the point being made here. Legal name change != picture ID with that name on it.
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
Geraine, there's a difference between ID and photo ID. And even within photo ID, there's a difference between government issued or not.
You don't actually need photo ID for a job (voter registration card and SS Card or birth certificate are sufficient). And the I-9 form allows for a lot of different forms of ID. I'd assume other federally regulated programs requiring identification are similar. I can even tell you that in Maryland, you don't need ID for unemployment. You can apply online and enter your SSN and that is sufficient.
And many of the other things you listed, even if they require photo ID, are discretionary in that you aren't always carded when you buy alcohol or cigarettes, so you can actually buy either without ID.
Also, as Tom points out, there are logistical difficulties in getting government issued photo ID. I live less than 3 miles from the DMV. If I didn't have a car and needed to take a bus, it would take at least 30 minutes. I'd also have to take time off work - and has anyone ever gotten out of the DMV in less than 2 hours? So we're talking at least 3 hours just to get ID. And I've worked jobs where I was paid hourly with no vacation or leave - so that could easily be a half day without pay. And if you're struggling to make ends meet, you could easily not afford to go and get a photo ID, even if they're free.
That's the issue with voter ID laws.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: REALITY
DELIVERS
"After bragging in a TV interview that the state's Voter ID regulations would "kick the Democrats in the butt," and after making reference to "lazy blacks that want the government to give them everything," a North Carolina conservative activist has stepped down from his Republican Party post."
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Not to mention that polls show the vast majority of people agree that voter ID laws should be in place.
The vast majority of people agree that minorities should be disproportionately penalised? I'm shocked!
I think a lot of people don't stop and realize that they are penalizing minorities. As stated in another thread, I voted last year (for Obama) and when I walked into the room I actually had my ID out, and I was a little knee-jerkedly surprised I didn't need it.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
One thing that gets overblown.
You do need to have an ID to register to vote--or some form of identification.
They want us to have ID to vote. Why continuously? You need to show an ID to start getting Unemployment checks, but you don't need to show one each month the check arrives.
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
"Some form of identification" can be a utility bill with your name and address on it. Well, in most states. Which is all that should be necessary; ID requirements destroy more votes than voter fraud ever has.
quote:I think a lot of people don't stop and realize that they are penalizing minorities. As stated in another thread, I voted last year (for Obama) and when I walked into the room I actually had my ID out, and I was a little knee-jerkedly surprised I didn't need it.
When I went in to vote last year (green party LOL) the guy behind me was quite worried because his wallet was stolen the day before. He went up to the poll worker and asked if he could still vote. She said, "Of course. California does not require an ID to vote. Just sign here..."
His response? "OK. Too bad though, anyone could walk in here and vote as me!"
He'd rather he and tens of thousands of others had been unable to vote than leave open the chance that two or three fraudulent votes might get cast in the state. Of course, Fox News had probably convinced him that 30 Mexicans were waiting outside the door to vote in his name.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I wouldn't have cared if someone "stole" my vote honestly but I had it out.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by tertiaryadjunct: "Some form of identification" can be a utility bill with your name and address on it. Well, in most states. Which is all that should be necessary; ID requirements destroy more votes than voter fraud ever has.
quote:I think a lot of people don't stop and realize that they are penalizing minorities. As stated in another thread, I voted last year (for Obama) and when I walked into the room I actually had my ID out, and I was a little knee-jerkedly surprised I didn't need it.
When I went in to vote last year (green party LOL) the guy behind me was quite worried because his wallet was stolen the day before. He went up to the poll worker and asked if he could still vote. She said, "Of course. California does not require an ID to vote. Just sign here..."
His response? "OK. Too bad though, anyone could walk in here and vote as me!"
He'd rather he and tens of thousands of others had been unable to vote than leave open the chance that two or three fraudulent votes might get cast in the state. Of course, Fox News had probably convinced him that 30 Mexicans were waiting outside the door to vote in his name.
Eh, I don't know about all that. On the face of it, in the first few moments thinking about it, voter ID laws make good sense. Folks are used to important things needing that sort of protection-cashing a check, opening an account, being allowed to drive, flying, buying a gun-and voting is important (theoretically anyway), so it seems natural. Identity theft is a real problem.
I expect most folks don't think on it much more than that, because it seems so sensible and fits with other experiences. Which is quite convenient for politicians who do or should know that voting isn't link any of those activities at all when it comes to security. Who do or should know that there is no evidence at all that voting is likely to come under threat, either. And who definitely DO know the political advantage this issue offers in terms of turnout.
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
Ignorance isn't much of an excuse, and it's certainly no excuse at all once you've been exposed to contradictory facts or even opinions. Because at that point, you have to stop and think about the basis of your "common sense" assumption (if it's common sense, why are there people who disagree?), and if you don't do this, you leave the realm of ignorance and enter the realm of willful stupidity. I doubt there are many adults in this country who haven't been exposed to the mere existence of arguments or opinions against voter ID laws.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Good deal. Apparently Wendy Davis is going to run for governor...I know Texas is slowly but surely sliding towards being a blue state, but does anyone think she has a chance?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I don't think she'll win, but I think she's enough of a wildcard that it's possible. Voter turnout is around 25% for Texas gubernatorial elections. Perry won 55/42 in 2010.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
She doesn't need to win to have a major long term impact on the state. If she captures national attention and national money, her voter registration drives, organizing and down ticket campaigning will speed up the states turn to a purple state by five years, maybe ten.
From a Democratic perspective, Texas doesn't have a demographics problem, it has an organizational problem. Having been out of power for so long, the party there is defunct and lethargic. She could really turn that around.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Not to mention that polls show the vast majority of people agree that voter ID laws should be in place.
I doubt this is true, but it doesn't have be false. The "vast majority" of people can get together and change the constitution if they're so butt-hurt over voter fraud. Otherwise, I prefer to live in a legal system where I am presumed innocent of wrong-doing, and where my right to vote supersedes your right to question my identity.
Let's examine your list
quote:
1.Buying alcohol : Discretionary on the part of seller 2.Buying cigarettes : Discretionary on the part of seller 3.Opening a bank account : Not a legal right, nor a legal obligation of the bank to get ID 4.Cashing a check : Also not a legal right 5.Applying for food stamps : Not an item of free speech, and legislated accordingly 6.Applying for welfare : Also Not an item of free speech, and legislated accordingly 7.Applying for Medicare & Social Security : Not involved with speech, legislated accordingly 8.Applying for employment : Discretionary 9.Applying for unemployment : State level and within pervue of federal legislation 10.Applying for a mortgage : Discretionary 11.Renting a house or apartment : Discretionary 12.Drive or buy a car : Discretionary 13.Get on an airplane : Not a legal right to board a plane 14.Get married : State level 15.Buy a gun : Discretionary and state level 16.Adopt a pet : Discretionary 17.Apply for a hunting license : State level, not a matter of free speech 18.Apply for a fishing license : Same 19.Buy a cell phone : Discretionary 20.Visit a casino : discretionary 21.Pick-up a prescription : Discretionary, state level 22.Hold a rally or protest : Not true on any level 23.Donate blood : legislative pervue of congress via DPH 24.Buy an “M” rated movie : Discretionary 25.Purchase nail polish at CVS : Discretionary 26.Purchase certain cold medicines : Not an item of speech, and within legislative pervue of congress and/or state level
Every single item on your list is either considered, and has been upheld or gone unchallenged in federal courts, as not a breach of civil rights. On the other hand, introducing barriers to voting involving unreasonable tests of eligibility have been consistently, and overwhelmingly challenged and struck down throughout the past century. And every time thing swing back towards trying to eliminate political opposition by intimidating voters, the courts step back in.
See, and this is the part you refuse to really get here: American citizens have a right to vote. And that right supersedes your right to make sure they're eligible. It does to such a degree that requiring a person to present ID, even such a simple sounding requirement, is a bridge too far.
And when you *know*, and I know, that requiring ID is a tactic to intimidate against the free exercise of the franchise, and not to curb voter fraud (of which there is so little as makes no impact), you have a duty as an American, as the freedom loving person you suppose yourself to be, to recognize that this intention in wrong, and un-American. What's more, it is a threat to an orderly electoral process, and a threat to democracy.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I refer you back to Crawford v Marion County Election Board.
You can try to spin it whichever way you want, but the fact is there are poor people of all races and colors. They are not attempts to "discriminate" against anyone. It fits into your political narrative, so you use it.
The right to own a firearm under the 2nd Amendment is "Discretionary and State Level"....But the right to vote is somehow different now?
Orincoro, your argument is extremely invalid. States have the right to regulate a TON of federal laws, except (according to you) voting? Every single one of those things on the list is regulated by state and federal governments. Some are explicitly laid out in the Constitution. You DO have to have a permit to hold a rally on public grounds. Guess what you have to show to get a permit?
I have couple of honest question for you:
Do you think the voter ID laws are racist / dscriminatory?
If so, is it equally discriminatory or racist to ask for photo ID when performing one of the actions on the list I mentioned?
You are telling me that this behavior is not accepted because voting is a constitutional right. That, of course, doesn't make it okay that banks, airlines, landlords, the highway patrol, liquor stores, hotels, and every employer INCLUDING the Federal Government, are being racist every day when they ask for ID. In fact, given that all of those things are I listed can be considered "public accomodations" and given the liberal belief that part and parcel of being Black is a significantly reduced ability to possess valid photo ID, then of course, any photo ID requirement by these institutions is a Civil Rights violation, is it not?
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote: You can try to spin it whichever way you want, but the fact is there are poor people of all races and colors. They are not attempts to "discriminate" against anyone. It fits into your political narrative, so you use it.
