Liberal Discover Second Amendment

SRW · 6th May 2007, 10:58 PM

After 200 and more years of shelping from the first to third amendments with out a second thought, more and more Liberal Law professors have discovered the Second Amendment protected an individual right and not a collective right.

Says Lauernce H Tribe , a low professor at Harvard, My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, an unwelcome surprise, "tribe said,"I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control." The Devel in the details, liberals have always over looked the details of the Second amendment, A well Regulated militia, being necessary to th e security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,shall not be infringed. As a Matter of consistency liberals who see a broad reading of other a broad reading of other amendment should also embrace a broad reading of this one.

Adam Liptak New York Times

knot · 6th May 2007, 11:17 PM

LOL -liberals.

Zep · 6th May 2007, 11:22 PM

Originally Posted by SRW

After 200 and more years of shelping from the first to third amendments with out a second thought, more and more Liberal Law professors have discovered the Second Amendment protected an individual right and not a collective right.

Says Lauernce H Tribe , a low professor at Harvard, My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, an unwelcome surprise, "tribe said,"I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control." The Devel in the details, liberals have always over looked the details of the Second amendment, A well Regulated militia, being necessary to th e security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,shall not be infringed. As a Matter of consistency liberals who see a broad reading of other a broad reading of other amendment should also embrace a broad reading of this one.

Adam Liptak New York Times

Could I have that again in English, please?

LOL@knot, LOL'ing at something unreadable, just because it had the word "liberal" in it.

Wolfman · 6th May 2007, 11:34 PM

Conservatives Yet To Discover Grammar and Logic

My goodness...what a terribly unreadable piece of work. I read it through four or five times, hoping to figure it out, but other than the generally safe assumption that it is an attack on "Liberal" support for gun control, I really can't make heads or tails of the rest of it.

And this was written for the New York Times?!? I REALLY hope not; I'd rather assume it is a semi-literate attempt at summarizing an article that they only dimly understood to begin with.

knot · 6th May 2007, 11:38 PM

Originally Posted by Zep

Google is your friend:

Quote:

Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, said he had come to believe that the Second Amendment protected an individual right.

“My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise,” Professor Tribe said. “I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us...80d&ei=5087%0A

Wolfman · 6th May 2007, 11:52 PM

Ah, thanks, Knot!

Now, having read the article in question, and understood what is being discussed, a few comments:

1) It is a curiously "Liberal" trait to examine their own beliefs, and question them. As opposed to that curiously "Conservative" trait to simply assume that they are absolutely right, and anyone who disagrees is absolutely wrong. I think it speak very POSITIVELY of "Liberals" that they are able to engage in intelligent debate, and have different positions on this issue.

2) A very relevant quote from the article:

Quote:

He also cited empirical research questioning whether gun control laws cut down on crime; a 2001 decision from the federal appeals court in New Orleans that embraced the individual rights view even as it allowed a gun prosecution to go forward; and the Bush administration’s reversal of a longstanding Justice Department position under administrations of both political parties favoring the collective rights view.

In point of fact, while Liberals (a small number) are questioning the legitimacy of interpreting the second amendment as applying purely to groups (not individuals), the MAIN reason for this court ruling, so far as I can see, is a shift from the CONSERVATIVE side of the argument.

knot · 7th May 2007, 12:00 AM

Quote:

1) It is a curiously "Liberal" trait to examine their own beliefs, and question them. As opposed to that curiously "Conservative" trait to simply assume that they are absolutely right, and anyone who disagrees is absolutely wrong. I think it speak very POSITIVELY of "Liberals" that they are able to engage in intelligent debate

I'm not a conservative nor a liberal - but liberals have an intelligent debate? LOL, I had enough of "intelligent" (more like circular, repetitive) debate with them over whether or not a missile, or another object, struck the pentagon. (at another board which identifies as 89% liberal biased) Incidentally, over 80% of those self professed liberals voted in the poll that "no way a plane struck the pentagon"

skeptifem · 7th May 2007, 12:05 AM

^^uhhhhh ever consider that a lot of conspiracy theorists are liberal, rather than assuming that a lot of liberals are conspiracy theorists? there is a difference.

also, about the use of the word liberal as an insult- its a very large group of people that cant really be stereotyped in such a manner, the only real problem i have is with extremists, and they do not represent the majority of people. I would also refrain from insulting so many other people when your posts are so incoherant.

