or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by MJ1970

  Of course emotion means something. But, Mr. Logic and Science, we don't use it to drive policy and law.   We should appeal to save lives, but now you're begging the question (you're just full of fallacy these days) in assuming that your gun right infringements will actually save more lives than they cost.
  According to whom? You? By what standard to you declare this moral truth to be so?
  Now we're moving onto appeal to emotion?   The death of innocent people at the hands of anyone is terrible and tragic. No one disputes that. But it is still red herring. People have the right to own firearms and to use them to defend themselves. Period. If more people in places like Sandy Hook a) ha not been denied that right, and b) had taken it seriously, far fewer (maybe no one) would have been killed (except the assailant.)   Now, let's move onto your outrage over...
  Bullshit.       If I have any stronger hatred for Obama it's because he's actually in power: lying and destroying. But I doubt Romney would be any different.
  Then show the numbers that support your claim ("gun ownership costs more lives than it protects,") and makes it "obvious."     WHy the **** am I chasing this red herring. It doesn't fucking matter. People have a right to own firearms. Period. They also have a right to use them for purposes that do not infringe on other people's rights of life, liberty and property unless the other person is threatening their own rights (i.e., right of self-defense.)   So all this...
  It doesn't even matter if it was 10-to-1 in favor of Obama. It's a bullshit measurement and proves absolutely nothing, certainly with regard to his claim.   This is actually a symptom of the unbelievably narrow perspective of most people today. Bash Obama? Oh you must support Romney or Bush. Bash Romney? Oh you must support Obama. It's like these fucking morons cannot think beyond the extremely narrow range of ideologies offered up. They are so focused on this very...
  Yeah, and neither of his claims is even provable. Nor will he even try to provide evidence to support them. He just wants to restrict people's rights to own what they want and to have the tools to defend themselves if they wish. It's what leftists do.
  Of course not. Don't be stupid. Stating an opinion about something the is present or recent past and comparing to slightly further past is not "predicting the future."       I'm sorry if your biases and partisanship have blinded you to the substantial similarities. The fact is I hate Bush (and would have hated Romney...assuming he did what  expected he would have done) as much as I hate Obama. Stop telling me who I hate more, it makes you look stupid.
  The 28th? There appear to be 2-3 proposals out there. Which one are you referring to?
  It was referring to the standard (modern) liberal/progressive approach to those they disagree with.       Yes, they were...in the classical sense of liberalism. However modern liberals not at all liberal in that sense.       As are 99% of modern liberals/progressives (and conservatives) today. There are virtually no anti-federalists anymore today. Mostly libertarians, anarco-capitalists and "micharcists" would most likely align with the anti-federalist sentiment and...
New Posts  All Forums: