Magox Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 Perhaps it only seems that way to you since you aren't making any compelling arguments, and are making overt appeals to your own personal feelings as a definative source? I don't need to "try again", because I was accurate. From the article, which summarizes it's stance, in the end, with an appeal to the position of John Oliver: "...but many activists, politicians and regular citizens want it gone altogether, citing it as a symbol of racism and hate. Even South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley called for the flag's removal from the statehouse at a Monday press conference, saying that the symbol "does not represent the future of our great state." Oh, you do. The fact that you came to the same exact conclsions as the Huffington Post is hillarious. Sorry, but my entire argument came from my personal experiences and how it helped form my thoughts, the article that you just happened to google and post was almost entirely about the historical context of the flag and it's meaning. Try again. Oh, and just because you are too pig-headed to not accept my view as legitimate doesn't make it any less so. I often find your posts to be rigid, devoid of any sense of reality, but I accept them as how you perceive things to be. See how that works?
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 (edited) Oh, you do. Sorry, but my entire argument came from my personal experiences and how it helped form my thoughts, the article that you just happened to google and post was almost entirely about the historical context of the flag and it's meaning. Try again. Here, I'll help. Definition #2, highlighted by me, is relevant here: conclusion noun 1. the end or close; final part. 2. the last main division of a discourse, usually containing a summing up of the points and a statement of opinion or decisions reached. 3. a result, issue, or outcome; settlement or arrangement: The restitution payment was one of the conclusions of the negotiations. 4. final decision: The judge has reached his conclusion. 5. a reasoned deduction or inference. 6. Logic. a proposition concluded or inferred from the premises of an argument. 7. Law. the effect of an act by which the person performing the act is bound not to do anything inconsistent therewith; an estoppel. the end of a pleading or conveyance. 8. Grammar, apodosis. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You came to the same conclusions as the article, which, as I said, invoked John Oliver (linked above) If you don't like it, educate yourself, knock it off with your appeals to your own feelings, and change your conclusions. I can't be better for you, you'll have to be better for you for yourself. Oh, and just because you are too pig-headed to not accept my view as legitimate doesn't make it any less so. I often find your posts to be rigid, devoid of any sense of reality, but I accept them as how you perceive things to be. See how that works? Your view may feel legitimate to you, because you aren't basing it on anything but feelings. That, however, does not confer actual legitimacy on your view. Only actual facts would, and those aren't working in your favor. That said, you're certainly free to hold any opinion that you want; though it may behoove you to try holding fewer poor opinions in the future. Edited June 23, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker
Alaska Darin Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 better late than never (like here for example). but why did it take the murder of 9 people to convince presumably fairly intelligent people that the flag was a destructive symbol? kinda doesn't smell right. Kinda like your inability to face any of the litany of liberal failures and instead regurgitate the standard liberal talking points like the mynah bird you are? How's about answering the question on the Gun Show Loophole?
birdog1960 Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 (edited) Kinda like your inability to face any of the litany of liberal failures and instead regurgitate the standard liberal talking points like the mynah bird you are? How's about answering the question on the Gun Show Loophole? ok. i'll give you a personal example. i got my most recent shotgun through a friends husband that frequents gun shows: buys and sells. totally legal. he asked me what i was looking for and i gave him a general description and price and he got me a very nice gun at a very fair price. though he wouldn't, he could have done that for some gang banger or out of control psych patient. so i contend that the whole mechanism of buying and selling guns at shows should be made illegal. Edited June 23, 2015 by birdog1960
Joe Miner Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 ok. i'll give you a personal example. i got my most recent shotgun through a friends husband that frequents gun shows: buys and sells. totally legal. he asked me what i was looking for and i gave him a general description and price and he got me a very nice gun at a very fair price. though he wouldn't, he could have done that for some gang banger or out of control psych patient. so i contend that the whole mechanism of buying and selling guns at shows should be made illegal. So what did he say when you wanted to return the shotgun?
birdog1960 Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 here's a good start. seems reasonable but of course it FAILED to pass. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/10/17689167-background-checks-for-guns-what-you-need-to-know
DC Tom Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 ok. i'll give you a personal example. i got my most recent shotgun through a friends husband that frequents gun shows: buys and sells. totally legal. he asked me what i was looking for and i gave him a general description and price and he got me a very nice gun at a very fair price. though he wouldn't, he could have done that for some gang banger or out of control psych patient. so i contend that the whole mechanism of buying and selling guns at shows should be made illegal. How does this make you anything but a hypocrite?