Wolfman · 7th May 2007, 12:23 AM

Originally Posted by knot

I'm not a conservative nor a liberal - but liberals have an intelligent debate? LOL, I had enough of "intelligent" (more like circular, repetitive) debate with them over whether or not a missile, or another object, struck the pentagon. (at another board which identifies as 89% liberal biased) Incidentally, over 80% of those self professed liberals voted in the poll that "no way a plane struck the pentagon"

Originally Posted by nails3jesus0

^^uhhhhh ever consider that a lot of conspiracy theorists are liberal, rather than assuming that a lot of liberals are conspiracy theorists? there is a difference.

also, about the use of the word liberal as an insult- its a very large group of people that cant really be stereotyped in such a manner, the only real problem i have is with extremists, and they do not represent the majority of people. I would also refrain from insulting so many other people when your posts are so incoherant.

Just what I was gonna' say, nails. THAT argument is equivalent to going to a Nazi rally and saying "90% of these white people believed other races are inferior", and then concluding that therefore all whites think this way. I definitely consider that I lean towards the Liberal side, but neither myself or any "Liberal" friend believes that no plane struck the Pentagon.

THAT, by the way, Knot, is "logic", and represents "intelligent debate". Try it on :-)

Zep · 7th May 2007, 01:04 AM

Depends where you are when you call people liberals too, Knot. Out here, it means "conservative".

Try THAT on!

boooeee · 7th May 2007, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by knot

I'm not a conservative nor a liberal - but liberals have an intelligent debate? LOL, I had enough of "intelligent" (more like circular, repetitive) debate with them over whether or not a missile, or another object, struck the pentagon. (at another board which identifies as 89% liberal biased) Incidentally, over 80% of those self professed liberals voted in the poll that "no way a plane struck the pentagon"

This is priceless. Which "liberal" board are you referring to?

Tony · 7th May 2007, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by Zep

Could I have that again in English, please?

LOL@knot, LOL'ing at something unreadable, just because it had the word "liberal" in it.

Seconded.

KingMerv00 · 7th May 2007, 09:22 AM

Nearly everyone agrees that arms need to be controlled, it is just a matter of what KINDS of arms.

Knives
Pistols
Automatic Rifles
Rocket Launchers
Land Mines
Nerve Gas
1 kiloton bombs
20 megaton bombs
Tsar Bomba

Where do YOU draw the line?

ponderingturtle · 7th May 2007, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Nearly everyone agrees that arms need to be controlled, it is just a matter of what KINDS of arms.

Knives
Pistols
Automatic Rifles
Rocket Launchers
Land Mines
Nerve Gas
1 kiloton bombs
20 megaton bombs
Tsar Bomba

Where do YOU draw the line?

Hmm, the second amendment protecting the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

knot · 7th May 2007, 09:33 AM

Gee, I didn't know the word "liberal" was an insult. I was only laughing at them.

My years of experience with self professed liberals on the net indicate an extremely high degree of alarmism, pacifism, socialism, blame america-ism, and CTs with a total disregard for tangible evidence. Perhaps it's different here?

Upchurch · 7th May 2007, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Nearly everyone agrees that arms need to be controlled, it is just a matter of what KINDS of arms.

There is controlled and then there is controlled.

When I was in grade/high school, we were allowed to have pocket knives but not sheath knives (not so rare in a mid-west hunting culture). Otherwise, I see no need to regulate them in the general public.

Pistols and rifles are at least as deadly as a car and I see no reason not to license people to have them, unless they give you a reason like committing a crime.

Automatic weapons have fewer legitimate uses, imho, but I'm not against people who go through a more thorough licensing process being able to have them. Maybe with a re-licensing process every so often to make sure the gun is still in their possession.

Explosives should be handled on a professional level for professional uses. My wife is going through a rather complicated and difficult licensing procedure to become an architect, because if she does her job wrong, people could die. I think explosives should be on the same level.

Beyond that, I see little need to allow the general public access to more powerful weaponry.

KingMerv00 · 7th May 2007, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by knot

Gee, I didn't know the word "liberal" was an insult. I was only laughing at them.

My years of experience with self professed liberals on the net indicate an extremely high degree of alarmism, pacifism, socialism, blame america-ism, and CTs with a total disregard for tangible evidence. Perhaps it's different here?

So "liberal" IS an insult?

Beerina · 7th May 2007, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Wolfman

Ah, thanks, Knot!

Now, having read the article in question, and understood what is being discussed, a few comments:

1) It is a curiously "Liberal" trait to examine their own beliefs, and question them. As opposed to that curiously "Conservative" trait to simply assume that they are absolutely right, and anyone who disagrees is absolutely wrong. I think it speak very POSITIVELY of "Liberals" that they are able to engage in intelligent debate, and have different positions on this issue.

Either that or liberals achieve certainty in their positions based on the moral approval of others.

Witness Lisa Simpson being a vegetarian, talking about how people should not eat meat, and stick to vegetables, fruits, dairy, and eggs. Apu says that he doesn't eat eggs. Lisa, panic stricken, comments, "Oh no! You must think me some kind of horrible monster!"

That's it in a nutshell.

In other words, almost everybody picks and chooses their positions based on emotionality, then works to justify it mentally.

Politics, like religion, is full of fury and hot air, and very little in the way of actual scientific results. Thank god last century was loaded with hundreds of economic "experiments" that showed a strong correlation between freedom and government protecting rights and general prosperity and technological advancement.

Witness France -- they just turned over power, sort of, to a guy who wants to get rid of the 40 hour week. The emotion that got them into this predicament: You get to work less! The back-ended rationalization, that is fraudulent: By mandating people work less, businesses will be forced to hire more, thus lowering unemployment.

Tony · 7th May 2007, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

Witness France -- they just turned over power, sort of, to a guy who wants to get rid of the 40 hour week.

France hasn't had a 40 hour work week in over 10 years.

Quote:

The emotion that got them into this predicament: You get to work less! The back-ended rationalization, that is fraudulent: By mandating people work less, businesses will be forced to hire more, thus lowering unemployment.

That's quite a discovery. When and where are you going to publish your paper about this newly discovered "you get to work less" emotion?

Tony · 7th May 2007, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by knot

My years of experience with self professed liberals on the net indicate an extremely high degree of alarmism, pacifism, socialism, blame america-ism, and CTs with a total disregard for tangible evidence. Perhaps it's different here?

And it's my experience with anti-liberal/anti-american demoguoges (like you) that they tend to remember the people who validate their beliefs and ignore the people that contradict their beliefs. Skeptics call this counting the hits and ignoring the misses.

skeptifem · 7th May 2007, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by knot

Gee, I didn't know the word "liberal" was an insult. I was only laughing at them.

My years of experience with self professed liberals on the net indicate an extremely high degree of alarmism, pacifism, socialism, blame america-ism, and CTs with a total disregard for tangible evidence. Perhaps it's different here?

yeah there are a lot of quality people here, even the less tolerable ones are not as bad as people i have met on other boards.

theres a lot of nutters out there, its important to remember that the majority of people are not completely liberal or conservative, most people just lean one way or the other. I think there are more libertarians here than on most boards. But debating things here wont be the same as most other places where political discussions are encouraged- check out the conspiracy theories board for an example. Evidence of what is said is valued here.

Cain · 7th May 2007, 01:24 PM

I've seen more and more such articles in the last year. _The New Republic_ similarly described this phenomenon weeks ago, but instead used it as a jumping off point to argue for abolishing the Second Amendment and implementing a complete ban on handguns.

fuelair · 7th May 2007, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by knot

Gee, I didn't know the word "liberal" was an insult. I was only laughing at them.

My years of experience with self professed liberals on the net indicate an extremely high degree of alarmism, pacifism, socialism, blame america-ism, and CTs with a total disregard for tangible evidence. Perhaps it's different here?

Odd, I am a Bush loathing liberal. I think CT'ers are insane, own guns and other useful weapons, have no problem with war that is A)necessary and B) carried out properly (hard, fast, won), support helping people - especially our troops and people honestly in need. sorry I don't meet your criterion for a liberal. Silly me!! Oh, what am I alarmed with, by the by(other than that shrub rectum).

Ladewig · 7th May 2007, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by knot

I'm not a conservative nor a liberal - but liberals have an intelligent debate? LOL, I had enough of "intelligent" (more like circular, repetitive) debate with them over whether or not a missile, or another object, struck the pentagon. (at another board which identifies as 89% liberal biased) Incidentally, over 80% of those self professed liberals voted in the poll that "no way a plane struck the pentagon"

Originally Posted by boooeee

This is priceless. Which "liberal" board are you referring to?

I want to know, too. Which board was it?

WildCat · 7th May 2007, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by Ladewig

I want to know, too. Which board was it?

If I had to guess, I'd say this one.

SRW · 7th May 2007, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by SRW

After 200 and more years of shelping from the first to third amendments with out a second thought, more and more Liberal Law professors have discovered the Second Amendment protected an individual right and not a collective right.

Says Lauernce H Tribe , a low professor at Harvard, My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, an unwelcome surprise, "tribe said,"I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control." The Devel in the details, liberals have always over looked the details of the Second amendment, A well Regulated militia, being necessary to th e security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,shall not be infringed. As a Matter of consistency liberals who see a broad reading of other a broad reading of other amendment should also embrace a broad reading of this one.

