2016 elections - because it's never too early

[DGuller]

It isn't an ad hom, because I am not making any claim about your argument to begin with - I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying you do not provide objective information.

Well, that is an ad hom.  The way it is originally defined, that is not an insult but rather attacking the person and not the argument.  If I'm not providing objective information, then why even bother talking to me?

It is like asking the head of the DNC what they think about Trump's success as a businessman, or the head of the Tea Party what they think about the impact of Obamacare on the working poor. You will get an answer, but you know they are not answering based on any kind of actual evaluation of Trump, but rather on what answer they think will best serve their goals. That answer may or may not be factual, but that isn't even the point.

All that is based on two assumptions which I know to not hold.  One is that I identify with a Democrat party rather than mostly liberal ideology.  And another one is that I actually have some goals while making arguments.  This is Languish, all 50 of us, not the post-debate show on CNN.  I'm making arguments because I'm shooting the shit, just like everyone else here.  Our conversation here doesn't move the needle on the public consensus.

[Razgovory]

Oh Christ, this bullshit again?

[Razgovory]

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/donald-trump-fails-correct-man-who-calls-obama-muslim

Trump fails to correct racist rant.

Check out the reactions of the folks behind the Donald.

Yikes.

[DGuller]

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/donald-trump-fails-correct-man-who-calls-obama-muslim

Trump fails to correct racist rant.

Check out the reactions of the folks behind the Donald.

Yikes.

Finally watched this.  I find the theory that Trump didn't hear the whole question plausible.  No way is Trump going to give this answer had he heard this question completely, there is a method to his madness, and this isn't it.

[11B4V]

  Our conversation here doesn't move the needle on the public consensus.

I'm typing on a kindle so bear with me.

While a person is not the "public consensus" they can be moved by a medium like this. In 2003 or 2004 when this place started, I was solidly on the right. Not teabagger looney right, sorry Norgey no, but as I stated. That's because of the people that were around me for twenty years, if you follow me. Since retiring priorities change. Being on here for ten years has moved me way towards the center, sorry Norgey, yes it has. Far more than I would have imagined. I had people I served with, who on Facebook, unfriended me for railing against Romney in 2012 election and stating he didn't stand a chance. I was not living in the gop fantasy world convinced he would win. Why not? This place, plain and simple.

A recent post from a gun forum I read sometimes, utterly stuplified me, yes this was an actual thread starter. Read it and after, go buy a gun to protect yourself from these retards.

Created: Tuesday, 08 September 2015  Written by Gun Owners of America
Gun Owners of America is proud to endorse Senator Ted Cruz for the office of President of the United States.

While there are many candidates in the race, Ted Cruz is the only one who has completed and returned the GOA presidential survey on the Second Amendment.

Cruz has been a strong advocate for Second Amendment rights as a U.S. Senator, and he will continue to defend our gun rights from the Oval Office.

Ted Cruz has promised gun owners that, as President, he will remove the United States as a signatory nation to the anti-gun Arms Trade Treaty -- a U.N. treaty that would fully implement a system of gun owner registration if ratified by the U.S. Senate.

Ted Cruz has promised gun owners that he will repeal anti-gun Executive Orders that circumvent Congress and veto anti-gun legislation if it reaches his desk.

As a U.S. Senator, Ted Cruz has demonstrated a willingness to fight for our Second Amendment rights. He is working with GOA on legislation to repeal the Obama Administration's gun ban that is (and will) affect millions of military veterans and senior citizens.

He has opposed efforts to reward millions of illegal aliens with citizenship and voting rights, given that the majority of them are anti-gunners who have ignored and flouted our laws.

He has cosponsored legislation to allow concealed carry reciprocity for law-abiding gun owners. This legislation (S. 498) is of special importance to GOA members and activists. It is one of our chief priorities in Congress.

This election season is quickly becoming the "year of the outsider." And to that end, Ted Cruz has been able to "speak truth to power" as a member of the U.S. Senate.

It was Senator Cruz who in July of 2015, blasted the Senate leadership for lying to fellow Republicans and the American people. Not only that, just a couple of months prior, he stood on the Senate floor and asked "what exactly is the difference between a Democratic and Republican majority?"

Cruz blistered the leadership for failing to block the confirmation of President Obama's executive and judicial nominees. In particular, Cruz noted that the Republican leadership could have -- and should have -- blocked the confirmation of anti-gun Loretta Lynch for Attorney General.

It's obvious that Senator Cruz follows the Constitution, not a political party.

It was Senator Cruz who led the filibuster fight in 2013 against funding the anti-gun ObamaCare law, which will facilitate the disarmament of millions of gun owners once the law is fully implemented.

While there are many problems with ObamaCare, Cruz recognizes how computerizing the medical records of millions of gun owners will allow the federal government to troll those names and add millions of honest gun owners to the NICS system -- in the same way that the Obama Administration is currently using medical information to disarm military veterans, and proposing to do the same with senior citizens.