This is contradicted by all the evidence, the Supreme Court's ruling over the VRA in fact even states that the purpose of the VRA had been "successful" in that purpose. If it has been successful, then that means there actually have been Voter ID Laws that in the view of the Supreme Court that in fact were discriminatory towards minorities.
In particular we can also go back to semi-recently when Congress reviewed the preclearance formula and overwhelmingly agreed that given the evidence it needed to stay.
quote: The right to own a firearm under the 2nd Amendment is "Discretionary and State Level"....But the right to vote is somehow different now?
Aside from that the "right to own a firearm" is only in the context of a well regulated militia... What does this even mean? The constitution doesn't describe "rights" it describes powers. The right to vote is a Universal Human Right, firearm ownership is not.
quote: Orincoro, your argument is extremely invalid. States have the right to regulate a TON of federal laws, except (according to you) voting? Every single one of those things on the list is regulated by state and federal governments. Some are explicitly laid out in the Constitution. You DO have to have a permit to hold a rally on public grounds. Guess what you have to show to get a permit?
Your not making sense here.
quote: Do you think the voter ID laws are racist / dscriminatory?
If so, is it equally discriminatory or racist to ask for photo ID when performing one of the actions on the list I mentioned?
This is a fallacy. No one is claiming what your suggesting here.
quote: You are telling me that this behavior is not accepted because voting is a constitutional right.
Its a matter of human rights.
quote: That, of course, doesn't make it okay that banks, airlines, landlords, the highway patrol, liquor stores, hotels, and every employer INCLUDING the Federal Government, are being racist every day when they ask for ID.
It can be seen to be within the interest of the public good to prevent minors from acquiring guns or alchohol; there is no public interest maintained by potentially suppressing the right to vote for thousands of people.
quote: given the liberal belief that part and parcel of being Black is a significantly reduced ability to possess valid photo ID, then of course, any photo ID requirement by these institutions is a Civil Rights violation, is it not?
Yup, fallacy.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
I'm curious as to which states have has voter ID laws overturned due to them going against the VRA. How similar were any such laws to the ones being enacted today? I generally don't support such laws, myself, but only because voter fraud has never been a problem. Thatbeing said, stupid argument is stupid.
What makes a right to vote a Right and a right to bear arms just a right that isn't that important? If everyone should have to depend on the police to defend themselves from assailants, why shouldn't they also depend on a King to decide the laws and appoint ministers? I understand that you're not an American, so I'll remind you that most of us aren't comfortable throwing out civilian rights just because some Canadian has decided that one of them isn't an Official For Real Human Right.
Geraine's argument did make sense. Free speech rights are broader then his example makes out, of course, but in order to hold a rally and exercise your free speech you do indeed need a permit in most places. He doesn't see that as being any more constricting then needing an ID to vote.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Gun rights is something that any plain english reading of the constitution can show is meant for only in the context of a State regulated militia that's been perversed beyond all reason.
quote: I'm curious as to which states have has voter ID laws overturned due to them going against the VRA. How similar were any such laws to the ones being enacted today?
The point isn't that they got "overturned" its that they weren't allowed to be passed in the first place because the section in question is the pre-clearance provision. Which, we saw how immediately Texas and other states began passing stringent voter ID laws in order to suppress the vote of minorities.
We had a GOP spokesperson actually say on air that the point of Voter ID law, admitted and proud of the fact that Voter ID Laws are meant to stop Democrats from voting, especially if it stops the "lazy blacks".
quote: If everyone should have to depend on the police to defend themselves from assailants, why shouldn't they also depend on a King to decide the laws and appoint ministers?
Well yes, most societies do depend on the state to protect them and maintain the well being of populace, not sure what your getting at. You do know the Executive branch does the whole appointing thing too right?
quote: so I'll remind you that most of us aren't comfortable throwing out civilian rights just because some Canadian has decided that one of them isn't an Official For Real Human Right.
This supports the progressive argument that we shouldn't be throwing out the right to vote on flimsy and dubious grounds.
Also, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is largely my source as to what constitutes a "Human right", gun ownership isn't one of those.
The difference is that the State has a monopoly on violence, your right to bear arms for any and all purposes it is meant to safeguard is entirely illusory, there is never a situation in the 21st century where that right could ever be invoked by state rights fetishists and sovereign citizen loonies to actually overthrow the government. They have attack helicopters, attack bombers, tanks, armoured vehicles, poison gas, nuclear weapons and allies that has always rendered that right "moot" and irrelevant except as the unofficial right to commit mass murder in public locations.
The "right to bear arms" is the right to violence, the right to have might makes right, and the might of the United States federal government has remained supreme and unchallenged in this contest since the landmark case of Sherman v. Atlanta.
quote: Geraine's argument did make sense. Free speech rights are broader then his example makes out, of course, but in order to hold a rally and exercise your free speech you do indeed need a permit in most places. He doesn't see that as being any more constricting then needing an ID to vote.
The progressive argument would hold that both are infringements on an individual's freedom, as we saw during the Occupy Movement an almost fascist level of reprisal on peaceful protesters. Geraine supports voter id for the same reason he supports limiting public protest (whenever its not the tea Party being suppressed of course), cognitive dissonance.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Well, the GOP county chairman actually said that he didn't care if college students or lazy blacks were hurt by the law. Which isn't at all what you said he said, if still undeniably racist. But don't let me be the one to stop you making a good point via lying about what someone said.
It's nice and all that you have a different set of rights you look up to. Americans have their own. Since they only apply to their own country, perhaps you could stop looking down on them quite so much and allow them to figure it out on their own?
Whether you like it or not, gun ownership is a right in the United States. The US doesn't have to care what foreigners think about that any more then Canada has to care what Americans think about socialized medicine.
Lastly, there are millions upon millions of people who owns without a problem. Despite your stereotype, guns are not just owned to cause Columbine like mayhem. If my sister is living alone in a bad neighborhood, I'm more comfortable if she's armed. Because despite your statist viewpoint, you really can't depend on the police to do more then call for a corpse wagon and, maybe, catch the guy.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Regarding Geraine's argument, what you said makes sense. Perhaps next time you can say it to him directly instead of dismissing his words as incoherent nonsense.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote: It's nice and all that you have a different set of rights you look up to. Americans have their own. Since they only apply to their own country, perhaps you could stop looking down on them quite so much and allow them to figure it out on their own?
Appeal to Tradition/Cultural Relativism.
quote: Well, the GOP county chairman actually said that he didn't care if college students or lazy blacks were hurt by the law. Which isn't at all what you said he said, if still undeniably racist. But don't let me be the one to stop you making a good point via lying about what someone said.
Is "The Southern Strategy" something that's a myth to you?
He said a little bit more than "he didn't care they got hurt" he said word for word "The law is gonna kick the democrats in the butt."
This isn't a case of "one bad apple" this is just one more example of evidence in a long ouroboros long stream of what is the republican strategy to lengthen their undemocratic hold on political power, by suppressing the minority, women and college student vote knowing these groups are prone/leaning democrat.
These are not insinuations, they are facts.
quote: Whether you like it or not, gun ownership is a right in the United States. The US doesn't have to care what foreigners think about that any more then Canada has to care what Americans think about socialized medicine.
Yes, we know some Americans get awfully defensive over what they perceive to be an attack on what they think constitutes American Exceptionalism; Don't Care. This is a public internet forum and there's no borders, nationality or rights here.
quote: Lastly, there are millions upon millions of people who owns without a problem. Despite your stereotype, guns are not just owned to cause Columbine like mayhem. If my sister is living alone in a bad neighborhood, I'm more comfortable if she's armed. Because despite your statist viewpoint, you really can't depend on the police to do more then call for a corpse wagon and, maybe, catch the guy.
Your not actually responding to the substantiative point of my argument. The right to bear arms is ultimately a right to might makes right. Your example of your sister proves it, because to her, the right to not get robbed is not what she relies on, the right to have the state, whose preamble of its highest and most sacred laws states:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
And the monopoly of violence the state possesses is what should be protecting her, but instead she appeals to might, the might presented by owning a fire arm, ergo justifying the robbery, and likely rape, should it be insufficient, because he right to bear arms was, can be, and will be lesser to another's who choose to invest in greater armament.
That your more "comfortable" with a lie doesn't change that there's a greater truth and understanding to be found behind the appearance of things.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Yes, we know some Americans get awfully defensive over what they perceive to be an attack on what they think constitutes American Exceptionalism; Don't Care. This is a public internet forum and there's no borders, nationality or rights here.
What? No, this really is nonsense. It's an appeal to American Exceptionalism to point out that America has its own laws that protect different rights than the ones you're describing?
C'mon dude, don't be silly.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Actually, I would note that the idea being championed here, that people in different countries have different rights, and that people from different countries don't have to "care what foreigners think" about human rights *is* actually a pretty significant departure from regular foreign policy of the United States. Just sayin'
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It is, actually. Or rather that attitude when espoused by the US is often widely criticized-rightly so-thus making Elison's stance even more strange.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It is, actually. Or rather that attitude when espoused by the US is often widely criticized-rightly so-thus making Elison's stance even more strange.
It isn't, because Heisenburg's argument is that since I'm foreign my 'opinion' as to what constitutes a human right is irrelevant when it is just him being defensive about criticism.
Lets put it this way, does his claim that American's don't care what foreigners think about what they think constitutes right actually *matter* in this context yes/no?
I assert its "no" and thus the "Don't care."
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It is, actually. Or rather that attitude when espoused by the US is often widely criticized-rightly so-thus making Elison's stance even more strange.
Depends on the criticism, I would have thought. As I see it, the main criticisms are that the US is often hypocritical on the issue (referencing torture, domestic spying as examples) or that the US uses military force under the cover of human rights.