truth on hold Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 Interesting development that private sector is taking the lead over public sector in enforcing values in line with the populace. CEOs wade into debate over South Carolina's Confederate flag In wake of the shooting, Apple (AAPL) CEO Tim Cook wrote on Twitter, "My thoughts are with the victim's families in SC. Let us honor their lives by eradicating racism & removing the symbols & words that feed it." Microsoft (MSFT) CEO Satya Nadella, also writing on Twitter, said he hoped that "together we can convert hate & racism to peace & understanding around the globe." Companies aren't limiting themselves to words. Walmart (WMT), the biggest retailer in the world, said Monday that it's removing all items featuring the Confederate flag from its stores and website. Although it may be true that CEOs are speaking out mostly on social issues around which there is clear or growing public consensus, such as the rising and widespread support for gay marriage, there's another reason why corporate leaders are staking out a position on non-business issues: It's good business. Surveys show that consumers increasingly want to support companies whose products and business practices align with their personal values. That's increasingly true for the millennial generation, or those Americans currently between the ages of 18 to 34. This group recently surpassed the baby boomers as America's largest generation, and will have increasing purchasing power as they get jobs and climb the income ladder. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ceos-urge-end-to-racism-south-carolinas-confederate-flag/?google_editors_picks=true
birdog1960 Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 (edited) How does this make you anything but a hypocrite? i use it for hunting and varmints. we have coyotes around. i'd use it on them if needed. and i'd use it in a break in if i felt my family was threatened. very few liberals that i know have a problem with a shotgun for those uses owned by a solid citizen. i certainly don't. and the mechanism is now in place. my use of it injures no one. Interesting development that private sector is taking the lead over public sector in enforcing values in line with the populace. CEOs wade into debate over South Carolina's Confederate flag In wake of the shooting, Apple (AAPL) CEO Tim Cook wrote on Twitter, "My thoughts are with the victim's families in SC. Let us honor their lives by eradicating racism & removing the symbols & words that feed it." Microsoft (MSFT) CEO Satya Nadella, also writing on Twitter, said he hoped that "together we can convert hate & racism to peace & understanding around the globe." Companies aren't limiting themselves to words. Walmart (WMT), the biggest retailer in the world, said Monday that it's removing all items featuring the Confederate flag from its stores and website. Although it may be true that CEOs are speaking out mostly on social issues around which there is clear or growing public consensus, such as the rising and widespread support for gay marriage, there's another reason why corporate leaders are staking out a position on non-business issues: It's good business. Surveys show that consumers increasingly want to support companies whose products and business practices align with their personal values. That's increasingly true for the millennial generation, or those Americans currently between the ages of 18 to 34. This group recently surpassed the baby boomers as America's largest generation, and will have increasing purchasing power as they get jobs and climb the income ladder. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ceos-urge-end-to-racism-south-carolinas-confederate-flag/?google_editors_picks=true money talks. racism isn't on the right side of the money on this one altho i read that sales for the flags are booming. seems some folks find them a must have. Edited June 23, 2015 by birdog1960
Rob's House Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 better late than never (like here for example). but why did it take the murder of 9 people to convince presumably fairly intelligent people that the flag was a destructive symbol? kinda doesn't smell right. I'm still trying to figure out how these two issues are related. Personally, I'm kind of surprised the flag's still there and this controversy didn't spring up earlier, but I have yet to hear a non-retarded explanation of the link between the flag and the shooting. evolution? i'll bet there are many racists that deny it and are simultaneously negative examples for its existence. I'm also curious to hear someone try to reconcile the theory of evolution with the modern day politically correct view of race and racism.
DC Tom Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 i use it for hunting and varmints. we have coyotes around. i'd use it on them if needed. and i'd use it in a break in if i felt my family was threatened. very few liberals that i know have a problem with a shotgun for those uses owned by a solid citizen. i certainly don't. and the mechanism is now in place. my use of it injures no one. You acquired a gun - at arm's length, no less - through a loophole you claim to disagree with. So the loophole's only a problem when someone else uses it? Again, how are you not a hypocrite?