Ted Cruz has promised to sign a bill to completely repeal ObamaCare as President. To that end, he has already introduced S. 339, which would repeal the health care law "as if such Act had not been enacted."

Finally, as we said above, one of Ted Cruz' chief concerns as Senator has been the creeping "judicial tyranny" in our nation. We need a President who is going to rein in the courts by appointing judges who reject the notion that our Constitution is a "living and breathing" document that can be twisted to support any crackpot agenda that anti-gun liberals like Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi advocate.

We need a stalwart defender of the Second Amendment in the White House, and Ted Cruz will help shoulder the burden of fighting against the gun grabbers dedicated to eviscerating the Second Amendment.

Sincerely,

Tim Macy
Chairman
Gun Owners of America PVF

Are you fucking kidding me. I own guns, but fuck, I'm thinking my guns are for protecting "me" from these loonies. I don't identify with nut jobs like these anymore, sorry Norgey I don't.

Back on track

Why, simple, because of this place. I don't hangout on news sights or watch serious news shows, IMO they are too slanted. It may be backwards, but when I see something posted on here I disagree with (I read here far more than I post, something like 80/20) I go look it up. It may very well change my mind depending or it my not. I watched the gop debate and was thoroughly unimpressed, to the point of saying, "WTF, is this all you guys got?" "Is this all you got to blather about?" Not one even looked presidential.

So whether your DGuller, Berkut, Raz, Grumbles, Malthus, BB, Minsky, Scip, Norgy, Martnus, and others (sorry I'm tired) you can move a person. This I'm convinced of. Take it as you will.

[garbon]

Marti generally moves me to tears.

[Berkut]

It isn't an ad hom, because I am not making any claim about your argument to begin with - I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying you do not provide objective information.

Well, that is an ad hom.  The way it is originally defined, that is not an insult but rather attacking the person and not the argument.  If I'm not providing objective information, then why even bother talking to me?

I was not talking to you, I was talking to Kronn.

[Berkut]

So whether your DGuller, Berkut, Raz, Grumbles, Malthus, BB, Minsky, Scip, Norgy, Martnus, and others (sorry I'm tired) you can move a person. This I'm convinced of. Take it as you will.

Of course you are right - this is a social forum, and many of us (but not all) are of course quite capable of actually changing our views and adjusting our positions based on these interactions.

Some of is, of course, are so innately brilliant and perfectly objective that in over a decade our views have not moved at all. They are the privileged brilliant ones who are so certain of their intellectual superiority that the idea that anything they see might change their views simply never occurs to them.

[garbon]

If only I were as I was at 17.

[DGuller]

So whether your DGuller, Berkut, Raz, Grumbles, Malthus, BB, Minsky, Scip, Norgy, Martnus, and others (sorry I'm tired) you can move a person. This I'm convinced of. Take it as you will.

I wasn't saying that no one's views have changed as a result of our discussions.  That would definitely be false.  In fact, social sentiment changes by millions of such discussions, one person at a time. 

I was just saying that influencing people, and thus saying everything I say here to further that, is not my goal.  It would be an extraordinarily inefficient allocation of my time to be here for the purpose of being a propagandist.  Even if I move a couple of people here to be more liberal, so what?  That doesn't move the needle on the national scale.

[Eddie Teach]

I wasn't saying that no one's views have changed as a result of our discussions.  That would definitely be false.  In fact, social sentiment changes by millions of such discussions, one person at a time. 

It helps if they're young and impressionable, though.

[Razgovory]

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/donald-trump-fails-correct-man-who-calls-obama-muslim

Trump fails to correct racist rant.

Check out the reactions of the folks behind the Donald.

Yikes.

Finally watched this.  I find the theory that Trump didn't hear the whole question plausible.  No way is Trump going to give this answer had he heard this question completely, there is a method to his madness, and this isn't it.

What part of the question do you think he heard?  There was not good part to it.  There was the stupid and the scary parts.  The stupid part is the Obama is a Muslim.  The scary part is "How do we get rid of these people".

[DGuller]

I was not talking to you, I was talking to Kronn.

Of course you are right - this is a social forum, and many of us (but not all) are of course quite capable of actually changing our views and adjusting our positions based on these interactions.

Some of is, of course, are so innately brilliant and perfectly objective that in over a decade our views have not moved at all. They are the privileged brilliant ones who are so certain of their intellectual superiority that the idea that anything they see might change their views simply never occurs to them.

Are you doing that "pretend to respond to someone else while attacking someone" move?

[DGuller]

What part of the question do you think he heard?  There was not good part to it.  There was the stupid and the scary parts.  The stupid part is the Obama is a Muslim.  The scary part is "How do we get rid of these people".

He looked to be responding to the training camps question.  And in a "let me say something nonspecific real quick to get rid of that moron and move on to the next person" way.  Though I'm not sure what to make of the part where he said something after the Obama rant.

[Razgovory]

Trump says he's not required to defend Obama against accusations, (which I guess is true in a chickenshit sort of way).  He's made no response about the "when can we get rid of them (Muslims), thing which is the really awful part.