Adam Liptak New York Times

My Sister went in for surgery today; so last night Steve took an ambien. Bad Steve, there was a real good post about change and shifting of views but instead every one gets treated to this...well garbage. I am not really a conservative I only play one when I am not thinking.

From now on:

1. Turn off computer.

2. Take sleeping pill.

3. Go to bed.

She is fine now, I go in tomorrow to get my head removed from my ass.

Wolfman · 7th May 2007, 11:07 PM

SRW -- I've been there, too. Few months ago, made a rather rambling and embarassing post after coming home from a night of rather excessive alcohol consumption. Having to apologize or give excuses after the fact only makes it harder...but the smart ones among us learn from our mistakes, right?

And I agree...the article itself is interesting.

The Great Hairy One · 7th May 2007, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by SRW

...I go in tomorrow to get my head removed from my ass.

Good on you mate. Takes a big person to admit their mistakes.

Cheers,
TGHO

Schneibster · 8th May 2007, 04:32 AM

Originally Posted by Wolfman

Conservatives Yet To Discover Grammar and Logic

My goodness...what a terribly unreadable piece of work. I read it through four or five times, hoping to figure it out, but other than the generally safe assumption that it is an attack on "Liberal" support for gun control, I really can't make heads or tails of the rest of it.

And this was written for the New York Times?!? I REALLY hope not; I'd rather assume it is a semi-literate attempt at summarizing an article that they only dimly understood to begin with.

Actually, to be properly condescending toward the admittedly primitive writing style, might one not more properly use, "Conservative Not Discover Grammar, still having trouble with other thing despite extensive use of mirror and both hands?" After all, it was written by only one of them, as far as I can tell.

Schneibster · 8th May 2007, 04:38 AM

Originally Posted by SRW

My Sister went in for surgery today; so last night Steve took an ambien. Bad Steve, there was a real good post about change and shifting of views but instead every one gets treated to this...well garbage. I am not really a conservative I only play one when I am not thinking.

Ah. My goodness, I've never taken Ambien and I suspect that I never will now. THERE'S a side effect for you.

Tricky · 8th May 2007, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by fuelair

Odd, I am a Bush loathing liberal. I think CT'ers are insane, own guns and other useful weapons, have no problem with war that is A)necessary and B) carried out properly (hard, fast, won), support helping people - especially our troops and people honestly in need. sorry I don't meet your criterion for a liberal. Silly me!! Oh, what am I alarmed with, by the by (other than that shrub rectum).

Then you're not a "true liberal". That's what I've been told when I say the same sort of thing. People like us really screw up their filing system.

The Central Scrutinizer · 8th May 2007, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by SRW

After 200 and more years of shelping from the first to third amendments with out a second thought, more and more Liberal Law professors have discovered the Second Amendment protected an individual right and not a collective right.

Says Lauernce H Tribe , a low professor at Harvard, My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, an unwelcome surprise, "tribe said,"I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control." The Devel in the details, liberals have always over looked the details of the Second amendment, A well Regulated militia, being necessary to th e security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,shall not be infringed. As a Matter of consistency liberals who see a broad reading of other a broad reading of other amendment should also embrace a broad reading of this one.

Adam Liptak New York Times

Ummmm.......what???

SRW · 8th May 2007, 05:22 PM

Me too

6th May 2007, 10:58 PM	#1
SRW Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 2,901	Liberal Discover Second Amendment After 200 and more years of shelping from the first to third amendments with out a second thought, more and more Liberal Law professors have discovered the Second Amendment protected an individual right and not a collective right. Says Lauernce H Tribe , a low professor at Harvard, My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, an unwelcome surprise, "tribe said,"I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control." The Devel in the details, liberals have always over looked the details of the Second amendment, A well Regulated militia, being necessary to th e security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,shall not be infringed. As a Matter of consistency liberals who see a broad reading of other a broad reading of other amendment should also embrace a broad reading of this one. Adam Liptak New York Times
SRW Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 2,901

6th May 2007, 11:22 PM	#3
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985	Originally Posted by SRW After 200 and more years of shelping from the first to third amendments with out a second thought, more and more Liberal Law professors have discovered the Second Amendment protected an individual right and not a collective right. Says Lauernce H Tribe , a low professor at Harvard, My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, an unwelcome surprise, "tribe said,"I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control." The Devel in the details, liberals have always over looked the details of the Second amendment, A well Regulated militia, being necessary to th e security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,shall not be infringed. As a Matter of consistency liberals who see a broad reading of other a broad reading of other amendment should also embrace a broad reading of this one. Adam Liptak New York Times Could I have that again in English, please? LOL@knot, LOL'ing at something unreadable, just because it had the word "liberal" in it.
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985

