Meanwhile, back on the Insane Right...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

The main problem I have w/ anarchists is that they don't offer any solutions.

TEAR IT ALL DOWN!

Well, OK. Then what are you left with? A non functional heap of society. Now what ?

*** crickets ****

Yeah, no thanks.

---

You don't know what you're talking about here, but what's different about that?
And more importantly, it doesn't matter anyway...

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:


Mind you, I dun think anymore highly of the rightwingnuts than you do, but as has been made abundantly clear, the supposedly liberal end of the spectrum does exactly that same pick and choose bullshit, only the rights in question they wanna protect or suppress are different,

---

Such as?

A background check doesn't take away any rights. So what else have you got?




Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Nor does demanding identification at the voting both - but that's different, eh ?

The very same kinda "reasonable restrictions" (a base lie, proven by repeated goalpost moving by those who supported it here) applied to the right to vote, sends the supposed liberal folk into howling fits of fury, despite having exactly the same rationale behind it, despite both supposed problems being in fact statistically negligable.

And again, I cite Jonathan Turleys very interesting bit regarding where one might draw the line in regards to what might be cause to forbid/revoke.
What is mental illness? Where is the bright line drawn?
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/04/14/what-is-mental-illness-where-is-t
he-bright-line-drawn/

The problematic case in question was IMHO, some faction seeing how far they could push it as a test, and frankly this aspect concerns me more than most since I have a pre-existing fight going on in regards to considering normal childhood behavior and reactions to abusive conditions to be "mental illness", thus potentially blocking youth from the right to self defense before they're even old enough to legally fight back - it doesn't take a genius to see the pyschological doom spiral this can cause, especially when the very damage caused by that abuse then becomes the excuse used to prevent one from obtaining the means to put a stop to it.

Also, to call the lie what it is, explain to me how that bolus about no intent to confiscate stands in the fact of California allocating funds to do just that, and without the bullshit-dodge of "but they're illegal" given that such is based on a blatantly ex-post-facto and Unconstitutional act.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/california-gun-confiscation-b
ill_n_3117238.html

What I "have", is the simple fact that the statements I made in regard to the lying and hypocrisy of those intent on infringing upon the Second Amendment have all been proven out beyond reasonable doubt.

For the record, mind you - I am every bit as against infringing on the right to vote, me pointing out the similarities is not an endorsement of that intent or policy, I am simply showing an example of why neither "side" is in any way trustworthy as a defender of human and civil rights, as the only difference here seems WHICH rights they wish to support or oppress, and both of them are quite willing to engage in everything from vague distortions to outright and blatant lies in order to do so.

And yet somehow the supposed liberals are expected to be handed a free pass for doing the very self-same shit the rightwingnuts did ?

Fuck. That. Noise.

As for Anarchists supposedly not offering solutions, obviously one hasn't been listening to em, cause all one really needs do to stop abuses in their tracks is withdraw consent for them, to not support, enforce, or engage in them, only that never seems to work its way through the heads of folks busy climbing over each other in a mad scramble for power, wanting bigger, stronger leashes to clamp around each others neck in a desperate bid for a kind of control any rational Anarchist finds repulsive, and despicable to even desire.

Even the meanest, cruelest tyrant in the world is no more dangerous than the average mugger without folks willing to carry out their orders, and whenever one does so, no matter their excuses, they willingly become part of that machinery and sell some level of their humanity in order to live with it or pretend that is not what is happening.

Which brings us to where we are, in a society gone mad, sociopathic, exploitive and malicious, and suggesting to folks that if we only OBEY, it'll all be glitter and rainbows is about as credible as any other promise coming from some jackass with a leash in the other hand and obvious intentions on who should be holding it.

You wanna step on peoples rights, well, you'll do what you'll do, sure...

But don't fucking pretend that ain't what's going on, nor that it

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

Nor does demanding identification at the voting both - but that's different, eh ?

---

Under the currents system which requires payment for said ID, or transportation to areas difficult to reach by the elderly or poor - yes.

You really have to have such concepts explained to you?

Quote:

---

The problematic case in question was IMHO, some faction seeing how far they could push it as a test,

---

And didn't ask for an opinion piece, nor a conspiracy theory - but that's a handy way to avoid a simple question.

The rest is just noise drowning out your lack of signal.



Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Nice bit of cherry picking and question dodging.

Also, false equivalence - since the cost and difficulty of attempting to exercise ones right to bear arms is substantially greater, yet you see no problem with raising barriers there, do you ?

Both bits of gamesmanship are malicious in intent, given that the intended end result is to bar people from exercising the right in question, and both are full of disingenious attempts to pretend this is not the case.

I did answer your question, you just didn't LIKE the answer you got, too full of facts and irrefuteable evidence, and not the usual brand of easily-dismissed wingnuttery spouted by folks who lack any clue about the matter beyond what some demaguoge tells em.

Not to mention I find your attempt to play the conspiracy theory card here downright laughable in light of the complete dearth of anything even remotely resembling credibility on your end of the issue, especially given how it was thrown at the beginning of all this and yet my initial assessment of the entire matter has so far been proven correct in every particular.
Nor is pointing out the logical and obvious consequences of such actions in the current political environment any kind of theoretical when there's already proven case examples.

That you do not like those consequences renders them no less real, and ignoring them and anyone pointing them out to you pushes you into the same facet of la-la-land as the Bush crowd when they claimed Iraq would throw parades for us.

But of course, you seem hell bent on sticking your fingers in your ears here and ignoring the fact that I am more or less beating you in the head with your own lies and hypocrisy, since none of you wish to own up to behaving in exactly the same fashion you once stood against the rightwing horde over - proving it was all about "side" rather than right or wrong.

Again, you'll do what you'll do - but quit pretending you're any better than they are.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Better watch yourself there Frem. You're going against the grain of the all-knowing lefty groupthink mentality here. Could be dangerous for ya.

By the way, you ever been to American Jewelry & Pawn on 8 Mile? Have you seen Hardcore Pawn on tv? I don't want to pick on the fine folks of Detroit, but honestly man, what's up with all the psycho anger and attitude from the patrons there? That show has become one of the highest rated shows on cable tv because it's absolutely hi-larious and hysterically real. The owners and staff are even bigger psychos than their customers. Is it something in the water supply?

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

"Could be dangerous for ya."

Yes, b/c we're going to track him down, drive over in our volvos wearing birkenstocks and granny glasses, drinking lattes, then beat him with his own prosthetic leg, shoot him, and burn his house, all the while shouting allahu akbar! right on ... got any weed?

Did I miss anything?

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

We wouldn't shoot him, ikiki, we'd have to stab him because we're philosophical against guns even if we commit violent crime.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

The main problem I have w/ anarchists is that they don't offer any solutions.

TEAR IT ALL DOWN!

Well, OK. Then what are you left with? A non functional heap of society. Now what ?

*** crickets ****

Yeah, no thanks.

---

You don't know what you're talking about here, but what's different about that?
And more importantly, it doesn't matter anyway...

---

Thanks for taking the time to tell me what I don't know, with such informative and insightful input.

What do I not know ? How about you tell me, specifically, where I'm missing the point. Help me out here. You tell ME how things would be different, what the "plan " would be, once we have our anarchy hissy fit. As I said before... THEN what ?

Opportunity missed there, Chrissy.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME