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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
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
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