6th May 2007, 11:34 PM	#4
Wolfman Chief Solipsistic Autosycophant Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Dongguan, China Posts: 11,809	Conservatives Yet To Discover Grammar and Logic My goodness...what a terribly unreadable piece of work. I read it through four or five times, hoping to figure it out, but other than the generally safe assumption that it is an attack on "Liberal" support for gun control, I really can't make heads or tails of the rest of it. And this was written for the New York Times?!? I REALLY hope not; I'd rather assume it is a semi-literate attempt at summarizing an article that they only dimly understood to begin with.
	__________________ The Meta-Solipsistic Autosycophant mantra: "I post, therefore I am nominated"

6th May 2007, 11:52 PM	#6
Wolfman Chief Solipsistic Autosycophant Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Dongguan, China Posts: 11,809	Ah, thanks, Knot! Now, having read the article in question, and understood what is being discussed, a few comments: 1) It is a curiously "Liberal" trait to examine their own beliefs, and question them. As opposed to that curiously "Conservative" trait to simply assume that they are absolutely right, and anyone who disagrees is absolutely wrong. I think it speak very POSITIVELY of "Liberals" that they are able to engage in intelligent debate, and have different positions on this issue. 2) A very relevant quote from the article: Quote: He also cited empirical research questioning whether gun control laws cut down on crime; a 2001 decision from the federal appeals court in New Orleans that embraced the individual rights view even as it allowed a gun prosecution to go forward; and the Bush administration’s reversal of a longstanding Justice Department position under administrations of both political parties favoring the collective rights view. In point of fact, while Liberals (a small number) are questioning the legitimacy of interpreting the second amendment as applying purely to groups (not individuals), the MAIN reason for this court ruling, so far as I can see, is a shift from the CONSERVATIVE side of the argument.
	__________________ The Meta-Solipsistic Autosycophant mantra: "I post, therefore I am nominated"

7th May 2007, 12:00 AM	#7
knot Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: The Great Northwest Posts: 381	Quote: 1) It is a curiously "Liberal" trait to examine their own beliefs, and question them. As opposed to that curiously "Conservative" trait to simply assume that they are absolutely right, and anyone who disagrees is absolutely wrong. I think it speak very POSITIVELY of "Liberals" that they are able to engage in intelligent debate I'm not a conservative nor a liberal - but liberals have an intelligent debate? LOL, I had enough of "intelligent" (more like circular, repetitive) debate with them over whether or not a missile, or another object, struck the pentagon. (at another board which identifies as 89% liberal biased) Incidentally, over 80% of those self professed liberals voted in the poll that "no way a plane struck the pentagon"
	Last edited by knot; 7th May 2007 at 12:07 AM.

6th May 2007, 11:17 PM	#2
knot Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: The Great Northwest Posts: 381	LOL -liberals.

6th May 2007, 11:38 PM	#5
knot Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: The Great Northwest Posts: 381	Originally Posted by Zep Google is your friend: Quote: Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, said he had come to believe that the Second Amendment protected an individual right. “My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise,” Professor Tribe said. “I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control.” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us...80d&ei=5087%0A

7th May 2007, 12:05 AM	#8
skeptifem is not beauty 2K compliant Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,259	^^uhhhhh ever consider that a lot of conspiracy theorists are liberal, rather than assuming that a lot of liberals are conspiracy theorists? there is a difference. also, about the use of the word liberal as an insult- its a very large group of people that cant really be stereotyped in such a manner, the only real problem i have is with extremists, and they do not represent the majority of people. I would also refrain from insulting so many other people when your posts are so incoherant.
	__________________ Last edited by skeptifem; 7th May 2007 at 12:10 AM.

7th May 2007, 12:23 AM	#9
Wolfman Chief Solipsistic Autosycophant Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Dongguan, China Posts: 11,809	Originally Posted by knot I'm not a conservative nor a liberal - but liberals have an intelligent debate? LOL, I had enough of "intelligent" (more like circular, repetitive) debate with them over whether or not a missile, or another object, struck the pentagon. (at another board which identifies as 89% liberal biased) Incidentally, over 80% of those self professed liberals voted in the poll that "no way a plane struck the pentagon" Originally Posted by nails3jesus0 ^^uhhhhh ever consider that a lot of conspiracy theorists are liberal, rather than assuming that a lot of liberals are conspiracy theorists? there is a difference. also, about the use of the word liberal as an insult- its a very large group of people that cant really be stereotyped in such a manner, the only real problem i have is with extremists, and they do not represent the majority of people. I would also refrain from insulting so many other people when your posts are so incoherant. Just what I was gonna' say, nails. THAT argument is equivalent to going to a Nazi rally and saying "90% of these white people believed other races are inferior", and then concluding that therefore all whites think this way. I definitely consider that I lean towards the Liberal side, but neither myself or any "Liberal" friend believes that no plane struck the Pentagon. THAT, by the way, Knot, is "logic", and represents "intelligent debate". Try it on :-)
	__________________ The Meta-Solipsistic Autosycophant mantra: "I post, therefore I am nominated" Last edited by Wolfman; 7th May 2007 at 12:25 AM.