The criticism is not usually that universal human rights don't exist. In addition, I wouldn't agree with that criticism if it did occur.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: It isn't, because Heisenburg's argument is that since I'm foreign my 'opinion' as to what constitutes a human right is irrelevant when it is just him being defensive about criticism.
Lets put it this way, does his claim that American's don't care what foreigners think about what they think constitutes right actually *matter* in this context yes/no?
I assert its "no" and thus the "Don't care."
When it comes to laws and rights in America your opinion is irrelevant. You can tell us how it "should" be but we're going to tell you how it actually is. That's not being defensive; That's being accurate.
Yet another case where you debate the intricacies of American culture and politics and insist on doing so outside the context of American culture and politics. The fact that you continue to do this suggests you perceive and address these topics as would a foreigner.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
what Mucus said
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: It isn't, because Heisenburg's argument is that since I'm foreign my 'opinion' as to what constitutes a human right is irrelevant when it is just him being defensive about criticism.
Lets put it this way, does his claim that American's don't care what foreigners think about what they think constitutes right actually *matter* in this context yes/no?
I assert its "no" and thus the "Don't care."
When it comes to laws and rights in America your opinion is irrelevant. You can tell us how it "should" be but we're going to tell you how it actually is. That's not being defensive; That's being accurate.
Yet another case where you debate the intricacies of American culture and politics and insist on doing so outside the context of American culture and politics. The fact that you continue to do this suggests you perceive and address these topics as would a foreigner.
When you're on the ground looking up, all you can see is the sky.
Sometimes you need someone on the outside looking down to see if you really have your feet on the ground.
He's perfectly well within his rights to pass judgments on America and to offer advice and critiques. I daresay we could use all the advice we can get at the moment.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I agree.
Also, if the topic is a human right, then isn't that by definition not something that depends on context. I get that they're often used interchangeably, but isn't that a difference between a human right and civil right? Something can't be a human right somewhere, and not be a human right somewhere else.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I'ld go with the school of thought that democracy in some form in that individual people can vote is a human right. Since Parliamentary Democracies, Constitutional Monarchies, Soviets* and Republics all can have some level of voting but have differing implementations of democracy.
*In the older Leninist intention/definition of a "Council" that directly elects representatives to other Councils until you get to the Supreme Council/Soviet.
quote: When it comes to laws and rights in America your opinion is irrelevant. You can tell us how it "should" be but we're going to tell you how it actually is. That's not being defensive; That's being accurate.
Yet another case where you debate the intricacies of American culture and politics and insist on doing so outside the context of American culture and politics. The fact that you continue to do this suggests you perceive and address these topics as would a foreigner.
In order words you're being defensive. You gotta be in the "in" crowd yo, before you can criticize it maaaaaan.
Apparently the means to accumulate knowledge and information in which to come to an informed opinion with which to formulate an substantial argument just doesn't exist over on top of Bullshit Mountain.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: He's perfectly well within his rights to pass judgments on America and to offer advice and critiques. I daresay we could use all the advice we can get at the moment.
He can share his opinion but appealing to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights when discussing American domestic policy is going outside the context of the discussion. The United States isn't governed by the UDHR.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: He's perfectly well within his rights to pass judgments on America and to offer advice and critiques. I daresay we could use all the advice we can get at the moment.
He can share his opinion but appealing to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights when discussing American domestic policy is going outside the context of the discussion. The United States isn't governed by the UDHR.
quote: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
True its non binding, but the United States did ratify what is known as the "international bill of rights" so in terms of international law it is government to respect an external notion of what constitutes fundamental human rights and freedoms.
Also the notion of the usage of the wording "governed" is certainly disingenuous when the United States certainly signed it, participated in its drafting, is a party to various international treaties on human rights; that it used various blatant and fraudulent means and 'reservations' to avoid its explicit effect on domestic law just reveals hypocrisy not that the notion of an objective and universal notion of what constitutes fundamental human rights and freedoms isn't "applicable" to the United States.
Clearly there is a higher principle and ideal that American representatives, academics, activists, and politicians had at one point or another aspired to. Insisting that it has no place in a contemporary discussion just reveals your desperation to not have to consider that there is an ethical wrongness to using a poll tax to deny the franchise to those you and your ilk deem undeserving.
You're splitting hairs and trying to shift the argument.
/****/
Back on the right to own a gun is the right to have might makes right.
quote: Rohrer was “living in a place where [he] didn’t feel safe for the first time in life.” In this model, Rohrer’s safety and the safety of his family trumps the right to life of another human being. Any perceived threat to him or his family is met with a swift judgment on the offending party–he can kill the dog, he can kill the invader. Despite the fact that human beings are capable of speech and therefore can yell things like “get out of my house” or “**** you” in order to force a would-be burglar to leave, for Rohrer, none of that matters.
Seems remarkably apt, replace the name of the gameDev with "Americans". The right to own a gun is so that you have the right to kill anyone who violates your personal sovereignty.
[ October 31, 2013, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: Elison R. Salazar ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Guns finally did away with Might Makes Right, Blayne. You don't need might to fire a gun.
You may have heard the expression "God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal." And it applies to women, too.
You can be a tiny bird-like person and still defend yourself against the biggest meanest brute in the world.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Guns finally did away with Might Makes Right, Blayne.
I don't think this is true. I think they redefined "might." Certainly a lot of the gun nuts I know seem to believe that their gun ownership is inherently proof of their moral goodness and right to self-determination.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
But they aren't. And having lots of guns doesn't give you a significant advantage over someone with one gun.
I'm not speaking to their moral outlook. "Might Makes Right" in my experience refers to the idea that whoever is the biggest/strongest can take what they want from the weakest and smallest, and the weaker person can't do anything about it. Not so much as a true moral framework, just as a matter of practicality. And guns change that dynamic.
But, have you seen the phrase used a different way a lot?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:"Might Makes Right" in my experience refers to the idea that whoever is the biggest/strongest can take what they want from the weakest and smallest, and the weaker person can't do anything about it.
And, again, guns don't change that reality; they just redefine what it means to be "stronger." It becomes an arms race instead of a fistfight.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It seems strange to suggest having more guns gives no force advantage over the person who has only one. Further guns don't add as much advantage as the first one versus someone with none, but there's certainly a gain in that aspect with quantity.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
In an individual capacity? You've only got the two hands.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Its an Ammocracy--he who has the biggest ammo clip is the boss.
Gun quantity allows people to have a gun when and where they fear they'll need it. They have the hand gun for quick quarrels, the pocket gun for stealth missions, the defensive guns set around their fortress to defend against attack, etc, etc.
Mao said "Power comes from the barrel of a gun." So whoever is demanding that their gun allows them political power sounds like a Maoist to me.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
You'ld think with the "guns even the playing field" logic would work with just about anything empowering so lets look at some facts.
The rates of injuries during crimes, such as muggings in which the victim responded with self defense having received self defense training such as any form of martial art the rate of physical injury in the United States have been 100% for all such altercations.
If your getting mugged and taken by surprise, i.e the person mugging you didn't like some anime villain loudly announce his presence 100 yards in front of you in a deserted alley but instead like most muggings snuck up behind you and you by reflex attempt to pull out your weapon; the sort of injuries your going to receive will certainly be worse for it, and fatal.
A martial arts teacher once told a (female) student who was a friend of mine that if there's ever a time someone is mugging here and asked her to "drop her pants" and the mugger has a gun. "Drop your mother****ing pants." Don't even try to defend yourself it will just make it worse. This is obviously and logically true and the same if she had a gun because there's no way that's coming to bear in a useful fashion in any practical circumstance.
Guns do not eliminate might makes right, they as Tom rightly says, simply change the equation to an arms race where the consequences become worse for civilized society once violence breaks out.
The US is not a society where the playing field is actually "equal" in a meaningful sense between gun owners, sure while it seems to be it would be all kinds of attractive for girls to be armed with assault rifles the sad fact of the matter is they stubbornly refuse to equip themselves with such provocative attire, but with much more modest concealable handguns if at all. While the profile of a gun nut is a macho older white male will tend to have much more proficient armament for killing, such as the aforementioned assault rifles.
Seems to be unless you want the gubermint' to regulate firearms to such an extent that everyone is equally equipped with firearms and I don't know, drafted so that everyone is organized in some sort of organization dedicated to their training and physical fitness like some kind of military unit suited for part time soldiers; you would still have the moral reprehensible problem that you are not essentially saying it is okay to kill people who are perceived violate your personal sovereignty.
So yes, even if we did agree to a standard where everyone was decently equipped and loaded out like some kind of multiplayer call of duty xbox deathmatch it comes down to that that a-hole violatin' your space deserves to die because YOU have a gun, unless HE has a gun and then it comes down to probability.
That's just stupid and because by virtue of being an evil socialist foreignah' I'm not so isolated and buffered from "reality" I can see this and that's like Heisenberg and Capxjnhfihsldns throw a fit whenever I get my Canadian Metis Anglophone ass in your domestic political spats. Because the Emperor has no clothes.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: You'ld think with the "guns even the playing field" logic would work with just about anything empowering so lets look at some facts.
The rates of injuries during crimes, such as muggings in which the victim responded with self defense having received self defense training such as any form of martial art the rate of physical injury in the United States have been 100% for all such altercations.
Where's this number coming from? Your butt? Someone else's butt? How can they possibly have this data point? Sounds likely that the data gathering method is going to be seriously flawed (e.g. Gleaned from crime statistics?)
