2012 Election Thread

[quote name='mykevermin']
1) they don't understand what a "right" is from a legal perspective (which is understandable), so they don't quite grasp that you can't restrict things that are rights.[/quote]

...Isn't owning a firearm a right

Thus , by this statement, the government should not be allowed to put restrictions on firearm ownership?
 
Actually I would be down for getting rid of voter registration. The post office, utility company, phone company, tax man, the bank, your employer - There are any number of entities that know where you live, and so registering is unnecessary. There is a considerably large number of transactions that could confirm where you live and most people could be sent confirmation of eligibility to vote automatically.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']...Isn't owning a firearm a right

Thus , by this statement, the government should not be allowed to put restrictions on firearm ownership?[/QUOTE]

arms. not firearms. you're imposing limitations by stating firearms, yes?

That gets more tricky on account of philosophical views of the Constitution (Originalism vs Evolutionism).

A vote is a vote is a vote; yet armaments in developed countries in the mid/late-18th century are not what they are today. So it's not necessary an equal comparison.

There's always that pesky militia mention in the second amendment too, that most herp-a-derp gun nuts overlook.

Also, magazines and ammunition are not arms, but merely accessories. They can be regulated to fuck and back, really, without any rational appeal to the second amendment.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']...Isn't owning a firearm a right

Thus , by this statement, the government should not be allowed to put restrictions on firearm ownership?[/QUOTE]
The difference is that, that's debatable. The wording of the 2nd amendment isn't as cut and dry as some like to think. On the other hand, your right to vote isn't questionable.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']We're talking about taking a comment out of context from me (yes, derp, taxpayers "pay for it," but if you don't see my satirical analogy to the argument that governments providing IDs at "no cost to taxpayers," then there's not a bloody thing I can do to help you)...

...and that context that is missing is aluminum helmets to protect us from mind-controlling aliens.

I'm just throwing that out there so you can think about *exactly* what it is you're trying to pick apart.

Take care now; come back when you want to discuss something of substance, and not lurk and prey on low-hanging fruit, all the while pretending you're capable of hanging with us.[/QUOTE]

Ever hear the saying most truths are told in jest? I am in awe of your incredible satirical skills but it seemed telling about your sides ideology that you seem to forget sometimes who funds all the things liberals claim gov. should be expanded for. And believe me I do not want to hang with you or any of the Obama hand puppets on here.

And as for doh, there's nothing of substance in his reply to warrant a response beyond saying I got the "joke" and just thought it was a nice time to bring up that we did indeed build it.
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']Ever hear the saying most truths are told in jest?[/QUOTE]

Look, if you want to cling to the argument that I don't understand the single most basic, rudimentary tenet of Milton Friedman's economic philosophy, be my guest.

If that's all you have to cling to, and you know you're being fraudulent when you try to hammer on this idea that I'm unconsciously demonstrating my love for "free gub'mint stuff paid for by rich rolk," then stop.

Stop for a moment. Fingers off the keyboard.

Take a deep breath. Inhale, slowly exhale. Deep breaths.

Calm now? Good.

Ask yourself this: if that's all you have, why do you even *bother*?

Come back when you have an answer to that.
 
[quote name='Clak']The difference is that, that's debatable. The wording of the 2nd amendment isn't as cut and dry as some like to think. On the other hand, your right to vote isn't questionable.[/QUOTE]

Is it true that in fact we in the US do not have a right to vote? There are amendments like the 19th (women s suffrage) that protect against discrimination. But there is no constitutional right to vote. In fact this is the reason states are able to at least attempt to intact these laws because while laws and amendments have made it harder to restrict voting it is not an absolute right.
 
The difference is that, that's debatable. The wording of the 2nd amendment isn't as cut and dry as some like to think. On the other hand, your right to vote isn't questionable.
Click to expand...
False, you have no specific "right to vote" other than what rights states and the federal government decide to give, we the people.
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']And as for doh, there's nothing of substance in his reply to warrant a response beyond saying I got the "joke" and just thought it was a nice time to bring up that we did indeed build it.[/QUOTE]
If this is all you meant, then what Obama said shouldn't be an issue for you, but considering all the griping you've been doing about it, we all know that this isn't what you meant. You're using subtext to make your point and that's why we can't take what you're posting at face value.

"We (all) did indeed build it" is exactly Obama's point, you ideological hack.
 
[quote name='nasum']just out of curiosity, what federal restrictions are there on firearm ownership?[/QUOTE]
Trick question?

[quote name='perdition(troy']False, you have no specific "right to vote" other than what rights states and the federal government decide to give, we the people.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much.

The federal government gives us a list of things that can't prevent us from voting and the states cover anything not enumerated. That's the loophole that some states are using, but it can be easily proven that those laws are in conflict with those amendments. It's kinda like how states can try to get around Roe V Wade, but blatant restrictions on abortions keep getting struck down, while more subtle approaches stick while accomplishing the same thing.
 
By that definition you don't have the "right to live", aside from the fact that various governments decide to let you.
 
[quote name='Clak']By that definition you don't have the "right to live", aside from the fact that various governments decide to let you.[/QUOTE]
Technically, that's true too, but that's assuming that "the government" is it's own self-determined entity and not a tool of the power elite as it is today.
 