7th May 2007, 01:04 AM	#10
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985	Depends where you are when you call people liberals too, Knot. Out here, it means "conservative". Try THAT on!
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985

7th May 2007, 08:42 AM	#11
boooeee Dart Fener Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: The Lando System Posts: 2,395	Originally Posted by knot I'm not a conservative nor a liberal - but liberals have an intelligent debate? LOL, I had enough of "intelligent" (more like circular, repetitive) debate with them over whether or not a missile, or another object, struck the pentagon. (at another board which identifies as 89% liberal biased) Incidentally, over 80% of those self professed liberals voted in the poll that "no way a plane struck the pentagon" This is priceless. Which "liberal" board are you referring to?
	__________________ my nerdy sports blog: betting market analytics

7th May 2007, 09:11 AM	#12
Tony Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 13,753	Originally Posted by Zep Could I have that again in English, please? LOL@knot, LOL'ing at something unreadable, just because it had the word "liberal" in it. Seconded.
	__________________ It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain

7th May 2007, 09:22 AM	#13
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Nearly everyone agrees that arms need to be controlled, it is just a matter of what KINDS of arms. Knives Pistols Automatic Rifles Rocket Launchers Land Mines Nerve Gas 1 kiloton bombs 20 megaton bombs Tsar Bomba Where do YOU draw the line?
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust?

7th May 2007, 09:27 AM	#14
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,421	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 Nearly everyone agrees that arms need to be controlled, it is just a matter of what KINDS of arms. Knives Pistols Automatic Rifles Rocket Launchers Land Mines Nerve Gas 1 kiloton bombs 20 megaton bombs Tsar Bomba Where do YOU draw the line? Hmm, the second amendment protecting the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

7th May 2007, 09:33 AM	#15
knot Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: The Great Northwest Posts: 381	Gee, I didn't know the word "liberal" was an insult. I was only laughing at them. My years of experience with self professed liberals on the net indicate an extremely high degree of alarmism, pacifism, socialism, blame america-ism, and CTs with a total disregard for tangible evidence. Perhaps it's different here?
	Last edited by knot; 7th May 2007 at 09:41 AM.

7th May 2007, 09:35 AM	#16
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,424	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 Nearly everyone agrees that arms need to be controlled, it is just a matter of what KINDS of arms. There is controlled and then there is controlled. When I was in grade/high school, we were allowed to have pocket knives but not sheath knives (not so rare in a mid-west hunting culture). Otherwise, I see no need to regulate them in the general public. Pistols and rifles are at least as deadly as a car and I see no reason not to license people to have them, unless they give you a reason like committing a crime. Automatic weapons have fewer legitimate uses, imho, but I'm not against people who go through a more thorough licensing process being able to have them. Maybe with a re-licensing process every so often to make sure the gun is still in their possession. Explosives should be handled on a professional level for professional uses. My wife is going through a rather complicated and difficult licensing procedure to become an architect, because if she does her job wrong, people could die. I think explosives should be on the same level. Beyond that, I see little need to allow the general public access to more powerful weaponry.

7th May 2007, 10:11 AM	#17
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Originally Posted by knot Gee, I didn't know the word "liberal" was an insult. I was only laughing at them. My years of experience with self professed liberals on the net indicate an extremely high degree of alarmism, pacifism, socialism, blame america-ism, and CTs with a total disregard for tangible evidence. Perhaps it's different here? So "liberal" IS an insult?
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust?

7th May 2007, 11:41 AM	#18
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by Wolfman Ah, thanks, Knot! Now, having read the article in question, and understood what is being discussed, a few comments: 1) It is a curiously "Liberal" trait to examine their own beliefs, and question them. As opposed to that curiously "Conservative" trait to simply assume that they are absolutely right, and anyone who disagrees is absolutely wrong. I think it speak very POSITIVELY of "Liberals" that they are able to engage in intelligent debate, and have different positions on this issue. Either that or liberals achieve certainty in their positions based on the moral approval of others. Witness Lisa Simpson being a vegetarian, talking about how people should not eat meat, and stick to vegetables, fruits, dairy, and eggs. Apu says that he doesn't eat eggs. Lisa, panic stricken, comments, "Oh no! You must think me some kind of horrible monster!" That's it in a nutshell. In other words, almost everybody picks and chooses their positions based on emotionality, then works to justify it mentally. Politics, like religion, is full of fury and hot air, and very little in the way of actual scientific results. Thank god last century was loaded with hundreds of economic "experiments" that showed a strong correlation between freedom and government protecting rights and general prosperity and technological advancement. Witness France -- they just turned over power, sort of, to a guy who wants to get rid of the 40 hour week. The emotion that got them into this predicament: You get to work less! The back-ended rationalization, that is fraudulent: By mandating people work less, businesses will be forced to hire more, thus lowering unemployment.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right? Last edited by Beerina; 7th May 2007 at 11:43 AM.

7th May 2007, 11:50 AM	#19
Tony Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 13,753	Originally Posted by Beerina Witness France -- they just turned over power, sort of, to a guy who wants to get rid of the 40 hour week. France hasn't had a 40 hour work week in over 10 years. Quote: The emotion that got them into this predicament: You get to work less! The back-ended rationalization, that is fraudulent: By mandating people work less, businesses will be forced to hire more, thus lowering unemployment. That's quite a discovery. When and where are you going to publish your paper about this newly discovered "you get to work less" emotion?
	__________________ It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain Last edited by Tony; 7th May 2007 at 11:52 AM.

7th May 2007, 11:55 AM	#20
Tony Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 13,753	Originally Posted by knot My years of experience with self professed liberals on the net indicate an extremely high degree of alarmism, pacifism, socialism, blame america-ism, and CTs with a total disregard for tangible evidence. Perhaps it's different here? And it's my experience with anti-liberal/anti-american demoguoges (like you) that they tend to remember the people who validate their beliefs and ignore the people that contradict their beliefs. Skeptics call this counting the hits and ignoring the misses.
	__________________ It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain

7th May 2007, 12:04 PM	#21
skeptifem is not beauty 2K compliant Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,259	Originally Posted by knot Gee, I didn't know the word "liberal" was an insult. I was only laughing at them. My years of experience with self professed liberals on the net indicate an extremely high degree of alarmism, pacifism, socialism, blame america-ism, and CTs with a total disregard for tangible evidence. Perhaps it's different here? yeah there are a lot of quality people here, even the less tolerable ones are not as bad as people i have met on other boards. theres a lot of nutters out there, its important to remember that the majority of people are not completely liberal or conservative, most people just lean one way or the other. I think there are more libertarians here than on most boards. But debating things here wont be the same as most other places where political discussions are encouraged- check out the conspiracy theories board for an example. Evidence of what is said is valued here.
	__________________

7th May 2007, 01:24 PM	#22
Cain Straussian Join Date: May 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 6,935	I've seen more and more such articles in the last year. _The New Republic_ similarly described this phenomenon weeks ago, but instead used it as a jumping off point to argue for abolishing the Second Amendment and implementing a complete ban on handguns.
	__________________ *Arrested Development* is coming back! Michael (to GOB): Get rid of the Seaward. Lucille: I’ll leave when I’m good and ready.

7th May 2007, 02:05 PM	#23
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,911	Originally Posted by knot Gee, I didn't know the word "liberal" was an insult. I was only laughing at them. My years of experience with self professed liberals on the net indicate an extremely high degree of alarmism, pacifism, socialism, blame america-ism, and CTs with a total disregard for tangible evidence. Perhaps it's different here? Odd, I am a Bush loathing liberal. I think CT'ers are insane, own guns and other useful weapons, have no problem with war that is A)necessary and B) carried out properly (hard, fast, won), support helping people - especially our troops and people honestly in need. sorry I don't meet your criterion for a liberal. Silly me!! Oh, what am I alarmed with, by the by(other than that shrub rectum).
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,911

7th May 2007, 03:02 PM	#24
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,798	Originally Posted by knot I'm not a conservative nor a liberal - but liberals have an intelligent debate? LOL, I had enough of "intelligent" (more like circular, repetitive) debate with them over whether or not a missile, or another object, struck the pentagon. (at another board which identifies as 89% liberal biased) Incidentally, over 80% of those self professed liberals voted in the poll that "no way a plane struck the pentagon" Originally Posted by boooeee This is priceless. Which "liberal" board are you referring to? I want to know, too. Which board was it?
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

7th May 2007, 06:13 PM	#25
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 48,985	Originally Posted by Ladewig I want to know, too. Which board was it? If I had to guess, I'd say this one.