I don't really understand most of the rest of your post. You seem pretty upset that I think people have the right to defend themselves and their property using the threat of lethal force. Right? The blog you linked earlier said much the same thing. Pretty despicable stuff, advocating that people endanger themselves to protect someone already violating their rights, with zero assurance the rights violation will end once you give them a sternly worded letter.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The rates of injuries during crimes, such as muggings in which the victim responded with self defense having received self defense training such as any form of martial art the rate of physical injury in the United States have been 100% for all such altercations.
I want to say this is complete BS, but I'm honestly not sure because it's not worded in a way I am sure I am making sense of.
What does this mean? Reword it, please
quote:In an individual capacity? You've only got the two hands.
And multiple possible ranges and combat scenarios
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Guns finally did away with Might Makes Right, Blayne. You don't need might to fire a gun.
You may have heard the expression "God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal." And it applies to women, too.
You can be a tiny bird-like person and still defend yourself against the biggest meanest brute in the world.
In actuality, guns are not a complete physical equalizer. Often, they are very far from this. Physical ability is still a major advantage even when we're talking about gunfights.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:The rates of injuries during crimes, such as muggings in which the victim responded with self defense having received self defense training such as any form of martial art the rate of physical injury in the United States have been 100% for all such altercations.
I want to say this is complete BS, but I'm honestly not sure because it's not worded in a way I am sure I am making sense of.
What does this mean? Reword it, please
quote:In an individual capacity? You've only got the two hands.
And multiple possible ranges and combat scenarios
Turns out my bad, I double checked and I misremembered the quote. The rate of injury is 100% for those who take martial art lessons not those who defend themselves. The rest of the post will applies however.
quote: I don't really understand most of the rest of your post. You seem pretty upset that I think people have the right to defend themselves and their property using the threat of lethal force. Right? The blog you linked earlier said much the same thing. Pretty despicable stuff, advocating that people endanger themselves to protect someone already violating their rights, with zero assurance the rights violation will end once you give them a sternly worded letter.
You seem pretty upset at the fact that people can be upset at the fact that the lives of human beings is automatically forfeit in any ambiguous circumstance where someone claims self defense and 'reasonable' doubt. Your doing the Right Wing/OSC Concern troll thing of not responding to the argument and instead picking at what you consider to be the emotional subtext while dismissing the actual concerns and arguments raised.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Guns finally did away with Might Makes Right, Blayne. You don't need might to fire a gun.
You may have heard the expression "God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal." And it applies to women, too.
You can be a tiny bird-like person and still defend yourself against the biggest meanest brute in the world.
In actuality, guns are not a complete physical equalizer. Often, they are very far from this. Physical ability is still a major advantage even when we're talking about gunfights.
For example, lets take a Desert Eagle, a average white male with 'decent' upper body strength can potentially with 2 hands use this hand gun. The average woman even with decent upper body strength is likely to end up with the gun smacking her in the head.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
There are plenty of small caliber, low-recoil firearms that can comfortably used by small women. In most scenarios, they're also just as effective. You really don't need a giant hand cannon.
I mean, Sam has a fair point that they aren't actually a complete physical equalizer. But they do a much better job at it than anything else.
Also, I never directly replied to Tom... Tom, to some extent you're right, it becomes an "arms race," but that's the point. It's not a physical comparison. Weak people can even the playing field.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
But, again, that just changes the definition of "might." Might doesn't stop making Right; it just means that people with guns are now Mightier than those without.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Because for example, the people with only handguns are completely outclassed by the people with submachine guns, the people with SMG's outclassed by those with assault rifles; the people with assault rifles are outclassed by the first person to work with other people with other assault rifles, and now you got gangs of armed thugs with arms and those whom are insufficiently armed.
Again, instead of being a matter of justice, of rule of law, or the state monopoly of violence able to enforce justice; you have changed the social contract that your life has less meaning compared to someone more sufficiently armed than yourself.
It isn't an equal playing field of everyone having guns ergo everyone is leading safe productive lives, its a potential killing field of everyone capable of killing everyone else under any ambiguous circumstance.
And again, for those who justify this on the basis that an armed citizenry is needed to one day overthrow the federal government? Never going to happen; they could step in and remove all the guns at a moments notice and succeed absolutely. Because they rightly reserved for their exclusive use, weaponry and armament that the "people" cannot acquire.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Lol. Elison. My problem here hasn't been at all what you've been making it out to be, but seeing how you paraphrased what the county chairman had said, I shouldn't be surprised.
Here you sit touting your universal declaration of rights as if god himself handed them to you. And that's fine. Of course, "rights" have the same inherent reality as the value of money - no reality at all beyond what the people living in any given society assign them. That being said, of course it's important that people believe that money has value and everyone has rights.
So you have your idea of rights, and America has theirs. In fact, they have one you don't believe in. But they believe in it, and from a place outside their society you piss on them giving themselves MORE rights. You're like the European colonists who looked down on societies other then their own. It's arrogant. Have an opinion, sure. There's no need to act like a Muslim talking down to a Buddhist because they have a statue(idol) of Buddha. It's their society, not yours. And it's their choice. One that doesn't affect you in the slightest.
Couple more things. First, I'm not sure what statist utopian world you live in, but in the one the rest of us live in the police very, very rarely stop crimes in progress. They attempt to prevent crimes and to catch criminals after the crime, and they're not remotely close to being perfect at even that, not by a long shot. Rich people in good neighborhoods won't have police on hand to protect them during a crime, nevermind poor people in bad neighborhoods. So, yeah, I do want my sister or any other smaller, weaker person to have a means of potentially defending themselves. Because your disgusting moral code aside, there's nothing wrong with a person using lethal force to defend themselves and others. There's nothing wrong with might making right when the might is brought about solely to defend from some idiot's physical and/or violent aggression.
[ November 01, 2013, 03:34 AM: Message edited by: Heisenberg ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dan,
If the point is only 'this takes physical strength very much out of the equation', then there won't be (as much) argument. If though as you seem to suggest, and correct me if I'm wrong, your point is 'guns mitigate man's unjust violence to man' or something, then I'm going to disagree strenuously. In a world with criminals and tyrants if you've got a gun and they don't, sure, absolutely, Sam Colt is right. If everyone has a gun, though, well he's much less right.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Yeah, I wish I lived in one of those countries where guns are outlawed and so all of the gangs and criminal syndicates have to make do with just knives and baseball bats. LOL.
And, you know, before anyone labels me a gun nut, I'm fully in favor of government subsidized, mandatory gun training for anyone wishing to own a firearm. I'm also in favor of every legal weapon being registered with the state government to a specific owner.
And in reply to thw insinuations of hypocrisy being thrown about, I get plenty pissed off when the US goes sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong. For every Vietnam and Iraq that have occured, there have been plenty of people from within fighting against it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:For example, lets take a Desert Eagle, a average white male with 'decent' upper body strength can potentially with 2 hands use this hand gun. The average woman even with decent upper body strength is likely to end up with the gun smacking her in the head.
I don't know how willowy and frail you think the average woman is, but either the average male or the average female with average upper body strength can be trained to use that handgun just fine, for whatever the value of using that silly gun is.
And infinitely better pistols are easier to manage, so it's not like women are in some class of people unable to handle firearms due to being fragile hollow-boned fairies or whatever
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There's nothing wrong with might making right when the might is brought about solely to defend...
This would be a case of "Defense makes Right." Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I follow the Tao of the 3rd Way, which means when given a choice between two ways to go--I find a third.
If anyone is willing to listen to a moderate voice in this discussion, enjoy this post. If not--just skip it.
Do guns make a good defense? No. If attacked by bad guys guns neither deflect bullets nor act as some kind of heroic shield. They are offensive items only.
Does that make carrying a gun a useless tactic in the world? No. Guns do have a deterrent effect in the world (have had a friend prove this in an attempted car jacking). They can also be used to remove the bad guys. This requires the gun holder to be willing to shoot quickly, accurately, and effectively under pressure. This is 99% impossible with out training and practice.
Is this a good idea? That depends. Just having a gun can be a deterrent easily, just show it to the bad guys. They will either leave for easier prey or become more violent. You have gone from being a sheep to be sheared to a possible danger to be removed. If you are quick, trained, and lucky you can remove the bad guys first. If you are not all three of these things you are more likely to be shot.
If you are wrong about the intentions of the assumed bad guys, you could also be a murderer.
If your bullet hits a bystander you could be held responsible for their injuries or deaths at a greater cost than what a mugger was trying to take from your pockets.
If you are slow and the bad guys get you first, you have just armed them.
If you wound them, they will become angry and take that anger out on you.
Even the sense of security a firearm on your person gives you may encourage dangerous behavior that will result in pain for the gun owner. They have a gun so they can walk down that dark alley, or insult that big tattoo'd biker, or any number of behaviors that they think will not have bad consequences because they are armed.
There are many, many ways for an armed victim to come out worse in a confrontation.
These Worse results can be at least partially mitigated by training, practice, and common sense. Laws to require such training and practice are attacked by the NRA which upsets the moderates in the middle.
Does Might make Right? No.
Do firearms democratize people? No. They democratize violence. They capital--ize might. Those who can afford the best guns have the most might.
Basically, the bully is no longer the most muscled individual who is willing to hurt and kill others. The bully is now the most well armed individual who is willing to hurt and kill others.
A gun gives you the might over or equal to those who would hurt or steal from you. Without the capacity to inflict that hurt, and likely that death, on others, to use that might to its fullest, it does not do you any good.
I don't think I could shoot someone. I choose not to carry a gun. Does that mean that those who do carry a gun, who do think that they can shoot someone are somehow less moral than me? No.
Does it make me weaker and less moral than them? No. Owning a gun hardly ever stops someone from being a victim if they are not willing to hurt and kill the person doing the victimizing.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Heisenberg: Lol. Elison. My problem here hasn't been at all what you've been making it out to be, but seeing how you paraphrased what the county chairman had said, I shouldn't be surprised.