truth on hold Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 i use it for hunting and varmints. we have coyotes around. i'd use it on them if needed. and i'd use it in a break in if i felt my family was threatened. very few liberals that i know have a problem with a shotgun for those uses owned by a solid citizen. i certainly don't. and the mechanism is now in place. my use of it injures no one. money talks. racism isn't on the right side of the money on this one altho i read that sales for the flags are booming. seems some folks find them a must have. Politicians market to their donors, companies to the more general customer population. Repubes are so far out of touch catering to billionaire donors like hunt brothers and Sheldon adelson, its scary. And it's only getting worse. They're rolling out the red carpet for Hillary in 2016
Rob's House Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 You actually can, as secession was not strictly about slavery in all Confederate states. In most of the deep South it was a primary issue (no coincidence that South Carolina was the first state to secede.) But in border states, it was certainly more about states' rights to self-determination within the federal structure. It's why a good number of Confederate states seceded after Lincoln's call-up of the militia to suppress the insurrection of seceding states, and specifically cited the federal government's lack of recognition of states' rights to secede (the Virginia convention, for example, was rather specific on that matter - one mention of slavery, and eleven of states' rights in their declaration.) And Texas, of course, had a history as a sovereign nation before joining the Union, so had a very strong sense of their independent rights as a state. What's more, certain slaveholding states didn't secede (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware) because even though they were pro-slavery, they were also pro-Union. Which isn't to say slavery wasn't a driving issue (though it was less slavery per se than the conflict between competing economic models - the mercantilism of Northern manufacturing and commerce, and the agricultural landed gentry of the South - cheap labor was necessary to the latter, but not to the former.) Just to say that the story is never as simple as a single issue. This is one of the most succinct explanations I've seen on the topic.
DC Tom Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 Just curious...are retailers refusing to sell any Confederate flag, or just the battle flag of the Army of Tennessee?
birdog1960 Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 (edited) Just curious...are retailers refusing to sell any Confederate flag, or just the battle flag of the Army of Tennessee? army of northern virginia. You acquired a gun - at arm's length, no less - through a loophole you claim to disagree with. So the loophole's only a problem when someone else uses it? Again, how are you not a hypocrite? there would have been no advantage to anyone for me to buy the gun from cabellas except that i would have paid at least twice as much. nothing would have changed. the law was and is the law. i can simultaneously work for it's change to protect society from the dangerous transactions it enables while legally perform such transaction with little to no risk of those potentially fatal consequences. Edited June 23, 2015 by birdog1960
Alaska Darin Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 ok. i'll give you a personal example. i got my most recent shotgun through a friends husband that frequents gun shows: buys and sells. totally legal. he asked me what i was looking for and i gave him a general description and price and he got me a very nice gun at a very fair price. though he wouldn't, he could have done that for some gang banger or out of control psych paItient. so i contend that the whole mechanism of buying and selling guns at shows should be made illegal. Is your "friend's husband" a licensed dealer?
TH3 Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 (edited) It was erected as a symbol of southern soveriegnty, during a time of unprecedented federal intervention. The fact that you've decided that State's Rights are racist doesn't make it so, it just makes you a moron. You surely know that the importation of slaves was banned in 1808. No, wait, you surely don't know that, as you don't seem to have any understanding of the subject matter. Unprecedented Federal overreach of enforcing the constitutional rights of minorities.... I guess stopping importation in 1808 makes everything cool then....cognative dissonance must be comforting.... Edited June 24, 2015 by baskin
DC Tom Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 army of northern virginia. No. Army of Tennessee. That's the one flying over the South Carolina capitol building. there would have been no advantage to anyone for me to buy the gun from cabellas except that i would have paid at least twice as much. nothing would have changed. the law was and is the law. i can simultaneously work for it's change to protect society from the dangerous transactions it enables while legally perform such transaction with little to no risk of those potentially fatal consequences. So you're in the "It's not wrong if it's legal" camp.
/dev/null Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 I had a conversation (if you could call it that, more like listening to talking points) with a gun control freak today. She was stereotypically offended by anybody that supports the right of self defense and just couldn't understand why us mouth breathing gun nuts wouldn't compromise on the background check thing. i asked her what she would be willing to compromise on. Repealing the NFA? Allowing transfer of fully automatic weapons? Removing the ban on re-importing military surplus? Of course she was against any of those ideas and asked why we would want to do any of that. I tried to explain to her that compromise means both sides get something and both sides give something. Not one side demanding something and the other giving it to them She was confuzzled and mumbled something about how right wingers refuse to listen.
DC Tom Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 I had a conversation (if you could call it that, more like listening to talking points) with a gun control freak today. She was stereotypically offended by anybody that supports the right of self defense and just couldn't understand why us mouth breathing gun nuts wouldn't compromise on the background check thing. i asked her what she would be willing to compromise on. Repealing the NFA? Allowing transfer of fully automatic weapons? Removing the ban on re-importing military surplus? Of course she was against any of those ideas and asked why we would want to do any of that. I tried to explain to her that compromise means both sides get something and both sides give something. Not one side demanding something and the other giving it to them She was confuzzled and mumbled something about how right wingers refuse to listen. If we've learned anything from the past six-plus years, it's that the left's definition of "compromise" is "Republicans can sit in the back seat."
Recommended Posts