7th May 2007, 06:52 PM	#26
SRW Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 2,901	Originally Posted by SRW After 200 and more years of shelping from the first to third amendments with out a second thought, more and more Liberal Law professors have discovered the Second Amendment protected an individual right and not a collective right. Says Lauernce H Tribe , a low professor at Harvard, My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, an unwelcome surprise, "tribe said,"I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control." The Devel in the details, liberals have always over looked the details of the Second amendment, A well Regulated militia, being necessary to th e security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,shall not be infringed. As a Matter of consistency liberals who see a broad reading of other a broad reading of other amendment should also embrace a broad reading of this one. Adam Liptak New York Times My Sister went in for surgery today; so last night Steve took an ambien. Bad Steve, there was a real good post about change and shifting of views but instead every one gets treated to this...well garbage. I am not really a conservative I only play one when I am not thinking. From now on: 1. Turn off computer. 2. Take sleeping pill. 3. Go to bed. She is fine now, I go in tomorrow to get my head removed from my ass.
SRW Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 2,901

7th May 2007, 11:07 PM	#27
Wolfman Chief Solipsistic Autosycophant Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Dongguan, China Posts: 11,809	SRW -- I've been there, too. Few months ago, made a rather rambling and embarassing post after coming home from a night of rather excessive alcohol consumption. Having to apologize or give excuses after the fact only makes it harder...but the smart ones among us learn from our mistakes, right? And I agree...the article itself is interesting.
	__________________ The Meta-Solipsistic Autosycophant mantra: "I post, therefore I am nominated"

7th May 2007, 11:16 PM	#28
The Great Hairy One Chief Cdr Scientist, NWO Cloning Labs Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 2,066	Originally Posted by SRW ...I go in tomorrow to get my head removed from my ass. Good on you mate. Takes a big person to admit their mistakes. Cheers, TGHO
	__________________ High Priest of Gzortch, the Demon Prince of Nostrils

8th May 2007, 04:32 AM	#29
Schneibster Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 3,966	Originally Posted by Wolfman Conservatives Yet To Discover Grammar and Logic My goodness...what a terribly unreadable piece of work. I read it through four or five times, hoping to figure it out, but other than the generally safe assumption that it is an attack on "Liberal" support for gun control, I really can't make heads or tails of the rest of it. And this was written for the New York Times?!? I REALLY hope not; I'd rather assume it is a semi-literate attempt at summarizing an article that they only dimly understood to begin with. Actually, to be properly condescending toward the admittedly primitive writing style, might one not more properly use, "Conservative Not Discover Grammar, still having trouble with other thing despite extensive use of mirror and both hands?" After all, it was written by only one of them, as far as I can tell.
Schneibster Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 3,966

8th May 2007, 04:38 AM	#30
Schneibster Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 3,966	Originally Posted by SRW My Sister went in for surgery today; so last night Steve took an ambien. Bad Steve, there was a real good post about change and shifting of views but instead every one gets treated to this...well garbage. I am not really a conservative I only play one when I am not thinking. Ah. My goodness, I've never taken Ambien and I suspect that I never will now. THERE'S a side effect for you.
Schneibster Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 3,966

8th May 2007, 09:02 AM	#31
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,359	Originally Posted by fuelair Odd, I am a Bush loathing liberal. I think CT'ers are insane, own guns and other useful weapons, have no problem with war that is A)necessary and B) carried out properly (hard, fast, won), support helping people - especially our troops and people honestly in need. sorry I don't meet your criterion for a liberal. Silly me!! Oh, what am I alarmed with, by the by (other than that shrub rectum). Then you're not a "true liberal". That's what I've been told when I say the same sort of thing. People like us really screw up their filing system.

8th May 2007, 11:42 AM	#32
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Pither Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,266	Originally Posted by SRW After 200 and more years of shelping from the first to third amendments with out a second thought, more and more Liberal Law professors have discovered the Second Amendment protected an individual right and not a collective right. Says Lauernce H Tribe , a low professor at Harvard, My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, an unwelcome surprise, "tribe said,"I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control." The Devel in the details, liberals have always over looked the details of the Second amendment, A well Regulated militia, being necessary to th e security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,shall not be infringed. As a Matter of consistency liberals who see a broad reading of other a broad reading of other amendment should also embrace a broad reading of this one. Adam Liptak New York Times Ummmm.......what???
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

8th May 2007, 05:22 PM	#33
SRW Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 2,901	Me too
SRW Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 2,901