No, not reading your post until your correct yourself here; either you are willfully lying or are mistaken.
I *did not* paraphrase that county GOP chairperson, I directly quoted him from the interview in question, you are free to investigate and verify it yourself.
He word for word said "This law is going to kick democrats in the butt." This is 100% true.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: That's just stupid and because by virtue of being an evil socialist foreignah' I'm not so isolated and buffered from "reality" I can see this and that's like Heisenberg and Capxjnhfihsldns throw a fit whenever I get my Canadian Metis Anglophone ass in your domestic political spats. Because the Emperor has no clothes.
Calm down. The only person throwing a fit is you, Blayne. If you're ready to be reasonable, let's get back to this:
quote:True its non binding, but the United States did ratify what is known as the "international bill of rights" so in terms of international law it is government to respect an external notion of what constitutes fundamental human rights and freedoms.
Also the notion of the usage of the wording "governed" is certainly disingenuous when the United States certainly signed it, participated in its drafting, is a party to various international treaties on human rights; that it used various blatant and fraudulent means and 'reservations' to avoid its explicit effect on domestic law just reveals hypocrisy not that the notion of an objective and universal notion of what constitutes fundamental human rights and freedoms isn't "applicable" to the United States.
Clearly there is a higher principle and ideal that American representatives, academics, activists, and politicians had at one point or another aspired to. Insisting that it has no place in a contemporary discussion just reveals your desperation to not have to consider that there is an ethical wrongness to using a poll tax to deny the franchise to those you and your ilk deem undeserving.
You're splitting hairs and trying to shift the argument.
Shift the argument from where to what? The UDHR's "explicit effect on domestic law" is exactly what I was referring to. It has no effect on American law. You'd be hard pressed to point to any influence it has on American law that couldn't be more aptly attributed to the US Constitution, legal precedent, and/or the general moral and ethical principles of the populace.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Considering that so few Americans actually seem to grasp any of the tenets by which Community or Society are induced or maintained, it seems completely asinine to purport that any degree of validity resides within the concept of American Exceptionalism.
What would make Americans exceptional, would be a holistic shift from monetary based interpersonal relations to a national philosophy of an empathy based society.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"Oh, so we are cherry picking quotes by unknown conservatives now to try and prove that the entire GOP establishment is out to disenfranchise minority voters through voter ID laws huh?"
Don't need to. Here's 5 minutes of Googling.
"Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it’s done. First pro-life legislation – abortion facility regulations – in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done." -- PA House Majority Leader Mike Turzai
"It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’" -- Former FL GOP Chairman Jim Greer
"Think about this, we cut Obama by 5 percent, which was big. ... He beat [2008 GOP presidential candidate John] McCain by 10 percent, he only beat [2012 GOP presidential candidate Mitt] Romney by 5 percent. I think that probably photo ID helped a bit in that." -- PA GOP Chairman Rob Gleason
"A lot of us are campaign officials — or campaign professionals — and we want to do everything we can to help our side. Sometimes we think that’s voter ID, sometimes we think that’s longer lines — whatever it may be." -- GOP consultant Scott Trantor
"The reduction in the number of days allowed for early voting is particularly important because early voting plays a major role in Obama’s ground game." -- Phylls Schafly.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Voter ID laws are not designed to be discriminatory against African Americans. They are designed to be discriminatory against people who traditionally vote Democrat.
Here in Florida Gov. Rick Scott has fought tirelessly to limit voting times, shut down precincts and registration offices (although, curiously, not any in GOP-led areas), impose ridiculously strict 3rd-party registration regulations that were ultimately knocked down by the courts, purge the voting rolls with a list that was found to be faulty and loaded with thousands of legal voters, and all while lines of voters stretched around blocks until hours after the polls closed.
Millions of people are being disenfranchised to combat a problem that, statistically speaking, doesn't exist.
Posted by exhiled (Member # 13085) on :
If I were a woman, I would be offended by politicians reducing me to issues of the vagina, as if the condom waiving politician is most attractive. If I were a minority, I would be offended by politicians condescension about my lack of ability to get a voter ID, compared to the more able white person. I can make my neighbor's dog like me better by waiving a piece of bacon.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Ignorance is bliss I see.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
mal, it seems to me that -- as someone who is neither a minority nor a woman -- you are perhaps not well-equipped to identify what you would do or how you would react were you a minority or a woman.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm curious: how does a life so filled with self-improvement and travel and knowledge not allow, after years, high-school level writing skills? Strange.
Anyway, mal doesn't need to be a minority women-surely he's lived and worked near at least one of each. I think he claimed to be married to one who was both...or at least that's the claim. I'm not sure how it can be credited when her actual race is an utter, impervious mystery.
Posted by exhiled (Member # 13085) on :
Actually, I am a minority I just don't look like one. (I guess that makes me privileged) What is on the outside is all that matters to people that see color first. I'm a member of the Ojibwe nation, but the German part of me produced blue eyes. My father is accustomed to people like you assuming he's a Mexican. Perhaps you shouldn't stereotype people base upon their opinions or external appearance.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mal: I have asked you to stop posting. You have refused to comply, and simply keep trying to circumvent the ban. I'm not going to ask again. Stop posting here, and respect the decisions I and the forum owner have made in regards to your account.
Posted by exhiled (Member # 13085) on :
The forum owner can cancel my account at any time and I will not return. My father introduced me to this forum and he was banned as well. He was deployed to Afg and his conservative black first seargeant was also posting. At the time, all three of us were accused of being the same person, ultimately all banned. I have no doubt that after my account is cancelled, you will accuse other like-minded people of being me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Before, mal didn't deny he was white but mentioned that his father was a member of the ojibwe nation
he's upgraded himself to not white and himself a member of the ojibwe nation.
this is almost as good as that time that he tried to explain his supposed 100k+ tax bracket to us in a way which revealed he didn't even understand how that tax bracket worked, so he switched to saying that it was a former tax bracket
or how he claims he's not a racist, because his wife is "exotic" and he doesn't even know her racphwhahahaha oh wait that's now
is there something wrong with me that I conspicuously unintentionally memorize gobs of details about crappy posters, why am i a repository of Mal's Statements of Questionable Honesty™ as opposed to having used this brain space to learn, say, a gaussian integer table or Python or something, what am i doing with my life
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by exhiled: The forum owner can cancel my account at any time and I will not return.
And you promise you won't just create a new account, like you did the last three times, and prance around like a big snotty baby saying you won't just be a grownup and leave.
like i said, promise it. swear it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:is there something wrong with me
Well, yes, but you knew that. Posted by exhiled (Member # 13085) on :
The nation upgraded me since that time. I guess they lowered their standards of white blood percentage or face extinction. What I made as a dod contractor before being recalled to active duty for the last two years was good money but highly taxed. I broke 100k one year, half spent in combat zones with doubled salary while overseas. I'm not "white". That's an offensive description....I'm not the shade of note book paper. I'm more olive.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So, wait, the person the forum owner installed as moderator-that's not sufficient authority for you.
But people are supposed to believe you WOULD respect the authority if the owner, even though not the duly chosen representative? Right. See, mal, lies need to be less obvious.
Posted by exhiled (Member # 13085) on :
quote: this will be my last post, until I hear from you. You're keeping it clean, it's your job. I realize I violated by posting this...I assure...nothing will follow...
quote:This is my last post. I'm posting against the rules to prove that someone else, like me, isn't me.
quote:Goodbye....I'm leaving already.
that thread had like four or five of your 'last posts'
Posted by Lysistrata (Member # 13084) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: never forget
quote: this will be my last post, until I hear from you. You're keeping it clean, it's your job. I realize I violated by posting this...I assure...nothing will follow...
quote:This is my last post. I'm posting against the rules to prove that someone else, like me, isn't me.
quote:Goodbye....I'm leaving already.
that thread had like four or five of your 'last posts'
Joke's on you; Cher posts on Hatrack.
Posted by exhiled (Member # 13085) on :
A moderator is like the referee on an NFL field, his job is to call the plays on the field and exhiled has not committed a foul. I'm throwing the red flag and leaving it up to the booth. If Obama can order ICE not to enforce immigration law, I have hope about access to a simple website.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
You would not be banned from the forum if the owner had not consented to it first. That's how every single ban in the past has been conducted.
I'm not arguing this with you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You are seriously not this stupid, mal. Not even you are this stupid. That's how stupid this seems.
quote:Originally posted by exhiled: A moderator is like the referee on an NFL field, his job is to call the plays on the field and exhiled has not committed a foul.
Hey, let me ask you a REALLY SIMPLE question. Is the poster 'exhiled' also the person who posted under the name 'malanthrop'
Posted by Lysistrata (Member # 13084) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: You are seriously not this stupid, mal. Not even you are this stupid. That's how stupid this seems.
quote:Originally posted by exhiled: A moderator is like the referee on an NFL field, his job is to call the plays on the field and exhiled has not committed a foul.
Hey, let me ask you a REALLY SIMPLE question. Is the poster 'exhiled' also the person who posted under the name 'malanthrop'
If Ben Roethlisberger kicked a guy on the opposing team in the bum and then insisted he was actually Tom Brady, Brady doesn't get the penalty. Whatever you call him, it's still Roethlisberger who did it and it's still Roethlisberger who gets the penalty.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i'm not roethlisberger, my jersey has 'roethlishotdog' scribbled on it. and roethlishotdog ain't committed no fouls, i'm eligible for booth review. something something obama racism
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i'm hungry now. i want a roethlisburger.
and a fifth of whiskey for when i have to stumble back on the field as roethlisphillycheesesteak
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: "Oh, so we are cherry picking quotes by unknown conservatives now to try and prove that the entire GOP establishment is out to disenfranchise minority voters through voter ID laws huh?"