[quote name='Clak']Maybe I should say various corporations then.;)[/QUOTE]
There you go!:lol:

Discussing the technicality of it is a waste of time anyways because we all know how it works. The more interesting aspect is examining the reasons why those systems are shaped the way they are and who they really serve to benefit. But that's just me preaching to the choir.;)
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']False, you have no specific "right to vote" other than what rights states and the federal government decide to give, we the people.[/QUOTE]

You know, I was going to point out that virtually all of us (I'd say 100% of us, but you'd never know who is hiding in the woodwork) have zero right to vote in the presidential election and that our government expressly forbids it... but I figured that would end up lost on too many folks here.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You know, I was going to point out that virtually all of us (I'd say 100% of us, but you'd never know who is hiding in the woodwork) have zero right to vote in the presidential election and that our government expressly forbids it... but I figured that would end up lost on too many folks here.[/QUOTE]

Well since we're not all 2nd graders I think we've all probably heard of the electoral college by now... :roll:
 
enhanced-buzz-29224-1344794588-3.jpg
 
[quote name='dohdough']FTFY...:lol:[/QUOTE]
Well if a corporation is a person, some would indeed be quite old by now.

edit: ^^^Nice Myke.:lol:
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Well since we're not all 2nd graders I think we've all probably heard of the electoral college by now... :roll:[/QUOTE]
bob is "special". I don't mean special in that he's one of those rare minds that only comes around once a generation or so, I mean he's eating paste.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']False, you have no specific "right to vote" other than what rights states and the federal government decide to give, we the people.[/QUOTE]

So govt gives rights, not God and/or nature?
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Well since we're not all 2nd graders I think we've all probably heard of the electoral college by now... :roll:[/QUOTE]

...you'd think that, but then it doesn't help explain why some folks keep going on about the "right to vote"...
 
[quote name='IRHari']So govt gives rights, not God and/or nature?[/QUOTE]
You have the natural right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Being born to serve a government is not a natural right, thus voting is not a natural right.
 
Oh hey, this even furthers proves my theory of moderation, they're making Ryan tone that Rand shit down.
 
“In Delaware, the largest growth of population is Indian Americans, moving from India. You cannot go to a 7/11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.”
-Joe Biden
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']“In Delaware, the largest growth of population is Indian Americans, moving from India. You cannot go to a 7/11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.”
-Joe Biden[/QUOTE]

Being African American myself I thought his current gaffe was just a poor choice of words. As you point out he has a history of poor choice of words. But no one will ever accuse Joe Biden of being a racist. There are so many more issues in the African-American community than just getting our feelings hurt by somebody goofing on an analogy. To me this is a non issue. I turned the channel when I heard the waste of time discussion about this. However I do believe that had someone on the right said this the world would have exploded.
 
As the resident race-baiter, I have a hard time vilifying Biden the same way I'd vilify Romney or Ryan if they made the same type of comments. I'm not saying that what Biden said wasn't problematic to say the least, but that context makes it very different from when they other two would say it. Although, his statement is more emblematic of casual/soft-racism racism like calling a black person "articulate." Where as Romney and Ryan would make the chains comment to a bunch of white people because taxes=nig...I mean slavery(for those unfamiliar with this, they should look it up). Or with the Indian comment, the other guys would frame it like Indians are a roving hoard taking over parts of the country while simultaneously playing up the bootstrapping immigrant stereotype. Biden had a poor choice of words and examples, but it's not meant with the same kind of malice that the other two would imply. It's simply not harmless and not as harmful as some of the things Romney said.
 
Being African American myself I thought his current gaffe was just a poor choice of words. As you point out he has a history of poor choice of words. But no one will ever accuse Joe Biden of being a racist. There are so many more issues in the African-American community than just getting our feelings hurt by somebody goofing on an analogy. To me this is a non issue. I turned the channel when I heard the waste of time discussion about this. However I do believe that had someone on the right said this the world would have exploded.
Click to expand...
I'm just going to be straight up with you and say that I don't care if you are black, brown, yellow or white; it doesn't make your thoughts on the issue more valuable to me one way or another (not saying your thoughts aren't of value, just saying your skin color does not tip the scale in any direction to me).
Where as Romney and Ryan would make the chains comment to a bunch of white people because taxes=nig...I mean slavery(for those unfamiliar with this, they should look it up). Or with the Indian comment, the other guys would frame it like Indians are a roving hoard taking over parts of the country while simultaneously playing up the bootstrapping immigrant stereotype. Biden had a poor choice of words and examples, but it's not meant with the same kind of malice that the other two would imply. It's simply not harmless and not as harmful as some of the things Romney said.
Click to expand...
Do you honestly picture Ryan as a racist? I'm just not seeing that.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy'].Do you honestly picture Ryan as a racist? I'm just not seeing that.[/QUOTE]
Is this a trick question?:lol:

How do you personally define racism?

On a personal level, he's no less racist than Biden at the very least. On a political level, I'd say Ryan beats Biden easily. Point is that he doesn't need to be overtly racist because dog whistles and coded language takes care of that.
 
[quote name='dohdough']As the resident race-baiter, I have a hard time vilifying Biden the same way I'd vilify Romney or Ryan if they made the same type of comments. I'm not saying that what Biden said wasn't problematic to say the least, but that context makes it very different from when they other two would say it. Although, his statement is more emblematic of casual/soft-racism racism like calling a black person "articulate." Where as Romney and Ryan would make the chains comment to a bunch of white people because taxes=nig...I mean slavery(for those unfamiliar with this, they should look it up). Or with the Indian comment, the other guys would frame it like Indians are a roving hoard taking over parts of the country while simultaneously playing up the bootstrapping immigrant stereotype. Biden had a poor choice of words and examples, but it's not meant with the same kind of malice that the other two would imply. It's simply not harmless and not as harmful as some of the things Romney said.[/QUOTE]

And I see your point here. You look at a history of actions. I believe that race has been used recently to silence a differing opinion. Or when someone has spoke on an issue in a minority community that they had no business stepping into. I for one don't believe the current Republican ticket is racist (I also realize you did not state this) but what can be debated is how much exposure do they have with minorities in general. This will color your perception. For example I drive down a portion of 95 everyday that has FBI most wanted scrolling on the digital billboard. 99% (made up number) of the wanted individuals are African-American. Look at the news and the crime report seems to be dominated by them. Then in your personal experience you never really interact with many African-Americans or are even comfortable with anyone to talk about an issue. Are you a racist? Probably not but you do probably lack understanding, empathy and have preconceived notions that color what you believe policy wise etc. I believe the majority of folks fall into this category. And frankly some people are just closet racist. My mother hated the racism in the North. Reason being in the South everybody knew where they stood in the North they smile at you in the break room and call you a N-Word when you leave.
 
[quote name='Commander0Zero']And I see your point here. You look at a history of actions.[/QUOTE]
Right. It's all about patterns.

I believe that race has been used recently to silence a differing opinion.
Click to expand...
I strongly disagree with this one. People, especially whites, feel silenced because they can't defend their views/statements when forced to examine them when it involves race.

Or when someone has spoke on an issue in a minority community that they had no business stepping into.
Click to expand...
Kinda like when Romney had a speaking engagement after the NAACP one and said that they were looking for handout?:lol:

I for one don't believe the current Republican ticket is racist (I also realize you did not state this) but what can be debated is how much exposure do they have with minorities in general.
Click to expand...
I haven't said it directly, but I've heavily implied it.;)

This will color your perception. For example I drive down a portion of 95 everyday that has FBI most wanted scrolling on the digital billboard. 99% (made up number) of the wanted individuals are African-American. Look at the news and the crime report seems to be dominated by them. Then in your personal experience you never really interact with many African-Americans or are even comfortable with anyone to talk about an issue. Are you a racist? Probably not but you do probably lack understanding, empathy and have preconceived notions that color what you believe policy wise etc. I believe the majority of folks fall into this category. And frankly some people are just closet racist. My mother hated the racism in the North. Reason being in the South everybody knew where they stood in the North they smile at you in the break room and call you a N-Word when you leave.
Click to expand...
I'd argue that most white people are racist and out of the closet, but I agree with your mother...haha. You hit upon a lot of valid points too.
 
Republicans are the party which will say to your face, with great indignation "We're not racists!", then turn around and propose legislation that will mostly effect those of minority race. So you tell me if that's racism or not. It simply comes down to overt racism, which they keep under wraps for the most part, and what I would call "legislative racism", where they propose legislation that's guaranteed to help people like themselves and screw everyone else. Of course that also involves classism as well, because just being white isn't good enough, you need wealth and status as well to really escape being screwed by them.
 
In my opinion this is more of a class issue as far as legislation goes. There are racist Democrats and Republicans. One party is not the sole home of racism. Throwing that accusation around to me has always been troubling and unproductive. However I will concede Republicans do themselves no favors with folks like Michelle Bachmann running around looking for a Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy. Why the media didn't call her (and her cronies) harder on that to me is crazy. I would have showed up at her hairdressing asking her to women up and explain herself.
 
[quote name='Commander0Zero']In my opinion this is more of a class issue as far as legislation goes.[/quote]
mykevermin is correct in saying that race and class are intertwined and inseparable. Racism, specifically systemic/institutional racism, plays out differently between and within different economic classes. You're not incorrect in stating that class plays a very large role, but race also plays a very large role.

There are racist Democrats and Republicans. One party is not the sole home of racism. Throwing that accusation around to me has always been troubling and unproductive.
Click to expand...
Yes, there are racist elements in both parties and no one is denying that, but ending the conversation there is also unproductive. Scale is important in certain conversations and this is one of them. I will grant you that neo-liberal policies from both parties tend have racist side effects though.

However I will concede Republicans do themselves no favors with folks like Michelle Bachmann running around looking for a Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy. Why the media didn't call her (and her cronies) harder on that to me is crazy. I would have showed up at her hairdressing asking her to women up and explain herself.
Click to expand...
LOLZ...sure, but that you're assuming that be ashamed of whatever incoherent and reprehensible explanation she'd give.:lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top