Don't need to. Here's 5 minutes of Googling.
"Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it’s done. First pro-life legislation – abortion facility regulations – in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done." -- PA House Majority Leader Mike Turzai
"It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’" -- Former FL GOP Chairman Jim Greer
"Think about this, we cut Obama by 5 percent, which was big. ... He beat [2008 GOP presidential candidate John] McCain by 10 percent, he only beat [2012 GOP presidential candidate Mitt] Romney by 5 percent. I think that probably photo ID helped a bit in that." -- PA GOP Chairman Rob Gleason
"A lot of us are campaign officials — or campaign professionals — and we want to do everything we can to help our side. Sometimes we think that’s voter ID, sometimes we think that’s longer lines — whatever it may be." -- GOP consultant Scott Trantor
"The reduction in the number of days allowed for early voting is particularly important because early voting plays a major role in Obama’s ground game." -- Phylls Schafly.
How many of those quotes require a desire to disenfranchise voters? How many are also consistent with their frequently stated desire to reign in what they imagine to be rampant, widespread voter fraud by Democratic agents?
Whether widespread voter fraud exists or not is relevant to whether the belief it exists is true, or false.
But if someone is motivated to do something because they believe something false, it's very disingenuous to accuse them of doing it because they have a secret evil motive. They've told you their motive. You think they're wrong. What's the goal of attributing other motives to them? What purpose does that serve? Why not just stick to arguing that their reason is wrong?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Do you seriously believe that these high-level, experienced political players actually believe there is 'widespread voter fraud'? On what basis would they possibly believe this, and *why on Earth* do they get this much benefit of the doubt when you consider their major, vested interest for political gain versus abstract integrity?
Having read you posts for awhile, Dan, I know you don't trust politicians that much so what, just because they slap up a thin coat of bullshit-beige paint suddenly anyone anywhere is supposed to just overlook the part where 'hey, doing this helps mitigate the major ongoing and future problems we face in terms of demographics in almost any federal election aside from the House' and instead take them at face value when they say 'we're doing this not for all those self-interest reasons, but to protect the integrity of elections!'...which isn't actually in danger!
It's a weird, troubling day when Dan_Frank's stance is 'we know what their motives are, because they've told us! Quit disingenuously pointing out their massive conflict of interest and what it says about likely actual motives!'
That 'disingenuously' bit is, frankly, kind of obnoxious. I know you don't trust either political machine enough to actually believe their motives are what they say they are, on this level-or at least you wouldn't ordinarily, on other issues. It would be all about how human institutions have an unavoidable element of corruption, and that we can't take at face value what an institution says about itself in cases of conflict of interest. I don't understand this insistence to just accept the story that is least critical and most praiseworthy for the motives of these politicians, Dan.
But for the sake of argument let's pretend there wasn't this obvious conflict, these huge well known political motives. If they actually believe what they claim to for the reasons they state...they still are trying to make voting harder for American citizens whose franchise is least protected, to combat a problem that doesn't exist. How much *better* is that, really?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:How many of those quotes require a desire to disenfranchise voters? How many are also consistent with their frequently stated desire to reign in what they imagine to be rampant, widespread voter fraud by Democratic agents?
Four and one, respectively.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Its funny how voter suppression is okay so long as its viewed as a part of the 'game' to win because 'both sides do it' (Democratic agents) and not something that should be treated as the universal right it should be with every effort made to make voter as convenient as possible and the voter well informed.
So setting up as few voting booths as possible so there's super long lines (Seriously where the **** is the legitimate interest in combating voter fraud in having longer lines?) is okay because somewhere out there a black clergyman is encouraging his flock to register to vote and vote early...?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: They've told you their motive. You think they're wrong. What's the goal of attributing other motives to them? What purpose does that serve? Why not just stick to arguing that their reason is wrong?
because just because someone tells you what their motive is does not mean that you have a requirement to afford them some sort of artificial credulity and not treat a situation in which they are almost certainly lying about their true motives ... as a situation in which they are almost certainly lying about their true motives.
It is also possible to do both the 'attributing other motives' (a.k.a. pointing out their most likely true motives, with evidence) AND the arguing about their stated reasoning being wrong. One can (correctly) point out that they are most likely totally lying about their true motive, and that even if they weren't, their stated motive is ridiculous for multiple reasons.
Which is, essentially, what's been going on.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
semi-related: a gem that came out from colorado's "north colorado" secession talk:
quote:Republicans next year are planning to propose making state Senate seats be apportioned by land mass instead of population
nice proposal guys
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Dan, not one of those quotes referenced voter fraud directly. Every one of them expressed a desire to beat their opponents.
I would consider accepting voter ID supporters' stated wish to have fair elections if and only if the laws included an aggressive push to get photo ID cards to every American promptly, for free, from multiple, easily accessible locations and without costs for collecting supporting evidence. Instead voter ID laws come with needlessly restrictive conditions with no wiggle room and limited availability which require considerable time and effort and money to surpass. What they actually do is set up flaming hoops through which to jump and then step back as the voters struggle through, or give up.
And the claims of voter fraud never stand up. Ever. Time after time claims of fraud, once investigated, reveal statistically negligible cases. And most of the tiny number of actual cases of voter fraud would not be stopped by a photo ID.
If you want to place restrictions on my Constitutionally-guaranteed right to vote, you'd damn well better be able to prove, conclusively, they are necessary. The onus is completely on the side wanting to make voting tougher. I don't actually care if they do truly believe voter fraud is a real threat, they have to prove it exists before passing the laws against it. And everything that's come out so far reveals that what the voter ID people really want is to keep the other side from voting.
Show me where I'm wrong. Give me links to all the documented cases of voter fraud that a photo ID would have caught, and prove to me that stopping that fictional flow is worth preventing hundreds of thousands, millions of Americans from casting their legal votes.
Adding: I'm a laid-back, light-hearted guy, and I often make jokes about current events and the manipulations of politicians, so let me be clear. I consider the efforts to prevent Americans from voting to be attacks on democracy itself and as fundamentally un-American as anything can be.
[ November 11, 2013, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Also the GOP guy who specifically said word for word "This law will kick democrats in the buts, if the lazy blacks and college students don't vote, so be it."
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Dan, not one of those quotes referenced voter fraud directly. Every one of them expressed a desire to beat their opponents.
I would consider accepting voter ID supporters' stated wish to have fair elections if and only if the laws included an aggressive push to get photo ID cards to every American promptly, for free, from multiple, easily accessible locations and without costs for collecting supporting evidence. Instead voter ID laws come with needlessly restrictive conditions with no wiggle room and limited availability which require considerable time and effort and money to surpass. What they actually do is set up flaming hoops through which to jump and then step back as the voters struggle through, or give up.
And the claims of voter fraud never stand up. Ever. Time after time claims of fraud, once investigated, reveal statistically negligible cases. And most of the tiny number of actual cases of voter fraud would not be stopped by a photo ID.
If you want to place restrictions on my Constitutionally-guaranteed right to vote, you'd damn well better be able to prove, conclusively, they are necessary. The onus is completely on the side wanting to make voting tougher. I don't actually care if they do truly believe voter fraud is a real threat, they have to prove it exists before passing the laws against it. And everything that's come out so far reveals that what the voter ID people really want is to keep the other side from voting.
Show me where I'm wrong. Give me links to all the documented cases of voter fraud that a photo ID would have caught, and prove to me that stopping that fictional flow is worth preventing hundreds of thousands, millions of Americans from casting their legal votes.
Adding: I'm a laid-back, light-hearted guy, and I often make jokes about current events and the manipulations of politicians, so let me be clear. I consider the efforts to prevent Americans from voting to be attacks on democracy itself and as fundamentally un-American as anything can be.
Passports should also be free. After all, we have the freedom to travel where we wish, correct? Do you know how difficult it is to get back into the US if you don't have a passport or other Government issued photo ID?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
ughhh my god tell me about it
passport acquisition has been such crap
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Geraine: You don't have the freedom to travel where you wish. There's private property, there's other nation's borders, and they certainly don't have to let you in.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
While claiming certain federal documents is in no way cheap if you're considered to have the means to pay for it (~$500 to renew a green card, ~600 just to claim citizenship papers - not even BECOME a citizen, but just getting the government to acknowledge you are one, and I think around $100-$150 to get a US passport from within the US) I think it's only fair to point out that those fees can and will be waived if the appropriate form is filled out and sent along with the application forms. That is, provided you are considered at or around the poverty level - likely some percentage above it, too.
I found this out recently because I've finished my move to the UK and am currently going through claiming my dual US citizenship via my father's status so I can come and go as I please.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
quote: admitted and proud of the fact that Voter ID Laws are meant to stop Democrats from voting, especially if it stops the "lazy blacks".
quote: Also the GOP guy who specifically said word for word "This law will kick democrats in the buts, if the lazy blacks and college students don't vote, so be it."
Hmm. Those two quotes don't look at all alike. It's almost as if someone were performing a hack paraphrasing job in order to make it look like someone was saying something that he never said. I mean, the second quote provides a "word for word" recap and yet there's nothing in there about especially targeting blacks, just that the law is going to hurt Democrats because it may cause college students and "lazy blacks" (again, undeniably racist wording there) to choose not to vote; the implication being that college students and blacks vote Democrat.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
We've been over this and you still haven't answered my original question. You claimed I "paraphrased" but when I loaded up the video and quoted word for word what happened you never acknowledged it. I'ld suggest you go watch the video and stop disingenuously splitting hairs.
The argument, is that the GOP is trying to suppress democratic voter turnout through misinformation, delaying tactics, bureaucratic obstruction, longer lines, and so on in order to deny the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of people. This is an obvious pattern with compelling evidence, such as for example, quotations from GOP spokespersons saying so, from the fact that voter fraud is non existent, historical documentation of the shift towards dogwhistle politics and logical inconsistencies in the arguments for restrictive voter id legislation.
That the GOP chairperson was so obviously racist as to not even seeming to realize just how racist he was being adds compelling evidence towards the description of motive.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Geraine, I'm not sure if that's meant to be a rebuttal of sorts or simply a remark on government-issue ID in the US? I'm leaning towards the latter, but I'm not sure so I thought I'd ask.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
No, see, I never acknowledged you eventually quoting the video word for word because it was never relevant. My problem originally, besides you sneering at American civil rights and condescendingly dismissing another poster's argument as nonsensical gibberish, was you deliberately paraphrasing the man's words in a way that made him out to be saying something that he did not. We didn't have it out - you did that, I called you out on it, you denied it and starting making demands and I then declined to play the Blayne Game and let it drop. But now here we are, and your own quotes side by side tell the story. When you paraphrased him, you added in the word "especially." As if he had admitted that he was targetting blacks specifically for being black, instead of tar getting democrats, assuming that blacks made up a large portion of that electorate, (along with, you know, college students; not all of whom are black.) You tried to change it from a skeezy racist politician out to help his party by any means necessary, and harming blacks along with others along the way, to a racist politician whose main motivation is to deny black people the vote. And you tried to pin that on him by falsely claiming he said something that he did not say. Whether you and others wish to guess at his "real" motivations is irrelevant. He said what he said, which was not what you said he said. You were being dishonest in order to score a cheap political point, and that's why I brought it up in the first place.
Oh, and I have in fact seen the video. I saw it before you even mentioned it, which is to why I knew who you were talking about and that you were bs'ing.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
The "Elison Game", I see respect isn't your particular ball. Apparently I'm "sneering" at the fact that there is an universalist interpretation was to what constitutes human rights and that maybe suggesting the "right to vote" be treated as a "right" and not something that can be made arbitrarily more difficult without compelling reason (which funnily enough, Republicans would fight tooth and nail when equally applied to gunrights... Yet quick to jettison when its African Americans armed... See Reagan's assault weapons ban to suppress the Black Panthers...).
It is true that he said word for word ""This law is going to kick democrats in the butt."" this much I called you out on since this is what I originally wrote in context on the discussion of the deliberate GOP conspiracy to suppress democratic turnout. That Republicans are racist regressive xenophobic Ur-Fascists speedily increasing in irrelevance is just icing on the proverbial cake, that said Spokesmen so gleefully decided to reinforce.
Again, this seems to be a desperate effort at misdirection away from the crux of the matter, that where the GOP can't win fairly they cheat. You attempt at concern trolling is amusing yet irrelevant.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
do you understand the actual definition of 'concern trolling?'
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Nah, it's not concern trolling. I called you out on it for the same reason I called out your dismissal of Geraine; the tactics used in both cases, if widely used by posters, would make the forum a much worse place. I called the tactics out for genuine reasons. GOP guy never said "especially blacks." To anyone who had actually heard him speak, what you said was dishonest and transparent.
When I said you were sneering at American civil rights, I was referring to the right to bear arms. You know, that civil right that they have that you enjoy sneering at?
As to the assault weapons ban, never mind that it had strong Democratic support, and that touching the 2nd wasn't a third rail for Republicans back then that it is now. Or that the failed assassination had given strong political and public support to the idea of additional firearm controls, like Sandy Hook did recently. Nope! Reagan did it to rein in the Panthers.
Good stuff, there. Quality input.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: do you understand the actual definition of 'concern trolling?'
Yes.
Anyways, Heisenburg, you can be as angry and claim whatever motive or intent you think is there all all day, but in the end of the day it comes down "Nuh huh" "Nuh huh uh" when you really refuse to look into the context of a post.
I was just pointing out he was racist, which should be worrying given his position within the GOP and is reflective of the attitudes of the rest of the GOP. If he's racist AND supports voter suppression of the opposing political party, AND he has the implicit OKAY of his party, this furthers evidence to the fact that this is a deliberate and systemic effort by the GOP, and becomes likely that race is almost certainly a motivating factor for some.
If this nuance is lost on you then I don't think you'ld be able to accept anything; the fact is *I* did in fact originally quote him perfectly accurately word for word a page or two ago, you "accused" me of parathrasing, refused to deign in the 'game' of being wrong and still won't acknowledge that. I don't much care about whatever I said "this" page, yes I "paraphrased" this page, your still being dishonest from what was said before; you should know that word, it seems to be your favorite.
But no, I'm saying mean things about a Southern GOP racist, can't have that and a discussion about systemic voter suppression at the same time can we?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If you're unhappy with Heisenberg's interpretation of your remarks, perhaps work on making it less very very easy to seize on an unpleasant interpretation? The inclusion of the 'especially', the abrupt and bizarre shift to 'don't care about civil rights because they don't adhere to 'universal' civil rights'-which arent, really, not by a very long shot which you certainly know.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
What?
Your wrong paraphrasing was on the first page. The dishonest one. That you finally got around to quoting him correctly on this page is great and all, and made pointing out the original added word/context much easier, but why would I go out of my way to congratulate you for finally using accurate accounts of what people say in order to make your points? Should I also come to your home and give you a cookie for flushing the toilet immediately after dropping a turd as opposed to letting it sit and ripen in the bowl overnight?
Oh yes, look at me defending the mean old racist. As we all know, if someone is a racist or something else unlikeable, then it's fair game to put words in their mouth in order to make their already shaky position look even worse. Cause screw 'em, they're wrong and there's an argument to be won.
Shame on ME.
What's funny here is that I largely share your position regarding voter fraud laws. You seem to be mistaking my distaste for your tactics with supporting far right ideals and racism wholeheartedly. But, no; what I really am is a Romney sighing in distaste as the Birther on "my" side yells about Obama being Muslim and a Kenyan.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: do you understand the actual definition of 'concern trolling?'
Yes.
So why make a completely wrong accusation of concern trolling, at something which is not concern trolling?
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: do you understand the actual definition of 'concern trolling?'
Yes.
So why make a completely wrong accusation of concern trolling, at something which is not concern trolling?
Because he said something that came across as concern trolling?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You would probably be back to discussing just what you claim the real issue is, Elison, if you had simply copped to what you provably had done-that is, misquote and distort.
Hell, you likely wouldn't even have had to confess to any sort of intent, simply said, "Oh yeah, my bad. Didn't mean it like that." It would've been a little cheap, but even that would've been better than this digging in and attacking instead of a simple admission.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You would probably be back to discussing just what you claim the real issue is, Elison, if you had simply copped to what you provably had done-that is, misquote and distort.
Hell, you likely wouldn't even have had to confess to any sort of intent, simply said, "Oh yeah, my bad. Didn't mean it like that." It would've been a little cheap, but even that would've been better than this digging in and attacking instead of a simple admission.
Well its because on page 1 I did in fact quote accurately word for word, I even made sure to rewatch the video to insure this, he had originally claimed that was being paraphrased but latched on again onto a separate phrase rather than admit he was mistaken the first time. So to me it evens out.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:We had a GOP spokesperson actually say on air that the point of Voter ID law, admitted and proud of the fact that Voter ID Laws are meant to stop Democrats from voting, especially if it stops the "lazy blacks".
This is not what the guy said. It was in fact an unnecessary distortion of something that was already plenty inflammatory and offensive on the chairman's part. Is your reasoning ghat this doesn't matter simply that Heisenberg also do jt, somewhere?
On another note, rereading this thread...it's pretty freaking galling an obnoxious to hear you go on about such high-minded concerns with regard to what it means for a country that fails to measure up to the Universal Declaration, or hampers the ability kf some of its citizens to vote. Because you and I and other kong-timers know when you care a LOT less about any of that. Or rather, for who.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:We had a GOP spokesperson actually say on air that the point of Voter ID law, admitted and proud of the fact that Voter ID Laws are meant to stop Democrats from voting, especially if it stops the "lazy blacks".
This is not what the guy said. It was in fact an unnecessary distortion of something that was already plenty inflammatory and offensive on the chairman's part. Is your reasoning ghat this doesn't matter simply that Heisenberg also do jt, somewhere?
Okay right, I was mistaken here, what I said that was right word for word was on page two:
"He word for word said "This law is going to kick democrats in the butt." This is 100% true."
I think I had mentally put a pause between the two statements on the first page, to me he seemed like he was explicitly signalling out blacks and college students, because otherwise why mention them in particular? That's my mistake, sorry.
quote: On another note, rereading this thread...it's pretty freaking galling an obnoxious to hear you go on about such high-minded concerns with regard to what it means for a country that fails to measure up to the Universal Declaration, or hampers the ability kf some of its citizens to vote. Because you and I and other kong-timers know when you care a LOT less about any of that. Or rather, for who.
This is by design (to be galling), as Conservatives seems to possess the cognitive dissonance (see Ur Fascism) where they believe the United Nations and anything else 'internationalist' to be simultaneously incompetent and unable to accomplish anything (ergo why the United States should be able to do whatever unilaterally), and that the United Nations is spearheading a conspiracy with liberals, Democrats and Socialists to take over the United States.
It helps to provoke their "real" feelings on an issue, since not all Conservatives are of the Ron Paul mold of where they say exactly what they mean.
I don't think I've said anything about how the US or any country should "live up to it", I think that's a woeful misunderstanding of my argument. As for whether "I care a lot less, etc" we both know that's irrelevant as attempting to poison the tree.
[ November 14, 2013, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Elison R. Salazar ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think I had mentally put a pause between the two statements on the first page, to me he seemed like he was explicitly signalling out blacks and college students, because otherwise why mention them in particular? That's my mistake, sorry.
Fair enough. I think you might've averted much criticism, though, had you not insisted (as you appeared to be doing) that everyone reading your words read them without asking in exactly the way you sounded them out in your mind, with the least objectionable interpretation.
quote:This is by design (to be galling), as Conservatives seems to possess the cognitive dissonance (see Ur Fascism) where they believe the United Nations and anything else 'internationalist' to be simultaneously incompetent and unable to accomplish anything (ergo why the United States should be able to do whatever unilaterally), and that the United Nations is spearheading a conspiracy with liberals, Democrats and Socialists to take over the United States.
Just about every bit you mentioned in here is an enormous issue with indirect at best relevance to the actual topic being discussed. You can't object when you do that, when you cast such a huge only barely relevant net and then criticize people with it, that folks are baffled and annoyed.
quote:It helps to provoke their "real" feelings on an issue, since not all Conservatives are of the Ron Paul mold of where they say exactly what they mean.
So your tactic here is to be imprecise, sweeping, and not quite saying what you mean...in order to expose the real feelings of others. Can you understand how some people might perceive that and be amused and irritated?
quote:I don't think I've said anything about how the US or any country should "live up to it", I think that's a woeful misunderstanding of my argument. As for whether "I care a lot less, etc" we both know that's irrelevant as attempting to poison the tree.
You regularly imply quite a lot, and since you just admitted to a willingness to not quite say what you mean to prove a broader point I feel comfortable in treating you as though you'd been more forthcoming.
As for poisoning the tree...Elison. If you're going to mount your ivory tower and cast aspersions, you can simply expect to have it pointed out that you might not belong up there in the first place. I'll note that it's taken a lot of bewildering, irrelevant, and rather bitter criticism from you before I even mentioned what was on my mind quite early-and I expect on the minds of others. If I were attempting to poison the tree full of your confusing fruit I would've done so sooner. This is me trying to point out that if you want to post as though you were a moral authority, it helps to actually be a moral authority.
That last sentence applies to you just as much as it does to the US.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
I think the problem that some(most) Americans have with the United Nations is the idea, when it comes up, that the United States is in some way answerable to or under the influence of the United Nations, or that it should be. They don't want another nation, or group of nations, telling them what they should or should not be doing.
Now, does that make them hypocrites? Of course it does. Does that make them wrong? Not in the slightest.
What authority does the United Nations have to tell a sovereign nation that they can't require proof of identification at voting polls? Why should Americans care if the UN or any single country dislikes the fact that a civil right of Americans is the right to bear arms?
I don't like the idea that the UN should be able to tell the United States what to do or how to act any more then I like American adventures in interventionism abroad, both for the same reasons. Nations should be free to live and do as they please, and there are very few things where I'd support any kind of foreign intervention in a sovereign state's affairs, by any nation or group of nations. It has to be more extreme then voter ID laws and being a nation of gun-owners. To take an example, given the state of women's rights there, and the terrorism that it supports, I'd support the US punishing Saudi Arabia economically to the fullest extent possible, and doing it's best to encourage other nations to do the same. When it comes to military intervention I'm okay pretty much only when it involves genocide or, in very specific circumstances, the use of NBC weapons.
Basically if the UN wants to take the role of a nagging mother in law, that's fine. It's the idea of them having actual authority or power that sticks up American's craw. And, I think, for good reason. After all, the UN is the kind of place that puts terrorist supporting dictatorships on the Human Rights Council.
There's also the little fact that the United States has a permanent veto on the Security Council, so really there's nothing that the UN can even attempt to do that can happen without an American okay on it.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
One day there not only WILL be, but HAS to be a One World State, to which the United States, while influential, is in fact answerable to it.
Not one of the absolute statements you just made is necessarily true, and for all any of us know a one-world government is a *faster* route to extinction.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Geraine: You don't have the freedom to travel where you wish. There's private property, there's other nation's borders, and they certainly don't have to let you in.
Yet if you are a US citizen do you not have the right to enter the USA when you wish?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ahh, so therefore it's legitimate to enact Voter ID laws to combat a problem which doesn't exist...that also has a convenient side-effect of hindering the efforts of your opposition's base from voting?
Interesting.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Geraine: You don't have the freedom to travel where you wish. There's private property, there's other nation's borders, and they certainly don't have to let you in.
Yet if you are a US citizen do you not have the right to enter the USA when you wish?
Actually, no you don't.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Ahh, so therefore it's legitimate to enact Voter ID laws to combat a problem which doesn't exist...that also has a convenient side-effect of hindering the efforts of your opposition's base from voting?
Interesting.
In order to combat voter fraud by martians, all voting by individuals in areas of high population density must travel to established special rural polling stations in different zipcodes, and bring proof of their identity. A gun registration license or proof of land ownership or gentry is fine.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How does cutting back on voting hours cut down on voter fraud? Or does it just make it harder for folks that have to work?
perhaps it 'saves valuable tax dollars' or keeps presumably nocturnal vampires from being able to fraudulently vote while the sun is still out
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
Seriously. Vampires are a huge problem!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
huge! epidemic! as serious a national threat as voter fraud!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How does cutting back on voting hours cut down on voter fraud? Or does it just make it harder for folks that have to work?
Remember: whatever they say their motive is, you have to respond to them as though they were both completely honest and entirely free of bias.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Honestly dan, would you still apply your previous standard to this?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Heisenberg:
quote: admitted and proud of the fact that Voter ID Laws are meant to stop Democrats from voting, especially if it stops the "lazy blacks".
quote: Also the GOP guy who specifically said word for word "This law will kick democrats in the buts, if the lazy blacks and college students don't vote, so be it."
Hmm. Those two quotes don't look at all alike. It's almost as if someone were performing a hack paraphrasing job in order to make it look like someone was saying something that he never said. I mean, the second quote provides a "word for word" recap and yet there's nothing in there about especially targeting blacks, just that the law is going to hurt Democrats because it may cause college students and "lazy blacks" (again, undeniably racist wording there) to choose not to vote; the implication being that college students and blacks vote Democrat.
Honestly Heisenberg, I think you are splitting hairs here and twisting the truth even more than Elison. Yes, the way Elison paraphrased the quote was more inflammatory than the original but it's stretching things even more to claim there is nothing in the original quote about targeting blacks. The most obvious interpretation of the quote is that law will hurt the Democrats because it targets poor blacks and young students. You seem to agree that this is the implication even while you argueing the opposite point.
The only other possible interpretation I can find, is that Yelton thinks that Democrats are winning elections due to the massive voting fraud, so he doesn't care if it disenfranchises a few students and poor blacks. That's such an unbelievable stretch that even right wing apologists are trying to sell it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Two centuries ago, Thomas Jefferson wrote
quote:"Some are whigs, liberals, democrats, call them what you please. Others are tories, serviles, aristocrats, &c. The latter fear the people, and wish to transfer all power to the higher classes of society; the former consider the people as the safest depository of power in the last resort.
The names and class divisions may have changed, but it's quite evident the basic conservative opposition to real democracy hasn't.
Conservatives have no faith in the people. They give lip service to democracy when it suits their purpose but do not believe in the power of the democratic process. Conservatives see governing as a conflict between good and evil so compromise is always failure of good. Conservatives believe that the common man is selfish and greedy. Power must be exercised to prevent people from degenerating into violence and hedonism. At best, conservatives see the democratic process as a means to manipulate the people into supporting their rule. When that fails, they have no qualms about using every means necessary to take the power they believe to be theirs by right.
Liberals, on the other hand, believe that governing is a creative problem solving process. They believe that when all voices are heard, we can invent better solutions than any individual or group can on their own. To liberals, compromise is a refining process which can be used to improve every solution. They support democracy because they believe in the people. They believe that people can be creative, innovative and altruistic. They believe governing can be a collaborative process rather than a competitive one. Liberals want diversity at the table not just because they care about everyone but because they truly believe the better decisions are made when all voices are heard.
And let me be absolutely clear by these definitions, there are liberals and conservatives in every political party. There are likely both liberal and conservative impulses in every person.
But right now in America, the kind of conservatism I just defined is growing like a cancer in the Republican Party.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Heisenberg:
quote: admitted and proud of the fact that Voter ID Laws are meant to stop Democrats from voting, especially if it stops the "lazy blacks".
quote: Also the GOP guy who specifically said word for word "This law will kick democrats in the buts, if the lazy blacks and college students don't vote, so be it."
Hmm. Those two quotes don't look at all alike. It's almost as if someone were performing a hack paraphrasing job in order to make it look like someone was saying something that he never said. I mean, the second quote provides a "word for word" recap and yet there's nothing in there about especially targeting blacks, just that the law is going to hurt Democrats because it may cause college students and "lazy blacks" (again, undeniably racist wording there) to choose not to vote; the implication being that college students and blacks vote Democrat.
Honestly Heisenberg, I think you are splitting hairs here and twisting the truth even more than Elison. Yes, the way Elison paraphrased the quote was more inflammatory than the original but it's stretching things even more to claim there is nothing in the original quote about targeting blacks. The most obvious interpretation of the quote is that law will hurt the Democrats because it targets poor blacks and young students. You seem to agree that this is the implication even while you argueing the opposite point.
The only other possible interpretation I can find, is that Yelton thinks that Democrats are winning elections due to the massive voting fraud, so he doesn't care if it disenfranchises a few students and poor blacks. That's such an unbelievable stretch that even right wing apologists are trying to sell it.
Yelton's words were plenty damning all by themselves. There was no need to add extra words in that he didn't say in order to make him look worse.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)